HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Package - PCR_Jul14_2021
Date:July 14, 2021
Time:6:00 p.m.
Location:Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA
Welcome to your Planning Commission Meeting!
The Planning Commission has transitioned back to holding live, in-person meetings.
Public Comments: Public comments may be submitted to the Planning Commission in the
following ways:
In-Person comments during the meeting. Join us for the Planning Commission meeting at
the time and location specified on this agenda to make your comments.
•
Visit www.chulavistaca.gov/virtualmeetings and locate this meeting. Click on "Open for
Comment" or the comment bubble. Click on the item you wish to comment on, then click
on "Leave comment." The commenting portal will close one hour before the meeting. All
comments will be available to the public and the Planning Commission.
•
Mail or email comments. Submit comments via email to PC@chulavistaca.gov or by mail
to Planning Commission, 276 Fourth Ave, Chula Vista, CA 91910. Please send comments
early; written comments received within one hour of the meeting may not be distributed
until the following day.
•
Accessibility: Individuals with disabilities are invited to request reasonable modifications or
accommodations in order to access and/or participate in a Planning Commission meeting by
contacting the Development Services Department at PC@chulavistaca.gov (California Relay
Service is available for the hearing impaired by dialing 711) at least forty-eight hours in advance of
the meeting.
SPEAKER TIME LIMITS: The time allotted for speakers may be adjusted by the Chair.
Five minutes* for specific items listed on the agenda•
Three minutes* for items NOT on the agenda (called to speak during Public Comments)•
A group of individuals may select a spokesperson to speak on their behalf on an agenda
item, waiving their option to speak individually on the same item. Generally, five minutes
are allotted per person, up to a limit of 30 minutes, although the limits may be adjusted.
Members of the group must be present.
•
*Individuals who use a translator will be allotted twice the amount of time.
Pages
1.CALL TO ORDER
2.ROLL CALL
Commissioners Burroughs, De La Rosa, Milburn, Nava, Torres, Zaker and Chair
Gutierrez
3.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG AND MOMENT OF SILENCE
4.PUBLIC COMMENTS
Persons may address the Commission on any subject matter within the
Commission’s jurisdiction that is not listed as an item on the agenda. State law
generally prohibits the Commission from discussing or taking action on any
issue not included on the agenda, but, if appropriate, the Commission may
schedule the topic for future discussion or refer the matter to staff. If you wish to
speak on any item, please fill out a "Request to Speak" form and submit it to the
Secretary prior to the meeting.
5.PRESENTATIONS
The following item(s) will be presentations given to the Commission. Action on
these item(s) is typically limited to the Commission receiving the presentation
and providing direction or feedback to staff, as appropriate. If you wish to speck
on any item, please fill out a "Request to Speak" form and submit it to the
Secretary prior to the meeting.
5.1.PRESENTATION BY SOUTHWEST STRATEGIES, OUTREACH
CONSULTANT TO THE REDISTRICTING COMMISSION, ON CHULA
VISTA REDISTRICTING EFFORTS
6.PUBLIC HEARINGS
The following item(s) have been advertised as public hearing(s) as required by
law. If you wish to speak on one of these items, please fill out a "Request to
Speak" form and submit it to the Secretary prior to the meeting.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 2 of 1271
6.1.PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN,
THE SUNBOW II GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND THE
SUNBOW II SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
5
Environmental Notice: Environmental Impact Report (EIR20-0002) has
been prepared.
Staff Recommendation:
Conduct a public hearing and adopt resolutions recommending City
Council:
A) Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR20-0002/SCH
2020110148); making certain Findings of Fact; adopting a Statement of
Overriding Considerations; and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program for amendments to the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Sectional
Planning Area Plan pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act;
B) Approve amendments to the Chula Vista General Plan (MPA20-0012)
and the Sunbow II General Development Plan (MPA20-0013) to reflect
land use changes for approximately 135.7 acres within the Sunbow II,
Phase 3 Planned Community, including associated text, maps and
tables;
C) Approve amendments to the Sunbow II Sectional Planning Area Plan
(MPA20-0006) to update Chapters 10.0 to 17.0, to describe and define
the amended land use for Sunbow II, Phase 3 and incorporate the
development regulations and design guidelines specific to this Project;
and
D) Approve an ordinance for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project rezone for
the developable PA23 land from limited industrial to residential use
allowing up to 534 multi-family medium-high-density and 184 multi-family
high density residential dwelling units (718 total units) on six parcels;
E) Approve Tentative Subdivision Map CVT20-0002 (PCS20-0002) for a
135.7-acre site for (718) multi-family residential units, known as the
Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project; and
F) Approve a Development Agreement between the City and ACI
Sunbow, LLC (MPA21-0014) for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project.
7.ACTION ITEMS
The Item(s) listed in this section of the agenda will be considered individually by
the Commission and are expected to elicit discussion and deliberation. If you
wish to speak on any item, please fill out a "Request to Speak" form and submit
it to the Secretary prior to the meeting.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 3 of 1271
7.1.Approval of Meeting Minutes 1269
Staff Recommendation:
Recommended Action: Approve the minutes dated June 9, 2021.
7.2.APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSION CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2021/2022
Staff Recommendation:
Recommended Action: Elect Chair and Vice Chair.
7.3.DISCUSSION REGARDING ANNUAL REPORT OF ACTIVITIES AND
AUTHORIZE THE CHAIR TO WORK WITH STAFF TO FINALIZE AND
SUBMIT
Recommended Action: Commission discuss activities and authorize the
Chair to work with staff to finalize and submit.
OTHER BUSINESS
8.STAFF COMMENTS
9.CHAIR'S COMMENTS
10.COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS
11.ADJOURNMENT
to the regular meeting on July 28, 2021 at 6:00 p.m.
Materials provided to the Planning Commission related to any open-session
item on this agenda are available for public review by contacting the
Development Services Department at pc@chulavistaca.gov.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 4 of 1271
v . 0 0 3 P a g e | 1
July 14, 2021
ITEM TITLE
Proposed amendments to the Chula Vista General Plan, the Sunbow II General Development Plan, and the
Sunbow II Sectional Planning Area Plan to modify the land use designation of an existing vacant parcel from
industrial use to residential use resulting in 718 new residential units within a 135.7-acre site.
Location: Sunbow, southeast corner of Brandywine Avenue and Olympic Parkway
Environmental Notice: Environmental Impact Report (EIR20-0002) has been prepared.
Recommended Action
Conduct a public hearing and adopt resolutions recommending City Council:
A) Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR20-0002/SCH 2020110148); making certain
Findings of Fact; adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations; and adopting a Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Sectional Planning Area Plan
amendment pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act;
B) Approve amendments to the Chula Vista General Plan (MPA20-0012) and the Sunbow II General
Development Plan (MPA20-0013) to reflect land use changes for approximately 135.7 acres within
the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Planned Community, including associated text, maps and tables;
C) Approve amendments to the Sunbow II Sectional Planning Area Plan (MPA20-0006) to update
Chapters 10.0 to 17.0, to describe and define the amended land use for Sunbow II, Phase 3 and
incorporate the development regulations and design guidelines specific to this Project; and
D) Approve an ordinance to rezone the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project from limited industrial to residential
use allowing up to 534 multi-family medium-high-density and 184 multi-family high density
residential dwelling units (718 total units) on six parcels, a 0.9- acre Community Purpose Facility site,
on-site streets, open space and MSCP Preserve Open Space;
E) Approve Tentative Subdivision Map CVT20-0002 (PCS20-0002) for a 135.7-acre site for (718) multi-
family residential units, known as the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project; and
F) Approve a Development Agreement between the City and ACI Sunbow, LLC (MPA21-0014) for the
Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project.
SUMMARY
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 5 of 1271
P a g e | 2
In January 2020, the Chula Vista City Council approved a Community Benefit Agreement to allow ACI Sunbow,
LLC, the owner of an undeveloped site in the Sunbow master planned community, to process entitlements to
consider changing the land use from limited industrial to residential use. This site was formally marketed as
the “Sunbow Business Park” and is generally located southeast of the intersection of Brandywine Avenue and
Olympic Parkway. Subsequently in February 2020, an application was submitted requesting approval for
such land use amendments to allow up to 718 multi-family residential units within a 135.7-acre area. In
addition to the residential units, the land is proposed for Multiple Species Conservation Program Preserve
land, a Community Purpose Facility site, manufactured slopes and basins, Poggi Creek Conservation
Easement areas, a wetland resource preservation area and associated infrastructure.
HOUSING IMPACT STATEMENT
The proposed land use changes would result in an additional 718 for-sale multi-family residential units.
Under the City’s Balanced Communities Policy, the development shall be required to provide 10% of the total
number of dwelling units as affordable to low- and moderate-income households. This would result in an
obligation for the Applicant to provide 72 affordable housing units (36 low and 36 moderate income).
Villa Serena Senior is an existing affordable housing project located within the Sunbow Master Planning
Community at 1231 Medical Center Drive, which provides 132 affordable apartment units for seniors,
currently set to expire in 2030. Sixty-seven (67) units within Villa Serena Senior are currently designated as
moderate-income units. The Applicant has proposed to restrict these existing moderate units for low income
housing and extend the Village Serena Senior Affordability Covenants until June 1, 2055. Per the Balanced
Communities Policy Guidelines, adopted in 2012, a project can receive a 1.5-unit incentive credit for every
low-income unit in lieu of a moderate-income unit. The Applicant is fulfilling their low-income obligation
with 36 units and will receive a 1.5 incentive credit for the remaining 31 units (67-36) equal to 46.5 credits,
which exceeds their moderate obligation of 36 units; thereby satisfying the Project’s affordable housing
obligation. Assuming approval of this item, the Applicant shall be required to execute an amendment to the
covenants and restrictions for Villa Serena Senior prior to issuance of the 200th building permit in the
Sunbow II, Phase 3 project, as defined in the Development Agreement.
Overall, the Project extends affordability covenants for low-income senior rentals and provides additional
homeownership opportunities that were not anticipated in the Sunbow area.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Director of Development Services has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole
record, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment; therefore, the Director of
Development Services has caused the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report, EIR20-0002 and
associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
DISCUSSION
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 6 of 1271
P a g e | 3
In 1990, the City of Chula Vista authorized development of the 604.8 acre Sunbow II Sectional Plan Area (the
“SPA”). The adopted Sunbow II SPA Plan established the land use districts, special uses and conditions,
comprehensive sign regulations, off-street parking requirements and administrative procedures for
development and implementation of the Sunbow community (Attachment 1, Summary of Prior Approvals).
Since that time, all land has been developed except for the vacant parcel which is referred to as Sunbow II,
Phase 3. Such parcel was identified as a 46.0-acre Industrial Park, Planning Area 23 (PA23), in the adopted
Sunbow II SPA Plan.
Site History & Necessity of Amendments
ACI Sunbow, LLC (the “Applicant” / “Owner”) has been marketing the PA23 property for industrial uses since
the early 2000s. Due to the topography of the land, the entire site must be graded at the same time. This has
been challenging as most industrial users have expressed interest in a 5-10-acre site, however it is difficult
to find an end user or developer willing to purchase all developable acres in PA23 and undertake the site
preparations necessary for an end user. The Applicant initiated similar efforts to rezone the property in
2004 in conjunction with the General Plan Update and subsequently in 2008, however neither effort was
brought forward for discretionary action.
On January 7, 2020, the Chula Vista City Council approved a Community Benefit Agreement (CBA) (by
Resolution No. 2020-003) between the City of Chula Vista and the Owner to allow initiation of the entitlement
process to consider the conversion of the PA23 land to residential uses [Attachment 2, Community Benefit
Agreement (ACI Sunbow, LLC 1-7-20)]. Per the CBA, the Applicant would provide $8 million of funding that
can be used by the City to direct the construction of either:
1. Class “A” office building(s) that would facilitate high quality job enhancement uses along the SR-125
corridor on City or non-profit owned land;
2. Commercial/academic building(s) that can facilitate either academic or private-sector market-rate
project(s) to advance the vision of the University Innovation District (such as enabling the
development of an Institute for International Studies); or
3. Some other notable project at the City’s discretion.
Proposed Amendments
On February 26, 2020, the Applicant submitted an application requesting amendments to the area generally
located southeast of the intersection of Brandywine Avenue and Olympic Parkway (Attachment 3, Locator
Map). Based upon more precise engineering currently available, the Sunbow II, Phase 3 development area
acreage has been refined and encompasses 67.5 acres with the remaining 68.2 acres designated as Multiple
Species Conservation Program (the “MSCP”) Preserve land, Poggi Creek Conservation Easement areas and a
conserved wetland resource area, and as proposed would include:
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 7 of 1271
P a g e | 4
Development Area (67.5 acres)
44.2 acres of residential (718 units on 6 parcels);
0.9-acre Community Purpose Facility (the “CPF”) site;
5.9 acres of public streets; and
16.5 acres of manufactured slopes and basins.
Open Space Land (68.2 acres)
4.3 acres of proposed Poggi Canyon Easement areas;
0.3-acre conserved wetland resource area; and
63.6 acres of adjacent MSCP Preserve areas.
The application includes a proposed MSCP Boundary Line Adjustment, which would modify the limits of the
Sunbow II, Phase 3 development area and increase the MSCP Preserve area by approximately 0.09 acres. The
Applicant is proposing to rezone the developable PA23 land from limited industrial to residential uses
allowing up to 534 multi-family medium-high-density and 184 multi-family high-density residential dwelling
units (718 total units) on six parcels (the “Project”).
Compliance with Council Policy No. 400-02 (Public Participation)
A virtual Community Meeting was held by the Applicant on March 24, 2021 via Zoom. The City’s project
manager attended the meeting along with over 30 members of the public. The Applicant provided a project
briefing and community members asked various questions related to vehicular traffic, traffic noise, on-site
wildlife movement, schools, and water seepage issues from the Robinhood Point Homeowners Association.
Residents/property owners within 500-feet and Homeowners Associations within 1,500 feet of the Sunbow
II, Phase 3 Project Site were notified of the Community Meeting.
Project Analysis
FEIR 20-0002
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 21002 requires that an Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) identify the significant effects of a project on the environment and provide measures or alternatives
that can mitigate or avoid these effects. EIR20-0002, was prepared and assigned a State Clearinghouse
identification number (SCH No. 2020110148) to analyze such impacts of the Project (Attachment 4,
Environmental Impact Report EIR 20-0002). As required the following public review periods were provided:
Notice of Preparation pursuant to Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines (November 9, 2020 –
December 9, 2020); and
Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR (March 15, 2021 – April 28, 2021).
Pursuant to CEQA, EIR20-0002 and associated Mitigation Measures and Reporting Program (MMRP) were
prepared for the Project and concluded that the Project could result in significant effects on the environment
regarding: Biology, Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Noise, Greenhouse Gas, Hazardous Materials and Geology
(Attachment 4a, Environmental Impact Report EIR 20-0002 – MMRP). The City finds that the inclusion of
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 8 of 1271
P a g e | 5
certain mitigation measures as part of the approval of the proposed project would reduce most, but not all,
of those effects to less-than-significant levels. Those impacts that are not reduced to less-than-significant
levels are identified and overridden due to specific benefits of the project (Attachment 5, EIR20-0002
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Consideration).
During the public review period, five comments were received. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections
15088 and 15204, the City has independently evaluated the comments and prepared written responses
describing the disposition of any significant environmental issues raised (Attachment 4, Environmental
Impact Report EIR 20-0002 – Section 1.1, Preface Response to Comments). On June 16, after the close of the
public comment period, Caltrans sent the City a comment letter. The Applicant prepared a response and City
staff has met with Caltrans and believes the concerns have been adequately addressed and will not result in
any changes to the EIR or MMRP (Attachment 4b – Caltrans Letter and Applicant Response).
Chula Vista General Plan (MPA20-0012)
The Chula Vista General Plan (GP) identifies Sunbow as being an efficient self-contained village. The
Applicant’s proposed amendments will remain consistent with the Chula Vista General Plan Land Use &
Transportation, Economic Development, Housing, Public Facilities & Services, Environmental and Growth
Management objectives and policies (Attachment 6, Chula Vista General Plan Amendment Justification
Report).
In order to analyze the impact of industrial land use conversion on other uses within the City, the City
contracted with HR&A Advisors, Inc. to provide an analysis of industrial uses [Attachment 6, Chula Vista
General Plan Amendment Justification Report - Attachment B, Sunbow II, Phase 3 Market and Financial
Analysis of Industrial Use (HR&A 2021)]. The study summarizes the existing land available for industrial
uses and provides an overview of the South Bay region market, future demand for such uses and resulting
anticipated surplus or deficit within Chula Vista. This effort included an extensive examination at a parcel
level of the existing land uses within the City that could potentially be developed for industrial use based on
current zoning, as well as environmental and developable land considerations. A summary of the key
findings includes:
Analysis of Industrial land:
o Approximately 428 acres of Chula Vista’s land with industrial zoning is developable. Given a
range of floor-area-ratios from 0.25 to 0.40, this land could accommodate 4.7 to 7.5 million
square feet (SF) of development.
o Chula Vista currently has enough developable land to accommodate projected growth in
industrial employment through 2050. The City could see an increase in industrial employment
of 1,475 to 3,125 new jobs, demanding 118 to 239 acres of industrial land through 2050. If
that amount of land were developed, the City would still have 190 to 311 acres of surplus
vacant developable industrial land.
o Industrial entitlements do not guarantee either industrial uses or job-intensive uses. For
example, the Eastlake cluster of industrial zoned land currently contains 69 acres of non-
industrial uses, including some such as gyms that have low employment densities.
The Project as currently approved for industrial land:
o Represents 10 percent of Chula Vista’s remaining developable industrial land. The site contains
approximately 42.5 developable acres, compared to 428 across the entire City.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 9 of 1271
P a g e | 6
o Has both strengths and weaknesses with respect to marketability for industrial development.
Easy freeway access via Olympic Parkway to I-805 could be attractive to an industrial
developer, although other vacant industrial properties have similar proximity to a freeway
(e.g., Eastlake’s access to SR 125). Compared with other properties, the Site is relatively
distant from existing industrial clusters, with the nearest cluster—Main Street East—being a
3-mile drive from the Site.
o Size would be an advantage for an industrial developer. The approximate 42.5 developable
acres could accommodate large floorplates and truck maneuverability and support
economies of scale.
o Topographical variation on the site is a barrier to industrial development due to the expense
and time associated with grading and associated site development preparation. The estimated
cost for grading and infrastructure is approximately $27 million.
o Industrial development on the Site is unlikely to be financially feasible. A land sale price above
$20.48 per SF may be sufficient to earn the landowner a reasonable return; however, of the
five comparable land sales in the past 2 years, with a range from approximately $11.50 to
$18.00 per square foot, none met this threshold. Additionally, more than two decades of
marketing the Site for industrial use has not yielded any development.
Sunbow II General Development Plan Amendments (MPA20-0013)
Amendments to the Sunbow II General Development Plan (GDP) update the land use summary for the
Sunbow II, Phase 3 area and eliminate various sections in the original report as development standards are
included in the Sunbow II, Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment (Attachment 7, Sunbow II General Development
Plan Amendment Report).
SPA Plan Amendments (MPA20-0006)
The adopted Sunbow II SPA Plan, approved in 1990, established the vision for Sunbow and defined the land
use character and mix of uses, design criteria, circulation system, and public infrastructure requirements for
the Project. This Project updates Chapters 10.0 to 17.0, to describe and define the amended land uses for
Sunbow II, Phase 3 and incorporate the development regulations and design guidelines specific to this
Project (Attachment 8, Sunbow II, Phase 3 Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment). The Project also
includes revisions to planning documents associated with the 1990 Sunbow II SPA Plan as well as additional
plans and studies currently required by the City of Chula Vista. Updated or new information supersedes the
corresponding sections in the 1990 Sunbow SPA Plan.
Some Project specific items of note in the proposed SPA include:
Community Purpose Facilities (CPF) – In accordance with Chapter 19.48 of the Chula Vista Municipal
Code (CVMC) the Project generates the requirement for 3.2-acres of CPF land. The Project will
provide a community recreation facility on 0.9-acres, with amenities in compliance with CVMC
Section 19.48.040(B)(6), generally in the center of the development. The remaining 2.3 acre CPF
requirement will be waived as defined in the Development Agreement, in order for the City to accept
a “Community Purpose Facilities Benefit Funds” payment of $1.7 million to be utilized by the City to
fund a community serving facility on land in the City’s western territories that would not otherwise
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 10 of 1271
P a g e | 7
have been available for such community service use. Payment shall be made prior to the issuance of
the building permit for the 240th unit.
Parkland Acquisition and Development Fees/Quimby Fees (the “PAD Fees”) – In-lieu of PAD Fees due
per CVMC Chapter 17.10, the Owner shall pay the City a “Park Benefit Fee” equal to the PAD Fees that
would have otherwise been due pursuant to Chapter 17.10, using the PAD fee rates in effect as of the
Effective Date of the Development Agreement. The Park Benefit Fees may be used to acquire or
develop parkland within the City of Chula Vista, as the City deems appropriate and in the best interest
of the City.
Design Review Approval – The Project shall be subject to the City of Chula Vista Design Review
Process as set forth in CVMC Section 19.14.581 through 19.14.600, except that the Zoning
Administrator shall have the authority for review and approval of any application/parcel with 200
or fewer multi-family residential units, as outlined in the Sunbow II, Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment.
The following appendices to the Sunbow II, Phase 3 SPA have also been prepared for the Project:
Plant Palette
The SPA provides a list of acceptable plants that may be used in the Sunbow II, Phase 3 landscape.
Provided as Appendix A to the SPA Plan, the Plant Palette was prepared with a focus on the landscape
transitioning to a naturalized palette at the project perimeter to blend with the existing native
character of the existing slopes and MSCP Preserve area located along the northern edge of the site.
The plant palette is composed of durable and low water use/drought tolerant plants which are easily
maintained (Attachment 8, Sunbow II, Phase 3 Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment, Appendix
A - Sunbow II, Phase 3 Plant Palette).
Public Facilities Financing Plan and Fiscal Impact Analysis
The original Sunbow II Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP) was adopted by City Council
Resolution No. 15525 on January 24, 1990. The preparation of the Supplemental PFFP is required in
conjunction with the preparation of the Sunbow II, Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment for the Project to
ensure that the phased development of the Project is still consistent with the overall goals and
policies of the GP, the City’s Growth Management Program, and the Sunbow II GDP to ensure that the
development of the Project will not adversely impact the City’s Quality of Life Threshold Standards.
The Sunbow II, Phase 3 Fiscal Impact Analysis (FIA) was also updated in January 2021. The results
generated from the fiscal model meet the requirements of CVMC 19.09.040 and demonstrate that the
proposed project will generate a fiscal surplus in all years as further described below in “Fiscal
Analysis.”
The Supplemental PFFP and updated FIA prepared for the Project meets the growth management
policy objectives (Attachment 8a, SPA Appendices, Appendix B - Supplemental PFFP & FIA).
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 11 of 1271
P a g e | 8
Air Quality Improvement Plan
Since approval of the Sunbow SPA Plan, the City has adopted changes to the Air Quality Improvement
Plan (AQIP) guidelines consistent with the City’s Growth Management Program. The revised AQIP
reflects changes in the Sunbow II, Phase 3 SPA Plan and changes in Building and Energy Codes.
Applicable action measures contained in the City’s Climate Action Plan that apply to the Sunbow II,
Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment are addressed (Attachment 8a, SPA Appendices, Appendix C - AQIP).
Fire Protection Plan
The Fire Protection Plan (FPP) prepared for the Project meets applicable Fire and Building Code
requirements or offers alternative materials and methods for complying with the codes. The
Project’s overall on-site fire potential would be lower than its current condition due to conversion of
areas of wildland fuels to managed landscapes, managed fuel modification areas, improved
accessibility to firefighting personnel and equipment, and new structures built to the latest ignition
resistant codes (Attachment 8a, SPA Appendices, Appendix D - FPP).
Water Conservation Plan
The Water Conservation Plan (WCP) addresses the City’s Growth Management Ordinance (CVMC
19.09.050C) and Landscape Water Conservation Ordinance (CVMC 20.12) by reviewing available
technology and practices to conserve water in residential settings (Attachment 8a, SPA Appendices,
Appendix E - WCP).
Tentative Map for Sunbow II, Phase 3 (PCS20-0002)
The subject Tentative Map (the “TM”) identifies lot numbers, gross acreage, land use, and allocates
residential units for each parcel. The TM also provide notes for condominiums, fuel modification zones,
waivers, etc. Street sections and street layouts ensure construction of the street and pedestrian connections
envisioned in the SPA Plan. The TM includes twenty-two (22) lots for the development of 718 residential
units (6 lots), a community purpose facility (1 lot), Poggi Creek Conservation Easement (3 lots), open space
(9 lots), and open space preserve (3 lots) on the Project Site (Attachment 9, CVT20-0002 Tentative Map).
In order to stabilize development at the southwestern corner of the proposed development and allow
additional units to be built, a buttress is proposed. The buttress would encroach upon an approximate 15-
foot by 470-foot (or approximately 7,200-square foot) area of City property that is designated for future park
use. The City found that allowing the buttress on City-owned land would not significantly impact the future
park design. Therefore, the City and Applicant agreed that in order to ensure the buttress is constructed and
maintained by the Applicant, the Applicant will purchase the property impacted by the buttress from the
City, as more fully described in the Development Agreement. A purchase price of $10,000 has been
negotiated, based upon the fair market value of comparable open space land located in the City.
Sunbow II, Phase 3 Development Agreement (MPA21-0014)
The amendments cause the need to enter into a Development Agreement with the Owner to ensure all
required fees and ordinance requirements are being satisfied, inclusive and in replacement of the items set
forth in the Community Benefits Agreement. In addition, the Development Agreement identifies where
waivers or alternative compliance are proposed. Specifically, the following items of significance exist in the
Development Agreement [Attachment 10, Development Agreement (ACI Sunbow, LLC)]:
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 12 of 1271
P a g e | 9
Jobs Enhancement Fund – City shall receive $8 million to direct construction for job enhancing uses
in eastern Chula Vista as described in the “Site History & Necessity of Amendments” section above.
Affordable Housing Obligation – Extension and increased affordability of Villa Serena Senior as
described in the “Housing Impact” section above.
Community Purpose Facilities Benefit Fund – Waiver of a portion of the 3.2-acre onsite CPF obligation
(0.9 acres provided onsite and 2.3 acres waived) and payment of $1.7 million to the City as described
in the “SPA Plan Amendments (MPA20-0006)” section above.
Park Benefit Fee – Owner shall pay such fee as described in the “SPA Plan Amendments (MPA20-
0006)” section above.
Purchase of Land – The Applicant shall purchase such property from the City for a fair market value
of $10,000 to construct and maintain the buttress as described under the “Tentative Map for Sunbow
II, Phase 3 (PCS20-0002)” section above.
DECISION-MAKER CONFLICT
Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the Planning Commission members and has found no property
holdings within 1,000 feet of the boundaries of the property which is the subject of this action. Consequently,
this item does not present a disqualifying real property-related financial conflict of interest under California
Code of Regulations Title 2, section 18702.2(a)(7) or (8), for purposes of the Political Reform Act (Cal. Gov’t
Code §87100, et seq.).
Staff is not independently aware and has not been informed by any Planning Commission member, of any
other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision-maker conflict of interest in this matter.
FISCAL IMPACT
Based on the adjusted Fiscal Model, the proposed project is estimated to generate between approximately
$46,461 and $270,928 per year in net City municipal revenues during the first 20 years of operation and a
cumulative total net revenue of approximately $3.3 million over the same period, as summarized in the table
below [Attachment 6, Chula Vista General Plan Amendment Justification Report - Attachment C, Sunbow II,
Phase 3 Fiscal Impact Analysis (DPFG 2021)].
Projected
General Fund Impact Year 1 Year 5 Year 10 Year 15 Year 20
Annual Revenues $ 278,400 $ 1,245,606 $ 1,430,915 $ 1,635,064 $ 1,928,194
Annual Expenditures (231,939) (1,108,535) (1,277,366) (1,451,182) (1,657,266)
Annual Net Impact $ 46,461 $ 137,071 $ 153,549 $ 183,882 $ 270,928
Cumulative Net Impact $ 46,461 $ 499,639 $ 1,118,882 $2,017,747 $ 3,281,323
ATTACHMENTS
1. Summary of Prior Approvals
2. Community Benefit Agreement (ACI Sunbow, LLC 1-7-20)
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 13 of 1271
P a g e | 10
3. Locator Map
4. Environmental Impact Report EIR 20-0002
a. EIR MMRP
b. Caltrans Letter and Applicant Response
5. EIR20-0002 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Consideration
6. Chula Vista General Plan Amendment Justification Report
7. Sunbow II General Development Plan Amendment Report
8. Sunbow II, Phase 3 Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment
a. SPA Appendices
9. CVT20-0002 Tentative Map
10. Development Agreement (ACI Sunbow, LLC)
ENCLOSURES
A. Planning Commission Resolution EIR20-0002
B. Planning Commission Resolution GPA and GDP Resolution MPA20-0012 & MPA20-0013
C. Planning Commission Resolution Sunbow II, Phase 3 SPA Plan MPA20-0006
D. Planning Commission Resolution Tentative Map PCS20-0002
E. Planning Commission Resolution Development Agreement MPA21-0014
F. Draft City Council EIR20-0002 Resolution
G. Draft City Council MPA20-0012 & MPA20-0013 GPA and GDP Resolution
H. Draft City Council MPA20-0006 Sunbow II, Phase 3 SPA Plan Resolution
I. Draft City Council MPA20-0006 Ordinance Rezoning the Sunbow PA23 Project Area
J. Draft City Council CVT20-0002 Sunbow TM Resolution
K. Draft City Council MPA21-0014 Development Agreement Ordinance
Staff Contact: Stacey Kurz, Project Manager
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 14 of 1271
Attachment 1
Sunbow Prior Approvals
The City of Chula Vista authorized development of the 604.8 acre Sunbow Planned Community upon
approval of the following:
• Sunbow II General Development Plan (GDP) approved by Resolution No. 15427 on December
5, 1989;
• Sunbow II Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP) approved by Resolution No. 15525 on
January 24, 1990;
• Sunbow II Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan approved by Resolution No. 15524 on February
20, 1990;
• Sunbow II Planned Community District Regulations and Land Use Distric t Map approved by
Ordinance No. 2361 on February 27, 1990;
• Sunbow II Design Guidelines approved by Resolution No. 15640 on May 22, 1990;
• Sunbow II Tentative Subdivision Map (TSM 90-07) approved by Resolution No. 115640 on
May 22, 1990; and
• Sunbow II Affordable Housing Agreement approved by Resolution No. 18662 on May 13,
1997.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 15 of 1271
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0368DD6E-B15A-4496-96E6-D7AA0A12D0E4
7
GeneralDevelopment Plan (“GDP”) andSectionalPlanningArea (“SPA”) Plan,
andcommonlyknownas “Sunbow.”
MSCP”). TheOtayLandfillislocatedatthesoutheastern boundaryoftheProperty
ScenicRoadway” bytheCity. TheCityh
City’s
Planas “,” whichallowsforlightmanufacturing, warehousing,
TheProperty’scurrentILdesignationreflectedinpart,
the “Landfill”)
12021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 16 of 1271
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0368DD6E-B15A-4496-96E6-D7AA0A12D0E4
City’sGeneralPlanandthe
725
Project”). Openspacewillbelocated
d
3,
costs
Class “A” officebuildingthatwould
ity’sdiscretion.
22021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 17 of 1271
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0368DD6E-B15A-4496-96E6-D7AA0A12D0E4
17.10oftheChulaVistaMunicipalCode (“Park”).
32021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 18 of 1271
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0368DD6E-B15A-4496-96E6-D7AA0A12D0E4
means
42021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 19 of 1271
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0368DD6E-B15A-4496-96E6-D7AA0A12D0E4
52021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 20 of 1271
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0368DD6E-B15A-4496-96E6-D7AA0A12D0E4
62021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 21 of 1271
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0368DD6E-B15A-4496-96E6-D7AA0A12D0E4
72021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 22 of 1271
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0368DD6E-B15A-4496-96E6-D7AA0A12D0E4
82021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 23 of 1271
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0368DD6E-B15A-4496-96E6-D7AA0A12D0E4
4.2“”
2003.
109.41“”
o.
4.3.Developer’sPotentialObligations UnderCVMC19.09.09Remain.
4.4
2
92021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 24 of 1271
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0368DD6E-B15A-4496-96E6-D7AA0A12D0E4
4.7
7
102021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 25 of 1271
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0368DD6E-B15A-4496-96E6-D7AA0A12D0E4
112021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 26 of 1271
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0368DD6E-B15A-4496-96E6-D7AA0A12D0E4
122021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 27 of 1271
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0368DD6E-B15A-4496-96E6-D7AA0A12D0E4
91910
Attorney’s
92101
132021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 28 of 1271
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0368DD6E-B15A-4496-96E6-D7AA0A12D0E4
142021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 29 of 1271
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0368DD6E-B15A-4496-96E6-D7AA0A12D0E4
152021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 30 of 1271
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0368DD6E-B15A-4496-96E6-D7AA0A12D0E4
162021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 31 of 1271
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0368DD6E-B15A-4496-96E6-D7AA0A12D0E4
Exhibit “B” ProcessingSchedule.
172021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 32 of 1271
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0368DD6E-B15A-4496-96E6-D7AA0A12D0E4
182021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 33 of 1271
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0368DD6E-B15A-4496-96E6-D7AA0A12D0E4
Exhibit “B”
192021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 34 of 1271
PROJECT
LOCATION
CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
L:\Gabe Files\Arcmap Locator Template\Locators\MPA20-0006.03.24.20.svg
SCALE:FILE NUMBER:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
PROJECT
ADDRESS:Sunbow Planning Area 23
ACI Sunbow, LLC
Related Cases: NoneNo Scale MPA20-0006
PROJECT SUMMARY: General Plan Amendment to
residential high and medium.
PROJECT
APPLICANT:LOCATOR
NORTH
MAJOR PLANNING APPLICATION
SUNBOW
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 35 of 1271
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area
Plan Amendment for the
Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project
Final Environmental Impact Report
EIR 20-0002
SCH No.
2020110148
July 2021
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 36 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 37 of 1271
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment
for the
Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project
Final Environmental Impact Report
Prepared for:
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 91910
Contact: Oscar Romero
Prepared by:
605 Third Street
Encinitas, California 92024
Contact: Brian Grover, AICP
JULY 2021
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 38 of 1271
Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 39 of 1271
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 TOC-i
Table of Contents
Section Page No.
PREFACE TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND REESPONSE TO COMMENTS ....................... RTC-1
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Project Location and Setting .............................................................................................................. 1-1
1.2 Project Background ............................................................................................................................ 1-1
1.3 Project Description ............................................................................................................................. 1-2
1.3.1 Project Objectives ................................................................................................................. 1-4
1.3.2 Discretionary Actions ............................................................................................................ 1-4
1.4 Areas of Controversy .......................................................................................................................... 1-4
1.5 Issues to Be Resolved by the City Council ........................................................................................ 1-5
1.6 Project Alternatives ............................................................................................................................ 1-5
1.6.1 No Project/No Build Alternative ........................................................................................... 1-5
1.6.2 Existing Land Use Designations Alternative ........................................................................ 1-5
1.6.3 Reduced Development Alternative ...................................................................................... 1-6
1.7 Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts .............................................................................. 1-6
2 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Project Purpose and Background ...................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Hierarchy of Sunbow Planning Documents ...................................................................................... 2-1
2.2.1 City of Chula Vista General Plan .......................................................................................... 2-1
2.2.2 Sunbow General Development Plan .................................................................................... 2-2
2.2.3 City of Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program .............................................. 2-2
2.2.4 Sectional Planning Area Plans ............................................................................................. 2-2
2.3 Scope of the EIR ................................................................................................................................. 2-3
2.4 Environmental Procedures ................................................................................................................ 2-3
2.4.1 CEQA Compliance ................................................................................................................. 2-3
2.4.2 Notice of Preparation and Scoping ...................................................................................... 2-3
2.4.3 Overview of the EIR Process................................................................................................. 2-4
2.5 Intended Uses of the EIR ................................................................................................................... 2-4
2.6 Organization and Content of the EIR ................................................................................................. 2-5
2.7 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ................................................................................. 2-6
3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ........................................................................................................................ 3-1
3.1 Existing Site Conditions ...................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1.1 Surrounding Land Uses ........................................................................................................ 3-1
3.1.2 Existing Topography and Soils ............................................................................................. 3-1
3.1.3 Climate .................................................................................................................................. 3-2
3.1.4 Access .................................................................................................................................... 3-2
3.2 Existing Land Use Designations ........................................................................................................ 3-2
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 40 of 1271
Table of Contents
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 TOC-ii
3.2.1 Existing General Plan Designations ..................................................................................... 3-2
3.2.2 Existing Zoning ...................................................................................................................... 3-2
3.2.3 Existing Sunbow General Development Plan Designation ................................................. 3-2
3.2.4 Existing Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Designation .............................................. 3-2
4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................................. 4-1
4.1 Location .............................................................................................................................................. 4-1
4.2 Background ......................................................................................................................................... 4-1
4.3 Project Objectives ............................................................................................................................... 4-2
4.4 Project Description ............................................................................................................................. 4-2
4.4.1 Land Uses .............................................................................................................................. 4-2
4.4.2 Access and Circulation Network .......................................................................................... 4-7
4.4.3 Public Service and Utilities ................................................................................................... 4-9
4.4.4 MSCP Boundary Line Adjustment and Minor Amendment............................................... 4-11
4.4.5 Tentative Map ..................................................................................................................... 4-11
4.4.6 Conceptual Grading ............................................................................................................ 4-11
4.4.7 Construction and Phasing .................................................................................................. 4-11
4.4.8 Project Design Features ..................................................................................................... 4-12
4.5 Discretionary Actions/Approvals ..................................................................................................... 4-13
5 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................... 5-1
5.1 Aesthetics ........................................................................................................................................ 5.1-1
5.1.1 Existing Conditions............................................................................................................. 5.1-1
5.1.2 Thresholds of Significance ................................................................................................ 5.1-7
5.1.3 Impacts ............................................................................................................................... 5.1-7
5.1.4 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation ......................................................................... 5.1-11
5.1.5 Mitigation Measures ........................................................................................................ 5.1-12
5.1.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation ............................................................................. 5.1-12
5.2 Air Quality ......................................................................................................................................... 5.2-1
5.2.1 Existing Conditions............................................................................................................. 5.2-1
5.2.2 Thresholds of Significance .............................................................................................. 5.2-19
5.2.3 Impacts ............................................................................................................................. 5.2-20
5.2.4 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation ......................................................................... 5.2-35
5.2.5 Mitigation Measures ........................................................................................................ 5.2-35
5.2.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation ............................................................................. 5.2-35
5.3 Biological Resources ....................................................................................................................... 5.3-1
5.3.1 Existing Conditions............................................................................................................. 5.3-1
5.3.2 Thresholds of Significance .............................................................................................. 5.3-22
5.3.3 Impacts ............................................................................................................................. 5.3-23
5.3.4 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation ......................................................................... 5.3-44
5.3.5 Mitigation Measures ........................................................................................................ 5.3-44
5.3.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation ............................................................................. 5.3-53
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 41 of 1271
Table of Contents
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 TOC-iii
5.4 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources .......................................................................................... 5.4-1
5.4.1 Existing Conditions............................................................................................................. 5.4-1
5.4.2 Thresholds of Significance .............................................................................................. 5.4-13
5.4.3 Impacts ............................................................................................................................. 5.4-13
5.4.4 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation ......................................................................... 5.4-14
5.4.5 Mitigation Measures ........................................................................................................ 5.4-15
5.4.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation ............................................................................. 5.4-16
5.5 Energy .............................................................................................................................................. 5.5-1
5.5.1 Existing Conditions............................................................................................................. 5.5-1
5.5.2 Thresholds of Significance .............................................................................................. 5.5-12
5.5.3 Impacts ............................................................................................................................. 5.5-12
5.5.4 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation ......................................................................... 5.5-18
5.5.5 Mitigation Measures ........................................................................................................ 5.5-18
5.5.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation ............................................................................. 5.5-18
5.6 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................................ 5.6-1
5.6.1 Existing Conditions............................................................................................................. 5.6-1
5.6.2 Thresholds of Significance ................................................................................................ 5.6-7
5.6.3 Impacts ............................................................................................................................... 5.6-8
5.6.4 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation ......................................................................... 5.6-11
5.6.5 Mitigation Measures ........................................................................................................ 5.6-11
5.6.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation ............................................................................. 5.6-12
5.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................................ 5.7-1
5.7.1 Existing Conditions............................................................................................................. 5.7-1
5.7.2 Thresholds of Significance .............................................................................................. 5.7-22
5.7.3 Impacts ............................................................................................................................. 5.7-24
5.7.4 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation ......................................................................... 5.7-40
5.7.5 Mitigation Measures ........................................................................................................ 5.7-40
5.7.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation ............................................................................. 5.7-41
5.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................................................................................. 5.8-1
5.8.1 Existing Conditions............................................................................................................. 5.8-1
5.8.2 Thresholds of Significance .............................................................................................. 5.8-13
5.8.3 Impacts ............................................................................................................................. 5.8-14
5.8.4 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation ......................................................................... 5.8-20
5.8.5 Mitigation Measures ........................................................................................................ 5.8-20
5.8.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation ............................................................................. 5.8-24
5.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ........................................................................................................... 5.9-1
5.9.1 Existing Conditions............................................................................................................. 5.9-1
5.9.2 Thresholds of Significance ................................................................................................ 5.9-7
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 42 of 1271
Table of Contents
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 TOC-iv
5.9.3 Impacts ............................................................................................................................... 5.9-7
5.9.4 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation ......................................................................... 5.9-12
5.9.5 Mitigation Measures ........................................................................................................ 5.9-12
5.9.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation ............................................................................. 5.9-12
5.10 Land Use and Planning ................................................................................................................. 5.10-1
5.10.1 Existing Conditions........................................................................................................... 5.10-1
5.10.2 Thresholds of Significance .............................................................................................. 5.10-9
5.10.3 Impacts ............................................................................................................................. 5.10-9
5.10.4 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation ...................................................................... 5.10-20
5.10.5 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................................... 5.10-21
5.10.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation .......................................................................... 5.10-21
5.11 Noise .............................................................................................................................................. 5.11-1
5.11.1 Existing Conditions........................................................................................................... 5.11-1
5.11.2 Thresholds of Significance .............................................................................................. 5.11-5
5.11.3 Impacts ............................................................................................................................. 5.11-6
5.11.4 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation ...................................................................... 5.11-13
5.11.5 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................................... 5.11-13
5.11.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation .......................................................................... 5.11-13
5.12 Population and Housing ................................................................................................................ 5.12-1
5.12.1 Existing Conditions........................................................................................................... 5.12-1
5.12.2 Thresholds of Significance .............................................................................................. 5.12-6
5.12.3 Impacts ............................................................................................................................. 5.12-6
5.12.4 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation ......................................................................... 5.12-8
5.12.5 Mitigation Measures ........................................................................................................ 5.12-8
5.12.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation ............................................................................. 5.12-8
5.13 Public Services .............................................................................................................................. 5.13-1
5.13.1 Existing Conditions........................................................................................................... 5.13-1
5.13.2 Thresholds of Significance ........................................................................................... 5.13-13
5.13.3 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................................. 5.13-14
5.13.4 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation ...................................................................... 5.13-18
5.13.5 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................................... 5.13-18
5.13.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation .......................................................................... 5.13-19
5.14 Recreation ...................................................................................................................................... 5.14-1
5.14.1 Existing Conditions........................................................................................................... 5.14-1
5.14.2 Thresholds of Significance .............................................................................................. 5.14-7
5.14.3 Impacts ............................................................................................................................. 5.14-7
5.14.4 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation ......................................................................... 5.14-8
5.14.5 Mitigation Measures ........................................................................................................ 5.14-8
5.14.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation ............................................................................. 5.14-8
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 43 of 1271
Table of Contents
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 TOC-v
5.15 Transportation ............................................................................................................................... 5.15-1
5.15.1 Existing Conditions........................................................................................................... 5.15-1
5.15.2 Thresholds of Significance .............................................................................................. 5.15-9
5.15.3 Impacts ............................................................................................................................. 5.15-9
5.15.4 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation ...................................................................... 5.15-13
5.15.5 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................................... 5.15-14
5.15.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation .......................................................................... 5.15-14
5.16 Utilities and Service Systems ........................................................................................................ 5.16-1
5.16.1 Existing Conditions........................................................................................................... 5.16-1
5.16.2 Thresholds of Significance ........................................................................................... 5.16-18
5.16.3 Impacts .......................................................................................................................... 5.16-18
5.16.4 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation ...................................................................... 5.16-26
5.16.5 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................................... 5.16-26
5.16.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation .......................................................................... 5.16-26
5.17 Wildfire ........................................................................................................................................... 5.17-1
5.17.1 Existing Conditions........................................................................................................... 5.17-1
5.17.2 Thresholds of Significance .............................................................................................. 5.17-9
5.17.3 Impacts ............................................................................................................................. 5.17-9
5.17.4 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation ...................................................................... 5.17-14
5.17.5 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................................... 5.17-14
5.17.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation .......................................................................... 5.17-14
6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ............................................................................................................................... 6-1
6.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 6-1
6.2 Methodology ....................................................................................................................................... 6-1
6.3 Cumulative Projects ........................................................................................................................... 6-3
6.3.1 Land Development................................................................................................................ 6-3
6.3.2 Adopted Plans ....................................................................................................................... 6-4
6.4 Cumulative Impact Analysis ............................................................................................................... 6-4
6.4.1 Aesthetics .............................................................................................................................. 6-5
6.4.2 Air Quality .............................................................................................................................. 6-5
6.4.3 Biological Resources ............................................................................................................ 6-6
6.4.4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources ............................................................. 6-7
6.4.5 Energy .................................................................................................................................... 6-7
6.4.6 Geology and Soils ................................................................................................................. 6-8
6.4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................................. 6-8
6.4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ...................................................................................... 6-9
6.4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality .............................................................................................. 6-10
6.4.10 Land Use and Planning....................................................................................................... 6-10
6.4.11 Noise .................................................................................................................................... 6-11
6.4.12 Population and Housing ..................................................................................................... 6-11
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 44 of 1271
Table of Contents
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 TOC-vi
6.4.13 Public Services .................................................................................................................... 6-12
6.4.14 Recreation ........................................................................................................................... 6-12
6.4.15 Transportation ..................................................................................................................... 6-12
6.4.16 Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................................. 6-13
6.4.17 Wildfire ................................................................................................................................ 6-13
7 GROWTH INDUCEMENT ............................................................................................................................. 7-1
7.1 Growth Inducement Due to Population Growth ................................................................................ 7-1
7.2 Growth Inducement Due to Economic Growth ................................................................................. 7-2
7.3 Growth Inducement Due to Additional Housing ............................................................................... 7-2
7.4 Growth Inducement Due to Removal of Obstacles .......................................................................... 7-3
7.5 Taxation of Existing Public Facilities and Services ........................................................................... 7-4
8 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES ....................................................................... 8-1
9 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT ................................................................................................ 9-1
9.1 Agriculture and Forestry Resources .................................................................................................. 9-1
9.2 Mineral Resources ............................................................................................................................. 9-2
10 ALTERNATIVES ......................................................................................................................................... 10-1
10.1 Introduction....................................................................................................................................... 10-1
10.2 Project Objectives ............................................................................................................................. 10-1
10.3 Alternatives Considered but Rejected ............................................................................................. 10-2
10.4 Alternatives under Consideration .................................................................................................... 10-2
10.5 Alternatives Impact Summary .......................................................................................................... 10-3
10.5.1 No Project/No Build Alternative ......................................................................................... 10-3
10.5.2 Existing Land Use Designations Alternative ...................................................................... 10-6
10.5.3 Reduced Development Alternative .................................................................................. 10-11
10.6 Environmentally Superior Alternative ............................................................................................ 10-16
11 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................... 11-1
12 LIST OF PREPARERS ................................................................................................................................ 12-1
Appendices
A NOP Comment Letters
B Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment
C Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis
D1 Biological Resources Technical Report
D2 Functional Equivalency Analysis for MSCP Boundary Line Adjustment
E Cultural and Paleontological Resources Inventory Report
F Energy Calculations
G Geotechnical Report
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 45 of 1271
Table of Contents
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 TOC-vii
H1 Phase 1 Evironmental Site Assessment
H2 Vapor Instrusion Memorandum
H3 Fire Protection Plan
I1 Stormwater Quality Management Plan
I2 Drainage Study
J Noise Impact Analysis
K Transportation Impact Analysis
L1 Water System Analysis
L2 Water Supply Assessment
L3 Water Conservation Plan
L4 Sewer System Analysis
M Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program
Figures
3-1 Existing General Plan Land Use ................................................................................................................... 3-3
3-2 Existing General Development Plan Land Use Designation ....................................................................... 3-5
3-3 Existing SPA Plan Land Use Plan ................................................................................................................. 3-7
4-1 Project Location .......................................................................................................................................... 4-15
4-2 Proposed General Plan Land Use .............................................................................................................. 4-17
4-3 Proposed General Development Plan Land Use Designation .................................................................. 4-19
4-4 Proposed SPA Land Use Plan..................................................................................................................... 4-21
4-5 Proposed Zoning ......................................................................................................................................... 4-23
4-6 Illustrative Concept Plan ............................................................................................................................ 4-25
4-7 Community Purpose Facility Conceptual Site Plan ................................................................................... 4-27
4-8 Proposed Poggi Creek Easement and MSCP Boundary ........................................................................... 4-29
4-9 Vehicular Circulation Plan .......................................................................................................................... 4-31
4-10 Bicycle and Pedestrian Circulation Plan .................................................................................................... 4-33
4-11 Streets ‘A’ and ‘B’ – Typical Street Sections ............................................................................................. 4-35
4-12 Private Residential Streets – Typical Street Sections .............................................................................. 4-37
4-13 Proposed Water and Recycled Water System ........................................................................................... 4-39
4-14 Proposed Sewer System............................................................................................................................. 4-41
4-15 Proposed Storm Drain System ................................................................................................................... 4-43
4-16 Tentative Map ............................................................................................................................................. 4-45
4-17 Conceptual Grading Plan............................................................................................................................ 4-47
5.3-1 Local Environmental Setting Map ........................................................................................................... 5.3-55
5.3-2 Biological Resources Map ....................................................................................................................... 5.3-57
5.3-3 Wetland Delineation Map ........................................................................................................................ 5.3-59
5.3-4 Biological Impacts Map ........................................................................................................................... 5.3-61
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 46 of 1271
Table of Contents
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 TOC-viii
5.3-5 MSCP Preserve BLA Map ........................................................................................................................ 5.3-63
5.11-1 Noise Measurement and Modeling Locations .................................................................................... 5.11-15
5.13-1 Facility Locations .................................................................................................................................. 5.13-21
5.16-1 Existing Water Facilities ....................................................................................................................... 5.16-27
6-1 Cumulative Projects .................................................................................................................................... 6-15
Tables
1-1 Sunbow II, Phase 3 Sectional Planning Area Plan Land Use Summary .................................................... 1-2
1-2 Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts and Mitigation ............................................................... 1-7
4-1 Sunbow II, Phase 3 Sectional Planning Area Plan Land Use Summary .................................................... 4-3
5.2-1 Ambient Air Quality Standards .................................................................................................................. 5.2-2
5.2-2 San Diego Air Basin Attainment Classification ...................................................................................... 5.2-17
5.2-3 Local Ambient Air Quality Data ............................................................................................................... 5.2-18
5.2-4 City of Chula Vista Air Quality Significance Thresholds ......................................................................... 5.2-19
5.2-5 Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions ............................................ 5.2-23
5.2-6 Estimated Maximum Daily Operational Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions ............................................. 5.2-23
5.2-7 Landfill Health Risk Assessment Results – Unmitigated ...................................................................... 5.2-28
5.2-8 Summary of Odor Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 5.2-34
5.2-9 Dust Analysis ............................................................................................................................................ 5.2-34
5.3-1 Habitats/Vegetation Communities within Project Site ............................................................................ 5.3-6
5.3-2 Summary of Jurisdictional Resources Present within the Project Site ................................................. 5.3-11
5.3-3 Sensitive Flora Located On Site Inside and Outside Preserve Boundaries .......................................... 5.3-14
5.3-4 Sensitive Fauna Located On Site Inside and Outside Preserve Boundaries........................................ 5.3-15
5.3-5 Schedule of Survey Dates, Times, Conditions, and Staff ...................................................................... 5.3-18
5.3-6 Proposed Impacts to Sensitive Plant Species........................................................................................ 5.3-23
5.3-7 Quantitative Summary of Vegetation Community Impacts from the Proposed Project ...................... 5.3-29
5.3-8 City of Chula Vista MSCP Preserve Boundary Line Adjustment Habitats and Acreages ..................... 5.3-35
5.3-9 Cumulative Impacts to Covered Habitat from Future Facilities ............................................................ 5.3-37
5.3-10 Narrow Endemic Policy – Estimated Otay Tarplant Impact Assessment ............................................. 5.3-39
5.3-11 Project Habitat Mitigation Ratios and Acreages .................................................................................... 5.3-51
5.4-1 Reports within the Proposed Project APE ................................................................................................ 5.4-8
5.4-2 Resource within Proposed Project Research Area (1-Mile Buffer) ......................................................... 5.4-9
5.5-1 Hours of Operation for Construction Equipment ................................................................................... 5.5-13
5.5-2 Construction Equipment Diesel Demand ............................................................................................... 5.5-13
5.5-3 Construction Worker Vehicle Gasoline Demand .................................................................................... 5.5-13
5.5-4 Construction Vendor Truck Diesel Demand ........................................................................................... 5.5-14
5.6-1 Principal Active Faults Near Project Site .................................................................................................. 5.6-6
5.7-1 2028 Interpolated Efficiency Metric ....................................................................................................... 5.7-24
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 47 of 1271
Table of Contents
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 TOC-ix
5.7-2 Estimated Annual Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................... 5.7-25
5.7-3 Estimated Annual Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................. 5.7-26
5.7-4 City of Chula Vista Climate Action Plan Consistency Analysis ............................................................... 5.7-27
5.7-5 San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan Consistency Analysis ............................................................... 5.7-30
5.7-6 Project Consistency with Scoping Plan Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Strategies ............... 5.7-33
5.8-1 Database Search Report Findings ............................................................................................................ 5.8-9
5.11-1 City of Chula Vista Exterior Property-Line Noise Limits ......................................................................... 5.11-2
5.11-2 Measured Baseline Outdoor Ambient Noise Levels .............................................................................. 5.11-5
5.11-3 Typical Construction Equipment Maximum Noise Levels ..................................................................... 5.11-6
5.11-4 Estimated Distances between Construction Activities and the Nearest
Noise-Sensitive Receptors ...................................................................................................................... 5.11-7
5.11-5 Predicted Construction Noise Levels per Activity Phase ....................................................................... 5.11-8
5.11-6 Roadway Traffic Noise Modeling Results ............................................................................................... 5.11-9
5.11-7 On-Site Roadway Traffic Noise Modeling Results ............................................................................... 5.11-10
5.11-8 Predicted Net Sound Transmission Class of Sample Occupied Room Facade ................................ 5.11-11
5.12-1 San Diego Region vs. City of Chula Vista Population, Housing, and Employment Forecast .............. 5.12-2
5.12-2 Past Performance RHNA 5th Cycle (2013–2020) ................................................................................ 5.12-3
5.12-3 RHNA Allocation for the 6th Cycle (2021–2029) .................................................................................. 5.12-3
5.12-4 Chula Vista Projected Population in 2030 ............................................................................................. 5.12-4
5.13-1 Chula Vista Fire Department Staffing ..................................................................................................... 5.13-7
5.13-2 City of Chula Vista Fire Station Facilities ................................................................................................ 5.13-8
5.13-3 CVFD Emergency Response Analysis for the Proposed Project Site ................................................. 5.13-15
5.13-4 Fire Station Call Volumes ..................................................................................................................... 5.13-15
5.14-1 City of Chula Vista Parks and Recreation Resource Categories ........................................................... 5.14-3
5.14-2 Summary of Existing (January 2018) Citywide Public Parks and Major Recreation Facilities ........... 5.14-4
5.14-3 Parks and Recreational Facilities Located within 2 Miles of the Proposed Project Site .................... 5.14-5
5.15-1 Project VMT Analysis............................................................................................................................. 5.15-11
5.15-2 Project VMT Results with Implementation of Series Measures ......................................................... 5.15-12
5.16-1 Projected Normal Year Water Supplies (AFY)...................................................................................... 5.16-10
5.16-2 Average/Normal Water Year Supply and Demand Assessment (AFY) .............................................. 5.16-11
5.16-3 Single Dry Water Year Supply and Demand Assessment (AFY) ......................................................... 5.16-12
5.16-4 Multiple Dry Water Year Supply and Demand Assessment (AFY) ...................................................... 5.16-12
5.16-5 Otay Water District Projected Water Supply and Demand ................................................................. 5.16-14
5.16-6 Projected Recycled Water Demand ..................................................................................................... 5.16-15
5.16-7 Sewer Generation Factor ..................................................................................................................... 5.16-16
5.16-8 Water Duty Factors ............................................................................................................................... 5.16-19
5.16-9 Sunbow II, Phase 3 Projected Potable Water Demands .................................................................... 5.16-19
5.16-10 Sunbow II, Phase 3 Projected Recycled Water Demands .................................................................. 5.16-20
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 48 of 1271
Table of Contents
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 TOC-x
5.16-11 Sunbow II, Phase 3 Sewer Flow Summary .......................................................................................... 5.16-21
5.16-12 Projected Balance of Water Demands and Supplies Normal Year
Conditions (Acre Feet) ......................................................................................................................... 5.16-23
5.16-13 Projected Balance of Water Demands and Supplies Single Dry and Multiple Dry Year
Conditions (Acre Feet) .......................................................................................................................... 5.16-24
5.17-1 Proposed Project Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types ...................................................... 5.17-8
6-1 Geographic Scope of Cumulative Impact Analyses .................................................................................... 6-1
6-2 Cumulative Projects ...................................................................................................................................... 6-3
10-1 Alternatives Impact Summary .................................................................................................................. 10-16
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 49 of 1271
Preface to the Final Environmental Impact
Report and Response to Comments
The City of Chula Vista, as the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), has prepared
this Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) for the proposed Sunbow Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan
Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project (proposed project) located within the Sunbow Master Planned
Community of the City of Chula Vista. As described in Sections 15089 and 15132 of the CEQA Guidelines, the lead
agency must prepare a Final EIR before approving a project. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, a Final
EIR shall consist of:
•The Draft EIR or a revision of the draft.
•Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR either verbatim or in summary.
•A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR.
•The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation
process; and
•Any other information added by the Lead Agency.
Pursuant to these guidelines, this Final EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2020110148) includes in the following order:
a list of persons, organizations, and agencies that provided comments on the Draft EIR; responses to comments
received on the Draft EIR; the Draft EIR.
1.1 Comments Received on Draft EIR and Responses
The Draft EIR was circulated for public review on March 15, 2021 through April 28, 2021, in accordance with the
45-day comment period required under Section 15105(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. A total of five (5) comment
letters were received on the Draft EIR from a gencies, organizations, and individuals as shown in the list below.
In response to the comments received during public review and to City staff input subsequent to distribution of
the Draft EIR, minor revisions, clarifications, and/or additions have been made to the document which do not
change the conclusions of the Final EIR regarding the project’s potential environmental impacts and required
mitigation. These minor revisions do not represent significant new information. No new significant environmental
impacts would occur from these modificat ions, and similarly, no substantial increase in the severity of
environmental impacts would occur.
Commenters on the Draft EIR are provided below:
•Comment Letter A: Sherry Barton
•Comment Letter B: San Diego Association of Governments, Tracy Ferchaw
•Comment Letter C: Bracken Ellis
•Comment Letter D: California Department of Fish and Wildlife, David A. Mayer
•Comment Letter E: San Diego County Archaeological Society, Inc., James W. Royle, Jr.
Copies of all letters received by the City of Chula Vista regarding the Draft EIR and the responses to comments follow.
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 RTC-1
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 50 of 1271
Responses to Comments
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 RTC-2
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 51 of 1271
Responses to Comments
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 RTC-3
Comment Letter A
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 52 of 1271
Responses to Comments
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 RTC-4
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 53 of 1271
Responses to Comments
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 RTC-5
Response to Comment Letter A
Sherry Barton
March 22, 2021
A-1 This comment pertains to the increase in traffic along Olympic Parkway as a result of the project.
Impacts related to traffic are addressed in Section 5.15, Transportation, of the Draft EIR. In June 2020,
the City of Chula Vista adopted its Transportation Study Guide to comply with Senate Bill 743, which
replaced Level of Service (LOS) with Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as the metric for determining the
significance of a project’s transportation impacts under CEQA. Nonetheless, the Transportation Impact
Analysis (TIA) prepared for the project included a Local Mobility Analysis (LMA) to focus on automobile
delay/LOS. The LMA is a City requirement for transportation analysis that is not tied to CEQA;
therefore, implementation of measures to address LOS -related effects does not constitute CEQA
mitigation. The TIA determined that the project would result in effects associated with unacceptable LOS
under the General Plan LOS standards. While Olympic Parkway is built-out and the provision of additional
lanes is considered physically infeasible, it is recommended that payment of the City’s Transportation
Development Impact Fee (TDIF) should be applied towards other planned network enhancements included
in the Eastern TDIF program that would reduce traffic on Olympic Parkway and be implemented as a
condition of approval for the project outside of this EIR. In addition, it is recommended that the project
provide a fair share contribution toward the provision of Adaptive Traffic Signal Control (ATSC) modules to
each signalized intersection along the Olympic Parkway corridor between the I-805 Ramps and La Media
Road. These TDIF and other requirements associated with LOS deficiencies would be included as part of
the project’s conditions of approval, outside of this EIR.
A-2 The City acknowledges this comment and the concern of water seepage occurring where two existing
Otay Water District above ground water tanks are located. Both existing water tanks are located
southwest of the project site adjacent to the on-site open space preserve where no development is
proposed. This comment has no bearing on the analysis contained in the Draft EIR. The City has already
begun coordination with the commenter regarding this concern and will continue to do so in the future.
No further response is required.
A-3 This comment pertains to the displacement of wildlife off open land as a result of the project. Impacts
related to biological resources are addressed in Section 5.3, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR.
Development would primarily occur in the southeastern portion of the project site. The north, west, and
southwestern boundaries of the site would remain open space preserve. The wildlife species known or
expected to occur on site consist of urban tolerant species such as coyote and raccoon that are
expected to continue to move throughout the site and along Poggi Creek after implementation of the
project. The City is in the early stages of developing a Wildlife Management Plan which will include
management for wildlife known to occur within the City, including the project site.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 54 of 1271
Responses to Comments
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 RTC-6
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 55 of 1271
Responses to Comments
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 RTC-7
Comment Letter B
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 56 of 1271
Responses to Comments
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 RTC-8
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 57 of 1271
Responses to Comments
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 RTC-9
Response to Comment Letter B
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG)
Tracy Ferchaw
April 26, 2021
B-1 This comment pertains to the project site being located along the proposed SANDAG 2021 Regional
Plan Complete Corridor network and suggests implementation of additional strategies to support the
implementation of the 2021 Regional Plan, and further reduce the number of automobile trips
generated by residents and vehicle miles traveled. Transportation demand management strategies
(TDMs) are addressed in Section 5.15, Transportation, of the Draft EIR. The project incorporates the
California Air Pollution Control Officers’ Association (CAPCOA) land use and location TDM to reduce the
project’s VMT impact. Impacts related to VMT are less than significant and therefore mitigation
measures are not required. Additional trip reduction strategies are identified in project design feature
(PDF)-TRA-1 which would further reduce the number of automobile trips generated by residents of the
project and the distance that the residents drive. Please note that the transportation analysis does not
take credit for trip reduction strategies included in PDF-TRA-1; therefore, the less-than-significant
determination for transportation impacts does not rely on PDF-TRA-1. As such, additional mitigation
measures are not required to reduce transportation impacts to a level below significance. However, in
response to this comment PDF-TRA-1 of the Draft EIR has been revised to include implementation of a
multimodal wayfinding signage program. Note that the provision of transit information is already
included in PDF-TRA-1. The suggestion regarding implementation of a dockless micromobility program
would not likely be feasible within the project site given the proposed residential only land use.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 58 of 1271
Responses to Comments
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 RTC-10
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 59 of 1271
Responses to Comments
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 RTC-11
Comment Letter C
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 60 of 1271
Responses to Comments
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 RTC-12
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 61 of 1271
Responses to Comments
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 RTC-13
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 62 of 1271
Responses to Comments
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 RTC-14
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 63 of 1271
Responses to Comments
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 RTC-15
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 64 of 1271
Responses to Comments
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 RTC-16
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 65 of 1271
Responses to Comments
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 RTC-17
Response to Comment Letter C
Bracken Ellis
April 28, 2021
C-1 The City acknowledges the commenter’s opinion regarding the proposed project. The City, as lead
agency, has prepared the Draft EIR in compliance with all criteria, standards, and procedures of the CEQA
Guidelines (14 CCR Section 15000 et seq.). This comment is introductory in nature and summarizes specific
comments to follow. Please refer to Responses to Comments C-2 though C-21 below.
C-2 This comment suggests that the Draft EIR’s analysis regarding potential odors from the landfill is
incorrect. A nuisance analysis was prepared for the project and is contained in Appendix C, and
summarized in Section 5.2, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR. It should be noted that the nuisance Report
analyzed the impact of the landfill on the residents of the project. The nuisance analysis was prepared
to evaluate the potential impacts of odors emitted from the Otay Landfill on future residents of the
project. The nuisance analysis for the project demonstrated that using the SDAPCD provided
meteorological data for the project site and landfill emission parameters, odors are not likely to be
detected by future residents at the project site. The significance threshold of 1.0 is based on greater
than 50% likelihood that odor would be detected. As the analysis resulted in less than 1.0, it is
concluded that a less than 50% likelihood that odor would be detected. Therefore, while odors may be
detected from time to time it was determined they would not present a nuisance. The complete
nuisance analysis is provided in Appendix D of Appendix C.
Section 5.2, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR, also noted that on April 26, 2020, the Otay Landfill submitted
an application (proposed Otay Landfill Compostable Materials Handling Facility, Permit #37-AA-0984)
for the addition of up to 200 tons per day of agricultural and food waste at the organics composting
operation within the existing footprint of the Otay Landfill, which represents a 2.5% increase in volume
allowed to be processed onsite. Based upon the applicant’s environmental analysis (CEQA Addendum
#2, dated September 12, 2019, PDS2019-MUP-76-046W2M3; ER76-18-026B; and CEQA document,
dated October 29, 2020 SCH#96091009-6) there is a decrease in TAC emissions, specifically
ammonia emissions, and no change in vehicular emissions; therefore, the proposed composting
operation would most likely reduce odor levels as compared to the existing operation. There would also
be a reduction of volatile organic compound and ammonia emissions by 80% or more, reducing odor
units by 56%-80%, and diverting methane-forming organics away from landfill disposal. In addition, the
composting operation would divert up to 100 tons per day of oxidation of organic matter away from
landfill disposal, resulting in lower ammonia emissions and odors generated onsite as compared to the
existing operation.
Finally, the landfill is anticipated to cease operations in 2030 according to its current permit. At that
time, emissions of equipment, trucks, and working face fugitive emissions would cease. As such,
emissions of odorous compounds and dust emissions would be significantly reduced upon closure of
the landfill. As such, impacts from odor to future residents from landfill operations would be less than
significant.
C-3 This comment suggests that the Draft EIR does not provide adequate evidence to support the
conclusion that development of the site is financially infeasible. Per Section 15131 of the CEQA
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 66 of 1271
Responses to Comments
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 RTC-18
Guidelines, economic or social information may be included in an EIR. However, the scope of an EIR is
not to determine financial feasibility of any given project. Provided as background supporting
information in Section 5.10, Land Use and Planning, the City conducted a market and financial analysis
for the site relative to its existing industrial use; this analysis determined that industrial development
of the site is unlikely to be financially feasible with an appropriate citation to the referenced analysis.
All references cited within the Draft EIR are available upon request.
The City acknowledges the commenter’s opinion regarding potential industrial development within
Chula Vista. Please note that the example industrial project referenced by the commenter is a separate
project in a different location with different circumstances and has no bearing on the potential future
development of other parcels within the City, including the project site. As such, no revisions to the
Draft EIR are necessary.
C-4 This comment pertains to noise data being misrepresentative of normal conditions as noise readings
were taken in April 2020, when the County of San Diego was under a stay -at-home order. Impacts
related to noise are addressed in Section 5.11, Noise, and Appendix J, of the Draft EIR. Sample
measurements of the existing outdoor ambient sound environment conducted during COVID-19
response conditions may have quantified noise levels due to acoustic contribution from temporarily
atypical or reduced roadway traffic flows. However, the basis for the traffic noise impact assessment is
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Noise Model (“TNM”, version 2.5) modeling which uses
data from the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared for the project (included as Appendix K to the Draft
EIR) and thereby provides average daily trips input for the existing, near-term, and plus-project
scenarios. Hence, the TNM-predicted existing (2019) scenario shown in Table 6 of the Noise Technical
Report (Appendix J to the Draft EIR) shows community noise equivalent levels (CNEL) values that would
be considered more representative of pre- and post-COVID 19 conditions (i.e., after traffic flows have
returned to “normal”) and were used for evaluating change to the outdoor ambient sound level due to
project-added traffic. The measured equivalent noise level (Leq) values shown in Table 2 of the Noise
Technical Report, at four different perpendicular distances from Olympic Parkway, are less than the
predicted existing (2019) case CNEL values but vary by comparable quantities with respect to
geographic position and thus helps confirm that Olympic Parkway is—as expected—the dominant
acoustical contributor to the existing outdoor ambient sound environment. Therefore, the noise data is
not misrepresentative and revisions to the Draft EIR are not required.
C-5 This comment states that the City has sufficient housing sites available under the current planning
documents and because the project site is zoned industrial, it is not being counted as housing in the
Draft Housing Element 2021-2029 update. Potential impacts associated with housing needs are
addressed in Section 5.12, Population and Housing, of the Draft EIR. Currently, the City is updating the
General Plan Housing Element to account for housing needs and establish clear goals and objectives
to inform future housing decisions for the 2021 to 2029 housing cycle. Because the 2021 to 2029
Housing Element has not been adopted and is subject to change, the Draft EIR relies on the current
2013 to 2020 Housing Element and most up to date Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA)
allocations provided by SANDAG. Tables 5.12-2 and 5.12.3 of the Draft EIR show the past performance
RHNA from the 5th Cycle (2013–2020) and the current RHNA allocation for the 6th Cycle (2021–
2029), respectively. Of the City’s previous 5th Cycle RHNA allocation, the City has only met 8,590 out
of 12,861 units; only 648 very-low and low units have been developed out of the 5,648 allocated.
Although the project site may not be identified as potential housing within the Draft Housing Element
2021-2029 update, the City has the discretion to adjust allocated housing units or identified sites as
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 67 of 1271
Responses to Comments
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 RTC-19
necessary to balance proposed plans for residential development, approved/constructed residential
development, and sites identified within the housing inventory that are not yet planned for
development. The City would then be able to account for the proposed units and estimated population
resulting from the proposed project when considering future residential development proposals.
C-6 This comment suggests that the Draft EIR inadequately discloses potential population growth resulting
from the proposed project compared to the existing underlying land use designations. CEQA guidelines
require that the Draft EIR evaluate unplanned population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly.
Potential impacts associated with population growth are addressed in Section 5.12, Population and
Housing, of the Draft EIR. The proposed project was originally identified to be developed as Industrial
Park in the Sunbow GDP and SPA Plan . As such, the change in land use from Industrial Park to
Medium-High and High Residential would be considered unplanned population growth in excess of
the original estimates in the Sunbow GDP and SPA Plan. As stated in the Section 5.12 of the Draft EIR,
the project would result in approximately 2,314.83 persons (rounded to 2,315). A project consistent with
the existing Industrial Park land use would result in approximately 957 employees, which is based on the
best available employment density calculation for the area provided by SANDAG. As indicated by the
commenter, and discussed in Section 5.12 of the Draft EIR, a conservative approached was taken that the
proposed project would result in greater and unplanned population inducement when compared to the
existing underlying designations which would also have resulted in an increase in population with the
interpolated persons per household ratio of 3.224. Therefore, the Draft EIR clearly indicated the estimated
potential population growth of both development scenarios, while also taking a conservative approach that
acknowledges that it is unlikely that all estimated 957 potential employees would move to the area.
For additional reasons discussed in Section 5.12 of the Draft EIR (accommodation of the City’s future
growth projections and housing needs, the project site location surrounded by existing development and
services, compliance with the City’s Growth Management Program), although the proposed project would
result in greater population inducement, the population inducement resulting from the proposed project
would not be considered substantial. Thus, the Draft EIR adequately addresses unplanned population
growth as a result of the project.
C-7 This comment suggests that public services provided in this area are intended to serve industrial
development and that the proposed mitigation measures for impacts to public services are inadequate.
Impacts related to public services are addressed in Section 5.13, Public Services, of the Draft EIR. As
discussed in the Draft EIR, impacts associated with public services as a result of the project would be
potentially significant and would require implementation of mitigation measures MM-PS-1 through MM-
PS-3, to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Please note that mitigation measures MM-PS-
1 through MM-PS-3 require compliance with existing codes and regulations.
With respect to potential impacts to fire protection, police protection, libraries, and other public
services, mitigation measures MM-PS-1 require the payment of a Public Facilities Development Impact
Fee (PFDIF). The PFDIF is a program established by the City to address a project’s proportional impact
on capital facilities, such as structures and equipment associated with providing public services. It does
not address the impact associated with operations and maintenance for those facilities. It is the city’s
policy to use public funds such as property taxes, sales taxes, and fees generated by the project to
cover the incremental costs associated with providing public services like fire and police.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 68 of 1271
Responses to Comments
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 RTC-20
The project would be required to pay the PFDIF, which is used exclusively to fund facility improvements
and ensures that the project contributes its fair share of the cost of such facilities and equipment as
determined necessary to adequately accommodate new development in the City.
With respect to fire protection services, the proposed project is projected to slightly increase the nearest
station’s (Fire Station 3) current call volume, but not at significant levels, because the current call
volume is considered slightly above average compared to other urban fire stations and the capacity
would not be considered impacted to the point of resulting in a busy or stressed condition. In the event
that new capital facilities or equipment are needed in the future , the project will contribute to the
project’s proportional impact on such capital facilities through the payment of the City’s PFDIF as well
as all future taxes and fees adopted by the city to cover fire protection services.
With respect to the increase demand for libraries, the proposed project would generate demand for
approximately 1,158 square feet of additional library facilities within the City. Although the proposed
project does not specifically include the development of a library, this demand wou ld be satisfied
through payment of PFDIF as stated in CVMC Section 3.50.030 and 3.50.060, which would go toward
the City’s library system expansion program.
With respect to police, the project would be required to pay the PFDIF, which would be used exclusively
for future facility improvements necessary to ensure that the development contributes its fair share of
the cost of police facilities and equipment determined to be necessary to adequately accommodate
new development in the City.
Also, the City’s Growth Management Program, adopted quality of life threshold standards for eleven
public facility and service topics, including fire, police, library and emergency medical services.
Adherence to these citywide standards is intended to preserve and enhance both the environment and
residents’ quality of life as growth occurs. The GMOC was created to provide an independent, annual,
review of the effectiveness of the General Plan in regard to development and growth-oriented issues;
to make determinations in regard to the impact of development of the “quality of life” in Chula Vista,
using adopted threshold criteria as a basis; and to publish findings and make recommendations.
Should the GMOC determine that the growth management threshold standard is not being satisfied
because of the impacts of growth, the City Council is required to consider adopting measures to bring
the condition into conformance, prior to issuing further building permits. The combination of PFDIF fees
and compliance with existing city policies and mechanisms would ensure that the GMOC threshold
standard is achieved.
With respect to potential impacts to schools, mitigation measure MM-PS-2 requires payment of
appropriate fee charge, dedication, or other requirement levied by the school districts. Pursuant to
Government Code Section 65996, the payment of these fees by a developer serves to fully mitigate all
potential project impacts on school facilities to less than significant levels.
With respect to potential impacts to parks, mitigation measure MM-PS-3, requires the applicant to pay
the Park Benefit Fee, as outlined in the project’s Development Agreement, equal to the City’s Park
Acquisition and Development (PAD) Fee Update pursuant to the Park Lands Dedication OrdinanceChula
Vista Municipal Code Section 17.10 et seq. The Park Lands Dedication Ordinance, which requires the
dedication of three acres of parkland per 1,000 people or a combination of land dedication, in -lieu
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 69 of 1271
Responses to Comments
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 RTC-21
fees, or park development improvements. With implementation of MM-PS-3, the project would satisfy
its park obligations.
In all instances, new or expanded facilities constructed through the use of these funds would be subject
to CEQA compliance and environmental review at a later time. Therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR
are necessary.
C-8 This comment related to the use of a proxy site located across Olympic Parkway from the project site
within the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis. Potential impacts related to VMT are discussion is
Section 5.15, Transportation, of the Draft EIR. As discussed in the Draft EIR, the project site is currently
zoned for industrial uses and therefore it would not be appropriate to use that site to conduct the VMT
analysis because the proposed land use is different from the underlying designations. The proxy site is
located within a few hundred feet and is a single family residential site located immediately north of
the project site across Olympic Parkway. Typical trip lengths associated with residential uses are
approximately 8.0 miles, therefore the use of a proxy site just a few hundred feet away would still result
in an accurate VMT calculation. In addition, per the SANDAG Trip Generation Brief Guide, single-family
and multi-family residential units have the same trip lengths, therefore, the difference in unit type
between the proxy site and the project site does not alter the VMT analysis. The proxy site does not
have direct access, to Olympic Parkway which results in longer trip lengths (and therefore greater VMT)
as compared to the project site. Therefore, the VMT analysis is conservative. Lastly, the Office of
Planning and Research (OPR) and SANDAG do not differentiate VMT between multi -family and single-
family land uses, so the fact that the proxy site contains single-family uses is not relevant. Therefore,
the Draft EIR contains an accurate VMT analysis in compliance with CEQA and industry standards of
practice. In response to this comment, Section 5.15 of the Draft EIR has been revised to provide
clarification of the use of the proxy site.
C-9 This comment pertains to the use of measures published by the California Air Pollution Control Officers’
Association (CAPCOA) in the project VMT analysis. Potential impacts related to VMT are discussed in
Section 5.15, Transportation, of the Draft EIR. As discussed in Section 5.15 and shown in Table 5.15-
2 of the Draft EIR, the project VMT only needed to be reduced by 1.4% to avoid a potentially significant
impact. Because implementation of one CAPCOA measure would reduce the VMT by more than 1.4%,
the inclusion of several reduction measures was not warranted. While many of the CAPCOA measures
were considered applicable to the project, Land Use and Location series measure LUT-1 was selected
based on the intrinsic characteristics of the project (e.g. suburban infill, proximity to transit, schools,
employment, etc.).
The commenter is correct in that a range of effectiveness is described for the recommended measure.
However, the actual reduction percentage is calculated based on the density of the project. As shown
in Table 5.15-2, based on the project’s density of 16.3 units per acre, the VMT reduction would be 8%,
when compared to the proxy site. Please refer to Appendix G of the TIA (Appendix K to the Draft EIR)
for detailed calculations. No revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary.
C-10 This comment suggests that the Draft EIR does not provide a reasonable range of alternatives for the
project. Alternatives are addressed in Section 10, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR. As stated in Section
15126.6 of the CEQA guidelines, an EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project.
The range of alternatives evaluated in an EIR is governed by the “rule of reason” that requires the EIR
set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. Alternatives addressed in the
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 70 of 1271
Responses to Comments
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 RTC-22
Draft EIR include the No Project/No Build Alternative, the Existing Land Use Designations Alternative,
and the Reduced Development Alternative. In developing the alternatives addressed in this EIR, the
potential alternatives were evaluated in terms of their ability to meet the basic objectives of the project,
while reducing or avoiding the environmental impacts of the project identified in Section 5.0,
Environmental Analysis, of the EIR. No further analysis is required in the Draft EIR.
C-11 This comment states that the Draft EIR fails to consider a commercial or mixed-use development for
the project site in the alternatives analysis. Per Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines, in developing
the alternatives to be addressed in this EIR, the potential alternatives were evaluated in terms of their
ability to meet the basic objectives of the project, while reducing or avoiding the environmental impacts
of the project identified in Section 5.0, Environmental Analysis, of the EIR. The commenter suggests
that other alternatives not considered within the Draft EIR may reduce traffic impacts. As discussed in
Section 5.15, Transportation, of the Draft EIR, transportation impacts, including VMT, would be less
than significant. As such, consideration of alternatives focuses on reduction of significant
environmental impacts.
The commentor has suggested that the Draft EIR be revised to consider a commercial or mixed-use
alternative. Because no description of this alternative has been proposed, a reasonable evaluation of
this particular alternative cannot be provided. An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effects
cannot be reasonably evaluated when there is insufficient detail regarding the alternative and whose
implementation is remote and speculative (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15126.6(f)(3), 15145)
As stated above, the proposed project identified a significant impact for greenhouse gas emissions
which informed the basis for the alternative analysis in the Draft EIR. Under the Reduced Development
Alternative, construction and operational GHG emissions would be reduced as compared to the
proposed project. But the Reduced Development Alternative’s service population (residents) would also
be reduced due to the reduction in number of residential units, resulting in similar impacts as the
proposed project in the context of the City’s GHG efficiency metric threshold. Therefore, impacts to
GHGs were determined to remain significant and unavoidable under this alternative.
Similarly, a commercial or mixed-use alternative would also result in a reduction in number of
residential units, resulting in similar impacts to GHG as described in the Reduced Development
Alternative, with impacts remaining significant and unavoidable. There may be some additional
employees added to the site, however commercial uses in a mixed-use site that would still require
avoidance of MSCP preserve areas, would not be of significant size to make any considerable difference
with respect to the City’s GHG efficiency metric threshold. While this alternative would place some
employment in proximity to residential uses reducing VMT, impacts to transportation would still be
similar to the Reduced Development Alternative and the proposed project.
A commercial or mixed-use development would require a General Plan, General Development Plan, SPA
and Zoning Ordinance amendment similar to the Reduced Development Alternative. The alternative
proposed by the commentor would not achieve the goal of contributing to the growing housing needs
of the City and region to the same extent as the project. Because there is insufficient detail regarding
the commercial or mixed-use alternative, it impossible to determine if the land use plan can be
realistically developed within a foreseeable time frame and under projected economic conditions as
described in objective 8. Additionally, mixed-use is not likely feasible at this location given the required
density to support such uses. The proposed project would support the existing Sunbow community,
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 71 of 1271
Responses to Comments
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 RTC-23
which provides a variety of including housing, child-care, a school, public parks, and neighborhood-serving
commercial and office uses, which serve the entire community.
Because there is no CEQA mandate to include additional alternatives that achieve the same end
relative to impact avoidance/reduction to a less than significant level, this alternative was not
considered in the Draft EIR. Therefore, the Draft EIR adequately considers a reasonable range of
alternatives and no revisions are required.
C-12 This comment suggests that the extent shown on Figure 3-1, Existing General Plan Land Use, is
misleading and omits existing industrial uses. Figure 3-1 identifies existing General Plan land use
designations for Limited Industrial directly east of the project site and to the southwest. Please refer to
Figure 4-1, Project Location, which provides an aerial image at a greater extent and includes the
referenced existing industrial land uses to the south beyond the Otay Landfill. Other figures provided
throughout the Draft EIR and its appendices provide varying extents showing the greater vicinity
surrounding the project site. Therefore, the Draft EIR provides accurate information regarding existing
land uses and designations in the vicinity of the project site.
C-13 This comment indicates that Figures 3-2 and 3-3 of the Draft EIR are unreadable. The City
acknowledges that Figures 3-2 and 3-3 present challenges with respect to legibility; please note that
these images are the original land use exhibits contained in the Sunbow General Development Plan
(GDP) and Sunbow Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan, adopted in 1989 and 1990, respectively.
Updated maps have not been generated to improve legibility. However, Sections 3.2.3 and 3.2.4 of the
Draft EIR provide an accurate text description existing Sunbow GDP and SPA Plan designations.
Therefore, accurate information pertinent to the project is contained in the Draft EIR.
C-14 This comment states that the project is relying on carpooling and transit services to reduce
transportation demands. Please note that this comment is in reference to Section 4.4.8.4 of the Draft
EIR, which includes project design features (PDFs) related to transportation. PDF-TRA-1 includes a list
of trip reduction strategies to be employed by the project during operation. Note that the analysis
contained in Section 5.15, Transportation, and in the TIA (Appendix K) of the Draft EIR do not take
credit for any transit usage, bicycle usage, or carpooling. In other words, the conclusion of a less than
significant transportation impact is supported without accounting for any trip reductions that may occur
through implementation of PDF-TRA-1. Refer to Appendix K of the Draft EIR for detailed analysis.
C-15 This comment states that the EIR does not clearly identify nearby commercial and employment centers.
As described in Section 5.10, Land Use and Planning, the project would develop new, higher density
housing on a site in a central location within the City that is already near existing commercial and
employment centers. These commercial and employment centers include the commercial/industrial
uses along Main Street to the south, the Sharp Chula Vista Medical Center, and the Sunbow Village
Center commercial area that includes retail/commercial and medical office space. Additionally, the
project is located near the University Innovation District, which plans for approximately 10.1 million of
university and regional technologies uses, while the Eastern Urban Center SPA Plan provides for
development of approximately 3.8 million square feet of commercial/mixed use development.
The comment also states that the project is not consistent with the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP)
policy related to Smart Growth & Transportation. Consistency with the City’s CAP is discussed in Section
5.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Draft EIR. As discussed, the project would be consistent with
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 72 of 1271
Responses to Comments
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 RTC-24
the Smart Growth & Transportation measure by developing multifamily residential units that would
provide higher density development and would expand the housing choices in the region near existing
commercial and employment cetners. In addition, the project would be located close to public transit,
Interstate 805 (I-805), and located approximately one mile from the East Palomar Transit Station. The
project would also support the Smart Growth & Transportation measure by providing ride share
coordination services, coordinating with nearby schools to carpool to/from school, provide on-site
transit opportunities information, encourage bicycling by providing on-site bicycle infrastructure such
as bike racks.
This comment states that the Draft EIR includes misinformation regarding available MTS bus routes.
Available transit options to the project are discussed in Section 5.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and
Section 5.15, Transportation, of the Draft EIR. Section 5.7 of the Draft EIR inadvertently referenced
outdated information regarding MTA bus route 703 that previously existed nearby the project site;
Route 703 was previously a limited service route that traveled along a similar route as Route 704 in
the vicinity of the project site. In response to this comment, Section 5.7 of the Draft EIR has been
revised to remove references to MTS bus route 703. As described in Section 5.15 of the Draft EIR,
there are no bus routes that travel directly along Olympic Parkway adjacent to the project site and that
five existing bus routes generally serve the project area. The Draft EIR otherwise makes no claim that
existing bus service travels along Olympic Parkway adjacent to the project site. Furthermore, as
described in Section 5.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Draft EIR, the East Palomar Transit Station
is located approximately one mile from the project site, providing future residents of the project transit
opportunities. Therefore, multiple transit options exist in the vicinity of the project site.
Please refer to Responses to Comment C-10 and C-11 regarding alternatives.
C-16 This comment suggests that the project would not meet the Sunbow GDP’s principal objective.
Consistency with applicable land use documents is discussed in Section 5.10, Land Use and Planning.
The project includes concurrent processing of amendments to the Sunbow GDP and SPA Plan, changing
the land use designations from Industrial Park to Residential Multi-Family and Residential
Condominium. These amendments to the GDP and SPA Plan would allow the proposed land uses to be
developed on the project site consistent with the GDP as amended by the proposed project. The project
would not conflict with the principal objective of the Sunbow Planned Community “to create an efficient,
self-contained village.” Even without the industrial uses in the GDP, Sunbow would still contain a
compatible mix of uses that includes the Sunbow Village Center Commercial Area with
retail/commercial and medical office space uses and the Sharp Hospital in close proximity to the
project’s residential uses. The proposed project would provide a variety of housing types, recreational
facilities, and open space that would satisfy the GDP’s other objectives.
C-17 This comment suggests that Project Objective 1, which highlights development of a pedestrian-oriented
community, would not be adequately met by the project. Section 5.15, Transportation, of the Draft EIR
addresses pedestrian facilities. The project would propose a high-density residential use located in
close proximity to major streets such as Olympic Parkway, Brandywine Avenue, Heritage Road and the
I-805 freeway. Future residents of the project would have access to existing Class 2 bike lanes and
sidewalks and the Chula Vista Regional Trail adjacent to the project site along Olympic Parkway. Two
fully signalized intersections with pedestrian crossings are planned at Streets “A” and “B” at Olympic
Parkway are planned as part of the project. Located adjacent to the project site at the intersection of
Olympic Parkway and Brandywine Avenue are four signalized crosswalks with ramps on each corner.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 73 of 1271
Responses to Comments
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 RTC-25
Within the Sunbow community, a mix of uses that includes the Sunbow Village Center Commercial Area
with retail/commercial and medical office space uses are located in close proximity to the project
(approximately 0.6 miles to the north, or approximately 1.5 miles driving distance). The surrounding
area is served by transit provided by the San Diego MTS. While there are no bus routes that travel
directly along Olympic Parkway adjacent to the project site, transit connection for route 704 is provided
at the transit stop on Brandywine Avenue located approximately 250-feet west of the project site. As
such, the future residents of the project would have access to transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities
and is located in close proximity to the Sunbow Village Center Commercial Area. Thus, the project would
be consistent with Project Objective 1.
C-18 This comment suggests that Objective 2, contribution to the growing housing needs of the City and
region, would not be adequately met by the project. Please refer to Responses to Comments C-5 and
C-6 regarding housing needs as they relate to the project.
C-19 This comment suggests that Project Objective 5, which encourages implementation of goals, objectives,
and policies of the General Plan, the MSCP Subarea Plan, the GDP, and the SPA Plan, would not be
adequately met by the project. Section 5.10, Land Use and Planning, of the Draft EIR addresses the
project’s consistency with applicable planning documents. A consistency analysis of the City’s General
Plan Land Use and Transportation Element, Housing Element, Economic Development Element, Public
Facilities and Services Element, Environmental Element, and Growth Management Element, showed
that the project would not result in conflicts with any element of the General Plan. Additionally, as discussed
in Section 5.3, Biological Resources, the project would not result in conflicts with the City’s MSCP
Subarea Plan through compliance with the MSCP Boundary Line Adjustment functional equivalency
criteria. Please refer to Response to Comment C-16 regarding the Sunbow GDP. SPA Plan objectives
for the Industrial Park District are not included in the Draft EIR as they would no longer apply if the
project proposed amendments are approved. The environmental analysis of the Draft EIR must assume
that the proposed amendments are approved because the proposed amendments are a component of
the project. The proposed amendments are not a separate action requested by the project applicant.
It should be noted that Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (used as the thresholds of significance
for environmental analysis within the EIR) require an EIR to consider whether a proposed project
conflicts with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding
or mitigating an environmental impact. Under CEQA, a conflict or inconsistency with an
applicable plan is not, by itself, considered a significant environmental impact. Instead, the
inconsistency must result in a significant physical impact for there to be a significant impact under
CEQA. The final determination of consistency with the General Plan will be made by City Council.
C-20 This comment suggests that Project Objective 6, implementation of the City’s Growth Management
Ordinance (GMO), would not be adequately met by the project. The project includes a Supplemental
Public Facilities Financing Plan as required by the City’s GMO to ensure that development of the project
would not adversely impact the City’s quality of life standards by requiring public facilities and services
be provided concurrent with demand. Additionally, the project would pay PFDIFs which would ensure the
project would not significantly impact public services and facilities; please refer to Response to Comment C-
7. Furthermore, as discussed in Section 5.16, Utilities and Service Systems, there would be adequate
water supply and utility infrastructure to serve the project and impacts associated with public utilities
would be less than significant. The project would not conflict with the City’s GMO.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 74 of 1271
Responses to Comments
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 RTC-26
C-21 The City acknowledges the commenter’s suggestion of an alternative to the proposed project. Please
refer to Responses to Comment C-10 and C-11 regarding alternatives, as well as other responses to
specific comments contained in this comment letter.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 75 of 1271
Responses to Comments
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 RTC-27
Comment Letter D
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 76 of 1271
Responses to Comments
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 RTC-28
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 77 of 1271
Responses to Comments
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 RTC-29
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 78 of 1271
Responses to Comments
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 RTC-30
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 79 of 1271
Responses to Comments
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 RTC-31
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 80 of 1271
Responses to Comments
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 RTC-32
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 81 of 1271
Responses to Comments
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 RTC-33
Response to Comment Letter D
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)
David A. Mayer
April 28, 2021
D-1 This comment is introductory in nature and provides an explanation of CDFW’s role in environmental
review, a summary of the proposed project, and existing biological setting, with specific comments to
follow. As this comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft EIR, no further response is
provided.
D-2 This comment requests clarifications be made regarding the conservation easement areas. Potential
impacts to biological resources and proposed mitigation are discussed in Section 5.3, Biological
Resources, and in the Biological Impact Analysis Report and Functional Equivalency Analysis Report
(Appendix D) of the Draft EIR. The proposed project does not include habitat compensatory mitigation
within the onsite existing recorded and unrecorded conservation easements. In response to this
comment, the Draft EIR has been revised to include clarifications as requested:
• Figure 5.3-5 of the Draft EIR and Figure 6 of the Biological Impact Analysis Report have been
revised to delineate the 48.95 acres of proposed habitat mitigation area to demonstrate its
location outside of any existing conservation easements onsite.
• The project description within the Biological Impact Analysis Report has been revised as
follows: “None of the conservation easement areas are proposed as habitat compensatory
mitigation or proposed as a part of the Give area to the Preserve in the proposed BLA (See
Functional Equivalency Analysis for a MSCP BLA Report, Figure 6).”
D-3 This comment requests that additional mitigation measures for potential impacts to burrowing owl be
incorporated into the project. Note that this species was not present during the numerous biological
surveys conducted onsite and is not expected to occur onsite. The Draft EIR include the following
mitigation measures MM-BIO-2 and MM-BIO-7, which require a qualified biologist to monitor the
construction activities full time during habitat clearing and grubbing activities to avoid take of wildlife
species (including burrowing owl), as well as the requirement to conduct pre-construction surveys to
determine the presence of any actively nesting birds (including burrowing owl) onsite within the
proposed project impact areas, if construction activities cannot avoid the avian breeding season. While
these mitigation measures do not explicitly identify burrowing owl, they do not exclude the species from
surveys and monitoring. However, in response to this comment mitigation measure MM-BIO-7 and the
surrounding discussion in Section 5.3 of the Draft has been revised to include the commenter’s
recommended measures to reduce potential impacts to burrowing owl during construction.
D-4 This comment provides a link for which the information contained in the Draft EIR can be added to
biological resources databases, filing fee requirements, and concludes the comment letter.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 82 of 1271
Responses to Comments
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 RTC-34
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 83 of 1271
Responses to Comments
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 RTC-35
Comment Letter E
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 84 of 1271
Responses to Comments
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 RTC-36
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 85 of 1271
Responses to Comments
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 RTC-37
Response to Comment Letter E
San Diego County Archaeological Society, Inc.
James W. Royle, Jr.
April 23, 2021
E-1 The City appreciates the San Diego County Archaeological Society committee’s review of the Draft EIR.
This comment pertains to the agreeance with the impact analysis and mitigation measure MM-CUL-1
included in the Draft EIR. No further response is required.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 86 of 1271
Responses to Comments
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 RTC-38
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 87 of 1271
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 1-1
1 Executive Summary
This environmental Impact Report (EIR) is an informational document intended for the use by the City of Chula Vista
(City), other public agencies, and members of the general public in evaluating the potential environmental effects
of the proposed Sunbow Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project
(proposed project).
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 21002 requires that an EIR identify the significant effects of a
project on the environment and provide measures or alternatives that can mitigate or avoid these effects. This Draft
EIR evaluates the environmental effects associated with development of the project and discusses the manner in
which the project’s significant effects can be reduced or avoided through the implementation of mitigation measures
or feasible alternatives to the proposed project. In accordance with Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines, this EIR
also includes an examination of the effects of cumulative development.
This summary provides a brief synopsis of (1) the proposed project, (2) results of the environmental analysis
contained within this environmental document, (3) alternatives to the proposed project that were considered, and
(4) major areas of controversy and issues to be resolved by decision makers. This summary does not contain the
extensive background and analysis found throughout the individual chapters within the EIR. Therefore, the reader
should review the entire document to fully understand the proposed project and its environmental consequences.
1.1 Project Location and Setting
ACI Sunbow LLC (applicant) is proposing to develop an approximately 135.7-acre site (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers
644-171-12500, 644-011-0600, 644-020-1100) within the Sunbow Master Planned Community of the City of
Chula Vista (Figure 4-1, Project Location). The project site is located within the southern portion of the City of Chula
Vista (City), in southwestern San Diego County, California. The site is located south of Olympic Parkway, east of
Brandywine Avenue, and north and northwest of the Otay Landfill. Undeveloped land approved for industrial and
residential land uses within Otay Ranch Village Two is located to the east of the site. The project site is approximately
3.8 miles southeast of downtown Chula Vista, 9.9 miles southeast of downtown San Diego 2.3 miles west of State
Route 125 (SR-125) and approximately 0.5 miles east of Interstate 805 (I-805).
1.2 Project Background
The Sunbow General Development Plan (GDP), which originally included 604.8 acres in eastern Chula Vista, was
adopted on December 5 , 1989, with the primary objective to create an efficient, self -contained village with a
mix of residential, commercial, commu nity recreation, industrial park, and open space/trails land uses. The
GDP is implemented through the adoption of a subsequent, more detailed Sunbow Sectional Planning Area
(SPA) Plan, tentative tract maps, and potential annexation and development agreemen ts. The GDP is designed
to function as a policy bridge between the City of Chula Vista General Plan (General Plan) and the SPA Plan,
which provides more detailed plans for development of the Sunbow Master Planned Community (City of Chula
Vista 1989).
The portion of the Sunbow Master -Planned Community designated as Sunbow II, Phase 3 (project site),
includes the area slated to be developed as Industrial Park (formerly referred to as Planning Area 23 in the
GDP and SPA Plan), while the rest of the project si te was designated as Open Space in the GDP and the SPA
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 88 of 1271
1 – Executive Summary
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 1-2
Plan. The GDP designated the 54.7 acres as Industrial Park to include research/development and light
industrial uses, with approximately 700,000 square feet of leasable area generating approximately 2,800
employment opportunities. Based upon the City’s Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Preserve
Boundary data, the applicant’s civil engineer determined that there is an approximately 67.5 -acre development
area within the project site. This area (referred to herein as the proposed development area), would be
developed with residential uses and associated infrastructure. The remainder of the project site would be left as
MSCP Preserve and Open Space area.
1.3 Project Description
The proposed project is primarily a residential project with associated infrastructure and open space areas. The
proposed land uses are summarized in Table 1-1 and shown in Figure 4-2, Proposed General Plan Land Use; Figure
4.3, Proposed General Development Plan Land Use; and Figure 4-4, Proposed SPA Plan Land Use, all included in
Chapter 4, Project Description. Development would be centered within the southeastern portion of the site. The
approximately 67.5-acre development area would be composed of 44.2 acres of residential uses, a 0.9-acre
Community Purpose Facility (CPF), 5.9 acres of public streets, 4.3 acres of Poggi Creek conservation easements,
16.5 acres of manufactured slopes and basins, and a 0.3-acre wetland avoidance area. Approximately 63.6 acres
designated MSCP Preserve are also within the project site. Under the proposed project, the Industrial Park area
(Planning Area 23) would be modified to Medium-High and High Residential land uses (see Figures 4-2 and 4-3).
Table 1-1. Sunbow II, Phase 3 Sectional Planning Area Plan Land Use Summary
Land Use Planning Area Units Gross Acres Target Density
Residential
Multi-Family (Medium-High) Residential – 13–16 du/ac
MF R-1 131 8.5 15.4
MF R-2 73 4.6 15.8
MF R-3 108 8.1 13.3
MF R-4 118 8.2 14.4
MF R-5 104 7.0 14.7
Multi-Family Medium-High Residential Subtotal 534 36.5 14.7a
Multi-Family (High) Residential – 24.1 du/ac
MF R-6 184 7.6 24.1
Multi-Family High Residential Subtotal 184 7.6 24.1
Residential Total 718 44.2 16.3a
Other
Community Purpose Facility (CPF)
CPF CPF — 0.9 —
CPF Subtotal — 0.9 —
Other Total — 0.9 —
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 89 of 1271
1 – Executive Summary
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 1-3
Table 1-1. Sunbow II, Phase 3 Sectional Planning Area Plan Land Use Summary
Land Use Planning Area Units Gross Acres Target Density
Open Space
MPCP Open Space Preserve (OS)
OS OS-1 — 42.8 —
OS OS-2 — 10.0 —
OS OS-3 — 9.6 —
OS OS-9b — 1.1 —
MSCP Open Space Preserve Subtotal — 63.6 —
Poggi Creek Conservation Easement
OS OS-4 — 2.6 —
OS OS-5 — 0.7 —
OS OS-6a — 1.0 —
OS OS-6b — 0.1 —
Poggi Creek Conservation Easement Subtotal — 4.3 —
Manufactured Slopes/Basins
OS OS-7 — 3.2 —
OS OS-8 — 0.5 —
OS OS-9a — 0.5 —
OS OS-10 — 4.9 —
OS OS-11 — 1.3 —
OS OS-12 — 1.6 —
OS OS-13 — 4.6 —
Manufactured Slopes/Basins Subtotal — 16.5 —
Wetland Avoidance Area
OS OS-14 — 0.3 —
Wetland Avoidance Area Subtotal — 0.3 —
Open Space Total — 84.7 —
Circulation
Public Streetsb Circulation — 5.9 —
Circulation Subtotal — 5.9 —
Circulation Total — 5.9 —
All Land Use Types – Summary
All Land Use Types Total — 135.7 —
Notes: du/ac = dwelling units per acre; MSCP = Multiple Species Conservation Program.
Subtotals and totals may not sum precisely due to rounding.
a Target density represents the average densities proposed.
b The acreages for all proposed private streets are included as a part of the residential portion.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 90 of 1271
1 – Executive Summary
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 1-4
1.3.1 Project Objectives
Following are the objectives of the proposed project:
1. Develop a pedestrian-oriented community on an underutilized site with a range of residential uses, open
space and MSCP Preserve areas, and recreational opportunities, which are compatible with the adjacent
established residential communities.
2. Contribute to the growing housing needs of the City and the region by providing for multi-family housing
units with a range of housing types to accommodate a spectrum of demographics.
3. Preserve portions of the project site as permanent open space and increase MSCP Preserve Areas.
4. Provide pedestrian and bicycle facilities, including a pedestrian connection to the Chula Vista Regional Trail
and connection to bike lanes within Olympic Parkway and nearby transit.
5. Implement the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan; the MSCP Subarea Plan; the GDP; and
the SPA Plan.
6. Implement the City’s Growth Management Ordinance to ensure that public and community facilities, such
as transportation, water, flood control, sewage disposal, schools, and parks, are provided in a timely
manner and financed by the parties creating the demand for, and benefiting from, the improvements.
7. Ensure new uses are compatible with the existing community by establishing setbacks, design regulations and
guidelines, best practices, and performance standards that enhance quality of life for neighboring properties.
8. Create a land use plan that can realistically be developed within a foreseeable time frame and under
economic conditions.
1.3.2 Discretionary Actions
A discretionary action is an action taken by an agency that calls for the exercise of judgment in deciding whether to
approve or how to carry out a project. The following discretionary actions are associated with the proposed project
and would be considered by the City:
• Certification of a Final EIR and adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program pursuant to CEQA
• Approval of amendments to the General Plan
• Approval of amendments to the GDP
• Approval of amendments to the SPA Plan
• Approval of the Tentative Map for Sunbow II, Phase 3
• Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan Boundary Adjustment and Minor Amendment
• Rezone
• Approval of the Development Agreement between the applicant and the City
1.4 Areas of Controversy
Pursuant to Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) dated
November 9, 2020, to begin a 30-day public scoping period, to interested agencies, organizations, and parties. The
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 91 of 1271
1 – Executive Summary
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 1-5
NOP was also sent to the State Clearinghouse at the California Office of Planning and Research. The State
Clearinghouse assigned a state identification number (SCH No. 2020110148) to this EIR.
Comments received during the NOP public scoping period were considered during the preparation of this EIR. The
NOP and comments are included in Appendix A to this EIR.
1.5 Issues to Be Resolved by the City Council
The issues to be resolved by the decision-making body are whether to adopt the proposed project and how to
mitigate significant effects created by its implementation. The City will decide if benefits of the project outweigh any
significant unmitigable impacts associated with greenhouse gas emissions.
The City will also decide if the significant impacts associated with the environmental issues of biological resources,
cultural and tribal cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, public services,
recreation, and wildfire have been fully mitigated below a level of significance. Lastly, the City would determine
whether any alternative might meet the key objectives of the project while reducing its environmental impact.
1.6 Project Alternatives
Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, EIRs are required to “describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project,
or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would
avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of
the alternatives” (14 California Code of Regulations (CCR) 15126.6(a)). This EIR “must consider a reasonable range
of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation” (14 CCR
15126.6(a)). The alternatives discussion is required even if these alternatives “would impede to some degree the
attainment of the project objectives or would be more costly” (14 CCR 15126.6(b)).
1.6.1 No Project/No Build Alternative
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires the inclusion of a No Project/No Build Alternative to be analyzed. Under
the No Project/No Build Alternative, no development would occur on the project site. Accordingly, the site
characteristics of this alternate would be equivalent to the existing conditions for each category analyzed in Chapter
5, Environmental Impact Analysis, of this EIR. Although no development would occur, surrounding land uses in the
region would continue to be built out.
1.6.2 Existing Land Use Designations Alternative
The Existing Land Use Designations Alternative would include the development consistent with the General Plan,
the GDP, and the SPA Plan. The General Plan designates the development area within the southeastern portion of
the site as Limited Industrial (see Figure 3-1, Existing General Plan Land Use). The GDP designated the 54.7 acres
as Research & Industrial Park to include research/development and light industrial uses (see Figure 3-3, Existing
General Development Plan Land Use Designation), with approximately 700,000 square feet of leasable area
generating approximately 2,800 employment opportunities; however, actual leasable area may be less than this
approximation when accounting for required infrastructure and amenities. Note, that the development areas under
the existing land use designations and the proposed project are different because the MSCP hardline was
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 92 of 1271
1 – Executive Summary
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 1-6
established after the approval of the Sunbow GDP and SPA Plan. The rest of the project site would be preserved as
Open Space and MSCP Preserve, similar to the proposed project. It is anticipated that access would be provided
via Olympic Parkway and internal circulation on th e project site would be similar to the proposed project. However,
features such as pedestrian and bicycle circulation, the Community Purpose Facility (CPF), and active and passive
recreational open space areas, proposed to be developed throughout the residential uses under the proposed
project, would not be developed under the Existing Land Use Designations Alternative.
1.6.3 Reduced Development Alternative
The Reduced Development Alternative would include the development of 360 residential units, within a similar area
as the proposed residential developments area under the project. This number of units, which is 358 fewer units
than the proposed project, was chosen in order to provide low to medium density residential. This alternative would
still include associated infrastructure, a reduced size Community Purpose Facility, and Open Space/MSCP Preserve
areas as proposed under the project. Due to the decreased number of units and the same development area, the
Reduced Development Alternative is assumed to be developed with low to medium density residential rather than
medium-high and high density residential as proposed under the project. As discussed in Section 5.3 , Biological
Resources, of the EIR, the proposed project would require a Boundary Line Adjustment (BLA) between the currently
proposed development boundaries and the mapped Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) preserve on
site. Due to the reduced development of this alternative, this BLA would be avoided under this alternative.
1.7 Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts
Table 1-2 is a summary of the proposed project’s significant environmental impacts under CEQA , including
mitigation measures (MMs) incorporated . For issue areas where impacts were determined to be less than
significant or no impact, including aesthetics, air quality, energy, hydrology and water quality, land use, noise,
population and housing, transportation, and utilities, refer to the respective discussions in Chapters 5 and 9
of this EIR.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 93 of 1271
1 – Executive Summary
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 1-7
Table 1-2. Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts and Mitigation
Environmental Issue Result of Impact Analysis Mitigation Measures Impact Level After Mitigation
5.3 Biological Resources
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. Wildlife Service?
The project would result in direct and indirect impacts to
sensitive plant and wildlife species.
MM-BIO-1 The Applicant shall include an irrevocable offer of dedication (IOD) to the City of Chula
Vista on the first final map for 62.16 acres of onsite Preserve land within Preserve Management
Area 3, Subunits 3-1a, 3-1b, and 3-1c of the Chula Vista Central City Preserve lands. The MSCP
Preserve land shall be conserved, maintained, and managed by the City of Chula Vista or its
designee in perpetuity as directed in the Chula Vista Central City Preserve Area-Specific
Management Directives (ASMDs) for Preserve Management Area 3 (PMA 3) (RECON
Environmental, April 26, 2004) and funded by the Sunbow Preserve Community Facilities District
(No. 98-3). The City of Chula Vista Preserve Habitat Manager shall be responsible for the long-term
Preserve management activities identified in the Central City Preserve ASMD. Said IOD for the
62.16 acres Proposed MSCP Preserve shall include 48.95 acres to mitigate for significant habitat
impacts to 7.79 acres of native grassland, 8.55 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub, and 55.61 of
non‐native grassland as well as the following sensitive species significant impacts:
• Coastal California Gnatcatcher- occupied Diegan coastal sage scrub to mitigate for significant
direct impacts to coastal California gnatcatcher occupied habitat;
• Otay Tarplant- 0.34 acre of Otay tarplant occupied habitat (i.e.,native grassland) to mitigate for
direct impacts to 0.34 acre of Otay tarplant occupied habitat that currently supports 836 Otay
tarplant individual plants;
• Orcutt’s Bird’s-beak- Orcutt’s bird’s-beak habitat (i.e., Diegan coastal sage scrub) to mitigate for
significant direct impacts to onsite Diegan coastal sage scrub that currently supports 91
Orcutt’s bird’s‐beak individual plants;
• Decumbent Goldenbush- Decumbent goldenbush habitat (i.e., Diegan coastal sage scrub and
native grassland), that includes at least 289 decumbent goldenbush individual plants) to
mitigate for significant direct impacts to onsite native grassland and Diegan coastal sage scrub
that currently supports 289 decumbent goldenbush individual plants; and
• San Diego Viguiera- San Diego viguiera habitat (i.e., Diegan coastal sage scrub) that includes at
least 2,979 San Diego viguiera individual plants) to mitigate for significant direct impacts to onsite
Diegan coastal sage scrub that currently supports 5,958 San Diego viguiera individual plants.
MM-BIO-2 Prior to initiation of construction related activities including clearing and grubbing or
prior to vegetation/ground disturbance or prior to site mobilization activities or issuance of a
grading permit, the Applicant shall submit documentation to the City demonstrating that the
Applicant has contracted with a qualified biologist(s) to monitor the project construction activities
and avoid any inadvertent impacts to sensitive biological and ensure complete avoidance of
jurisdictional resources. Each qualified biologist shall have demonstrated expertise with the
sensitive habitats, special status species of the project region. The qualified biologist(s) shall
monitor the installation of the construction temporary fencing and/or flagging, silt fencing, and
other best management practices (BMPs) along the construction limits prior to construction
activities. The qualified biologist shall be present full‐time during all initial vegetation clearing and
grubbing activities, and potentially on a less frequent basis during grading activities to ensure
construction remains within the approved project development area. The Applicant shall report
results of biological monitoring activities to the City on a regular basis through the preparation and
submission of summary monitoring reports.
MM-BIO-3 Prior to the issuance of any land development permits including for clearing and
grubbing or grading, the Applicant shall prepare a Restoration Plan prepared by a qualified biologist
to mitigate for impacts to sensitive plant species consisting of Otay tarplant, Orcutt’s bird’s-beak,
decumbent goldenbush, and San Diego County viguiera consistent with the conceptual Restoration
Plan (Merkel & Associates, Inc. 2021, Appendix D). The Applicant shall implement the 5-year
maintenance and monitoring activities consistent with the Habitat Restoration and Sensitive Plant
Specifies Mitigation Plan to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director (or their
Less than significant.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 94 of 1271
1 – Executive Summary
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 1-8
Table 1-2. Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts and Mitigation
Environmental Issue Result of Impact Analysis Mitigation Measures Impact Level After Mitigation
designee). The revegetation plan must be prepared by a qualified City approved biologist familiar
with the City’s MSCP Subarea Plan and must include, but not be limited to, an implementation
plan; appropriate seed mixtures and planting method; irrigation method; quantitative and
qualitative success criteria; maintenance, monitoring, and reporting program; estimated
completion time; and contingency measures. The Project Applicant shall be required to prepare
and implement the revegetation plan subject to the oversight and approval of the Development
Services Director (or their designee). NOTE: Since the revegetation is critical to approving the MSCP
Boundary Line Adjustment, the applicant will be required to enter into a Secured Agreement with
the City and will be required to provide a cash deposit.
MM-BIO-4 To avoid any direct impacts to nesting coastal California gnatc atcher, all vegetation
clearing, grubbing and grading activities within gnatcatcher occupied habitat (i.e., Diegan
coastal sage scrub) shall be conducted outside of the gnatcatcher breeding season (February
15 to August 15).
MM-BIO-5 Prior to initiating any construction related activities requiring a clearing and grubbing or
grading permit, the Applicant shall delineate coastal California gnatcatcher occupied habitat
located adjacent to the proposed project development area during the breeding season (February
15 to August 15) by orange biological fencing or comparable materials to ensure that no work shall
occur within these habitats. In addition, a minimum 300-foot buffer and on-site noise
reduction/attenuation techniques shall be incorporated, as appropriate to avoid impacts to
breeding gnatcatcher from elevated construction noise levels. The City Development Services
Director (or their designee) shall have the discretion to modify the buffer width depending on site-
specific conditions. Noise monitoring may be required to ensure that the elevated construction
noise levels are appropriately attenuated at the edge of occupied habitat to a level that is not
expected to adversely affect nesting bird behavior (i.e., not to exceed an hourly average of 60 A-
weighted decibels (dBA) or ambient at the edge of occupied habitat).
MM-BIO-6 Prior to initiating any construction related activities requiring a clearing and grubbing or
grading permit, the Applicant shall delineate least Bell’s vireo occupied habitat by orange biological
fencing or comparable to avoid direct impact to vireo within occupied habitat located adjacent to
the proposed project during the breeding season (March 15 to September 15). In addition, a
minimum 300-foot buffer and on-site noise reduction/attenuation techniques shall be
incorporated, as appropriate to avoid impacts to breeding vireo from elevated construction noise
levels. The City Development Services Director (or their designee) shall have the discretion to
modify the buffer width depending on site-specific conditions. Noise monitoring may be required to
ensure that the elevated construction noise levels are appropriately attenuated at the edge of
occupied habitat to a level that is not expected to adversely affect nesting bird behavior (i.e., not to
exceed an hourly average of 60 dBA or ambient at the edge of occupied habitat).
MM-BIO-7 To avoid any direct impacts to migratory birds and/or raptors protected under the
federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503 and 3513,
removal of habitat that supports active nests on the proposed area of disturbance should occur
outside of the breeding season for these species. The breeding season is defined as January 15–
August 31 for raptor species and February 15–August 15 for other non-raptor birds (excluding
listed species). If removal of habitat on the proposed area of disturbance must occur during the
breeding season, then prior to initiating any construction related activities requiring a clearing and
grubbing or grading permit, the Applicant shall retain a City-approved biologist to conduct a pre-
construction survey to determine the presence or absence of nesting birds (including burrowing
owl) on the proposed area of disturbance. The pre-construction survey must be conducted within
10 calendar days prior to the start of construction, and the results must be submitted to the City
for review and approval prior to initiating any construction activities. If nesting birds are detected, a
letter report or mitigation plan, as deemed appropriate by the City, shall be prepared and include
proposed measures to be implemented to ensure that disturbance of breeding activities are
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 95 of 1271
1 – Executive Summary
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 1-9
Table 1-2. Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts and Mitigation
Environmental Issue Result of Impact Analysis Mitigation Measures Impact Level After Mitigation
avoided. The report or mitigation plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval and
implemented to the satisfaction of the City. The City’s mitigation monitor shall verify and approve
that all measures identified in the report or mitigation plan are in place prior to and/or during
construction.
To reduce potential impacts to burrowing owl during construction, the City-approved biologist shall
perform pre-construction inspection of potential habitat, and, at minimum, twice weekly
inspections be performed while rough grading is ongoing. All pre-construction survey efforts shall
be conducted prior to any project activities that could result in habitat disturbance to soil,
vegetation or other sheltering habitat for burrowing owl. If any burrowing owls or sign of burrowing
owls are detected, the Wildlife Agencies (jointly, CDFW and USFWS) shall be contacted; efforts shall
be made to determine the breeding status of the species on site, and whether it is safe at that
point to exclude burrowing owls from occupied burrows. Active or passive relocation methods shall
only be employed with concurrence by CDFW and USFWS.
MM-BIO-8 Prior to approval of the first final map, the Applicant shall submit a Landscape Master
Plan for the entire project which shall demonstrate compliance with the proposed fence and wall
plan for the project. The proposed fence and wall plan shall include appropriate fencing and
barriers (e.g., vegetation) where applicable to shield human presence and deter human intrusion
into the Preserve.
MM-BIO-9 Concurrent with design review and prior to issuance of a building permit for any
development located adjacent to the Preserve, the Applicant shall prepare, a lighting plan and
photometric analysis for review and approval the Development Services Director (or their
designee). The lighting plan shall illustrate the location of the proposed lighting standards and type
of shielding measures. Low-pressure sodium lighting shall be used, if feasible, and shall be subject
to the approval of the Development Services Director (or their designee).
MM-BIO-10 Prior to approval of the first final map, the Applicant shall submit a Landscape Master
Plan for the entire project which shall demonstrate compliance with the proposed plant palette for
the project. The proposed plant palette shall prohibit invasive non‐native plant species on the
California Exotic Pest Plant Council List of Exotic Pest Plants of Greatest Ecological Concern in
California that could spread into the adjacent Preserve. No invasive non-native plant species shall
be introduced into areas immediately adjacent to the preserve. All slopes immediately adjacent to
the Preserve shall be planted with native species that reflect the adjacent native habitat. Further,
the proposed plant palette shall be consistent with the plant list contained in the “Wildland/Urban
Interface: Fuel Modification Standards,” and provided as Appendix L of the Subarea Plan, must be
reviewed and utilized to the maximum extent practicable when developing landscaping plans in
areas adjacent to the Preserve.
MM-BIO-11 To avoid habitat degradation to the adjacent Preserve lands, project irrigation shall be
contained to the project development and fuel modification zones and shall not drain or overspray
resulting in potential erosion/sedimentation, spread of invasive plant species, and/or non‐native
species such as Argentine ants.
MM-BIO-12 Prior to initiating any construction related activities requiring a clearing and grubbing or
grading permit, the Applicant shall demonstrate how the project would avoid or minimize applicable
inadvertent impacts during construction. To ensure the avoidance and minimization of impacts to
biological resources during construction the following construction BMPs shall be implemented:
a) Prior to ground disturbance, all permanent and temporary disturbance areas shall be clearly
delineated by orange construction fencing and the identification of environmentally sensitive
areas with flagging and/or fencing.
b) To minimize disturbance of areas outside the project site, all construction and operation
vehicle traffic shall be restricted to established roads, construction areas, and other
designated areas. These areas shall be included in pre‐construction surveys and, to the
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 96 of 1271
1 – Executive Summary
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 1-10
Table 1-2. Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts and Mitigation
Environmental Issue Result of Impact Analysis Mitigation Measures Impact Level After Mitigation
extent possible, shall be established in locations disturbed by previous activities to prevent
further impacts.
c) Construction and operation vehicles shall observe appropriate safe speed limits and adhere
to safety practices.
d) Dust suppression shall occur during construction activities when necessary to meet air
quality standards and protect biological resources.
e) No vehicles or equipment shall be refueled or undergo maintenance within 100 feet of a
jurisdictional waters feature. Spill kits shall be maintained on the site in sufficient quantity to
accommodate at least three complete vehicle tank failures of 50 gallons each. Any vehicles
driven or operated within or adjacent to drainages or wetlands shall be checked and
maintained daily to prevent leaks of contaminated fluids.
f) All general trash, food‐related trash items (wrappers, cans, bottles, food scraps, cigarettes,
etc.), and other human‐generated debris scheduled to be removed shall be stored in animal‐
proof containers and removed from the site on a regular basis (weekly during construction,
and at least monthly during operations). No deliberate feeding of wildlife shall be allowed.
g) Use of chemicals, fuels, lubricants, or biocides shall comply with all local, state, and federal
regulations. All uses of such compounds shall observe label and other restrictions mandated by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, California Department of Food and Agriculture, and
other state and federal legislation. Use of first‐and second‐ generation rodenticides shall not be
permitted except for the limited use of zinc phosphide, or a rodenticide approved by the City, and
only after other means of pest control (e.g. rodent traps) have proven to be ineffective.
MM-BIO-13 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, prior to vegetation clearing, grubbing, grading, or
any ground disturbing activities, the Applicant shall submit evidence to the City that the Applicant
has retained qualified biologists to prepare a Worker Environmental Awareness Program that shall
be presented to all construction personnel and employees before any ground‐disturbing activities
commence at the project site and shall be continued through the construction phase for all new
construction personnel. The program shall consist of a brief presentation going over the on-site
sensitive biological resources and compliance with project impact and open space boundaries, and
applicable environmental laws and requirements with all personnel involved in the project. This
presentation shall explain to construction personnel how best to avoid impacts sensitive resources
during construction. The program shall include a description of all special status species potentially
on the project site and their habitat needs; an explanation of the status of the species and their
protection under the state and federal regulations; specific mitigation measures applicable to listed
and other special status species; permit conditions, and the penalties for violation of applicable
laws. The program shall also explain to construction personnel how to avoid impacts to
jurisdictional waters, including wetlands. The program shall include a map and description of
jurisdictional waters on the site to be avoided and measures to implement to ensure the protection
and avoidance of jurisdictional waters.
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?
The project would result in direct and indirect impacts to
sensitive natural communities.
MM-BIO-1, MM-BIO-2, and MM-BIO-8 through MM-BIO-13 Less than significant.
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State
habitat conservation plan?
The project would require an MSCP Boundary Line
Adjustment and Minor Amendment that would result in
impacts to sensitive biological resources.
MM-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-13
MM-BIO-14 Prior to initiating any construction related activities requiring a clearing and grubbing or
grading permit, the Applicant shall prepare a revegetation plan for the temporary impact areas
within the 25-foot grading buffer in the Minor Amendment Area that utilizes a native erosion control
hydroseed mix acceptable to the City and the Wildlife Agencies (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
California Department of Fish and Wildlife) to ensure soil stability and prevent subsequent erosion.
Less than significant.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 97 of 1271
1 – Executive Summary
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 1-11
Table 1-2. Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts and Mitigation
Environmental Issue Result of Impact Analysis Mitigation Measures Impact Level After Mitigation
The revegetation plan must be prepared by a qualified City approved biologist familiar with the
City’s MSCP Subarea Plan and must include, but not be limited to, an implementation plan;
appropriate seed mixtures and planting method; irrigation method; quantitative and qualitative
success criteria; maintenance, monitoring, and reporting program; estimated completion time; and
contingency measures. The Project Applicant shall be required to prepare and implement the
revegetation plan subject to the oversight
MM-BIO-15 Prior to initiating any construction related activities requiring a clearing and grubbing or
grading permit, the Applicant shall receive approval by the City and Wildlife Agencies for the MSCP
BLA. The Applicant shall be required to implement conditions associated with the BLA subject to
the oversight and approval of the Development Services Director (or their designee).
MM-BIO-16 Prior to initiating any construction related activities requiring a clearing and grubbing or
grading permit, the Applicant shall receive approval by the City and Wildlife Agencies for the MSCP
Minor Amendment. The Applicant shall be required to implement conditions associated with the
Minor Amendment subject to the oversight and approval of the Development Services Director (or
their designee).
5.4 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource as
defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5?
The project has the potential to encounter previously
unidentified subsurface cultural deposits.
MM-CUL-1
A. Prior to beginning construction activities, the project archaeologist and Native American
representative shall attend any pertinent preconstruction meetings with the construction
manager and/or grading contractor in order to provide recommendations and answer questions
relating to the archaeological monitoring program. The project archaeologist shall be familiar with
the cultural inventory conducted for the current project and shall be prepared to introduce any
pertinent information concerning expectations and probabilities of discovery during ground-
disturbing activities.
B. Both an archaeological monitor familiar with local resources and a Native American monitor
shall be present full time during the initial disturbance of soil with potential to contain cultural
deposits. All areas of initial project-related subsurface disturbance shall be assumed to have the
potential to contain cultural deposits. Monitoring of initial ground disturbance shall not exceed a
depth of 5 feet (1.5 meters) unless cultural resources are identified or if, through direct
inspection of subsurface exposures by the project Archaeologist, an area is observed to have the
potential to support the presence of archaeological deposits at greater depths. Cultural resources
monitoring may be reduced from initial full-time monitoring to periodic spot checks, or
discontinued if appropriate, once the project archaeologist determines that there is little or no
risk of encountering cultural material.
C. Daily archaeological and Native American monitoring logs shall be prepared. Logs shall include
monitor names and affiliations, a description of general activities observed, cultural discoveries,
as well as comments or concerns as applicable.
D. In the event of an archaeological discovery, and when requested by the archaeological monitor
or Native American monitor, the resident contractor will divert, redirect, or temporarily halt
ground disturbing activities in the area of discovery or impacts to allow for preliminary inspection
of potentially significant archaeological resources or impacts. The significance of the discovered
resources or impacts shall be determined by the archaeologist, in consultation with the City of
Chula Vista (City). For significant cultural resources, a Research Design and Data Recovery
Program shall be prepared and carried out to mitigate impacts before grading activities in the
area of discovery shall be allowed to resume.
E. The project archaeologist shall be responsible for ensuring that all cultural materials collected
will be cleaned, catalogued, and curated permanently with an appropriate institution; that a letter
of acceptance from the curation institution has been submitted to the City; that all artifacts are
Less than significant.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 98 of 1271
1 – Executive Summary
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 1-12
Table 1-2. Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts and Mitigation
Environmental Issue Result of Impact Analysis Mitigation Measures Impact Level After Mitigation
analyzed to identify function and chronology as they relate to the history of the area; that faunal
material will be identified as to species; and that specialty studies are completed, as appropriate.
The project archaeologist shall make a good-faith effort to ensure that all archaeological material
collected through previous work is appropriately curated with any material recovered through
construction monitoring.
F. If human remains are discovered, work shall halt in that area and procedures set forth in the
California Public Resources Code (Section 5097.98) and State Health and Safety Code (Section
7050.5) shall be followed by the archaeological monitor after notification to the County Coroner
by the project Archaeologist. If Native American remains are present, the County Coroner shall
contact the Native American Heritage Commission to designate a Most Likely Descendant, who
shall arrange for the dignified disposition and treatment of the remains.
G. Within 3 months following the completion of monitoring, two copies of a monitoring results
report (even if negative) and/or evaluation report, if applicable, that describes the results,
analysis, and conclusions of the archaeological monitoring program (with appropriate graphics)
shall be submitted to City.
H. For significant archaeological resources encountered during monitoring, the Research Design
and Data Recovery Program shall be included as part of the final evaluation monitoring report.
Two copies of the final monitoring report for significant archaeological resources, if required,
shall be submitted to the City. This final monitoring report should also incorporate a summary of
the evaluation results and analyses previously conducted within the project area.
I. The archaeologist shall be responsible for recording (on the appropriate CA DPR 523 Series
forms) any significant or potentially significant resources encountered during the archaeological
monitoring program in accordance with Section 106 and the City’s Cultural Resources
Guidelines, and submittal of such forms to the South Coastal Information Center at San Diego
State University with the final monitoring results report.
Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
The project has the potential to inadvertently encounter
human remains.
MM-CUL-1 Less than significant.
Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in
Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a
site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is
geographically defined in terms of the size and
scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with
cultural value to a California Native American tribe,
and that is:
A. Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)?
B. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set
forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code
Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider
the significance of the resource to a California
Native American tribe?
The project has the potential to inadvertently encounter
tribal cultural resources.
MM-CUL-1 Less than significant.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 99 of 1271
1 – Executive Summary
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 1-13
Table 1-2. Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts and Mitigation
Environmental Issue Result of Impact Analysis Mitigation Measures Impact Level After Mitigation
5.6 Geology and Soils
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
The project has the potential to inadvertently encounter
paleontological resources.
MM-GEO-1: Paleontological Monitoring Program. 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-grading meeting shall be held that shall include 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., Otay Formation and 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., unnamed river terrace deposits and the Mission
Valley Formation) to inspect cuts for contained fossils. However, neither of these rock units have
been mapped within the project area of potential effect (APE) and are therefore not anticipated to
be impacted during construction.
The monitor shall be on site on at least a quarter-time basis during the original cutting of previously
undisturbed sediments of low sensitivity geologic formations (e.g., Lindavista Formation and
Santiago Peak Volcanics [metasedimentary portion only]) to inspect cuts for contained fossils.
However, these deposits have not been mapped within the project APE and are therefore not
anticipated to be impacted during construction. The monitor shall periodically (every several weeks)
inspect original cuts in deposits with an unknown resource sensitivity (i.e., Quaternary alluvium).
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 (i.e., Santiago Peak Volcanics, metavolcanic portion).
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.
Less than significant.
5.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly
or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on
the environment?
This project has the potential to result in significant
greenhouse gas emissions during construction and
operational activities.
MM GHG-1: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Measures. The following GHG emissions
reduction measures shall be implemented:
• Off-road construction equipment with engines rated at 75 horsepower or greater shall meet at a
minimum Tier 3 standard.
• Install purple pipes to provide reclaimed water for outdoor water use.
• Install low-flow water fixtures such as low-flow toilets, faucets, showers, etc.
Significant and unavoidable.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 100 of 1271
1 – Executive Summary
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 1-14
Table 1-2. Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts and Mitigation
Environmental Issue Result of Impact Analysis Mitigation Measures Impact Level After Mitigation
• Two parking spaces shall be pre-wired for electric vehicle (EV) capable and designated as
preferential parking spaces shall be provided for carpool, shared, electric, and hydrogen vehicles.
• 718 parking garages shall be pre-wired to be EV capable.
• Energy-efficient lighting shall be used for all street, parking, and area lighting associated with
the proposed project, including all on-site and off-site lighting.
• Energy-efficient design practices, such as high-performance glazing, Energy Star compliant
systems and appliances, radiant heat roof barriers, insulation on all pipes, programmable
thermostats, and sealed ducts, shall be implemented.
• Native species and drought-tolerant species shall be used for a minimum of 50% of the
ornamental plant palette in non-turf areas to minimize water demand.
• Recycling of construction debris and waste shall be ensured through administration by an on-
site recycling coordinator and presence of recycling/separation areas. Exceed the City of Chula
Vista’s Construction and Demolition Debris Waste Management Plan’s 65% diversion of
construction and demolition waste.
• Install cool roofs that meet the U.S. Green Building Council standards with a greater solar
reflectivity to help conserve energy.
• Install 1,462-kilowatt solar photovoltaic system meeting the minimum 2019 Title 24 standards.
• Install bicycle racks.
• The project shall plant 600 trees and 40 acres of shrubs.
Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions
of greenhouse gases?
This project has the potential to result in significant
greenhouse gas emissions causing the project to
conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases.
MM-GHG-1 Significant and unavoidable.
5.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death
involving wildland fires?
There is the potential for the project to exacerbate
impacts involving wildland fires.
MM-WF-1: Site Access
Site access, including fire lane, driveway, and entrance road widths, primary and secondary access,
gates, turnarounds, dead end lengths, signage, aerial fire apparatus access, surface, and other
requirements will comply with the requirements of the 2019 California Fire Code and the Chula
Vista Fire Department (CVFD) Standards. Fire access will be reviewed and approved by CVFD prior
to construction (see the FPP, Appendix H3, for additional details).
The developer will provide information illustrating the new roads, in a format acceptable to the City,
for updating of City maps.
Ignition Resistant Construction
All new structures within the Proposed Project will be constructed to at least the California Fire
Code standard. Each of the proposed buildings will comply with the enhanced ignition-resistant
construction standards of the 2019 CBC (Chapter 7A) and Chapter 5 of the Urban-Wildland
Interface code, except where buildings require enhanced ignition resistance as part of an
alternative material and method proposal. These requirements address roofs, eaves, exterior walls,
vents, appendages, windows, and doors and result in hardened structures that have been proven
to perform at high levels (resist ignition) during the typically short duration of exposure to burning
vegetation from wildfires (see the FPP, Appendix H3, for additional details).
Fire Protection Systems
• Water supply requirements specified in the California Fire Code (see FPP, Appendix H3, for
additional details) including for hydrants and interior sprinklers will be provided for the
proposed project.
Less than significant.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 101 of 1271
1 – Executive Summary
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 1-15
Table 1-2. Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts and Mitigation
Environmental Issue Result of Impact Analysis Mitigation Measures Impact Level After Mitigation
• Hydrants shall be located along fire access roadways and cul-de-sacs as determined by the
CVFD Fire Marshal to meet operational needs. Hydrants will be consistent with CVFD Design
Standards and provided every 500 feet (on-center).
• All structures within the Proposed Project will include interior sprinklers, per code requirements
(see FPP, Appendix H3, for additional details). Sprinklers will be specific to each occupancy type
and based on the most recent National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 13, 13R, or 13D,
requirements.
• All residential units shall have a fire alarm system be installed in accordance with NFPA 72, Fire
Protection Signaling System and CVFD requirements. The fire alarm system will be supervised
by a third-party alarm company. The system will be tested annually, or as needed, with test
results provided to CVFD.
Additionally, all residences will be equipped with residential smoke detectors and carbon monoxide
detectors and comply with current CBC, CFC, and California Residential Code standards.
All residential dwelling units shall have electric-powered, hard-wired smoke detectors with battery
backup per CVFD.
Defensible Space and Vegetation Management
Fuel Modification Zones (FMZs) would be located on the perimeter of all structures and along both
ingress/egress roadways to and from Olympic Parkway. All brush management zones and related
fuel modification activities shall occur outside of the Preserve. FMZs shall be a minimum of 100
feet in width. A 100-foot-wide FMZ will be installed for lots abutting designated Preserve Lands to
the north and west of the Project Site. To ensure long-term identification and maintenance, each
respective FMZ shall be identified by a permanent marker system meeting the approval of CVFD.
Other Vegetation Management
• New roads will be subject to fuel modification zones with Zone 1 and/or Zone 2 standards
described above. The combustible vegetation will be modified within 30 feet from each side of
Streets A and B. Roadway-adjacent fuel modification does not preclude the planting of street
trees in these fuel modification zones, as long as they are not found on the Prohibited Plant List
(Appendix D of the FPP) and are included in the Approved Plant Palette (Appendix C of the FPP).
• Pre-Construction Requirements:
• Perimeter fuel modification areas must be implemented and approved by the CVFD prior to
combustible materials being brought on site.
• Existing flammable vegetation shall be reduced by 50% on vacant lots upon commencement of
construction.
• Dead fuel, ladder fuel (fuel which can spread fire from ground to trees), and downed fuel shall
be removed, and trees/shrubs shall be properly limbed, pruned, and spaced per this plan.
• Undesirable Plants. Certain plants are considered to be undesirable in the landscape due to
characteristics that make them highly flammable. These characteristics can be physical
(structure promotes ignition or combustion) or chemical (volatile chemicals increase
flammability or combustion characteristics). The plants included in the Prohibited Plant List
(Appendix D of Appendix H3, FPP) are unacceptable from a fire safety standpoint and will not be
planted on the site or allowed to establish opportunistically within fuel modification zones or
landscaped areas. No fuel modification zones are proposed within the MSCP areas, thus no
vegetation within the MSCP will be removed.
Tree Notes for Publicly Owned Areas.
The project shall maintain all trees in publicly owned areas, per the project's FPP. These
requirements include, but are not limited to (see Appendix H3 for additional details):
• All standard form (single trunk) trees to include a single strong central leader with no branches
extending at an angle narrower than 30 degrees from the main trunk. If the tree does not
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 102 of 1271
1 – Executive Summary
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 1-16
Table 1-2. Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts and Mitigation
Environmental Issue Result of Impact Analysis Mitigation Measures Impact Level After Mitigation
display a single strong central leader, a tree may be approved if the Developer’s arborist or
landscape architect of record can demonstrate that a single strong central leader can be
achieved through structural pruning.
• No grafted species that sucker from the base stock will be allowed as a street tree.
Vacant Parcels and Lots
The project shall comply with requirements of the project's FPP related to vacant parcels and lots.
These requirements include, but are not limited to:
• Vegetation management would not be required on vacant lots until construction begins.
However, perimeter FMZs must be implemented prior to commencement of construction
utilizing combustible materials.
• Vacant lots adjacent to active construction areas/lots would be required to implement
vegetation management if they are within 50 feet of the active construction area. Perimeter
areas of the vacant lot would be maintained as a vegetation management zone extending 50
feet from roadways and adjacent construction areas.
• Prior to issuance of a permit for any construction, grading, digging, installation of fences, etc.,
on a vacant lot, the 50 feet at the perimeter of the lot is to be maintained as a vegetation
management zone.
• FMZ on slope L&I does not have to be completed prior to construction starting, but all
flammable vegetation and plants found on the Prohibited Plant List, needs to grubbed and
graded or mowed prior to any construction.
Fuel Modification Area Vegetation Maintenance
All fuel modification area vegetation management shall be completed annually by May 1 of each
year and more often as needed for fire safety, as determined by the CVFD.
Annual Fuel Modification Area Vegetation Maintenance
The property owner would obtain an FMZ inspection and report from a qualified CVFD-approved 3rd
party inspector in May of each year certifying that vegetation management activities throughout the
Project Site have been performed pursuant to this FPP. A copy of the annual inspection report
would be provided to the proposed project homeowner association (HOA) and a copy made
available to CVFD, if requested.
Reduced Fuel Modification Zone Discussion
Due to site constraints, it is not feasible to achieve a 100-foot FMZ width on the south side of the
proposed development. This FPP incorporates additional fire protection measures as described in
this mitigation measure that shall be implemented to compensate for potential fire related threats.
These measures are were customized for this site based on the analysis results and focus on
providing functional equivalency for reduced defensible space.
Landscape and Building Hardening.
1. Provide exterior glazing in windows (and sliding glass doors, garage doors, or decorative or
leaded glass doors) facing the open space areas to be dual pane with both panes tempered
glass, exceeding the fire-building code requirement.
2. Ensure no eave overhangs and combustible construction in portion of yards facing natural open
space areas.
3. Install 1-hour rated walls (Type X - 5/8-inch thickness of gypsum) behind non -combustible
covering (stucco, fiber cement siding) for a façade facing the open space areas to the east
and south.
4. Conduct a formal landscaping plan review for structures with a façade facing open space area.
Landscape plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Chula Vista Fire Department.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 103 of 1271
1 – Executive Summary
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 1-17
Table 1-2. Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts and Mitigation
Environmental Issue Result of Impact Analysis Mitigation Measures Impact Level After Mitigation
5. Annually hire a third-party inspector to evaluate whether designated fuel modification zone areas
meet the requirements of the project Fire Protection Plan.
6. Provide a non-combustible fire-rated 6-foot-tall masonry block or view wall at the property line on
the south and east sides of the proposed project to provide a physical, non-combustible barrier
that would deflect heat and flame and would capture ground-blowing embers before they
reached the proposed project’s developed areas.
The proposed project’s slopes to the south provide an opportunity to place a non-combustible, 6
foot-tall, heat-deflecting wall (or view wall with lower 1 to 2 feet block wall and upper 4 to 5 feet
dual-pane, one pane tempered glazing) to provide additional deflection for these lots to
compensate for the reduced fuel modification zones. The wall shall meet any of the following
specifications:
• Be constructed of multi-pane glazing with a minimum of one tempered pane meeting the
requirements of Section 2406 Safety Glazing, or
• Have a fire-resistance rating of not less than 20 minutes when tested according to NFPA 257, or
• Be tested to meet the performance requirements of SFM Standard 12-7A-2.
Homeowner’s Wildfire Education Program
Per the FPP, the proposed project’s residents shall be provided a proactive educational component
disclosing the potential wildfire risk and this report’s requirements as part of their purchase
documents. Property owners shall be required to sign notice of receiving this information during
escrow. This educational information must include maintaining the landscape and structural
components according to the appropriate standards and embracing a “Ready, Set, Go” stance on
evacuation.
5.13 Public Services
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 fire protection and emergency services?
The project would result in an incremental increase in
demand for fire and emergency services.
MM-PS-1: Prior to the issuance of each building permit for any residential dwelling units, the
applicant shall pay a Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFDIF) in accordance with the fees
in effect at the time of building permit issuance and phasing approved in the Supplemental Public
Facilities Finance Plan, unless stated otherwise in a separate development agreement.
Less than significant.
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 police protection services?
The project would result in an incremental increase in
demand for police services.
MM-PS-1 Less than significant.
Result in substantial adverse physical impact
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 library services?
The project would result in an incremental increase in
demand for library services.
MM-PS-1 Less than significant.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 104 of 1271
1 – Executive Summary
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 1-18
Table 1-2. Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts and Mitigation
Environmental Issue Result of Impact Analysis Mitigation Measures Impact Level After Mitigation
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 school services?
The project would result in an incremental increase in
demand for schools.
MM-PS-2: Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide evidence or
certification by the Chula Vista Elementary School District (CVESD) and the Sweetwater Union High
School District (SUHSD) that any fee charge, dedication or other requirement levied by the school
district(s) has been complied with or that the district(s) has determined the fee, charge, dedication
or other requirements do not apply to the construction or that the applicant has entered into a
school mitigation agreement. School facility mitigation fees shall be in accordance with the fees in
effect at the time of building permit issuance.
Less than significant.
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 parks?
The project would result in an incremental increase in
demand for parks.
MM-PS-3: No earlier than issuance of certificate of occupancyPrior to the issuance of each building
permit for any residential dwelling units, the applicant shall pay the Park Benefit Fee as outlined in
the project’s Development Agreement, equal to the City’s Park Acquisition and Development (PAD)
Fee Update pursuant to Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 17.10. The final Park Benefit Fee
amount shall be determined based on the number and type of residential units constructed and
the PAD fee rates in effect as of the effective date of paymentthe project’s Development
Agreement. To create this Park Benefit Fee, the City will waive the parkland dedication and
development requirements set in Chapter 17.10 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, including the
Parkland Acquisition and Public Facilities Development fees, and Quimby Act fees. The Park Benefit
Fee shall satisfy the project’s park obligations and may be utilized by the City to acquire or develop
parkland, as the City determines appropriate and in the best interest of the City.
Less than significant.
5.14 Recreation
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?
The project would result in an incremental increase in
demand for parks.
MM-PS-3 Less than significant.
5.17 Wildfire
Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose
project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from
a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
There is the potential for the project to exacerbate
impacts involving wildland fires.
MM-WF-1 Less than significant.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 105 of 1271
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 2-1
2 Introduction
This chapter of the environmental impact report (EIR) describes the purpose, scope, and legislative authority of the
EIR, the intent of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and other pertinent environmental rules and
regulations, and the environmental review process. The section also includes the structure, required contents, and
relationship of the EIR to other potential responsible or trustee agencies.
2.1 Project Purpose and Background
This EIR addresses the environmental effects associated with the proposed Sunbow Sectional Planning Area (SPA)
Plan Amendment for the Proposed Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project (project or proposed project). Implementation of the
project requires a Chula Vista General Plan Amendment, Sunbow General Development Plan Amendment, Sunbow
Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment, a rezone, and a Tentative Map.
This EIR was prepared in accordance with CEQA (Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.), the CEQA
Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.), and the City of Chula Vista (City) environmental review procedures. The City is
the lead agency for the EIR and processing of the project.
This EIR provides decision makers, public agencies, and the public with detailed information about the potential for
significant adverse environmental impacts to occur as a result of the proposed project. Similarly, responsible
agencies will use this EIR to fulfill their legal authority associated with permits issued for the project. The analysis
and findings in this document reflect the independent judgment of the City.
2.2 Hierarchy of Sunbow Planning Documents
2.2.1 City of Chula Vista General Plan
California law requires that each county and city adopt a General Plan “for the physical development of the
County or City, and of any land outside its boundaries which…bears relation to its planning” (California
Government Code, Section 65300). Each General Plan must be internally consistent and all discretionary land
use plans and projects must also be consistent with the General Plan.
The City of Chula Vista City Council adopted an updated General Plan on December 13, 2005 (Resolution N os.
2005-424, 2005-425, 2005-426). The General Plan outlines goals, objectives, and policies for land use in the City
in response to the community’s vision for the City. This General Plan also guides day -to-day decision making to
ensure that there is a continuing progress toward the attainment of the General Plan goals.
The General Plan Update includes Area Plans for specific parts of the City, including the East Planning Area, where
the project is located (City of Chula Vista 2005). The East Planning Area encompasses approximately 23,807 acres
in the City’s incorporated area. In the East Planning Area, developments are suburban in nature and characterized
by single-use residential areas, curvilinear streets, cul-de-sacs, and commercial malls; however, future development
would be designed to support regional transit service, provide neighborhood and regional commercial areas, and
offer a variety of housing opportunities. The vision for future development would require new infrastructure inclusi ve
of improvements to roads, utilities, and community parks. The East Planning Area is divided into six subareas: East
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 106 of 1271
2 – Introduction
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 2-2
Main Street Subarea, unincorporated Sweetwater Subarea, Otay Ranch Subarea, Master Planned Communities
Subarea, unincorporated East Otay Ranch Subarea, and other miscellaneous subareas (City of Chula Vista 2005).
The project is located within the Master Planned Communities Subarea, which is further broken down into six
subareas: Sunbow, Rancho del Rey, Eastlake, Rolling Hills Ranch, San Miguel Ranch, and Otay Ranch.
2.2.2 Sunbow General Development Plan
The Sunbow General Development Plan (GDP), which originally included 604.8 acres in eastern Chula Vista, was
adopted on December 5 , 1989, with the primary objective to create an efficient, self -contained village with a
mix of residential, commercial, community recreation, industrial park, and open space/trails land uses. The
principal objective of the GDP was to develop an efficient , self-contained village (City of Chula Vista 1989).
The GDP is implemented through the adoption of a more detailed SPA Plan, tentative tract maps, and potential
annexation and development agreements. The GDP is designed to function as a policy bridge between the City
of Chula Vis ta General Plan (General Plan) and the SPA Plan, which provides more detailed plans for
development of the Sunbow Master Planned Community (City of Chula Vista 19 89).
2.2.3 City of Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program
The project site is part of the City’s Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP), which was adopted in 2003. The
municipalities of southern San Diego County collaborated in producing the MSCP Subregional Plan. The MSCP
Subregional Plan is implemented through individual Subarea Plans adopted by each jurisdiction and would allow
“take” authorization for covered species through specific conditions of coverage pursuant to Section 4(d) of the
Federal Endangered Species Act. The Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan provides for conservation of upland habitats
and species through Preserve design, regulation of impacts and uses, and management of the Preserve (City of
Chula Vista 2003). The MSCP identifies coastal sage scrub, coastal California gnatcatcher, coastal cactus wren, snake
cholla, and barrel cactus as preserve species within and adjacent to the project site.
The MSCP outlines covered projects, which include projects involving land use development within the City for which
hardline preserve boundaries have been established pursuant to the approved MSCP Subarea Plan, and where
conservation measures consistent with the MSCP Subregional Plan and Chula Vista Subarea Plan have been or will
be specified as biding conditions of approval in such projects’ plans and approval. The proposed project was not
identified as a covered project in the MSCP. However, the MSCP established a hardline preserve boundary within the
project site, adjacent to the Sunbow II Phase 3 area.
2.2.4 Sectional Planning Area Plans
The SPA Plan was approved by the City Council on February 20, 1990. According to the City, GDPs are
implemented through the adoption of SPA Plans, which are more detailed in its zoning, design regulations, and
development parameters. The purpose of the SPA Plan is to ensure high-quality development, create an
economically viable plan, provide a plan for long -range development, facilitate provisions for community facilities,
preserve open space, and establish a planning and development framework. Regulations within the SPA Plan
supersede other regulations where there is potential conflict between the GDP and the General Plan.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 107 of 1271
2 – Introduction
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 2-3
2.3 Scope of the EIR
Pursuant to Section 15161 of the CEQA Guidelines, this document was prepared as a “project EIR” and is “focused
primarily on the changes in the environment that would result from the development” (i.e., the buildout of the
proposed project). Where environmental impacts have been determined to be potentially significant, this EIR
presents mitigation measures directed at reducing those adverse environmental effects. The development of
mitigation measures provides the lead agency with ways to substantially lessen or avoid the significant effects of
the project on the environment, to the degree feasible. Alternatives to the proposed project are presented to
evaluate whether there are alternative development scenarios that can further minimize or avoid significant
impacts associated with the project.
2.4 Environmental Procedures
2.4.1 CEQA Compliance
The California Public Resources Code (Section 21000 et seq.) requires the preparation and certification of an EIR for any
project that a lead agency determines may have a significant effect on the environment. This EIR has been prepared in
compliance with all criteria, standards, and procedures of the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR Section 15000 et seq.).
2.4.2 Notice of Preparation and Scoping
CEQA establishes mechanisms whereby the public and decision makers can be informed about the nature of a
proposed project and the extent and types of impacts that the project and its alternatives would have on the
environment, should the project or alternatives be implemented. Pursuant to Section 15082 of the CEQA
Guidelines, the City circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) dated November 9, 2020, to begin a 30-day public
scoping period, to interested agencies, organizations, and parties. The NOP was also sent to the State
Clearinghouse at the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. The State Clearinghouse assigned a
state identification number (SCH No. 2020110148) to this EIR.
The NOP is intended to encourage interagency communication regarding the proposed action so that agencies,
organizations, and individuals are afforded an opportunity to respond with specific comments and/or questions
regarding the scope and content of the EIR. A pre-recorded public scoping presentation was published on the City’s
website to gather additional public input. The pre-recorded presentation was made available during the entire public
scoping period.
Comments received during the NOP public scoping period were considered during the preparation of this EIR. The NOP
and comments are included in Appendix A to this EIR.
Based on the scope of the proposed project as described in the NOP, the following issues were determined to be
potentially significant and are addressed in Chapter 5, Environmental Impact Analysis, of this EIR:
• Aesthetics
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
• Energy
• Geology and Soils
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 108 of 1271
2 – Introduction
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 2-4
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Land Use and Planning
• Noise
• Population and Housing
• Public Services
• Recreation
• Transportation
• Utilities and Service Systems
• Wildfire
2.4.3 Overview of the EIR Process
This EIR will be made available to members of the public, public agencies, and interested parties for a 45-day public
comment period in accordance with Section 15105 of the CEQA Guidelines. Public comment of the EIR is intended
to focus “on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing the possible impact s on the environment
and ways in which the significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated” (14 CCR 15204). The Notice
of Completion of the EIR will be filed with the State Clearinghouse as required by Section 15085 of the CEQA
Guidelines. In addition, the Notice of Availability of the EIR will be distributed pursuant to Section 15087 of the
CEQA Guidelines. Interested parties may provide comments on the EIR in written form. This EIR and all related
technical appendices are available for review upon request during the 45-day public comment period by the
following means:
• The EIR is available to review electronically at http://www.chulavistaca.gov/departments/
development-services/planning/public-notices/environmental-notices.
• For additional options to review, please contact Oscar Romero, Associate Planner, by email at
oromero@chulavistaca.gov or phone at 619.691.5098.
Once the 45-day public comment period has concluded, the City will review all public comments on the EIR, provide
written responses to comments, and authorize revisions to the EIR text, if necessary. The final Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program (MMRP) will be incorporated into the Final EIR. Mitigation measures contained in the EIR
consider future monitoring requirements and are written in sufficient detail to address impacts of the proposed
project, referencing the appropriate implementing permits and plans. If one or more significant environmental
impacts are determined, written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by an overriding
justification and rationale for each finding in the form of a statement of overriding considerations will also be
included in the Final EIR, if necessary. The Final EIR includes all comment letters received, final written response
to comments, a Final EIR preface, if applicable, edits made to the EIR as a result of public review/comment, and
findings of fact and statement of overriding considerations, if necessary.
2.5 Intended Uses of the EIR
According to Section 21002.1(a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA), “[t]he purpose of an environmental impact
report is to identify the significant effects of a project, to identify alternatives to the project, and to indicate the
manner in which those significant effects can be mitigated or avoided.” This EIR provides relevant information
concerning the potential environmental effects associated with construction and operation of the proposed project
and identifies and evaluates potentially significant effects that may result from im plementation of the proposed
project. It is intended for use by decision makers and the public.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 109 of 1271
2 – Introduction
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 2-5
As the designated lead agency, the City has assumed responsibility for preparing this EIR. When deciding whether
to approve the proposed project, the City will use the information provided in this EIR to consider potential impacts
to the physical environment associated with the proposed project. The City will consider all written comments
received on the EIR during the 45-day public comment period in making its decision to certify the EIR as complete
and in compliance with CEQA and in making its determination whether to approve or deny the project. In the final
review of the document, environmental considerations, and economic and social factors will be weighed to
determine the most appropriate course of action.
After certification of the Final EIR, agencies with permitting authority over all or portions of the project will use the
Final EIR as the basis for their evaluation of environmental effects related to the project and approval or denial of
other applicable permits or authorizations.
2.6 Organization and Content of the EIR
This EIR is organized to provide a tiered project-level analysis of the potentially significant environmental impacts,
mitigation measures, and alternatives for the proposed project. To describe the direct, indirect, and cumulative
impacts, mitigation measures, and alternatives for the proposed project, this EIR is organized as follows:
• Chapter 1, Executive Summary, outlines the conclusions of the environmental analysis and a summary of
the project as compared to the alternatives analyzed in the EIR. This section also includes a table
summarizing all environmental impacts identified in this EIR along with the associated project design
features and mitigation measures proposed to reduce or avoid each impact.
• Chapter 2, Introduction, serves as a foreword to this EIR, introducing the project background, applicable
environmental review procedures, and the organization of the EIR.
• Chapter 3, Environmental Setting, describes the project location and physical environmental setting.
• Chapter 4, Project Description, provides a thorough description of the proposed project and required
discretionary approvals, along with project design features used as part of the City’s standard practice to
minimize project impacts.
• Chapter 5, Environmental Impact Analysis, provides an analysis of the potentially significant environmental
impacts identified, and proposed mitigation measures to reduce or avoid any potentially significant impacts.
• Chapter 6, Cumulative Impacts, provides an analysis of the cumulative effects of the proposed project.
• Chapter 7, Growth Inducement, discusses the project’s potential growth-inducing impact.
• Chapter 8, Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes, addresses impacts that have been identified as
significant and irreversible.
• Chapter 9, Effects Found Not to Be Significant, address impacts that were determined to not be significant
during the scoping process.
• Chapter 10, Alternatives, analyzes a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project that would
lessen or avoid significant environmental effects of the proposed project.
• Chapter 11, References, provides a compiled list of references cited in each section of the EIR.
• Chapter 12, List of Preparers, provides a list of persons who contributed to the preparation of this EIR.
• Appendices include various technical studies and correspondence prepared for the project, as listed in the
table of contents.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 110 of 1271
2 – Introduction
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 2-6
2.7 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
The City will prepare an MMRP prior to project approval. The MMRP will include all mitigation measures outlined in
the EIR, the responsible entity for implementation, implementation timing (prior to construction, during
construction, post-construction), and any follow-up reporting requirements (such as submittal of materials to
regulatory agencies). The City, as the designated lead agency, is responsible for enforcing and verifying that each
mitigation measure is implemented as required.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 111 of 1271
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 3-1
3 Environmental Setting
This chapter of the environmental impact report (EIR) provides a description of the existing site conditions,
surrounding land uses, and land use planning context relevant to the proposed Sunbow Sectional Planning Area
(SPA) Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project (project or proposed project). Additionally, this chapter
includes a description and map of related projects and growth factor assumptions for the project area.
3.1 Existing Site Conditions
The Sunbow Master Planned Community lies within the East Planning Area of the City of Chula Vista (City), as
identified in the General Plan (City of Chula Vista 2005). The approximately 135.7-acre project site is located south
of Olympic Parkway and east of Brandywine Avenue. The Otay Landfill is located to the south and southeast of the
site and undeveloped land approved for industrial and residential land uses is located to the east within Otay Ranch
Village Two. The existing Olympic Parkway, a six-lane prime arterial roadway, forms the northern boundary of the
project site. The project site is approximately 3.8 miles southeast of downtown Chula Vista , 9.9 miles southeast of
downtown San Diego approximately 2.3 miles west of State Route 125, and approximately 0.7 miles east of
Interstate 805 (I-805). The project site consists of vacant and undeveloped land.
3.1.1 Surrounding Land Uses
The project site is bordered by the Otay Landfill to the south and southeast of the site, and undeveloped land
approved for industrial and residential land uses is located to the east. Residential Medium High land uses are
located to the west of the project site, across Brandywine Avenue (City of Chula Vista 2005). The existing Olympic
Parkway forms the northern boundary of the project site and an open space area is located to the north of the
project site, across Olympic Parkway, and residential development is located approximately 400 feet to the north.
Olympic Parkway is designated a scenic roadway in the General Plan.
3.1.2 Existing Topography and Soils
Soils on the site consist of previously placed compacted fill, topsoil, alluvium, colluvium, San Diego formation,
Otay formation, and Sweetwater formation. The compacted fill is associated with previous grading operations for
Olympic Parkway and is present along the northern project boundary. The topsoil encountered consists of
unconsolidated, clayey sands to sandy clays with a high expansion potential. Alluvium is present within the three
main drainages within the northern portion of the site and along Olympic Parkway. Colluvium deposits are present
along the hillsides above the alluvial drainages within the northern portion of the site. The San Diego Formation
overlies the Otay Formation and consists of dense, fine to medium -grained sandstone with relatively low cohesion
and moderate to high permeability. Otay Formation is the predominant geologic unit on the site. It consist s of
dense, silty to clayey, sandstone and hard, siltstone and claystone bed with continuous to discontinuous
interbeds of weak, highly -plastic bentonitic claystone. The Sweetwater Formation, commonly referred to as the
gritstone layer of the Otay Formation, underlies the Otay Formation and is characterized as dense to very dense,
gravelly, and fine to coarse sandstone that is locally cemented.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 112 of 1271
3 – Environmental Setting
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 3-2
3.1.3 Climate
The San Diego Air Basin experiences warm summers, mild winters, infrequent rainfalls, light winds, and moderate
humidity. This usually mild climatological pattern is interrupted infrequently by periods of extremely hot weather,
winter storms, or Santa Ana winds. The weather of the San Diego region, as in most of Southern California, is
influenced by the Pacific Ocean and its semi-permanent high-pressure systems that result in dry, warm summers
and mild, occasionally wet winters. The average temperature ranges (in degrees Fahrenheit) from the mid -40s to
the high 90s. Most of the region’s precipitation falls during November through April, with infrequent (approximately
10%) precipitation during the summer. The average seasonal precipitation in the City of Chula Vista is approximately
9.7 inches; the amount increases with elevation as moist air is lifted over the mountains to the east (WRCC 2017).
3.1.4 Access
Primary regional access to the project site is from I-805 via Olympic Parkway. There is currently no public roadway
access to or within the site. The project site is currently accessible from Olympic Parkway through two existing
unpaved culverts crossing Poggi Canyon Creek in the northern portion of the site.
3.2 Existing Land Use Designations
3.2.1 Existing General Plan Designations
As shown on Figure 3-1, the project site’s land use is designated largely as Open Space Preserve with small sections
designated as Open Space, as well as Research & Limited Industrial within the southeastern portion of the site.
Land uses designated as Open Space Preserve are area s within the Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation
Program Subarea Plan for the permanent conservation of biological resources (City of Chula Vista 2005). The Open
Space land use designation is intended for lands to be protected from urban development, including floodplains,
canyon, mountain, and agricultural uses (City of Chula Vista 2005).
3.2.2 Existing Zoning
The City of Chula Vista Zoning Map designates the zoning of the project site as a Planned Community (P-C) Zone.
Per Title 19 of the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code, the City’s Zoning Code, P-C Zones shall be divided into
sectional planning areas. Thus, the project site is designated as SPA under the P-C Zone (City of Chula Vista 2020).
Specific land use districts are established by the SPA Plan (described below).
3.2.3 Existing Sunbow General Development Plan Designation
The General Development Plan designates the project site as Industrial Park and Open Space, as shown on Figure
3-2 (City of Chula Vista 19 89).
3.2.4 Existing Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Designation
Zoning (land use district) for the project site is established in the Sunbow SPA Plan. The SPA Plan designates the
project site as Industrial Park and Open Space , as shown on Figure 3 -3 (City of Chula Vista 1990).
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 113 of 1271
Existing General Plan Land Use
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR
FIGURE 3-1SOURCE: RH Consulting Group, LLC 2020Path: Z:\Projects\j1261201\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\EIR2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 114 of 1271
3 – Environmental Setting
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 3-4
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 115 of 1271
Existing General Development Plan Land Use Designation
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR
FIGURE 3-2SOURCE: RH Consulting Group, LLCPath: Z:\Projects\j1261201\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\EIR2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 116 of 1271
3 – Environmental Setting
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 3-6
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 117 of 1271
Existing SPA Plan Land Use Plan
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR
FIGURE 3-3SOURCE: ERC Environmental and Energy Servies Co.Path: Z:\Projects\j1261201\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\EIR2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 118 of 1271
3 – Environmental Setting
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 3-8
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 119 of 1271
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 4-1
4 Project Description
This chapter of the environmental impact report (EIR) provides a description of the proposed Sunbow Sectional
Planning Area (SPA) Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project (project or proposed project). As required
by Section 15124 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, this chapter includes the precise
location of the project site, a statement of the project objectives, a general description of project chara cteristics
that accounts for public service facilities, and a summary of the discretionary actions that would be required.
4.1 Location
ACI Sunbow LLC (applicant), is proposing to develop an approximately 135.7-acre site (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers
644-171-12500, 644-011-0600, 644-020-1100) within the Sunbow Master Planned Community of the City of
Chula Vista (Figure 4-1, Project Location). The project site is located within the southern portion of the City of Chula
Vista (City), in southwestern San Diego County, California. The site is located south of Olympic Parkway, east of
Brandywine Avenue, and north and northwest of the Otay Landfill. Undeveloped land approved for industrial and
residential land uses is located to the east of the site within Otay Ranch Village 2. The project site is approximately
3.8 miles southeast of downtown Chula Vista 9.9 miles southeast of downtown San Diego approximately 2.3 miles
west of State Route (SR) 125, and approximately 0.5 miles east of Interstate (I) 805.
4.2 Background
The Sunbow General Development Plan (GDP), which originally included 604.8 acres in eastern Chula Vista, was
adopted on December 5, 1989 (City of Chula Vista 1989), with the primary objective to create an efficient,
self-contained village with a mix of residential, commercial, community recreation, industrial park, and open
space/trails land uses. The GDP is implemented through the adoption of a more detailed SPA Plan, tentative
tract maps, and potential annexation and development agreements. The GDP is designed to function as a
policy bridge between the City of Chula Vista General Plan (General Plan ; City of Chula Vista 2005) and the
SPA Plan, which provides more detailed plans for development of the Sunbow Master Planned Community (City
of Chula Vista 1990.
The portion of the Sunbow Master Planned Community designated as Sunbow II, Phase 3 (project site),
includes the area slated to be developed as Industrial Park (formerly referred to as Planning Area 23 in the
GDP and the SPA Plan ), while the rest of the project site was designated as Open Space in the GDP and the
SPA Plan. The GDP designated the 54 .7 acres as Industrial Park to include research/development and light
industrial uses, with approximately 700,000 square feet of leasable area generating approximately 2,800
employment opportunities. Based on the City’s Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Preserve
Boundary data, the applicant’s civil engineer determined that there is an approximately 6 7.5-acre development
area within the project site. The development area (referred to herein as the prop osed development area)
would consistent of residential uses , a community purpose facility, manufactures slopes, basins, and
associated infrastructure. The remainder of the project site would be designated MSCP Preserve, Poggi Creek
Conservation Easement areas, a 0.3-acre wetland resources area, with 63.6 acres preserved as permanent Open
Space as part of the City MSCP Subarea Plan Preserve.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 120 of 1271
4 – Project Description
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 4-2
4.3 Project Objectives
Following are the objectives of the proposed project:
1. Develop a pedestrian-oriented community on an underutilized site with a range of residential uses, open
space and MSCP Preserve areas, and recreational opportunities, which are compatible with the adjacent
established residential communities.
2. Contribute to the growing housing needs of the City and the region by providing for multi-family housing
units with a range of housing types to accommodate a spectrum of demographics.
3. Preserve portions of the project site as permanent open space and increase the MSCP Preserve Areas.
4. Provide pedestrian and bicycle facilities, including a pedestrian connection to the Chula Vista Regional Trail
and connection to bike lanes within Olympic Parkway and nearby transit.
5. Implement the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan; the MSCP Subarea Plan; the GDP; and
the SPA Plan.
6. Implement the City’s Growth Management Ordinance to ensure that public and community facilities, such
as transportation, water, flood control, sewage disposal, schools, and parks, are provided in a timely
manner and financed by the parties creating the demand for, and benefiting from, the improvements.
7. Ensure that new uses are compatible with the existing community by establishing setbacks, design
regulations and guidelines, best practices, and performance standards that enhance quality of life for
neighboring properties.
8. Create a land use plan that can realistically be developed within a foreseeable time frame and under
projected economic conditions.
4.4 Project Description
The following section describes the components of the proposed project. Amendments to the General Plan, GDP, SPA
Plan, and a rezoning of the project site would be required to implement the proposed project as described below.
4.4.1 Land Uses
The 135.7-acre project site will consist of an approximately 67.5-acre development area composed of 44.2 acres of
residential uses, a 0.9-acre Community Purpose Facility (CPF), 5.9 acres of public streets, and 16.5 acres of
manufactured slopes and drainage basins. The project will also preserve 4.3 acres of Poggi Creek conservation
easement areas and a 0.3-acre wetland avoidance area. Approximately 63.6 acres will be designated MSCP Preserve.
The proposed land uses are summarized in Table 4-1 and shown in Figure 4-2, Proposed General Plan Land Use;
Figure 4.3, Proposed General Development Plan Land Use; Figure 4-4, Proposed SPA Plan Land Use; and Figure 4-5,
Proposed Zoning. Development would be centered within the southeastern portion of the site. Under the proposed
project, the Industrial Park area (Planning Area 23) would be modified to Medium -High and High Residential
land uses (see Figures 4 -2 and 4-3).
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 121 of 1271
4 – Project Description
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 4-3
Table 4-1. Sunbow II, Phase 3 Sectional Planning Area Plan Land Use Summary
Land Use Planning Area Units Gross Acres Target Density
Residential
Multi-Family (Medium-High) Residential – 13–16 du/ac
MF R-1 131 8.5 15.4
MF R-2 73 4.6 15.8
MF R-3 108 8.1 13.3
MF R-4 118 8.2 14.4
MF R-5 104 7.0 14.7
Multi-Family Medium-High Residential Subtotal 534 36.5 14.7a
Multi-Family (High) Residential – 24.1 du/ac
MF R-6 184 7.6 24.1
Multi-Family High Residential Subtotal 184 7.6 24.1
Residential Total 718 44.2 16.3a
Other
Community Purpose Facility (CPF)
CPF CPF — 0.9 —
CPF Subtotal — 0.9 —
Other Total — 0.9 —
Open Space
MSCP Open Space Preserve (OS)
OS OS-1 — 42.8 —
OS OS-2 — 10.0 —
OS OS-3 — 9.6 —
OS OS-9b — 1.1 —
MSCP Open Space Preserve Subtotal — 63.6 —
Poggi Creek Conservation Easement
OS OS-4 — 2.6 —
OS OS-5 — 0.7 —
OS OS-6a — 1.0 —
OS OS-6b — 0.1 —
Poggi Creek Conservation Easement Subtotal — 4.3 —
Manufactured Slopes/Basin
OS OS-7 — 3.2 —
OS OS-8 — 0.5 —
OS OS-9a — 0.5 —
OS OS-10 — 4.9 —
OS OS-11 — 1.3 —
OS OS-12 — 1.6 —
OS OS-13 — 4.6 —
Manufactured Slopes/Basin Subtotal — 16.5 —
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 122 of 1271
4 – Project Description
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 4-4
Table 4-1. Sunbow II, Phase 3 Sectional Planning Area Plan Land Use Summary
Land Use Planning Area Units Gross Acres Target Density
Wetland Avoidance Area
OS OS-14 — 0.3 —
Wetland Avoidance Area Subtotal — 0.3 —
Open Space Total — 84.7 —
Circulation
Public Streetsb Circulation — 5.9 —
Circulation Subtotal — 5.9 —
Circulation Total — 5.9 —
All Land Use Types – Summary
All Land Use Types Total — 135.7 —
Notes: du/ac = dwelling units per acre; MSCP = Multiple Species Conservation Program.
Subtotals and totals may not sum precisely due to rounding.
a Target density represents the average densities proposed.
b The acreages for all proposed private streets are included as a part of the residential portion.
4.4.1.1 Residential
As shown in Table 4-1, the proposed project would introduce 534 multi-family medium-high-density residential
dwelling units on 36.5 acres, and 184 multi-family high-density residential dwelling units on 7.6 acres, for a total
of 718 units on approximately 44.2 acres of the project site. The medium-high-density development would range
from 13 to 16 dwelling units per acre, and the high-density development would be 24.1 dwelling units per acre.
Proposed residential uses would feature four unique multi-family attached residential product types with 15 unique
floorplans, ranging in square footage from approximately 1,100 to 2,050, in two- and three-story homes. The
proposed residences would feature a contemporary architectural style and unique combinations of e levations and
colors, focusing on creating a varied street scene. Proposed garages would be accessed from private driveways,
while front doors and balconies would face streets, private yards, and communal open space areas.
The project applicant would be required to enter into a Balanced Community Affordable Housing Agreement, in
accordance with the inclusionary housing policy to increase the diversity of housing prices and rents throughout the
community. Per the City’s Balanced Community Affordable Housing Agreement, the project’s affordable housing
obligation is 72 affordable housing units, including 36 low-income and 36 moderate-income affordable units.
Various passive and active recreational open space areas would be distributed throughout the residential areas to
provide recreational opportunities within walking distance of proposed residences (see Figure 4-6, Illustrative Concept
Plan). Active recreation areas may include children’s play areas, bocce ball courts, a fenced dog run, and open turf areas,
while passive recreational uses may include shaded picnic areas and movable seating areas.
Landscaping
Proposed landscaping is shown in Figure 4-6. All landscaping will be provided in accordance with the Sunbow II
Phase 3 Landscape Master Plan, prepared for the project, and the Chula Vista Landscape Manual, which requires
the use of recycled water for irrigated open space slopes and common landscaped areas, wherever feasible.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 123 of 1271
4 – Project Description
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 4-5
Drought-tolerant plants would also be provided per the Chula Vista Landscape Manual. Further, all landscaping
shall comply with the Landscape Water Conservation Ordinance (CVMC Section 20.12), the Fire Protection Plan and
the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan.
Park Requirements
According to Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC), Section 17.10, Parklands and Public Facilities, and the City of Chula
Vista Park Acquisition and Development (PAD) Fee Update, the project would generate a parkland obligation of 5.6
acres. The Community Benefit Agreement, between the City and the applicant, includes a provision for payment of a
Park Benefit Fee, equal to the PAD fee that would have been due pursuant to CVMC Section 17.10, of approximately
$11.03 million based on 2019 PAD fees, which may be revised by the City from time to time. The final Park Benefit
Fee amount will be determined based on the number and type of residential units constructed and the PAD fee rates
in effect as of the effective date of paymentthe project’s Development Agreement. To create this Park Benefit Fee, the
City will waive the parkland dedication and development requirements set in Chapter 17.10 of the CVMC, including
the Parkland Acquisition and Public Facilities Development fees, and Quimby Act fees. The Park Benefit Fee shall
satisfy the project’s park obligations and may be used by the City to acquire or develop parkland, as the City determines
appropriate and in the best interest of the City.
4.4.1.2 Community Purpose Facility
CVMC Section 19.48.040 P-C Planned Community Zone requires 1.39 acres of Community Purpose (CPF) land per
1,000 persons be provided. For the purposes of determining CPF obligation, the project would generate
approximately 2,334 persons resulting in an obligation to provide approximately 3.2 acres of CPF land.
Approximately 0.9 acres within the project site would be designated community purpose facility (CPF). The CPF area
would be centrally located in the project site, toward the southeast (see Figure 4-4). The CPF would be used as a
community recreation area and would accommodate a swimming pool, spa, and associated pool uses; a clubhouse;
a shaded BBQ area; a children’s play area; a multi-use hard court area; and a level turf area (see Figure 4-7,
Community Purpose Facility Conceptual Site Plan). As shown in Figure 4-4, the CPF would be located directly to the
south of proposed Street ‘A,’ (Street A) and would be bounded by R-4 to the east, south, and west The community
recreation area is designed consistent with the provisions of CVMC)Section 19.48.025 as a qualified CPF private
recreation use. The project applicant would enter into an agreement with the City to ensure compliance with the
remaining 2.3-acre CPF obligation as part of the Development Agreement.
4.4.1.3 Open Space
The Sunbow Master Planned Community was created to achieve the residential goals and objectives of the GDP.
As shown in Figure 4-3, the western portion and northern boundary of the project site was anticipated to be
developed as open space in the GDP. Approximately 84.8 acres of the project site would be designated as open
space and open space preserve. Within the development area, approximately 16.5 of open space acres would be
comprised of manufactured slopes, basins and fuel modification zones. Open Space areas preserved outside the
development area would be comprised of a 0.3-acre wetland resource area, 4.3 acres of Poggi Creek Conservation
Easement areas and approximately 63.6 acres designated MSCP Preserve open space. Preserved open space
would be managed by the City with funding from Community Facilities District (CFD) 98-3. The project’s
homeowner’s association would manage the manufactured slopes, basins, and wetland avoidance areas.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 124 of 1271
4 – Project Description
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 4-6
MSCP Open Space Preserve
Approximately 63.6 acres of Open Space (Parcels OS-1, OS-2, OS-3, and OS-9b) would be preserved as MSCP open
space under the City’s MSCP Subarea Plan. The MSCP open space area would be dedicated to the City of Chula
Vista. Land use and design of these areas is regulated by the MSCP Subarea Plan, as discussed in the SPA Plan
Amendment (see Appendix B).
The project also includes a Chula Vista MSCP Boundary Adjustment (BLA) that would correct an inadvertent error in
the MSCP that placed a 100% Preserve overlay on the project site even though the project was not identified as a
Covered Project. The BLA would implement minor adjustments to the development limits and the adjacent open
space and MSCP open space preserve areas (see Section 4.4.4, MSCP Boundary Line Adjustment and Minor
Amendment, and Section 5.3, Biological Resources, for additional details). The applicant is also requesting an
MSCP Minor Amendment to allow off-site temporary project impacts that would encroach 25 feet onto City’s
property and within this Minor Amendment Area (see Figure 5.3-1, Local Environmental Setting Map, and Figure
5.3-4, Biological Impacts Map). This off-site area would result in the installation of permanent buttressing; however,
the impacts from grading would be temporary as this area would be return to its original condition. These areas are
intended to remain unimproved and/or restored and their use strictly limited consistent with the Chula Vista MSCP
Subarea Plan. Vegetation would consist of native plants that already occur on site. Only under limited circumstances
may certain facilities, as determined by the City to be compatible with the goals and objectives of the City’s MSCP
Subarea Plan, be permitted within the preserve. Any proposed facilities within the MSCP Open Space Preserve area
shall be subject to the prior review and approval of the Director of Development Services. The proposed project
would limit grading for proposed Street ‘A’ and Street ‘B’ (Street A and Street B) to the north of the project site, as
they intersect the MSCP Preserve area. Development of Streets A and B would occur consistent with previously
approved alignments and existing Poggi Creek crossing improvements.
The proposed MSCP Preserve includes a portion of a water quality basin (OS-9b) as a Future Facility within the
existing MSCP Preserve. The relocation of this basin to minimize impacts to the MSCP Preserve was considered
during project design; however, due to site specific topography for drainage and the confined development footprint
the basin was instead modified to reduce potential impacts to the MSCP Preserve to the extent practicable. This
encroachment into the MSCP Preserve would quality as a Future Facility (a conditional compatible use) and is
analyzed for Functional Equivalency Criteria. Refer to Section 5.3, Biological Resources.
Poggi Creek Conservation Easement Areas
Approximately 3.9 acres of open space , located in the northern portion of the project site, within Parcels OS-
4, OS-5, OS-6a, and OS-6b, would consist of the Poggi Creek Conservation Easement Areas. There are currently
19.2 acres of recorded and unrecorded conservation easements associated with Poggi Cree k within the project
site. This includes the 9.7 -acre recorded conservation easement, a 5.6 -acre proposed unrecorded
conservation easement, and the 3.9 -acre proposed unrecorded Poggi Creek Conservation Easement. Of the
recorded and unrecorded easements of Poggi Creek, 12.4 acres are within the proposed Chula Vista MSCP
Boundary , as shown on Figure 4 -8, Proposed Poggi Creek Conservation Easement and MSCP Boundary . The
Poggi Creek Conservation Easement areas would remain undeveloped and allow for protection o f the existing
Poggi Creek. Note that the existing Poggi Creek Crossing (culverts) were analyzed as part of previous projects
in this area and mitigation for impacts is fully complete.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 125 of 1271
4 – Project Description
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 4-7
Manufactured Slopes/Basins/Wetland Resources
Approximately 16.8 acres of open space within the proposed project site, located on Parcels OS-7, 8, 9a, 10 and
13, and would consist of manufactured slopes, basins, fuel modification zones and associated buffer areas. A 0.3
acre wetland resource is preserved on-site and is designated OS-14 in the Sunbow SPA Amendment. Two proposed
detention/water quality control basins would be constructed within the northeast and northwest portion of the
development area, within Parcels OS-9a and OS-11, to treat on-site stormwater runoff. Large landscaped slopes
would be provided along the perimeter of the development area within Parcels OS-7, OS-10, and OS-12 and would
incorporate a diverse plant palette and planting program . Fuel modification areas would also be provided in these
areas and would be landscaped consistent with the Fire Protection Plan prepared for the project.
4.4.2 Access and Circulation Network
4.4.2.1 Site Access
Regional access to the project site is from I-805, which runs north–south and is located approximately 0.5 miles
west of the project site. Additional north–south access is provided from SR-125, located approximately 2.3 miles
east of the project site, and I-5, located approximately 3.8 miles west of the project site. SR-125 and I-5 both provide
north–south circulation. SR-54 and SR-905 provide regional east–west circulation and are located approximately
4.3 miles north and 2.8 miles south, respectively, of the project site.
East–west access is provided by the existing Olympic Parkway, located adjacent to the project site to the north,
connecting to I-805 to the west and SR-125 to the east. Olympic Parkway is designated as a scenic roadway within
the General Plan. Direct access to the project site would be provided by two proposed public streets, Street A and
Street B. Street A would extend south from Olympic Parkway, through the project site, and then curve to the east
and connect with Street B. Street B would also extend south from the eastern portion of Olympic Parkway, adjacent
to the project site (see Figure 4-2, Project Site Plan, and Figure 4-9, Vehicular Circulation Plan). Both Street A and
Street B would be signalized at the Olympic Parkway intersections, with pedestrian crossings. The impact areas of
both Street A and Street B within Poggi Creek are within areas previously addressed and mitigated for impacts to
Poggi Creek described above.
4.4.2.2 Internal Circulation
The proposed project’s circulation system provides a system of roadway corridors to support both vehicular and
non-vehicular modes of transportation to serve the site and the community. This system includes the development
of internal systems to serve the SPA area, including planned roads, pedestrian improvements, and transit from
adjacent villages.
The proposed project establishes the on-site public and private street cross sections for the project. Street pattern
organizes traffic into a hierarchy of travel ways, arranged according to anticipated volumes and modes of travel .
The western portion of the project site would be primarily developed as open space and no internal vehicular
circulation is proposed. The street pattern in the development area of the site is a suburban street pattern, provides
a transition to the natural open space areas to the west, and reflects the topography of this portion of the site.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 126 of 1271
4 – Project Description
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 4-8
As shown in Table 4-1, approximately 5.9 acres of the project site would be used for public streets, which includes
proposed public Streets A and Street B, discussed in Section 4.4.2.1, Site Access, and shown in Figure 4-9.
Pedestrian and bicycle circulation proposed is shown in Figure 4-10, Bicycle and Pedestrian Circulation Plan.
Streets ‘A’ and ‘B’
Streets A and B would be classified as Modified Class III Collector Streets, planned as two unique street sections to
serve the project. The Modified Class III Collector, with a 55-foot-wide right-of-way, 13-foot-wide travel lanes, two 7.5-
foot-wide landscape parkways, and a 6-foot-wide sidewalk and parking on one side of each street, would be
implemented on the portion of Street A from Olympic Parkway to the entrance of neighborhoods R-1/R-3 and along
Street B between Olympic Parkway and the intersection at Street A. This narrowed street section is designed to provide
an enhanced pedestrian experience, while minimizing grading adjacent to MSCP Preserve areas. The wider 61-foot-
wide right-of-way is implemented on Street A within the development area and includes two 11-foot-wide travel lanes,
a 5-foot-wide sidewalk, and 7.5-foot-wide landscaped parkways on both sides of the street. Parking is permitted on
both sides of this segment of Street A. Class 3 Bike Lane would also be provided along Streets A and B.
One roundabout would be constructed at the intersection of Streets A and B. The roundabout would be designed to
identify the main entrance into the community as well as provide traffic calming. The center of the proposed
roundabout may include low landscaping and enhanced paving. The design of Street A and B sections, shown on
Figure 4-11 , as well as the design of the proposed roundabout, will be implemented on the site plan, may be refined
during final engineering, and shall be subject to City approval.
Private Streets
In addition to the proposed public Streets A and B, various private streets and drives are proposed throughout the
proposed development area. Two types of private streets are proposed throughout the project site. Private
neighborhood collector streets are planned within the proposed residential areas and would be comprised of two
12-foot-wide travel lanes, 5-foot-wide sidewalks, and 5.5-foot-wide landscaped parkways on both sides. No parking
would be allowed within the private neighborhood collector streets. Private residential streets with parking would
also be planned throughout the project site and would be designed to include two 12-foot-wide travel lanes, 8-foot-
wide parallel or 18-foot-wide perpendicular parking lanes, a contiguous sidewalk on one side, and a 5-foot-wide
landscaped parkway on the opposite side. The design of both of these street sections, shown on Figure 4-12, Private
Residential Streets –Typical Street Sections, will be implemented on the site plan, may be refined during final
engineering and shall be subject to City approval. Pedestrian connections from the end of proposed private drives
to walkways within individual neighborhoods would be provided, where feasible.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation
As shown in Figure 4-10, the residential street pattern would be designed to provide access into the neighborhoods
and promote walkability. The proposed project would provide a pedestrian connection to the existing Chula Vista
Regional Trail, located to the north of the project site, across Olympic Parkway. Pedestrian access to the Regional
Trail would be provided at the two signalized intersections of Streets A and B and Olympic Parkway. A Class 3 Bike
Lane would be provided along Streets A and B and would connect with the existing Class 2 Bike Lane along Olympic
Parkway as well as the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System bus stop located at the corner of Olympic Parkway
and Brandywine Avenue. Bicyclists using the proposed on-site Class 3 Bike Lanes would share the roadway with
vehicles along Streets A and B. Internal pedestrian circulation would be provided via a network of sidewalks and
paseos connecting neighborhoods and public streets.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 127 of 1271
4 – Project Description
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 4-9
4.4.3 Public Service and Utilities
4.4.3.1 Water Service
Water service for the proposed project would be provided by the Otay Water District (OWD). A water system would be
installed in accordance with OWD standards and would be maintained and operated by OWD. One existing OWD potable
waterline and one existing OWD recycled water line are located within Olympic Parkway. The proposed project would
receive water by expanding the existing 624 Pressure Zone, located within the Central Area System of OWD, through
creating two domestic service connections and two fire service connections transmission lines within Olympic Parkway
public streets, directly to the north of Streets A and B. In addition, an on-site loop would be constructed for domestic and
fire protection systems and would include a proposed public 12-inch OWD potable waterline, an 8-inch-diameter private
domestic waterline, an 8-inch-diameter private fire protection waterline, and an 8-inch-diameter public OWD recycled
water line, to be constructed within Streets A and B, and an 8-inch-diameter private domestic waterline, an 8-inch-
diameter private fire protection waterline, and a 6-inch private recycled waterline, to be constructed outside of the public
streets. Recycled water would be used to irrigate all common landscaped areas, the on-site open space areas, and the
CPF site. The proposed water and recycled water systems are shown in Figure 4-13.
4.4.3.2 Sewer Service
Sewer service for the proposed project would be provided by and connected to the existing City of Chula Vista Poggi
Canyon Interceptor. The proposed project sewer would result in construction of an 8-inch-diameter public gravity sewer
line along the proposed Street A, that would convey flow to the existing Poggi Canyon Interceptor, located within
Olympic Parkway, to the north of the project site. Private sewer lines would be connected to this new public sewer line
and extended to the proposed building sewer laterals. All utilities would be underground, and easements would be
provided as necessary. The City operates and maintains its own sanitary sewer collection system that connects to the
City of San Diego’s Metropolitan Sewer System. The proposed sewer plan is shown in Figure 4-14.
4.4.3.3 Drainage and Stormwater Facilities
The approximately 135.7-acre site generally consists of natural grades and hills covered by native vegetation and
shrubs, and the drainage of the site generally flows from south to north, toward Poggi Canyon Creek. The Poggi
Canyon Creek, located within the northern portion of the project site, flows from the northeast to southwest and
accepts stormwater runoff from the surrounding area, as well as downstream runoff from the project site. Site
elevations within the site range from approximately 231 feet above mean sea level at the open space area of
the project site to approximately 440 feet above mean sea level, toward the southeastern portion of the site,
where it abuts the Otay Landfill.
The proposed storm drain system and layout, shown in Figure 4-15, would be designed to address peak flows and
to integrate water quality features needed to comply with the City’s Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan
requirements for water quality. The proposed storm drain system would be designed to prevent the co-mingling of
treated flows with untreated runoff. Drainage easements shall be provided as required by the City Development
Services Department.
Under the proposed project, two proposed detention/water quality control basins would be constructed within the
northeast and northwest portion of the development area to treat stormwater runoff. In addition, various storm
drains, curb inlets, and cleanouts would be constructed within proposed private roads and parking areas to collect
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 128 of 1271
4 – Project Description
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 4-10
and convey stormwater runoff associated with the proposed project. All stormwater facilities would be designed
using low impact development techniques and best management practices (BMPs).
Specific methods of handling stormwater are subject to detailed approval by the development services department
at the time of submission of improvement and grading plans. Design shall be accomplished on the basis of
requirements of the City of Chula Vista Subdivision Manual.
4.4.3.4 Dry Utilities
Dry utilities would be extended underground throughout the project site, primarily within streets and other public easements.
Telephone, cable television, and internet service would be provided by companies such as Cox Communications, Time
Warner, and AT&T. Gas and electric services would be provided by San Diego Gas & Electric Company.
4.4.3.5 Schools
The Chula Vista Elementary School District serves the project site. More specifically, Valle Lindo Elementary School
(grades K–6) serves the project site and surrounding area (Chula Vista Elementary School District 2020). Valle
Lindo Elementary School is the closest elementary school to the project site, located approximately 0.3 miles west
of the project site.
The Sweetwater Union High School District serves the project site. The majority of the project site is within the
attendance boundary of Rancho Del Rey Middle School, while the southwestern portion of the project site is served
by Castle Park Middle School. Similarly, the majority of the project site is served by Otay Ranch High School, while
the southwestern portion of the site is served by Castle Park High School (Sweetwater Union High School District
2020). All middle schools (grades 7–12) and high schools (grades 9–12) are located approximately 1 mile from the
project site. Additionally, Southwestern College is located 1 mile north of the project site.
4.4.3.6 Police and Fire Services
The Chula Vista Police Department currently provides police services within the City. Development of the project
site would increase demand for police services. To meet Growth Management Ordinance service thresholds,
additional personnel and facilities may be required at buildout of the project. The proposed project would contribute
and estimated $1.5 million in Development Impact Fees dedicated to police services.
The Chula Vista Fire Department would provide fire service for the project. Fire Station Number 3 is the closest fire
station to the project site, located approximately 910 feet to the northwest of the site, at 1410 Brandywine Avenue.
Additional fire equipment, staff, and facilities required to serve the increased population as a result of the proposed
project is identified in Section 5.13, Public Services, and the Supplemental Public Facilities Financing Plan prepared
for the proposed project. The proposed project would contribute an estimated $840,000 in Development Impact
Fees dedicated to Fire Suppression.
American Medical Response (AMR) currently provides emergency medical services on a contract basis within the
City. There are five AMR South County paramedic units: two are located in Chula Vista, two are in National City, and
one is in Imperial Beach. However, the Chula Vista Fire Department is planning to take over ambulatory services for
the City once AMR’s current contract expires in September 2021.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 129 of 1271
4 – Project Description
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 4-11
4.4.4 MSCP Boundary Line Adjustment and Minor Amendment
The proposed project includes an MSCP Boundary Line Adjustment to adjust the existing MSCP Preserve Boundary in
areas on site that overlap with the proposed project’s development area. As a part of the proposed MSCP Boundary Line
Adjustment, the proposed project is required to set aside a potentially suitable area currently located outside of the MSCP
Preserve to incorporate into the MSCP Preserve at a 1:1 acreage ratio. The proposed MSCP Boundary Line Adjustment
would be required to result in equal or higher biological value as compared to the existing MSCP Preserve. The
determination of biological value of the proposed MSCP Preserve Boundary Line Adjustment shall be made by the City,
as the local jurisdiction, in concurrence with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife. The proposed MSCP Boundary Adjustment would meet the MSCP Boundary Line Adjustment functional
equivalency criteria and would result in a 0.09-acre increase to the MSCP Preserve Area. Section 5.3 of this EIR provides
a detailed description of the conditions of the “give” and “take” areas separately. Where it is appropriate to discuss the
give and take areas together, the area is referred to as the Boundary Line Adjustment Area. An MSCP Minor Amendment
is also proposed to address off-site grading adjacent to the southwestern boundary of the development area.
4.4.5 Tentative Map
The Tentative Map, shown in Figure 4-16, would address subdivision of the project site, street standards, and
infrastructure. The Tentative Map would also address provisions for underground encroachment (e.g., all
underground utilities lines) into the right-of-way, off-site streets (traffic signals at Olympic Parkway), and grading
required to implement the subdivision. This includes the proposed sewer line within the Street A and Street B right-
of-way, which would convey flow to the existing Poggi Canyon Interceptor, located within Olympic Parkway to the north
of the project site, as shown in Figures 4-14 and 4-16.
4.4.6 Conceptual Grading
Conceptual grading and cut-and-fill plans are shown in Figure 4-17. Grading for the proposed project would consist
of cuts and fills that are planned to have maximum heights of approximately 100 feet, with a maximum slope
inclination of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). The proposed raw grading quantity for the project is app roximately
1,200,000 cubic yards of balanced cut and fill material.
4.4.7 Construction and Phasing
Construction of the proposed project would commence in May 2021 and would last approximately 7 years, ending
in May 2028. Grading of the project site would commence in June 2021 and last approximately 8 months. Building
construction would occur over 6 years and 5 months and would begin in December 2021. Paving would take
approximately 6 months, and architectural coatings would take approximately 6 years and 5 months. The analysis
contained herein is based on the following assumptions (duration of phases is approximate):
• Site Preparation: one month (May 2021 to June 2021)
• Grading: 8 months (June 2021 – February 2022)
• Building construction: 6 years and 5 months (December 2021 to May 2028)
• Paving: 6 months (March 2022 to September 2022)
• Architectural coatings: 6 years and 5 months (December 2021 to May 2028)
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 130 of 1271
4 – Project Description
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 4-12
Grading of the project site would require 1,200,000 cubic yards of balanced cut and fill and is expected to occur
over 8 months. The proposed project would involve development of 718 multi-family residential units1 but would be
developed in phases. The phased occupancy of the proposed residential development would begin in 2023 and the
residential development would be fully occupied by 2028.
4.4.8 Project Design Features
4.4.8.1 Air Quality
The following project design features (PDFs) would be implemented as part of the proposed project:
PDF-AQ-1 Fugitive Dust Control. The applicant or its designee shall implement the following measures to
minimize fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5):
a. A non-toxic dust control agent shall be used on the grading areas or watering shall be applied
at least three times daily.
b. Grading areas shall be stabilized as quickly as possible.
c. Chemical stabilizer shall be applied, a gravel pad shall be installed, or the last 100 feet of
internal travel path within the construction site shall be paved prior to public road entry and for
all haul roads.
d. Visible track-out into traveled public streets shall be removed with the use of sweepers, water
trucks, or similar method at the end of the workday.
e. All soil disturbance and travel on unpaved surfaces shall be suspended if winds exceed 25 mph.
f. On-site stockpiles of excavated material shall be covered.
g. A 15 mph speed limit on unpaved surfaces shall be enforced.
PDF-AQ-2 Architectural Coating. The applicant or its designee shall use low or no-volatile organic compound
(VOC) architectural coatings.
4.4.8.2 Biological Resources
PDF-BIO-1 Habitat Restoration. The project also proposes habitat restoration efforts (soil salvage, seed
transplant) within appropriate on-site areas proposed, to be added to the City 100% Preserve. To
this end, considerable clay soil exists within the current project development areas and could be
used to develop suitable habitat to support Otay tarplant within an enhanced portion of the on-site
Preserve. This effort would further benefit the Otay tarplant population and native grassland
conservation on site and could also support the goals of the City’s Subarea Plan and the
Conservation Recommendations of the 1995 Biological Opinion (BO).
1 Note that the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report (Appendix C) assumed 720 proposed residential units
for a conservative analysis.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 131 of 1271
4 – Project Description
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 4-13
4.4.8.3 Noise
PDF-NOI-1 Exterior-to-Interior Noise Analysis. An exterior-to-interior noise analysis shall be conducted by the
project applicant for the proposed dwelling units facing the adjoining roadways (e.g., Olympic
Parkway) prior to issuance of building permits. Installation of mechanical ventilation systems or air
conditioning systems and sound-rated windows shall be required if the predicted interior
background noise due to traffic noise intrusion through the building envelope assemblies exceeds
the state and City 45 dBA CNEL interior standard. The acoustical analysis shall substantiate that
the resulting interior background noise levels, with appropriate implementation of interior comfort
systems and sound insulation, will be less than this noise standard.
4.4.8.4 Transportation
PDF-TRA-1 Trip Reduction Strategies. The strategies outlined below would reduce the number of automobile
trips generated by residents of the project and the distance that the residents drive.
•Provide ride share coordination services thru through the project’s homeowner’s association
to match residents interested in carpooling,
•Coordinate with nearby schools and/or the project’s homeowner’s association to match
residents interested in carpooling to/from schools.
•Provide on-site transit opportunities information.
•Encourage bicycling by providing on-site bicycle infrastructure such as bike racks.
•Implement a multimodal wayfinding signage program
PDF-TRA-2 Adaptive Traffic Signal Control. The project will also contribute its fair share contribution toward the
provision of Adaptive Traffic Signal Control (ATSC) modules to each signalized intersection along
the Olympic Parkway corridor between the I-805 Ramps and La Media Road.
4.5 Discretionary Actions/Approvals
A discretionary action is an action taken by an agency that calls for the exercise of judgment in deciding whether to
approve or how to carry out a project. The following discretionary actions are associated with the proposed project
and would be considered by the City:
•Certification of a Final EIR and adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program pursuant to CEQA
•Approval of amendments to the General Plan
•Approval of amendments to the GDP
•Approval of amendments to the SPA Plan
•Approval of the Tentative Map for Sunbow II, Phase 3
•Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan Boundary Adjustment and Minor Amendment
•Rezone
•Approval of the Development Agreement between the applicant and the City2
2 A Development Agreement between the Applicant and the City of Chula Vista is proposed in conjunction with the proposed project. The
Development Agreement would address the provisions included in the Community Benefit Agreement approved by the Chula Vista City
Council (Resolution No. 2020-003, January 7, 2020). The Development Agreement would also address the project’s Community Purpose
Facility and affordable housing obligations, along with other terms and conditions acceptable to the City of Chula Vista.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 132 of 1271
4 – Project Description
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 4-14
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 133 of 1271
Date: 10/20/2020 - Last saved by: ckubacki - Path: Z:\Projects\j1261201\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\EIR\Figure4-1_ProjectLocation.mxdBrandywineAveMain St
Ot
a
y
V
a
ll
e
y
RdOceanViewHillsPkwy
O l y m p ic Pkw yH
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
R
d
O r a n g e A veTelegraphCanyonRd805
Project Location
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR
SOURCE: Bing Maps 2020
02,0001,000 Feet
Project Boundary
FIGURE 4-1
Project Site
Carlsbad
Chula
Vista
Coachella
Coronado
Dana
Point
Del
Mar
Encinitas
Escondido
Imperial
Beach
La
QuintaMenifee
Murrieta
Oceanside
Palm Springs
Poway
San Clemente
San Diego
San
Juan
Capistrano
San Marcos
Santee
Temecula
Vista
Wildomar Riverside
County
905
125
52
54 94
163
241
73
98
195
56
86
111
74
67
74
76 79
78
805
215
15
5
8
SAN DIEGO
COUNTY
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 134 of 1271
4 – Project Description
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 4-16
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 135 of 1271
Proposed General Plan Land UseSunbow Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIRFIGURE 4-2SOURCE: RH Consulting Group, LLC 2020Path: Z:\Projects\j1261201\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\EIR2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 136 of 1271
4 – Project Description
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 4-18
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 137 of 1271
Proposed General Development Plan Land Use DesignationSunbow Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIRFIGURE 4-3SOURCE: RH Consulting Group, LLC 2020Path: Z:\Projects\j1261201\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\EIR2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 138 of 1271
4 – Project Description
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 4-20
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 139 of 1271
Proposed SPA Land Use PlanSunbow Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIRFIGURE 4-4SOURCE: RH Consulting Group, LLC 2020Path: Z:\Projects\j1261201\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\EIRMapping Correction2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 140 of 1271
4 – Project Description
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 4-22
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 141 of 1271
Proposed ZoningSunbow Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIRFIGURE 4-5SOURCE: RH Consulting Group, LLC 2020Path: Z:\Projects\j1261201\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\EIR2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 142 of 1271
4 – Project Description
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 4-24
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 143 of 1271
Illustrative Concept Plan Sunbow Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIRFIGURE 4-6Path: Z:\Projects\j1261201\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\EIR2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 144 of 1271
4 – Project Description
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 4-26
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 145 of 1271
Community Purpose Facility Conceptual Site PlanSunbow Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIRFIGURE 4-7Path: Z:\Projects\j1261201\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\EIRSOURCE: Schmidt Design Group 20202021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 146 of 1271
4 – Project Description
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 4-28
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 147 of 1271
Proposed Poggi Creek Easement and MSCP BoundarySunbow Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIRFIGURE 4-8Path: Z:\Projects\j1261201\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\EIRSOURCE: RH Consulting Group, LLC, Hunsaker & Associates, Schmidt Design Group 20202021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 148 of 1271
4 – Project Description
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 4-30
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 149 of 1271
Vehicular Circulation PlanSunbow Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIRFIGURE 4-9Path: Z:\Projects\j1261201\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\EIR2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 150 of 1271
4 – Project Description
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 4-32
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 151 of 1271
Bicycle and Pedestrian Circulation PlanSunbow Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIRFIGURE 4-10Path: Z:\Projects\j1261201\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\EIR2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 152 of 1271
4 – Project Description
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 4-34
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 153 of 1271
Exhibit 7a: Modified Public Class III Collector – 55’ ROW (Public)
55-foot Right-of-Way (Public)
61-foot Right-of-Way (Public)
Streets ‘A’ and ‘B’ – Typical Street Sections
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR
FIGURE 4-11SOURCE: RH Consulting Group, Hunsaker & Associates, Schmidt Design Group 2020Path: Z:\Projects\j1261201\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\EIR2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 154 of 1271
4 – Project Description
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 4-36
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 155 of 1271
Exhibit 8: Private Neighborhood Collector
Private Residential Streets with parking are planned in the residential neighborhoods and include
two 12-foot travel lanes, 8-foot parallel or 18-foot perpendicular parking lane and a contiguous
sidewalk on one side and a 5-foot landscaped parkway on the opposite side. Refer to Exhibit 9:
Private Residential Street w/Parking.
Private Neighborhood Collector
Private Residential Street w/Parking
Private Residential Streets – Typical Street Sections
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR
FIGURE 4-12SOURCE: RH Consulting Group, Hunsaker & Associates, Schmidt Design Group 2020Path: Z:\Projects\j1261201\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\EIR2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 156 of 1271
4 – Project Description
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 4-38
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 157 of 1271
Proposed Water and Recycled Water System
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR
FIGURE 4-13Path: Z:\Projects\j1261201\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\EIRSOURCE: RH Consulting Group, Hunsaker & Associates, Schmidt Design Group 2020
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 158 of 1271
4 – Project Description
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 4-40
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 159 of 1271
Proposed Sewer SystemSunbow Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIRFIGURE 4-14Path: Z:\Projects\j1261201\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\EIR2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 160 of 1271
4 – Project Description
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 4-42
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 161 of 1271
Proposed Storm Drain SystemSunbow Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIRFIGURE 4-15Path: Z:\Projects\j1261201\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\EIR2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 162 of 1271
4 – Project Description
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 4-44
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 163 of 1271
S T R E E T 'B '
O L Y M P I C P K W Y
S
T
R
E
E
T
'
A
'AVE(PU
BLIC)
(P U B L I C )BRANDYWINETentative Map
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR
FIGURE 4-16SOURCE: Hunsaker & Associates 2020Path: Z:\Projects\j1261201\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\EIR2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 164 of 1271
4 – Project Description
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 4-46
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 165 of 1271
Conceptual Grading PlanSunbow Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIRFIGURE 4-17Path: Z:\Projects\j1261201\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\EIRSOURCE: RH Consulting Group, Hunsaker & Associates, Schmidt Design Group 20202021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 166 of 1271
4 – Project Description
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 4-48
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 167 of 1271
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.1-1
5 Environmental Impact Analysis
5.1 Aesthetics
This section of the environmental impact report (EIR) describes relevant regulations, policies, and guidelines governing
views and aesthetic considerations relevant to the proposed Sunbow Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Amendment
for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project (project or proposed project). As applicable, provisions of view ordinances, design
guidelines, and general plan and scenic highway plans are summarized. Views of the site from representative public
vantage points such as from scenic roads and regional trails are analyzed. On-site and nearby off-site scenic resources
are also identified. The impact analysis determines whether the proposed project would significantly impact a scenic
vista or visual feature or preclude the ability of the public to view a significant visual feature. In addition, the analysis
addresses the introduction of new sources of lighting into the proposed project site.
5.1.1 Existing Conditions
5.1.1.1 Regulatory Framework
State
California Scenic Highway Program
The California Scenic Highway Program was created in 1963 with the intent “to protect and enhance the
natural scenic beauty of California highways and adjacent corridors, through special conse rvation treatment.”
The state laws that govern the Scenic Highway Program are Sections 260 through 263 of the Streets and
Highways Code. A highway may be designated scenic based on the natural landscape visible by travelers, the
scenic quality of the lands cape, and the extent to which development intrudes upon the views of the highway.
The Scenic Highway Program includes both officially designated scenic highways and highways that are eligible
for designation. It is the responsibility of local jurisdictions to apply for scenic highway approval, which requires
the adoption of a Corridor P rotection Program (Caltrans 2020 ). In addition, once a scenic highway is
designated, the local jurisdiction is responsible for regulating development within the scenic highwa y corridor.
There is no designated or eligible state Scenic Highway within the project site.
Local
County of San Diego Light Pollution Code
The County of San Diego (County) Code of Regulatory Ordinances Section 59.101 through 59.115 (Light Pollution
Code) was adopted for the purposes of minimizing light pollution for the public enjoyment of the dark sky
environment and to protect astronomical research at the Palomar and Mount Laguna observatories. The Light
Pollution Code contains restrictions regarding the type of outdoor light fixtures that may operate on private property
and designates all lands into one of two zones (Zone A or Zone B). Zone A has more stringent lighting regulations
than Zone B and includes all areas within a 15-mile radius of the Palomar or Mount Laguna observatory. Zone B
includes all other lands located outside of the 15-mile radius. The proposed project is located within Zone B (County
of San Diego 2009).
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 168 of 1271
5.1 – Aesthetics
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.1-2
City of Chula Vista Design Manual
The City of Chula Vista’s Design Manual (City of Chula Vista 2011) provides a set of guidelines in conjunction with
development standards to assist the City of Chula Vista (City) in achieving a high quality of aesthetic and functional
design. The City’s Design Manual includes guidelines for multi-family residential developments, which would apply
to the proposed project. These guidelines focus on site planning, architecture, and landscaping. With regard to
aesthetics, guidelines for building bulk, scale, materials, colors, and lighting are provided. Consistent with the City’s
Design Manual, the proposed Sunbow II, Phase 3 SPA Amendment for the proposed project also includes
development regulations and design guidelines. Specifically, the Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Amendment includes
guidelines for architecture, site planning and building plotting, pedestrian connectivity, and landscaping.
City of Chula Vista General Plan
The City of Chula Vista General Plan contains objectives and policies to preserve and enhance aesthetic resources.
Specifically, the Land Use and Transportation Element includes policies that strive to continue to protect the open
space network and design policies for features such as view, entryways, gateways, streetscapes, buildings, parks ,
and plazas. The General Plan identifies valued scenic vistas and open space throughout the City as discussed under
the Scenic Resources and Scenic Vistas subheading in this section (City of Chula Vista 2005). Olympic Parkway is
designated a scenic roadway in the General Plan.
Land Use and Transportation Element
The General Plan includes the following objectives and policies relevant to the proposed project with regard to aesthetics:
• Objective LUT 7. Appropriate transitions should be provided between land uses.
• Policy LUT 7.4. Require landscape and/or open space buffers to maintain a naturalized or softer edge for
proposed private development directly adjacent to natural and public open space areas.
• Objective LUT 13. Preserve scenic resources in Chula Vista, maintain the City's open space network, and
promote beautification of the City.
• Policy LUT 13.1. Identify and protect important public viewpoints and viewsheds throughout the Planning
Area, including features within and outside the planning area, such as: mountain; native habitat areas; San
Diego Bay; and historic resources.
• Policy LUT 13.4 Any discretionary projects proposed adjacent to scenic routes, with the exception of
individual single-family dwellings, shall be subject to design review to ensure that the design of the
development proposal will enhance the scenic quality of the route. Review should include site design,
architectural design, height, landscaping, signage, and utilities. Development adjacent to designated scenic
routes should be designed to:
o Create substantial open areas adjacent to scenic routes through clustering development;
o Create a pleasing streetscape through landscaping and varied building setbacks; and
o Coordinate signage, graphics and/or signage requirements, and standards.
Scenic Resources and Scenic Vistas
The General Plan identifies significant scenic resources and open space that help to define various area’s visual
and community character within the City. Scenic vistas and open space identified in the General Plan include the
Otay River and Sweetwater River Valleys; Upper and Lower Otay Lakes; Sweetwater Reservoir; San Miguel/Mother
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 169 of 1271
5.1 – Aesthetics
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.1-3
Miguel Mountains; and the San Diego Bay. These open space areas make up the majority of the Chula Vista
Greenbelt, the backbone of the City's open space and park system, which consists of a 28-mile open space system
encircling the City. The Greenbelt includes Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Preserve lands, general
open space, and existing and future trails, and connects several of the City’s existing and future public parks.
Additional natural open space areas within the City are identified in General Plan Figure 5-5, Open Space Network.
The closest identified scenic vista and open space area to the project site is the Otay River Valley located
approximately 1 mile south of the project site. The project site is also identified as part of the City’s open space
network but is not part of the City’s Greenbelt (City of Chula Vista 2005).
Gateways
The General Plan identifies entryways and gateways that offer opportunities to improve the City’s appearance and
establish a community image through special design treatments such as signage, landscape, and architectural
design enhancements. The City designates both Primary and Secondary Gateways. Primary Gateways are from
freeways and should appear visually inviting, provide adequate direction to places of interest, and have high quality
design features. Primary Gateways near the project site include Olympic Parkway from Interstate (I) 805 to
Brandywine Avenue. There are no Secondary Gateways on or near the project site (City of Chula Vista 2005).
City-Designated Scenic Roadways
The City has designated several Scenic Roadways for their views of natural features and roadway characteristics,
including enhanced landscaping, adjoining natural slopes, or special design features (City of Chula Vista 2005).
Existing City-designated Scenic Roadways in the project area include Olympic Parkway adjacent to the northern
boundary of the project site.
Sunbow General Development Plan
The Sunbow General Development Plan (GDP), which originally included 604.8 acres in eastern Chula Vista, was
adopted on December 5, 1989, with the primary objective to create an efficient, self-contained village with a mix of
residential, commercial, community recreation, industrial park, and open space/trails land uses. The purpose of
the GDP was to develop an efficient self-contained village that would set the framework for a socially, economically,
and environmentally sound urban community. The GDP also contains landscape and design guidelines for the
various land uses (City of Chula Vista 1989).
The GDP is implemented through the adoption of a subsequent, more detailed Sunbow Sectional Planning Area
(SPA) Plan, tentative tract maps, and potential annexation and development agreements. The GDP is designed to
function as a policy bridge between the City of Chula Vista General Plan (General Plan) and the SPA Plan, which
provides more detailed plans for development of the Sunbow Master Planned Community . Specifically, the GDP
includes general standards for building height and bulk, architectural design review, landscaping, and development
conformance with locally designated scenic routes. More specific provisions for each planning area are identified
in the SPA Plan (City of Chula Vista 1990).
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan
The SPA Plan was approved by the City Council on February 20, 1990. According to the City, GDPs are implemented
through the adoption of SPA Plans, which are more detailed in its zoning, design regulations, and development
parameters. The purpose of the SPA Plan is to assure high quality development, create an economically viable plan,
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 170 of 1271
5.1 – Aesthetics
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.1-4
provide a plan for long-range development, facilitate provisions for community facilities, preserve open space, and
establish a planning and development framework. Regulations within the SPA Plan supersede other regulations where
there is potential conflict between the GDP and the General Plan. The SPA Plan also contains more specific landscaping,
design, lighting, and aesthetics standards for the various land uses established in the GDP (City of Chula Vista 1990).
City of Chula Vista Municipal Code
Title 19 of the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC) is the City’s Zoning Code, which is intended to implement the
General Plan. The Eastern Planning Area, which includes the project site, is designated as, a Planned Community (P-C)
Zone (City of Chula Vista 2020). As defined in Chapter 19.48 of the CVMC, the purposes of the P-C zone are as follows:
• Provide for the orderly preplanning and long-term development of large tracts of land. These tracts may
contain a variety of land uses, but are under unified ownership or development control, so that the entire
tract will provide an environment of stable and desirable character.
• Give the developer reasonable assurance that sectional development plans in accordance with the
approved general development plan will be acceptable to the City. Sectional development plans may
include subdivision plans and/or planned unit development plans as provided in this title.
• Enable the City to adopt measures for the development of the surrounding area compatible with the
planned community zone.
According to Section 19.48.020 of the Zoning Code, P-C zoning may be established on lands that are suitable and
of sufficient size for planning and development in a manner consistent with the purpose of the zone. P-C zoning
does not include any area of less than 50 acres of contiguous land. Section 19.48.025 establishes a requirement
for Community-Purpose Facility (CPF) sites to be provided within the P-C zone at the rate of 1.39 acres per 1,000
persons. Section 19.48.090 establishes requirements for sectional planning areas.
The City also regulates signage through the CVMC, Chapter 19.60, Signs. Among other things, the purpose of the
Sign Ordinance is “to balance the public interests in community aesthetics against the signage needs of
establishments and persons who wish to express information or a message by displaying a sign” (CVMC, Chapter
19.60). In addition, the Sign Ordinance is intended to improve the visua l environment for residents and visitors of
the City and protect prominent viewsheds. There are specific standards for “sensitive” zones, such as agricultural,
residential estates, and other residential zones (CVMC, Chapter 19.60).
Light and glare are regulated by Chapter 17.28 and Section 19.66.100 of the CVMC, respectively. Chapter 17.28,
Unnecessary Lights, is intended to prevent lighting from creating a nuisance by regulating the use of lighting in and
around residential areas. Although lighting can be used to improve the aesthetics of a residential property, this
chapter ensures that such lighting is properly controlled and doesn’t create a nuisance. The ordinance recognizes
that lighting is widely used in commercial or industrial zones for the purpose of advertising and security and that
such lighting is essential to the conduct of many commercial or industrial enterprises. The ordinance requires light
shielding on commercial and industrial lighting near residences; prohibits residential lighting that spills over to
adjacent properties during nighttime hours; and requires multi -family residential, commercial, and industrial
developments to submit lighting plans to the City. Lighting from any use that is unshielded or so directed as to focus
the beams directly upon adjacent residential property is prohibited at all times.
Section 19.66.100, Glare, prohibits direct or sky-reflected glare from floodlights and high-temperature processes
that produce glare that is visible at the points of measurement as specified in Section 19.66.060, Locations where
determinations are to be made. In any district except the Industrial zone, the point of measurement is at the lot line
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 171 of 1271
5.1 – Aesthetics
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.1-5
of the establishment or use. Within the Industrial zone it is 500 feet from the establishment or use or at any point
within an adjacent zone other than an Industrial zone.
5.1.1.2 Visual Resources Components
The characterization of existing visual resources and available scenic vistas on the project site and the surrounding
areas form the basis of this aesthetics and views analysis. Aesthetics refers to visual qualities within a given field
of view and may include such considerations as size, shape, color, texture, and general composition, as well as the
relationships between these elements.
Aesthetic features often consist of unique or prominent natural or man-made attributes or several small features that,
when viewed together, create a whole that is visually interesting or appealing. Views refer to visual access to aesthetic
features. Viewsheds, or the extent of a given view, are typically defined by landscape elements and building locations.
Existing views may be partially obstructed or entirely blocked by modification of the environment. Conversely,
modifications to the natural or man-made landscape of an area may create or enhance view opportunities.
Light impacts are typically associated with the use of artificial light during the evening and nighttime hours. Artificial
light may be generated from point sources and from indirect sources of reflected light. Uses such as residences,
hospitals, and hotels are considered light sensitive since they are typically occupied by persons who have
expectations for privacy during evening hours and who are subject to disturbance by bright light sources. Wildli fe
habitat areas may also be considered light sensitive if the introduction of light sources would compromise the
quality and function of a habitat area.
Glare is primarily a daytime occurrence caused by the reflection of sunlight or artificial light by highly polished surfaces
such as window glass or reflective materials and, to a lesser degree, from broad expanses of light-colored surfaces.
Daytime glare generation is common in urban areas and is typically associated with mid- to high-rise buildings with
exterior façades largely or entirely composed of highly reflective glass or mirror-like material from which the sun can
reflect at a low angle in the periods following sunrise and prior to sunset. Glare can also be produced during evening and
nighttime hours by the reflection of artificial light sources such as automobile headlights. Glare generation is typically
related to either moving vehicles or sun angles, although glare resulting from reflected sunlight can occur regularly at
certain times of the year. Glare-sensitive uses generally include residences and transportation corridors.
5.1.1.3 Existing Aesthetic Character
On-Site Conditions
Currently, the project site consists of vacant and undeveloped land with various dirt roads traversing the site. Land uses
within the project site are designated in both the General Plan and the GDP. Within the General Plan, the project site is
designated as Limited Industrial and Open Space (City of Chula Vista 2005). Within the GDP, the project site is designated
as Industrial Park and Open Space (City of Chula Vista 1989). The entire project site is composed of approximately 135.7
acres. The GDP designates the approximately 54.7 acres within the southeastern portion of the project site as Industrial
Park area, which was slated in the SPA to include research/development and light industrial uses, with approximately
700,000 square feet of leasable area generating approximately 2,800 employment opportunities (City of Chula Vista
1990). The aesthetic character of the project site is currently defined by the undeveloped, rolling landscape and natively
vegetated hillsides adjacent to Olympic Parkway. The rising topography of the project site prevents expansive southward
views of the site from Olympic Parkway. Thus, the aesthetic character of the project site is primarily defined by the natural
hillsides immediately adjacent to Olympic Parkway.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 172 of 1271
5.1 – Aesthetics
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.1-6
Surrounding Land Uses
The project site is surrounded by existing development, including residential land uses, to the north, west, and
southwest. Open space hillsides are present approximately 300–500 feet north of the project site, between Olympic
Parkway and the existing residential land uses. South of the project site is the Otay Landfill and directly east of the
project site is vacant and undeveloped land which is approved for industrial and residential development as part of
Otay Ranch Village Two. The existing undeveloped state of the land to the east within Otay Ranch Village Two is
similar in aesthetic character to the existing project site and open space north of Olympic Parkway.
The greater Eastern Planning Area is topographically similar to the project site, with small hillsides and canyons.
However, much of the Eastern Planning Area has already been developed or is proposed for development as part
of the Sunbow GDP and Otay Ranch GDP. Most undeveloped land similar in aesthetic character to the existing
project site is concentrated in the southern and eastern portions of the Otay Ranch area as part of the City’s
Greenbelt. The project site is not located within or adjacent to the City’s Greenbelt System (City of Chula Vista 2003).
Light and Glare
Two astronomical observatories are located within 50 miles of the project site: Mount Laguna Observatory, loca ted
approximately 38 miles northeast of the project site, and Palomar Mountain Observatory, located approximately 52
miles north of the project site. Both of these observatories use large telescopes and conduct astronomical and
related research. These observatories are located in the unincorporated County of San Diego. Light pollution within
a 15-mile radius of these observatories is strictly controlled through implementation of the County of San Diego’s
Light Pollution Code (Title 5, Division 9), which includes less restrictive measures for areas outside the 15-mile
radius. The project site is outside the jurisdiction of the County; however, the project site is located within Zone B
of the County’s Light Pollution Code, which includes all other lands locate d outside the 15-mile radius (County of
San Diego 2009). In addition, the City’s Unnecessary Lights Ordinance outlines restrictions and limitations on the
use of lighting in or near the residential zones to prevent lighting from creating a nuisance to resi dents. These
lighting restrictions also benefit the observatories (CVMC, Chapter 17.28, Unnecessary Lights).
Currently, the project site is undeveloped and not lit at night. Additionally, the project site does not contain expanses
of material that would result in glare. The City, including the Sunbow area, is urbanized and currently generates
substantial night lighting. The buildings in the surrounding area include windows and other glass or metal expanses
that can result in localized glare. Surrounding residential land uses contain lighting typical of an urban setting,
including but not limited to street lighting and security lighting.
Viewers
Viewer exposure varies depending on several factors including the angle of view (i.e., normal, inferior, or superior
viewing angles); view distance (foreground, middle ground, and background); relationship to sun angle (backlighting
versus front or side lighting); the extent of visibility (i.e., whether views are panoramic or limited by vegetation,
topography, or other land uses); and viewer screening conditions (e.g., whether the project facilities will be skylined
on ridgelines, backscreened by topography and/or vegetation, or screened by structures or vegetation in the
foreground). Viewer exposure also considers the duration of view based on viewer activity (e.g., travel route,
residential, recreation) and often relates to speed of travel (pedestrian, vehicular, or stationary).
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 173 of 1271
5.1 – Aesthetics
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.1-7
The project site is located south of Olympic Parkway and north of the Otay Landfill. The project site abruptly slopes
southward from Olympic Parkway toward the Otay Landfill, providing limited view opportunities for motorists passing
the project site along Olympic Parkway. Due to the hilly nature of the project site and steep slopes within the
northern portion of the site, views along Olympic Parkway mostly consist of foreground views of the hills immediately
adjacent to Olympic Parkway. The rising topography of the project site also prevents expansive southward views
into the site from Olympic Parkway. The project site is not immediately visible from any public vantage points to
the south, east, or west. East of the City are existing mountainous open space areas which contain public trails that
provide board views of the City. These higher elevation areas (such as the Otay Ranch Mountain Wilderness) are
located approximately 6 miles east of the project site. Therefore, views of the project site would be limited, and not
immediately discernable, due to the distance and highly urbanized character of the surrounding area.
5.1.2 Thresholds of Significance
The significance criteria used to evaluate the project impacts to Aesthetics is based on the recommendations
provided in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.). A significant impact would occur if the
project would:
A. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.
B. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, tress, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway.
C. In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage points). If the project
is in an urbanized area, a significant impact would occur if the project conflicts with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality.
D. Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.
5.1.3 Impacts
A. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.
As discussed in Section 5.1.1.1, Regulatory Framework, the General Plan identifies the following scenic vistas: Otay
River and Sweetwater River Valleys; Upper and Lower Otay Lakes; Sweetwater Reservoir; San Miguel/Mother Miguel
Mountains; and the San Diego Bay. The closest identified scenic vista to the project site is the Otay River Val ley,
located approximately 1 mile to the south. Additionally, the General Plan identifies the City’s open space network,
which includes both the previously mentioned scenic vistas and more general open space areas considered to be
scenic resources, including the project site. The proposed project would also include 63.6 acres of MSCP Preserve,
which, as part of the City’s open space network, is considered a scenic resource.
Olympic Parkway, which is adjacent to the northern boundary of the project site, currently provides scenic views of
the project site’s existing and proposed open space areas for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians. However, view
opportunities of the proposed project’s development area are limited due to the steep slopes within the northern
portion of the site. The project site abruptly slopes from north to south from Olympic Parkway towards the Otay
Landfill. As such, views of the project site experienced by viewers traveling east and west along Olympic Parkway,
located within the northern boundary of the project site, mostly consist of foreground views of the hills immediately
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 174 of 1271
5.1 – Aesthetics
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.1-8
adjacent to Olympic Parkway, due to the site topography . Under the proposed project, MSCP Preserve lands would
exist between the development area and Olympic Parkway, and in the western portion of the project site, which
would provide a visual buffer for viewers traveling along Olympic Parkway (see Figure 4-4, Proposed SPA Land Use
Plan). Therefore, fleeting glimpses of the proposed project’s development area may be afforded along limited
portions of Olympic Parkway. However, viewers would be oriented in an east –west direction and with the
proposed open space buffer of approximately 500 feet, the proposed project would not have a substantial effect
on views of the City’s open space network.
Viewers traveling along Olympic Parkway would also be afforded views of the access points of proposed Streets ‘A’
and ‘B’ (Streets A and B). However, the proposed project would incorporate landscaping along proposed Streets A
and B as shown in Figure 4-6, Illustrative Concept Plan, to soften views of these driveways for viewers passing by
the project site along Olympic Parkway. Landscaping would exist along both sides of proposed Streets A and B as
well as beyond the MSCP Preserve lands abutting the closest proposed residences. All landscaping will be provided
in accordance with the Sunbow II Phase 3 Landscape Master Plan, prepared for the project, and the City’s
Landscape Manual. Therefore, the access points of proposed Streets A and B would not have a substantial effect
on views of the City’s open space network.
As described above, the closest identified scenic vista to the project site is the Otay River Valley, located 1 mile
south. Due to the existing development between the Otay River Valley and the project site, as well as the distance
from the project site and intervening topography, implementation of the proposed project would not result in
adverse effects on this scenic vista. The open space areas, located approximately 6 miles east of the project site,
also contains General Plan identified scenic vistas including the Lower and Upper Otay Lakes. Additionally, the Otay
Mountain Wilderness contains many trails at higher elevations than the majority of the City, which provide scenic
views for recreationists. Views of the project site from this distance are obscured and not immediately discernable
due to distance and the highly urbanized character of the City.
Development of the proposed project would be substantially similar to the existing surrounding development and
greater Eastern Planning Area within the City. Further, the proposed project would blend with the existing
surroundings, when viewed at a distance. As discussed, the proposed project would not result in adverse effects
on identified scenic vistas including the Otay River Valley or Otay Mountain Wilderness. Additionally, due to proposed
landscaping, the MSCP Preserve open space areas between Olympic Parkway and the development area, and
existing topography of the site and its surroundings, the proposed project would also not result in a substantial
adverse effect on views of the on-site open space, which is identified as a scenic resource as part of the City’s open
space network, but not a scenic vista. Therefore, impacts related to substantial adverse effects on a scenic vista
would be less than significant.
B. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, tress, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway.
According to the Caltrans Scenic Highway Mapping System for San Diego County (Caltrans 2020), there are no officially
designated scenic highways that pass by the project site. The following are the closest designated scenic highways:
• A 2-mile portion of the SR-125 from SR-94 to SR-8 near La Mesa, located approximately 10 miles north of
the project site.
• SR-75, Silver Strand Highway, between Imperial Beach and Coronado, located approximately 6.5 miles west
of the project site.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 175 of 1271
5.1 – Aesthetics
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.1-9
The following is the closest eligible scenic highway:
• I-5 from the international border at Tijuana to SR-75, located approximately 4 miles southwest of the project site.
The project site is not located within the vicinity of an officially designated or eligible state scenic highway. Therefore,
implementation of the proposed project would not substantially damage scenic resources within a state scenic
highway. No impact would occur.
For informational purposes, a discussion of locally designated scenic roadways and gateways within the City is
included below.
As outlined in Section 5.1.1.1, the City has designated several Scenic Roadways for their views of natural features
and roadway characteristics, including enhanced landscaping, adjoining natural slopes, or special design features
(City of Chula Vista 2005). Existing City-designated Scenic Roadways in the project area include Olympic Parkway,
located adjacent the northern boundary of the project site. As discussed under Threshold A, views of the proposed
project’s development area from Olympic Parkway would be limited due to the site topography and the proposed
MSCP Preserve which would act as a visual buffer between Olympic Parkway and the closest proposed residential
units. The proposed project would comply with City regulations regarding development along a scenic roadway. The
General Plan identifies primary and secondary gateways which are meant to be visually inviting entryways into the
City. Olympic Parkway from Interstate 805 (I-805) to Brandywine Avenue is a primary gateway identified in the
General Plan. This gateway ends approximately 300 feet west of the project site. Therefore, the special design
treatments used for development along gateways do not apply to the proposed project.
C. In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings.
(Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage points). If the project is in an urbanized
area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality).
CEQA Section 21071 defines an “urbanized area” as “(a) an incorporated city that meets either of the following
criteria: (1) has a population of at least 100,000 persons, or (2) has a population of less than 100,000 persons if
the population of that City and not more than two contiguous incorporated cities combined equals at least 100,000
persons.” As of July 1, 2019, the US Census Bureau estimated the population of the City to be 274,492 persons,
which is well over the 100,000 persons threshold (US Census Bureau 2019). Thus, the City would be considered
an urbanized area per CEQA and the first portion of Aesthetics Threshold C related to changes in the visual
character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings would not apply to the propos ed project
aesthetics analysis. As such, this analysis focuses on the second portion of CEQA Guidelines Aesthetics Threshold
C, regarding whether the project would conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic
quality, for projects in urbanized areas.
Zoning, GDP, and SPA Plan
The project site is designated as a SPA, which is a designation under the Planned Community (P-C) Zone (CVMC,
Chapter 19.60), with specific land use districts designated by the SPA Plan. As discussed in Chapter 4, Project
Description, the proposed project would amend the General Plan to allow for the change in land use from Research
& Limited Industrial to Residential Medium-High and Residential High. Additionally, amendments to the GDP and
SPA Plan as well as a Rezone would be considered by the City in the approval process to allow for project
implementation. The project site would remain designated as a SPA under the existing P-C zoning. However, the
specific zoning districts identified within the GDP and SPA Plan for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 area would be amended
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 176 of 1271
5.1 – Aesthetics
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.1-10
to allow for the proposed residential, community purpose facility, and open space project components. If approved,
the proposed project would not conflict with the applicable zoning, the GDP, or the SPA Plan, as the GDP and SPA
Plan amendments and Rezone would be approved concurrently with the proposed project.
General Plan
As discussed in Section 5.1.1.1, the General Plan aims to preserve scenic resources and maintain the City’s open
space network. The following policies of the General Plan govern scenic quality throughout the City and would apply
to the proposed project:
• Policy LUT 7.4. Require landscape and/or open space buffers to maintain a naturalized or softer edge for
proposed private development directly adjacent to natural and public open space areas.
• Policy LUT 13.1. Identify and protect important public viewpoints and viewsheds throu ghout the Planning
Area, including features within and outside the planning area, such as: mountain; native habitat areas; San
Diego Bay; and historic resources.
• Policy LUT 13.4. Any discretionary projects proposed adjacent to scenic routes, with the exception of
individual single-family dwellings, shall be subject to design review to ensure that the design of the
development proposal will enhance the scenic quality of the route. Review should include site design,
architectural design, height, landscaping, signage, and utilities. Development adjacent to designated scenic
routes should be designed to:
o Create substantial open areas adjacent to scenic routes through clustering development;
o Create a pleasing streetscape through landscaping and varied building setbacks; and
o Coordinate signage, graphics and/or signage requirements, and standards.
While the project site does not contain any identified important public viewpoints, there is currently native habitat
that provides scenic views for viewers traveling along Olympic Parkway. Further, this native habitat is identified in
the General Plan as part of the City’s open space network, which is a scenic resource. Implementation of the
proposed project would preserve 63.6 acres of the project site as MSCP Preserve, 3.9 acres as Poggi Creek
Conservation Easement, and 18.8 acres as Manufactured Slopes/Basin.
As discussed under Threshold A and consistent with General Plan Policy LUT 13.1, implementation of the proposed
project would not result in substantial adverse effects on a scenic vista, including the existing and proposed open space
lands within the project site which are identified as a scenic resource within the General Plan. Additionally, in compliance
with General Plan Policy LUT 7.4, the proposed project would include landscape and open space buffers between the
proposed project’s development area and MCSP Preserve lands, as shown in Figure 4-2. Finally, due to the steep slopes
in the northern portion of the project site and the proposed open space setback of approximately 500 feet between
Olympic Parkway and the closest proposed residences, views of the proposed project’s development area would be
limited. However, the proposed project would still undergo design review in compliance with General Plan Policy LUT 13.4
because the project site is adjacent to Olympic Parkway, which is a locally designated scenic roadway. Therefore, the
proposed project would not conflict with General Plan policies related to scenic quality.
City Design Manual
The SPA Plan amendment for the proposed project includes residential design guidelines for site planning, architectural
design, height, landscaping, in compliance with the City’s Design Manual, and approved Design Guidelines and P-C
District Regulations for the Sunbow community. The proposed project would be required to comply with these residential
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 177 of 1271
5.1 – Aesthetics
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.1-11
design guidelines, which are intended to assist the City in achieving a high quality of aesthetic and functional design. For
example, the landscape would transition to a naturalized palette at the project perimeter to blend with the existing native
character of the existing slopes and MSCP Preserve area located along the northern edge of the site and to the west.
Additionally, building heights would be limited to a maximum of 35 feet and the plotting of residential buildings would
focus on creating a cohesive community with green spaces and strong pedestrian connectivity. Finally, the proposed
project would undergo design review in compliance with General Plan Policy LUT 13.4, as previously described. Therefore,
the proposed project would not conflict with the City’s Design Manual.
Conclusion
In summary, the proposed project would not conflict with General Plan policies governing scenic quality or the City’s
Design Manual. Additionally, if approved, the proposed project would not conflict with the applicable zoning as the GDP
and SPA Plan amendments and Rezone would be approved concurrently with the proposed project to allow for the changes
in land use and zoning. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
D. Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.
The project site is currently undeveloped and there are no existing sources of on-site lighting. Additionally, the
project site does not contain expanses of material that would result in glare. Therefore, development of the
proposed project would introduce new sources of lighting and glare on the project site. Lighting within the project
site would be typical of a residential land use, including street lighting along proposed Streets A and B, as well as
exterior lighting on residences. New sources of glare within the project site would include windows on residences.
As discussed in Section 5.1.1.1, light and glare are regulated by Chapter 17.28 and Section 19.66.100 of the
CVMC, respectively. The proposed project would comply with Chapter 17.28, Unnecessary Lights, of the CVMC,
which prohibits residential lighting that spills over to adjacent properties during nighttime hours and requires multi-
family residential, commercial, and industrial developments to submit lighting plans to the City. The County of San
Diego Light Pollution Code also regulates lighting within the County and the proposed project would be required to
comply with all Zone B lighting standards. Additionally, the proposed project would comply with Section 19.66.100,
Glare, which prohibits direct or sky-reflected glare from floodlights and high-temperature processes that produce
glare that is visible at the points of measurement as specified in the CVMC.
The City, including the GDP area, is urbanized and currently generates substantial night lighting. The buildings in
the surrounding area include windows and other glass o r metal expanses that can result in localized glare.
Surrounding residential land uses contain lighting typical of an urban setting, including but not limited to, street
lighting and security lighting. While the proposed project would result in new sources of light and glare, these would
be similar to the surrounding land uses. Furthermore, with compliance with the CVMC and County Light Pollution
Ordinance, these new sources of light and glare would not result in adverse day or nighttime views in the area.
Impacts would be less than significant.
5.1.4 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation
Impacts related to aesthetics would be less than significant.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 178 of 1271
5.1 – Aesthetics
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.1-12
5.1.5 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.
5.1.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation
No mitigation measures would be required. Impacts related to aesthetics would be less than significant.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 179 of 1271
5.2 – Air Quality
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.2-1
5.2 Air Quality
This section of the environmental impact report (EIR) addresses potential impacts to air quality resulting from the
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project (project or proposed
project). The discussion in this section is based on the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report
prepared for the project by Dudek. The complete report is contained in Appendix C of this EIR.
5.2.1 Existing Conditions
5.2.1.1 Regulatory Framework
Federal
Criteria Air Pollutants
The federal Clean Air Act (CAA), passed in 1970 and last amended in 1990, forms the basis for the national air
pollution control effort. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for implementing most
aspects of the CAA, including the setting of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for major air
pollutants, hazardous air pollutant (HAP) standards, approval of state attainment plans, motor vehicle emission
standards, stationary source emission standards and permits, acid rain control measures, stratospheric ozone
(O3) protection, and enforcement provisions.
Under the CAA, NAAQS are established for the following criteria pollutants: O3, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen
dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10
microns (coarse particulate matter, or PM10), particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal
to 2.5 microns (fine particulate matter, or PM2.5), and lead. The NAAQS describe acceptable air quality conditions
designed to protect the health and welfare of the citizens of the nation. The CAA requires EPA to reassess the NAAQS
at least every 5 years to determine whether adopted standards are adequate to protect public health based on
current scientific evidence. States with areas that exceed the NAAQS must prepare a State Implementation Plan
(SIP) that demonstrates how those areas will attain the standards within mandated time frames.
Hazardous Air Pollutants
The 1977, federal CAA amendments required EPA to identify national emission standards for hazardous air
pollutants (HAPs) to protect public health and welfare. HAPs include certain volatile organic chemicals, pesticides,
herbicides, and radionuclides that present a tangible hazard, based on scientific studies of exposure to humans
and other mammals. Under the 1990 CAA amendments, which expanded the control program for HAPs, 189
substances and chemical families were identified as HAPs.
State
Criteria Air Pollutants
The federal CAA delegates the regulation of air pollution control and the enforcement of the NAAQS to the states.
In California, the task of air quality management and regulation has been legislatively granted to the California Air
Resources Board (CARB), with subsidiary responsibilities assigned to air quality management districts and air
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 180 of 1271
5.2 – Air Quality
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.2-2
pollution control districts at the regional and county levels. CARB, which became part of the California
Environmental Protection Agency in 1991, is responsible for ensuring implementation of the California CAA of
1988, responding to the CAA and regulating emissions from motor vehicles and consumer products.
CARB has established California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), which are generally more restrictive than
the NAAQS. The CAAQS describe adverse conditions; that is, pollution levels must be below these standards before
a basin can attain the standard. Air quality is considered “in attainment” if pollutant levels are continuously below
the CAAQS and violate the standards no more than once each year. The CAAQS for O3, CO, SO2 (1-hour and 24-
hour), NO2, PM10, PM2.5, and visibility-reducing particles are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not
to be equaled or exceeded. The NAAQS and CAAQS are presented in Table 5.2-1.
Table 5.2-1. Ambient Air Quality Standards
Pollutant Averaging Time
California Standardsa National Standardsb
Concentrationc Primaryc,d Secondaryc,e
O3 1 hour 0.09 ppm
(180 g/m3)
— Same as Primary
Standardf
8 hours 0.070 ppm
(137 g/m3)
0.070 ppm
(137 g/m3)f
NO2g 1 hour 0.18 ppm
(339 g/m3)
0.100 ppm
(188 g/m3)
Same as Primary
Standard
Annual arithmetic
mean
0.030 ppm
(57 g/m3)
0.053 ppm
(100 g/m3)
CO 1 hour 20 ppm (23 mg/m3) 35 ppm (40 mg/m3) None
8 hours 9.0 ppm (10 mg/m3) 9 ppm (10 mg/m3)
SO2h 1 hour 0.25 ppm
(655 g/m3)
0.075 ppm
(196 g/m3)
—
3 hours — — 0.5 ppm
(1,300 g/m3)
24 hours 0.04 ppm
(105 g/m3)
0.14 ppm
(for certain areas)g
—
Annual — 0.030 ppm
(for certain areas)g
—
PM10i 24 hours 50 g/m3 150 g/m3 Same as Primary
Standard Annual arithmetic
mean
20 g/m3 —
PM2.5i 24 hours — 35 g/m3 Same as Primary
Standard
Annual arithmetic
mean
12 g/m3 12.0 g/m3 15.0 g/m3
Leadj,k 30-day average 1.5 g/m3 — —
Calendar quarter — 1.5 g/m3 (for certain
areas)k
Same as Primary
Standard
Rolling 3-month
average
— 0.15 g/m3
Hydrogen
sulfide
1 hour 0.03 ppm (42 µg/m3) — —
Vinyl
chloridej
24 hours 0.01 ppm (26 µg/m3) — —
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 181 of 1271
5.2 – Air Quality
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.2-3
Table 5.2-1. Ambient Air Quality Standards
Pollutant Averaging Time
California Standardsa National Standardsb
Concentrationc Primaryc,d Secondaryc,e
Sulfates 24 hours 25 µg/m3 — —
Visibility
reducing
particles
8 hour (10:00 a.m.
to
6:00 p.m. PST)
Insufficient amount
to produce an
extinction
coefficient of 0.23
per kilometer due
to the number of
particles when the
relative humidity is
less than 70%
— —
Source: Appendix C.
Notes: O3 = ozone; ppm = parts per million by volume; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; — = no data available; NO2 = nitrogen
dioxide; CO = carbon monoxide; mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic meter; SO2 = sulfur dioxide; PM10 = particulate matter with an
aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 microns; PM2.5 = particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal
to 2.5 microns; PST = Pacific Standard Time.
a California standards for O3, CO, SO2 (1-hour and 24-hour), NO2, suspended particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5), and visibility-reducing
particles are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. CAAQS are listed in the Table of
Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations.
b National standards (other than O3, NO2, SO2, particulate matter, and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic mean)
are not to be exceeded more than once per year. The O3 standard is attained when the fourth-highest 8-hour concentration
measured at each site in a year, averaged over 3 years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24-hour standard is
attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 µg/m3 is equal
to or less than 1. For PM2.5, the 24-hour standard is attained when 98% of the daily concentrations, averaged over 3 years, are
equal to or less than the standard.
c Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based on a reference
temperature of 25°C (77°F) and a reference pressure of 760 torr. Most measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a
reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr; ppm in this table refers to ppm by volume, or micromoles
of pollutant per mole of gas.
d National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public hea lth.
e National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known o r anticipated
adverse effects of a pollutant.
f On October 1, 2015, the national 8-hour O3 primary and secondary standards were lowered from 0.075 to 0.070 ppm.
g To attain the national 1-hour standard, the 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum
concentrations at each site must not exceed 100 parts per billion (ppb). Note that the national 1-hour standard is in units of ppb.
California standards are in units of ppm. To directly compare the national 1 -hour standard to the California standards, the units
can be converted from ppb to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 100 ppb is identical to 0.100 ppm.
h On June 2, 2010, a new 1-hour SO2 standard was established, and the existing 24-hour and annual primary standards were revoked.
To attain the national 1-hour standard, the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations
at each site must not exceed 75 ppb. The 1971 SO2 national standards (24-hour and annual) remain in effect until 1 year after an
area is designated for the 2010 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment of the 1971 standards, the 1971 standards
remain in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2010 standards are approved.
i On December 14, 2012, the national annual PM2.5 primary standard was lowered from 15 μg/m3 to 12.0 μg/m3. The existing
national 24-hour PM2.5 standards (primary and secondary) were retained at 35 μg/m3, as was the annual secondary standard
of15 μg/m3. The existing 24-hour PM10 standards (primary and secondary) of 150 μg/m3 were also retained. The form of the
annual primary and secondary standards is the annual mean averaged over 3 years.
j The California Air Resources Board has identified lead and vinyl chloride as toxic air contaminants with no threshold level of
exposure for adverse health effects determined. These actions allow for the implementation of control measures at levels below
the ambient concentrations specified for these pollutants.
k The national standard for lead was revised on October 15, 2008, to a rolling 3 -month average. The 1978 lead standard (1.5
μg/m3 as a quarterly average) remains in effect until 1 year after an area is designated for the 2008 standard, except that in
areas designated nonattainment for the 1978 standard, the 1978 standard remains in effect until implementation plans to attain
or maintain the 2008 standard are approved.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 182 of 1271
5.2 – Air Quality
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.2-4
Toxic Air Contaminants
A toxic air contaminant (TAC) is defined by California law as an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an
increase in mortality or an increase in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human
health. Federal laws use the HAPs to refer to the same types of compounds that are referred to as TACs under
state law. California regulates TACs primarily through the Tanner Air Toxics Act (AB 1807) and the Air Toxics Hot
Spots Information and Assessment Act of 1987 (AB 2588).
AB 1807 sets forth a formal procedure for CARB to designate substances as TACs. This includes research, public
participation, and scientific peer review before CARB can designate a substance as a TAC. Pursuant to AB 2588,
existing facilities that emit air pollutants above specified levels were required to (1) prepare a TAC emission
inventory plan and report, (2) prepare a risk assessment if TAC emissions were significant, (3) notify the public
of significant risk levels, and (4) if health impacts were above specified levels, prepare and implement risk
reduction measures.
The following regulatory measures pertain to the reduction of diesel particulate matter (DPM) and criteria pollutant
emissions from off-road equipment and diesel-fueled vehicles:
Idling of Commercial Heavy-Duty Trucks (13 CCR 2485)
In July 2004, CARB adopted an Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ATCM) to control emissions from idling trucks. The ATCM
prohibits idling for more than 5 minutes for all commercial trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating over 10,000 pounds.
The ATCM contains an exception that allows trucks to idle while queuing or involved in operational activities.
In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets (13 CCR 2449 et seq.)
In July 2007, CARB adopted an ATCM for in-use off-road diesel vehicles. This regulation requires that specific fleet
average requirements be met for NOx emissions and for particulate matter emissions. Where average requirements
cannot be met, Best Available Control Technology requirements apply. The regulation also includes several
recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
In response to AB 8 2X, the regulations were revised in July 2009 (effective December 3, 2009) to allow a partial
postponement of the compliance schedule in 2011 and 2012 for existing fleets. On December 17, 2010, CARB
adopted additional revisions to further delay the deadlines, reflecting reductions in diesel emissions due to the poor
economy and overestimates of diesel emissions in California. The revisions delayed the first compliance date until
no earlier than January 1, 2014, for large fleets, with final compliance by January 1, 2023. The compliance dates
for medium fleets were delayed until an initial date of January 1, 2017, and a final compliance date of January 1,
2023. The compliance dates for small fleets were delayed until an initial date of January 1, 2019, and a final
compliance date of January 1, 2028. Correspondingly, the fleet average targets were made more stringent in future
compliance years. The revisions also accelerated the phaseout of equipment with older equipment added to existing
large and medium fleets over time, requiring the addition of Tier 2 or higher engines starting on March 1, 2011,
with some exceptions: Tier 2 or higher engines on January 1, 2013, without exception; and Tier 3 or higher engines
on January 1, 2018 (January 1, 2023, for small fleets).
On October 28, 2011 (effective December 14, 2011), the Executive Officer approved amendments to the
regulation. The amendments included revisions to the applicability section and additions and revisions to the
definitions. The initial date for requiring the addition of Tier 2 or higher engines for large and medium fleets, with
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 183 of 1271
5.2 – Air Quality
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.2-5
some exceptions, was revised to January 1, 2012. New provisions also allow for the removal of emission control
devices for safety or visibility purposes. The regulation also was amended to combine the particulate matter and
NOx fleet average targets under one, instead of two, sections. The amended fleet average targets are based on the
fleet’s NOx average, and the previous section regarding particulate matter performance requirements was deleted
completely. The Best Available Control Technology requirements, if a fleet cannot comply with the fleet average
requirements, were restructured and clarified. Other amendments to the regulations included minor administrative
changes to the regulatory text.
In-Use On-Road Diesel-Fueled Vehicles (13 CCR 2025)
On December 12, 2008, CARB adopted an ATCM to reduce NOx and particulate matter emissions from most in-use
on-road diesel trucks and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 14,000 pounds. The original ATCM
regulation required fleets of on-road trucks to limit their NOx and particulate matter emissions through a
combination of exhaust retrofit equipment and new vehicles. The regulation limited particulate matter emissions
for most fleets by 2011, and limited NOx emissions for most fleets by 2013. The regulation did not require any
vehicle to be replaced before 2012 and never required that all vehicles in a fleet be replaced.
In December 2009, the CARB Governing Board directed staff to evaluate amendments that would provide additional
flexibility for fleets adversely affected by the poor California economy. On December 17, 2010, CARB revised this
ATCM to delay its implementation along with limited relaxation of its requirements. Starting on January 1, 2015,
lighter trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating of 14,001 to 26,000 pounds with 20-year-old or older engines need
to be replaced with newer trucks (2010 model year emissions equivalent, as defined in the regulation). Trucks with
a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 26,000 pounds with 1995 model year or older engines needed to be
replaced as of January 1, 2015. Trucks with 1996–2006 model year engines must install a Level 3 (85% control)
diesel particulate filter starting on January 1, 2012, to January 1, 2014, depending on the model year, and then
must be replaced after 8 years. Trucks with 2007–2009 model year engines have no requirements until 2023,
at which time they must be replaced with 2010 model year emissions equivalent engines, as defined in the
regulation. Trucks with 2010 model year engines would meet the final compliance requirements. The ATCM
provides a phase- in option under which a fleet operator would equip a percentage of trucks in the fleet with diesel
particulate filters, starting at 30% as of January 1, 2012, with 100% by January 1, 2016. Under each option,
delayed compliance is granted to fleet operators who have complied or will comply with requirements before the
required deadlines.
On September 19, 2011 (effective December 14, 2011), the Executive Officer a pproved amendments to the
regulations, including revisions to the compliance schedule for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 26,000
pounds or less to clarify that all vehicles must be equipped with 2010 model year emissions equivalent engines by
2023. The amendments included revised and additional credits for fleets that have downsized; implemented early
particulate matter retrofits; incorporated hybrid vehicles, alternative-fueled vehicles, and vehicles with heavy-duty
pilot ignition engines; and implemented early addition of newer vehicles. The amendments included provisions for
additional flexibility, such as for low-usage construction trucks, and revisions to previous exemptions, delays, and
extensions. Other amendments to the regulations included minor administrative changes to the regulatory text,
including recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to other revisions.
California Health and Safety Code Section 41700
Section 41700 of the California Health and Safety Code states that a person shall not discharge from any source
whatsoever quantities of air contaminants or other material that cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 184 of 1271
5.2 – Air Quality
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.2-6
to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or that endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of
any of those persons or the public, or that cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business
or property. This section also applies to sources of objectionable odors.
Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6; Title 24, Part 11)
As required by the 2019 Standards of Part 6 and Part 11 of the Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, multi-
family residential units are required to install high-efficiency return air filters on all heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning (HVAC) systems. 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.
Local
San Diego Air Pollution Control District
While CARB is responsible for the regulation of mobile emission sources within the state, local air quality
management districts and air pollution control districts are responsible for enforcing standards and regulating
stationary sources. The project site is located within the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB) and is subject to the guidelines
and regulations of the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD).
In the County, O3 and particulate matter are the pollutants of main concern, since exceedances of the CAAQS for
those pollutants are experienced here in most years. For this reason, the SDAB has been designated as a
nonattainment area for the state PM10, PM2.5, and O3 standards. The SDAB is also a federal O3 attainment
(maintenance) area for the 1997 8-hour O3 standard, an O3 nonattainment area for the 2008 8-hour O3 standard,
and a CO maintenance area (western and central part of the SDAB only, including the project site).
Federal Attainment Plans
In December 2016, SDAPCD adopted an update to the Eight-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan for San Diego County
(2008 O3 NAAQS). The Final 2008 Eight-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan for San Diego County (2016 8-Hour O3
Attainment Plan; SDAPCD 2016a) indicates that local controls and state programs would allow the region to reach
attainment of the federal 8-hour O3 standard (1997 O3 NAAQS) by 2018. In this plan, SDAPCD relies on the Regional
Air Quality Strategy (RAQS) to demonstrate how the region will comply with the federal O3 standard. The RAQS details
how the region will manage and reduce O3 precursors (NOx and VOCs) by identifying measures and regulations
intended to reduce these pollutants. The control measures identified in the RAQS generally focus on stationary
sources; however, the emissions inventories and projections in the RAQS address all potential sources, including
those under the authority of CARB and EPA. Incentive programs for reduction of emissions from heavy -duty diesel
vehicles, off-road equipment, and school buses are also established in the RAQS.
Currently, the County is designated as moderate nonattainment for the 2008 NAAQS and maintenance for the 1997
NAAQS. As documented in the 2016 8-Hour O3 Attainment Plan, the County has a likely chance of obtaining
attainment due to the transition to low-emission cars, stricter new source review rules, and continuing the
requirement of general conformity for military growth and the San Diego International Airport. The County will also
continue emission control measures, including ongoing implementation of existing regulations in O3 precursor
reduction to stationary and area-wide sources, subsequent inspections of facilities and sources, and the adoption
of laws requiring Best Available Retrofit Control Technology for control of emissions (SDAPCD 2016a).
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 185 of 1271
5.2 – Air Quality
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.2-7
State Attainment Plans
SDAPCD and the 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
SDAB. The RAQS for the SDAB was initially adopted in 1991 and is updated on a triennial basis, most recently in
2016 (SDAPCD 2016b). The RAQS outlines SDAPCD’s plans and control measures designed to attain the CAAQS
for O3. The RAQS relies on information from CARB and SANDAG, including mobile and area source emissions, as
well as information regarding projected growth in the County and the cities in the County, to forecast future
emissions and then determine from that the strategies necessary for the reduction of emissions through
regulatory controls. CARB mobile source emission projections and SANDAG growth projections are based on
population, vehicle trends, and land use plans developed by the County and the cities in the County as part of the
development of their general plans (SANDAG 2017a, 2017b).
In December 2016, SDAPCD adopted the revised RAQS for the County. Since 2007, the San Diego region reduced
daily VOC emissions and NOx emissions by 3.9% and 7.0%, respectively; SDAPCD expects to continue reductions
through 2035 (SDAPCD 2016b). These reductions were achieved through implementation of six VOC control
measures and three NOx control measures adopted in SDAPCD’s 2009 RAQS (SDAPCD 2009a); in addition, the
SDAPCD is considering additional measures, including three VOC measures and four control measures to reduce
0.3 daily tons of VOC and 1.2 daily tons of NOx, provided they are found to be feasible regionwide. In addition,
SDAPCD has implemented nine incentive-based programs, has worked with SANDAG to implement regional
transportation control measures, and has reaffirmed the state emission offset repeal.
In regard to particulate matter emissions reduction efforts, in December 2005, SDAPCD prepared a report titled
“Measures to Reduce Particulate Matter in San Diego County” to address implementation of Senate Bill (SB) 656
in San Diego County (SB 656 required additional controls to reduce ambient concentrations of PM10 and PM2.5)
(SDAPCD 2005). In the report, SDAPCD evaluated implementation of source-control measures that would reduce
particulate matter emissions associated with residential wood combustion; various construction activities including
earthmoving, demolition, and grading; bulk material storage and handling; carryout and trackout removal and
cleanup methods; inactive disturbed land; disturbed open areas; unpaved parking lots/staging areas; unpaved
roads; and windblown dust (SDAPCD 2005).
SDAPCD Rules and Regulations
As stated previously, SDAPCD is responsible for planning, implementing, and enforcing federal and state ambient
standards in the SDAB. The rules and regulations provided in the following paragraphs apply to all sources in the
jurisdiction of SDAPCD and would apply to the project.
SDAPCD Regulation II: Permits; Rule 20.2: New Source Review Non-Major Stationary Sources. Requires new or
modified stationary source units (that are not major stationary sources) with the potential to emit 10 pounds per
day or more of VOC, NOx, SOx, or PM10 to be equipped with Best Available Control Technology. For those units with
a potential to emit above Air Quality Impact Assessments Trigger Levels, the units must demonstrate that such
emissions would not violate or interfere with the attainment of any national air quality standard (SDAPCD 2016b).
SDAPCD Regulation IV: Prohibitions; Rule 50: Visible Emissions. Prohibits discharge into the atmosphere from any single
source of emissions whatsoever any air contaminant for a period or periods aggregating more than 3 minutes in any
period of 60 consecutive minutes, which is darker in shade than that designated as Number 1 on the Ringelmann Chart,
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 186 of 1271
5.2 – Air Quality
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.2-8
as published by the U.S. Bureau of Mines, or of such opacity as to obscure an observer’s view to a degree greater than
does smoke of a shade designated as Number 1 on the Ringelmann Chart (SDAPCD 1997).
SDAPCD Regulation IV: Prohibitions; Rule 51: Nuisance. Prohibits the discharge, from any source, of such quantities
of air contaminants or other materials that cause or have a tendency to cause injury, detriment, nuisance,
annoyance to people and/or the public, or damage to any business or property (SDAPCD 1969).
SDAPCD Regulation IV: Prohibitions; Rule 55: Fugitive Dust Control. Regulates fugitive dust emissions from any
commercial construction or demolition activity capable of generating fugitive dust emissions, including active operations,
open storage piles, and inactive disturbed areas, as well as track-out and carry-out onto paved roads beyond a project
area (SDAPCD 2009b).
SDAPCD Regulation IV: Prohibitions; Rule 67.0.1: Architectural Coatings. Requires manufacturers, distributors, and end
users of architectural and industrial maintenance coatings to reduce VOC emissions from the use of these coatings,
primarily by placing limits on the VOC content of various coating categories (SDAPCD 2015). Construction and operation
of the project would include application of architectural coatings (e.g., paint and other finishes), which are subject to
SDAPCD Rule 67.0.1.
SDAPCD Regulation XII: Toxic Air Contaminants; Rule 1200: Toxic Air Contaminants – New Source Review.
Requires new or modified stationary source units with the potential to emit TACs above rule threshold levels to
demonstrate that they will not increase the maximum incremental cancer risk above 1 in 1 million at every receptor
location, or demonstrate that toxics Best Available Control Technology will be employed if maximum incremental
cancer risk is equal to or less than 10 in 1 million, or demonstrate compliance with SDAPCD’s protocol for those
sources with an increase in maximum incremental cancer risk at any receptor location of greater than 10 in 1
million but less than 100 in 1 million (SDAPCD 2017a).
SDAPCD Regulation XII: Toxic Air Contaminants; Rule 1210: Toxic Air Contaminant Public Health Risks – Public
Notification and Risk Reduction. Requires each stationary source required to prepare a public risk assessment to
provide written public notice of risks at or above the following levels: maximum incremental cancer risks equal to
or greater than 10 in 1 million, cancer burden equal to or greater than 1.0, total acute non-cancer health hazard
index equal to or greater than 1.0, or total chronic non-cancer health hazard index equal to or greater than 1.0
(SDAPCD 2017b).
San Diego Association of Governments
SANDAG is the regional planning agency for the County and serves as a forum for regional issues relating to
transportation, the economy, community development, and the environment. SANDAG serves as the federally
designated metropolitan planning organization for the County. With respect to air quality planning and other regional
issues, SANDAG has prepared San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan (Regional Plan) for the San Diego region
(SANDAG 2015). The Regional Plan combines the big-picture vision for how the region will grow over the next 35
years with an implementation program to help make that vision a reality. The Regional Plan, including its
Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), is built on an integrated set of public policies, strategies, and investments
to maintain, manage, and improve the transportation system so that it meets the diverse needs of the San Diego
region through 2050. The 2019 Federal Regional Transportation Plan builds on the 2015 Regional Plan and
provides updated project costs and revenues and a new regional growth forecast (SANDAG 2020a). Preparation of
the 2021 Regional Plan is currently underway. In fall 2020, key policies and programs to be considered as part of
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 187 of 1271
5.2 – Air Quality
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.2-9
the vision will be presented to SANDAG policymakers. The draft 2021 Regional Plan and its draft Environmental
Impact Report are expected to be released for public and policymaker review in spring 2021 (SANDAG 2020b).
In regard to air quality, the Regional Plan sets the policy context in which SANDAG participates in and responds to
SDAPCD’s air quality plans and builds off SDAPCD’s air quality plan processes that are designed to meet health -
based criteria pollutant standards in several ways (SANDAG 2015). First, it complements air quality plans by
providing guidance and incentives for public agencies to consider best practices that support the technology-based
control measures in air quality plans. Second, the Regional Plan emphasizes the need for better coordination of
land use and transportation planning, which heavily influences the emissions inventory from the transportation
sectors of the economy. This also minimizes land use conflicts, such as residential development near freeways,
industrial areas, or other sources of air pollution.
On September 23, 2016, SANDAG’s Board of Directors adopted the final 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement
Program. The 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program is a multi-billion-dollar, multi-year program of
proposed projects for major transportation projects in the San Diego region. Transportation projects funded with
federal, state, and TransNet (the San Diego transportation sales tax program) must be included in an approved
regional transportation improvement program. The programming of locally funded projects also may be programmed
at the discretion of the agency. The 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Program covers five fiscal years and
incrementally implements the Regional Plan (SANDAG 2016).
City of Chula Vista
Chula Vista General Plan
In Chapter 3.1.6, Promoting Clean Air, of the Environmental Element of the Chula Vista General Plan, the City
outlines in the background of air quality in the region and the following objectives and policies related to air quality
(City of Chula Vista 2005):
E6: Improve local air quality and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by minimizing the release of air
pollutants and toxic air contaminants and limiting the exposure of people to such pollutants.
E6A: Explore opportunities for improving indoor air quality.
E6B: Prioritize greening efforts to keep air, water, and land clean.
The following policies related to air quality are found in Section 3.1.6 of the Environmental Element in the Chula
Vista General Plan:
E6.1: Encourage compact development featuring a mix of uses that locate residential areas
within reasonable walking distance to jobs, services, and transit.
E6.2: Promote and facilitate transit system improvements in order to increase transit use and
reduce dependency on the automobile.
E6.3: Facilitate the use of alternative fuel and low- and zero-emission vehicles and equipment
in the community.
E6.4: Do not site new or re-powered fossil-fueled baseload or peaking-type Electric Generating
Facilities and other major toxic emitters within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors, or site
sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of such facilities.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 188 of 1271
5.2 – Air Quality
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.2-10
E6.5: Ensure Electrical Generating Facilities incorporate cleaner fuel sources and least polluting
technologies in order to help transition the City to a less fossil fuel dependent future, while
meeting Chula Vista’s energy demand.
E6.6: Explore incentives to promote voluntary air pollutant reductions, including incentives for
developers who go above and beyond applicable requirements and for facilities and
operations that are not otherwise regulated.
E6.7: Encourage innovative energy conservation practices and air quality improvements in new
development and redevelopment projects consistent with the City's Air Quality Improvement
Plan Guidelines or its equivalent, pursuant to the City's Growth Management Program.
E6.9: Discourage the use of landscaping equipment powered by two -stroke gasoline engines
within the City and promote less-polluting alternatives to their use.
E6.10: The siting of new sensitive receivers within 500 feet of highways resulting from development
or redevelopment projects shall require the preparation of a health risk assessment as part of
the CEQA review of the project. Attendant health risks identified in the HRA shall be feasibly
mitigated to the maximum extent practicable, in accordance with CEQA, in order to help ensure
that applicable federal and state standards are not exceeded.
E6.11: Develop strategies to minimize CO hot spots that address all modes of transportation.
E6.12: Promote clean fuel sources that help reduce the exposure of sensitive uses to pollutants.
E6.13: Encourage programs and infrastructure to increase the availability and usage of energy-
efficient vehicles, such as hybrid electric vehicles, electric vehicles, or those that run on
alternative fuels.
E6.14: Transition the City fleet to 100% “clean” vehicles by integrating hybrid and alternative fuel
vehicles as current municipal fleet vehicles are replaced
E6.15: Site industries and other stationary emitters in a way that minimizes the potential impacts
of poor air quality on homes, schools, hospitals, and other land uses where people
congregate, and disadvantaged populations.
E6.16: Encourage the use of bicycles through support of bike share opportunities, community bike
programs, and the provision of bicycle parking opportunities such as bike racks and bike lockers.
E6.A.1: Continue to limit exposure to secondhand smoke by encouraging the creation of smoke free
spaces and facilities in public spaces, and at all workplaces and multi-unit housing.
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan
The SPA Plan provides general performance standards, intended to describe the overall minimum design standards
for the Industrial Park area, where the proposed project would be located. The following general performance
standard (City of Chula Vista 1990) pertains to air quality:
K. Air Pollution: There shall be no emission on any site, for more than one minute in any hour, of
air contaminants which, at the emission point or within a reasonable distance of the emission
point, which is as dark or darker in shade as that designated as No. 1 on the Ringelman Chart
as published in the United States Bureau of Mines Information Circular 7718.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 189 of 1271
5.2 – Air Quality
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.2-11
5.2.1.2 Climate and Topography
The project site is located within the SDAB, which is one of 15 air basins that geographically divide California. The SDAB
lies in the southwest portion of California, comprises the entire San Diego region, covers approximately 4,260 square
miles, and is an area of high air pollution potential. The SDAB experiences warm summers, mild winters, infrequent
rainfalls, light winds, and moderate humidity. This usually mild climatological pattern is interrupted infrequently by
periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, or Santa Ana winds.
The SDAB experiences frequent temperature inversions. Subsidence inversions occur during the warmer months
as descending air associated with the Pacific High Pressure Zone meets cool marine air. The boundary between the
two layers of air creates a temperature inversion that traps pollutants. Another type of inversion, a radiation
inversion, develops on winter nights when air near the ground cools by heat radiation and air aloft remains warm.
The shallow inversion layer formed between these two air masses can trap pollutants. As the pollutants become more
concentrated in the atmosphere, photochemical reactions occur that produce O3, commonly known as smog.
Light daytime winds, predominantly from the west, further aggravate the condition by driving air pollutants inland,
toward the mountains. During the fall and winter, air quality problems are created due to CO and oxides of nitrogen
(NOx) emissions. CO concentrations are generally higher in the morning and late evening. In the morning, CO levels
are elevated due to cold temperatures and the large number of motor vehicles traveling. Higher CO levels during
the late evenings are a result of stagnant atmospheric conditions trapping CO in the area. Since CO is produced
almost entirely from automobiles, the highest CO concentrations in the basin are associated with heavy traffic. NO2
levels are also generally higher during fall and winter days when O3 concentrations are lower.
Under certain conditions, atmospheric oscillation results in the offshore transport of air from the Los Angeles region
to San Diego County (County). This often produces high O3 concentrations, as measured at air pollutant monitoring
stations within the County. The transport of air pollutants from the Los Angeles region to San Diego County has also
occurred within the stable layer of the elevated subsidence inversion, where high levels of O3 are transported.
The local climate in the southern part of the County is characterized as semi-arid with consistently mild, warmer
temperatures throughout the year. The average summertime high temperature in the region is approximately 81°F,
with highs approaching 80°F in August on average, and record highs approaching 104°F in August. The average
wintertime low temperature is approximately 43.8°F, although record lows have approached 32°F in January.
Average precipitation in the local area is approximately 9.7 inches per year, with the bulk of precipitation falling
between December and March (WRCC 2017).
5.2.1.3 Sensitive Receptors
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 include children, elderly people,
athletes, and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. Facilities and structures where these air
pollution-sensitive people live or spend considerable amounts of time are known as “sensitive receptors.” Land
uses where air-pollution-sensitive individuals are most likely to spend time include schools and schoolyards, parks
and playgrounds, daycare centers, nursing homes, hospitals, and residential communities (sensitive sites or
sensitive land uses) (CARB 2005). SDAPCD identifies sensitive receptors as those who are especially susceptible to
adverse health effects from exposure to TACs, such as children, elderly people, and ill people. Sensitive receptors
include schools (grades Kindergarten through 12), daycare centers, nursing homes, retirement homes, health clinics,
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 190 of 1271
5.2 – Air Quality
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.2-12
and hospitals within 2 kilometers (1.2 miles) of the facility (SDAPCD 2019a). The closest sensitive receptors to the
proposed project are existing residences located 1,040 feet north of the project site. The project would also introduce
new on-site sensitive receptors to the area. The new sensitive receptors would be located approximately 100 feet
from the existing Otay Landfill. However, a 50-foot existing slope is currently present between the proposed homes
and the existing Otay Landfill.
5.2.1.4 Pollutants and Effects
Criteria air pollutants are defined as pollutants for which the federal and state governments have established
ambient air quality standards, or criteria, for outdoor concentrations to protect public health. The federal and state
standards have been set, with an adequate margin of safety, at levels above which concentrations could be harmful
to human health and welfare. These standards are designed to protect the most sensitive persons from illness or
discomfort. Pollutants of concern include O3, NO2, CO, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and lead. These pollutants, as well as toxic
air contaminants (TACs), are discussed in the following paragraphs. In California, sulfates, vinyl chloride, hydrogen
sulfide, and visibility-reducing particles are also regulated as criteria air pollutants.
Criteria Air Pollutants
Ozone. O3 is a strong-smelling, pale blue, reactive, toxic chemical gas consisting of three oxygen atoms. It is a
secondary pollutant formed in the atmosphere by a photochemical process involving the sun’s energy and O3
precursors. These precursors are mainly NOx and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The maximum effects of
precursor emissions on O3 concentrations usually occur several hours after they are emitted and many miles from
the source. Meteorology and terrain play major roles in O3 formation, and ideal conditions occur during summer
and early autumn on days with low wind speeds or stagnant air, warm temperatures, and cloudless skies. O3 exists
in the upper atmosphere O3 layer (stratospheric ozone) and at the Earth’s surface in the troposphere (ozone)1. The
O3 that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulate as
a criteria air pollutant is produced close to the ground level, where people live, exercise, and breathe. Ground-level
O3 is a harmful air pollutant that causes numerous adverse health effects and is thus considered “bad” O3.
Stratospheric, or “good” O3, occurs naturally in the upper atmosphere, where it reduces the amount of ultraviolet
light (i.e., solar radiation) entering the Earth’s atmosphere. Without the protection of the beneficial stratospheric O3
layer, plant and animal life would be seriously harmed.
O3 in the troposphere causes numerous adverse health effects; short-term exposures (lasting for a few hours) to O3 at levels
typically observed in Southern California can result in breathing pattern changes, reduction of breathing capacity, increased
susceptibility to infections, inflammation of the lung tissue, and some immunological changes (EPA 2013). These health
problems are particularly acute in sensitive receptors such as sick people, elderly people, and young children.
Nitrogen Dioxide. NO2 is a brownish, highly reactive gas that is present in all urban atmospheres. The major
mechanism for the formation of NO2 in the atmosphere is the oxidation of the primary air pollutant nitric oxide (NO),
which is a colorless, odorless gas. NOx plays a major role, together with VOCs, in the atmospheric reactions that
produce O3. NOx is formed from fuel combustion under high temperature or pressure. In addition, NOx is an
important precursor to acid rain and may affect both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. The two major emissions
sources are transportation and stationary fuel combustion sources, such as electric utility and industrial boilers.
NO2 can irritate the lungs, cause bronchitis and pneumonia, and lower resistance to respiratory infections (EPA 2016).
1 The troposphere is the layer of the Earth’s atmosphere nearest to the surface of the Earth. The troposphere extends outward
about 5 miles at the poles and about 10 miles at the equator.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 191 of 1271
5.2 – Air Quality
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.2-13
Carbon Monoxide. CO is a colorless, odorless gas formed by the incomplete combustion of hydrocarbon or fossil fuels.
CO is emitted almost exclusively from motor vehicles, power plants, refineries, industrial boilers, ships, aircraft, and trains.
In urban areas, such as the project location, automobile exhaust accounts for the majority of CO emissions. CO is a
nonreactive air pollutant that dissipates relatively quickly; therefore, ambient CO concentrations generally follow the
spatial and temporal distributions of vehicular traffic. CO concentrations are influenced by local meteorological
conditions—primarily wind speed, topography, and atmospheric stability. CO from motor vehicle exhaust can become
locally concentrated when surface-based temperature inversions are combined with calm atmospheric conditions, which
is a typical situation at dusk in urban areas from November to February. The highest levels of CO typically occur during
the colder months of the year, when inversion conditions are more frequent.
In terms of adverse health effects, CO competes with oxygen, often replacing it in the blood, reducing the blood’s
ability to transport oxygen to vital organs. The results of excess CO exposure can include dizziness, fatigue, and
impairment of central nervous system functions.
Sulfur Dioxide. SO2 is a colorless, pungent gas formed primarily from incomplete combustion of sulfur-containing
fossil fuels. The main sources of SO2 are coal and oil used in power plants and industries; as such, the highest
levels of SO2 are generally found near large industrial complexes. In recent years, SO2 concentrations have been
reduced by the increasingly stringent controls placed on stationary source emissions of SO2 and limits on the sulfur
content of fuels.
SO2 is an irritant gas that attacks the throat and lungs and can cause acute respiratory symptoms and diminished
ventilator function in children. When combined with particulate matter, SO2 can injure lung tissue, as well as reduce
visibility and the level of sunlight. SO2 can also yellow plant leaves and erode iron and steel.
Particulate Matter. Particulate matter pollution consists of very small liquid and solid particles floating in the air,
which can include smoke, soot, dust, salts, acids, and metals. Particulate matter can form when gases emitted from
industries and motor vehicles undergo chemical reactions in the atmosphere. PM2.5 and PM10 represent fractions
of particulate matter. PM10 consists of particulate matter that is 10 microns or less in diameter and is about 1/7
the thickness of a human hair. Major sources of PM10 include crushing or grinding operations; dust stirred up by
vehicles traveling on roads; wood-burning stoves and fireplaces; dust from construction, landfills, and agriculture;
wildfires and brush/waste burning; industrial sources; windblown dust from open lands; and atmospheric chemical
and photochemical reactions. PM2.5 consists of particulate matter that is 2.5 microns or less in diameter and is
roughly 1/28 the thickness of a human hair. PM2.5 results from fuel combustion (e.g., from motor vehicles and
power generation and industrial facilities), residential fireplaces, and woodstoves. In addition, PM2.5 can be formed
in the atmosphere from gases such as sulfur oxides (SOx), NOx, and VOCs.
PM2.5 and PM10 pose a greater health risk than larger-size particles. When inhaled, these tiny particles can
penetrate the human respiratory system’s natural defenses and damage the respiratory tract. PM2.5 and PM10 can
increase the number and severity of asthma attacks, cause or aggravate bronchitis and other lung diseases, and
reduce the body’s ability to fight infections. Very small particles of substances such as lead, sulfates, and nitrates
can cause lung damage directly or be absorbed into the bloodstream, causing damage elsewhere in the body.
Additionally, these substances can transport absorbed gases such as chlorides or ammonium into the lungs, also
causing injury. Whereas PM10 tends to collect in the upper portion of the respiratory system, PM2.5 is so tiny that it
can penetrate deeper into the lungs and damage lung tissue. Suspended particulates also damage and discolor
surfaces on which they settle and produce haze and reduce regional visibility.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 192 of 1271
5.2 – Air Quality
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.2-14
People with influenza, people with chronic respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, and elderly people may suffer
worsening illness and premature death as a result of breathing particulate matter. People with bronchitis can expect
aggravated symptoms from breathing in particulate matter. Children may experience a decline in lung function due
to breathing in PM10 and PM2.5 (EPA 2009).
Lead. Lead in the atmosphere occurs as particulate matter. Sources of lead include leaded gasoline; the
manufacturing of batteries, paints, ink, ceramics, and ammunition; and secondary lead smelters. Prior to 1978, mobile
emissions were the primary source of atmospheric lead. Between 1978 and 1987, the phaseout of leaded gasoline
reduced the overall inventory of airborne lead by nearly 95%. With the phaseout of leaded gasoline, secondary lead
smelters, battery recycling, and manufacturing facilities are becoming lead-emissions sources of greater concern.
Prolonged exposure to atmospheric lead poses a serious threat to human health. Health effects associated with exposure
to lead include gastrointestinal disturbances, anemia, kidney disease, and in severe cases, neuromuscular and neurological
dysfunction. Of particular concern are low-level lead exposures during infancy and childhood. Such exposures are
associated with decrements in neurobehavioral performance, including intelligence quotient performance, psychomotor
performance, reaction time, and growth. Children are highly susceptible to the effects of lead.
Volatile Organic Compounds. Hydrocarbons are organic gases that are formed from hydrogen and carbon and
sometimes other elements. Hydrocarbons that contribute to formation of O3 are referred to and regulated as VOCs
(also referred to as reactive organic gases). Combustion engine exhaust, oil refineries, and fossil-fuel power plants
are major sources of hydrocarbons. Other sources of hydrocarbons include evaporation from petroleum fuels,
solvents, dry-cleaning solutions, and paint.
The primary health effects of VOCs result from the formation of O3 and its related health effects. High levels of VOCs
in the atmosphere can interfere with oxygen intake by reducing the amount of available oxygen through
displacement. Carcinogenic forms of hydrocarbons, such as benzene, are considered TACs. There are no separate
health standards for VOCs as a group.
Sulfates. Sulfates are the fully oxidized forms of sulfur, which typically occur in combination with metals or hydrogen
ions. Sulfates are produced from reactions of SO2 in the atmosphere. Sulfates can result in respiratory impairment
and reduced visibility.
Vinyl Chloride. Vinyl chloride is a colorless gas with a mild, sweet odor, which has been detected near landfills, sewage
plants, and hazardous waste sites, due to the microbial breakdown of chlorinated solvents. Short-term exposure to
high levels of vinyl chloride in the air can cause nervous system effects such as dizziness, drowsiness, and headaches.
Long-term exposure through inhalation can cause liver damage, including liver cancer.
Hydrogen Sulfide. Hydrogen sulfide is a colorless and flammable gas that has a characteristic odor of rotten eggs.
Sources of hydrogen sulfide include geothermal power plants, petroleum refineries, sewers, and sewage treatment
plants. Exposure to hydrogen sulfide can result in nuisance odors, as well as headaches and breathing difficulties
at higher concentrations.
Visibility-Reducing Particles. Visibility-reducing particles are any particles in the air that obstruct the range of
visibility. Effects of reduced visibility can include obscuring the viewshed of natural scenery, reducing airport safety,
and discouraging tourism. Sources of visibility-reducing particles are the same as for PM2.5.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 193 of 1271
5.2 – Air Quality
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.2-15
Non-Criteria Air Pollutants
Toxic Air Contaminants. A substance is considered toxic if it has the potential to cause adverse health effects in
humans, including increasing the risk of cancer upon exposure, or acute and/or chronic non-cancer health effects.
A toxic substance released into the air is considered a TAC. TACs are identified by federal and state agencies based
on a review of available scientific evidence. In the State of California, TACs are identified through a two-step process
that was established in 1983 under the Toxic Air Contaminant Identification and Control Act. This two-step process
of risk identification and risk management and reduction was designed to protect residents from the health effects
of toxic substances in the air. In addition, the California Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act,
Assembly Bill (AB) 2588, was enacted by the legislature in 1987 to address public concern over the release of TACs
into the atmosphere. The law requires facilities emitting toxic substances to provide local air pollution control districts
with information that will allow an assessment of the air toxics problem, identification of air toxics emissions sources,
location of resulting hotspots, notification of the public exposed to significant risk, and development of effective
strategies to reduce potential risks to the public over 5 years.
Examples include certain aromatic and chlorinated hydrocarbons, certain meta ls, and asbestos. TACs are
generated by a number of sources, including stationary sources, such as dry cleaners, gas stations, combustion
sources, and laboratories; mobile sources, such as automobiles; and area sources, such as landfills. Adverse health
effects associated with exposure to TACs may include carcinogenic (i.e., cancer-causing) and non-carcinogenic
effects. Non-carcinogenic effects typically affect one or more target organ systems and may be experienced on
either short-term (acute) or long-term (chronic) exposure to a given TAC.
Diesel Particulate Matter. DPM is part of a complex mixture that makes up diesel exhaust. Diesel exhaust is
composed of two phases, gas and particle, both of which contribute to health risks. More than 90% of DPM is less
than 1 micrometer in diameter (about 1/70th the diameter of a human hair) and, thus, is a subset of PM2.5 (CARB
2016a). DPM is typically composed of carbon particles (“soot,” also called black carbon) and numerous organic
compounds, including more than 40 known cancer-causing organic substances.
Examples of these chemicals include polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, benzene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde,
acrolein, and 1,3-butadiene (CARB 2016a). The CARB classified “particulate emissions from diesel-fueled
engines” (i.e., DPM; 17 CCR 93000) as a TAC in August 1998. DPM is emitted from a broad range of diesel
engines, including on-road diesel engines (trucks, buses, and cars) and off-road diesel engines (locomotives,
marine vessels, and heavy-duty construction equipment, among others). Approximately 70% of all airborne cancer
risk in California is associated with DPM (CARB 2000). To reduce the cancer risk associated with DPM, CARB
adopted a diesel risk reduction plan in 2000 (CARB 2000). Because it is part of PM2.5, DPM also contributes to
the same non-cancer health effects as PM2.5 exposure. These effects include premature death; hospitalizations
and emergency department visits for exacerbated chronic heart and lung disease, including asthma; increased
respiratory symptoms; and decreased lung function in children. Several studies suggest that exposure to DPM
may also facilitate development of new allergies (CARB 2016b). Those most vulnerable to non-cancer health
effects are children, whose lungs are still developing, and elderly people, who often have chronic health problems.
Odorous Compounds. Odors are generally regarded as an annoyance rather than a health hazard. Manifestations
of a person’s reaction to odors can range from psychological (e.g., irritation, anger, or anxiety) to physiological (e.g.,
circulatory and respiratory effects, nausea, vomiting, and headache). The ability to detect odors varies considerably
among the population and overall is subjective. People may have different reactions to the same odor. An odor that
is offensive to one person may be perfectly acceptable to another (e.g., a coffee roaster). An unfamiliar odor is more
easily detected and is more likely to cause complaints than a familiar one. In a phenomenon known as odor fatigue,
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 194 of 1271
5.2 – Air Quality
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.2-16
a person can become desensitized to almost any odor, and recognition may only occur with an alteration in the
intensity. The occurrence and severity of odor impacts depend on the nature, frequency, and intensity of the source;
wind speed and direction; and the sensitivity of receptors.
Valley Fever. Coccidioidomycosis, more commonly known as “valley fever,” is an infection caused by inhalation of
the spores of the Coccidioides immitis fungus, which grows in the soils of the southwestern United States. When
fungal spores are present, any activity that disturbs the soil, such as digging, grading, or other earthmoving
operations, can cause the spores to become airborne and thereby increase the risk of exposure. The ecologic
factors that appear to be most conducive to survival and replication of the spores are high summer temperatures,
mild winters, sparse rainfall, and alkaline sandy soils.
Valley fever is not considered highly endemic to San Diego. Per the County Health and Human Services Agency,
the 10-year average (2009–2018) for coccidioidomycosis cases in the County of San Diego is 5.5 cases per
100,000 people per year. The project site is wholly contained within the 91911 zip code. For the 91911 zip code,
there were 113 cases of coccidioidomycosis between 2009 and 2018, which is equivalent to a rate of 13.5 cases
per 100,000 people (Nelson 2019). Statewide incidences in 2018 were 18.8 per 100,000 people (CDPH 2019).
Even if Coccidioides immitis is present at a site, earthmoving activities may not result in increased incidence of
valley fever. Propagation of Coccidioides immitis is dependent on climatic conditions, with the potential for growth
and surface exposure highest following early seasonal rains and long dry spells. Coccidioides immitis spores can
be released when filaments are disturbed by earthmoving activities, although receptors must be exposed to and
inhale the spores to be at increased risk of developing valley fever. Moreover, exposure to Coccidioides immitis
does not guarantee that an individual will become ill—approximately 60% of people exposed to the fungal spores
are asymptomatic and show no signs of an infection (USGS 2000).
5.2.1.5 Local Air Quality
San Diego Air Basin Attainment Designation
Pursuant to the 1990 federal CAA amendments, EPA classifies air basins (or portions thereof) as “attainment” or
“nonattainment” for each criteria air pollutant, based on whether the NAAQS have been achieved. Generally, if the
recorded concentrations of a pollutant are lower than the standard, the area is classified as “attainment” for that
pollutant. If an area exceeds the standard, the area is classified as “nonattainment” for that pollutant. If there is not
enough data available to determine whether the standard is exceeded in an area, the area is designated as
“unclassified” or “unclassifiable.” The designation of “unclassifiable/attainment” means that the area meets the
standard or is expected to be meet the standard despite a lack of monitoring data. Areas that achieve the standards
after a nonattainment designation are re-designated as maintenance areas and must have approved maintenance
plans to ensure continued attainment of the standards. The California CAA, like its federal counterpart, called for the
designation of areas as “attainment” or “nonattainment,” but based on the CAAQS rather than the NAAQS. Table 5.2-2
depicts the current attainment status of the project site with respect to the NAAQS and CAAQS. The attainment
classifications for the criteria pollutants are outlined in Table 5..2--2.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 195 of 1271
5.2 – Air Quality
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.2-17
Table 5.2-2. San Diego Air Basin Attainment Classification
Pollutant
Designation/Classification
National Standards State Standards
Ozone (O3) – 1 hour Attainmenta Nonattainment
O3 (8-hour – 1997)
O3 (8-hour – 2008)
Attainment (maintenance)
Nonattainment (moderate)
Nonattainment
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Unclassifiable/attainment Attainment
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Attainment (maintenance) Attainment
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)a Attainmentb Attainment
Coarse Particulate Matter (PM10) Unclassifiable/attainment Nonattainment
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Unclassifiable/attainment Nonattainment
Lead (Pb) Unclassifiable/attainment Attainment
Hydrogen Sulfide No national standard Attainment
Sulfates No national standard Unclassified
Visibility-Reducing Particles No national standard Unclassified
Vinyl Chloride No national standard No designation
Source: Appendix C.
Notes: Attainment = meets the standards; attainment/maintenance = achieve the standards after a nonattainment designation;
nonattainment = does not meet the standards; unclassified or unclassifiable = insufficient data to classify; unclassifiable/a ttainment
= meets the standard or is expected to be meet the standard despite a lack of monitoring data.
If nonattainment for federal standards, a clarifying classification will be provided indicating the severity of the nonattain ment status.
a The federal 1-hour standard of 0.12 parts per million was in effect from 1979 through June 15, 2005. The revoked standard is
referenced here, because it was employed for such a long period and because this benchmark is addressed in State
Implementation Plans.
b EPA retaining current federal standard for SO2 (84 FR 9866–9907).
In summary, the SDAB is designated as an attainment area for the 1997 8-hour O3 NAAQS and as a nonattainment
area for the 2008 8-hour O3 NAAQS. The SDAB is designated as a nonattainment area for O3, PM10, and PM2.5
CAAQS. The portion of the SDAB where the project site is located is designated as attainment or
unclassifiable/unclassified for all other criteria pollutants under the NAAQS and CAAQS.
Local Ambient Air Quality
CARB, air districts, and other agencies monitor ambient air quality at approximately 250 air quality monitoring
stations across the state. Local ambient air quality is monitored by SDAPCD. SDAPCD operates a network of ambient
air monitoring stations throughout the County, which measure ambient concentrations of pollutants and determine
whether the ambient air quality meets the CAAQS and the NAAQS. The nearest SDAPCD-operated monitoring station
is the Chula Vista monitoring station, which is located approximately 2.5 miles nor thwest of the project site. This
monitoring station was used to show the background ambient air quality for O3, PM10, PM2.5, and NO2. The closest
monitoring site that measures CO and SO2 is the First Street monitoring station in El Cajon, which is about 6.8 miles
northeast of the project site. The most recent background ambient air quality data and numbers of days exceeding
the ambient air quality standards from 2016 to 2018 are presented in Table 5.2-3.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 196 of 1271
5.2 – Air Quality
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.2-18
Table 5.2-3. Local Ambient Air Quality Data
Averaging Time Unit
Agency/
Method
Ambient
Air Quality
Standard
Measured Concentration
by Year Exceedances by Year
2016 2017 2018 2016 2017 2018
Ozone (O3) – Chula Vista
Maximum
1-hour
concentration
ppm State 0.09 0.088 0.073 0.085 0 0 0
Maximum
8-hour
concentration
ppm State 0.070 0.066 0.068 0.074 0 0 1
Federal 0.070 0.066 0.068 0.074 0 0 1
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) – Chula Vista
Maximum
1-hour
concentration
ppm State 0.18 0.049 0.054 0.057 0 0 0
Federal 0.100 0.049 0.054 0.057 0 0 0
Annual
concentration
ppm State 0.030 0.010 0.009 0.009 — — —
Federal 0.053 0.010 0.009 0.009 — — —
Carbon Monoxide (CO) – El Cajon
Maximum
1-hour
concentration
ppm State 20 — 1.6 1.5 — 0 0
Federal 35 — 1.6 1.5 — 0 0
Maximum
8-hour
concentration
ppm State 9.0 — 1.3 1.4 — 0 0
Federal 9 — 1.3 1.4 — 0 0
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) – El Cajon
Maximum
1-hour
concentration
ppm Federal 0.075 0.0012 0.0006 0.0010 0 0 0
Maximum
24-hour
concentration
ppm Federal 0.14 0.0004 0.0002 0.0004 0 0 0
Annual
Concentration
ppm Federal 0.030 0.0001 0.0008 0.0001 0 0 0
Coarse Particulate Matter (PM10)a – Chula Vista
Maximum
24-hour
concentration
g/m3 State 50 39.0 45.0 48.0 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0)
Federal 150 38.0 46.0 48.0 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0)
Annual
Concentration
g/m3 State 20 23.4 19.8 21.8 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0)
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)a – Chula Vista
Maximum
24-hour
concentration
g/m3 Federal 35 33.5 23.9 42.7 0 0 1
Annual
concentration
g/m3 State 12 8.4 8.7 9.3 0 0 0
Federal 12 8.4 8.7 9.3 0 0 0
Sources: Appendix C.
Notes: ppm = parts per million; — = no data available; μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 197 of 1271
5.2 – Air Quality
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.2-19
Data taken from CARB’s iADAM (http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam) and EPA’s AirData (http://www.epa.gov/airdata/) represent the highest
concentrations experienced over a given year.
Daily exceedances for particulate matter are estimated days because PM10 and PM2.5 are not monitored daily. All other criteria
pollutants did not exceed federal or state standards during the years shown. There is no federal standard for 1 -hour O3, annual PM10,
or 24-hour SO2, nor is there a state 24-hour standard for PM2.5.
Chula Vista monitoring station is at 80 East J Street, Chula Vista, California.
El Cajon monitoring station is at Lexington Elementary School, at 533 First Street, El Cajon, California.
a Measurements of PM10 and PM2.5 are usually collected every 6 days and every 1 to 3 days, respectively. Number of days exceeding the
standards is a mathematical estimate of the number of days concentrations would have been greater than the level of the standard had
each day been monitored. The numbers in parentheses are the measured number of samples that exceeded the standard.
5.2.2 Thresholds of Significance
The significance criteria used to evaluate the project impacts to air quality is based on the recommendations
provided in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.). A significant impact w ould occur if the
project would:
A. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
B. 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 .
C. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
D. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.
Criteria Pollutants
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines indicates that, where available, the significance criteria established by the
applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied on to determine whether
a project would have a significant impact on air quality.
The City evaluates project emissions based on the quantitative emission thresholds established by the South Coast Air
Quality Management District (SCAQMD). SCAQMD sets forth quantitative emission significance thresholds below which
a project would not have a significant impact on ambient air quality. It should be noted that the use of these significance
thresholds is conservative, as SCAQMD’s significance thresholds were originally based on the South Coast Air Basin’s
extreme O3 nonattainment status for the 1-hour NAAQS, whereas the SDAB was designated as an attainment area for
the 1-hour NAAQS. Project-related air quality impacts estimated in this environmental analysis would be considered
significant if any of the applicable significance thresholds presented in Table 5.2-4 are exceeded.
Table 5.2-4. City of Chula Vista Air Quality Significance Thresholds
Pollutant Construction Operation
Criteria Pollutants Mass Daily Thresholds
VOC 75 lb/day 55 lb/day
NOx 100 lb/day 55 lb/day
CO 550 lb/day 550 lb/day
SOx 150 lb/day 150 lb/day
PM10 150 lb/day 150 lb/day
PM2.5 55 lb/day 55 lb/day
Leada 3 lb/day 3 lb/day
Source: Appendix C.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 198 of 1271
5.2 – Air Quality
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.2-20
Notes: VOC = volatile organic compound; lb/day = pounds per day; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; CO = carbon monoxide; SOx = sulfur
oxides; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter.
GHG emissions thresholds for industrial projects, as added in the March 2015 revision to the SCAQMD Air Quality Significance
Thresholds, were not included in this table, as they will be addressed within the GHG emissions analysis and not the air qual ity study.
a The phaseout of leaded gasoline started in 1976. Since gasoline no longer contains lead, the project is not anticipated to result
in impacts related to lead; therefore, it is not discussed in this analysis.
The thresholds listed in Table 5.2-4 represent screening-level thresholds that can be used to evaluate whether
project-related emissions could cause a significant impact on air quality. Emissions below the screening-level
thresholds would not cause a significant impact. For nonattainment pollutants, if emissions exceed the thresholds
shown in Table 5.2-4, the project could have the potential to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in
these pollutants and thus could have a significant impact on the ambient air quality.
With respect to odors, SDAPCD Rule 51 (Public Nuisance) prohibits emission of any material that causes nuisance
to a considerable number of persons or endangers the comfort, health, or safety of any person. A project that
proposes a use that would produce objectionable odors would be deemed to have a significant odor impact if it
would affect a considerable number of off-site receptors.
5.2.3 Impacts
A. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
As mentioned in Section 5.2.1.1, Regulatory Framework—Local, SDAPCD and SANDAG are responsible for developing
and implementing the clean air plans for attainment and maintenance of the ambient air quality standards in the
basin— specifically, the SIP and the RAQS.2 The federal O3 maintenance plan, which is part of the SIP, was adopted in
2012. The most recent O3 attainment plan was adopted in 2016. The SIP includes a demonstration that current
strategies and tactics will maintain acceptable air quality in the SDAB based on the NAAQS. The RAQS was initially
adopted in 1991 and is updated on a triennial basis (most recently in 2016). The RAQS outlines SDAPCD’s plans and
control measures designed to attain the state air quality standards for O3. The SIP and RAQS rely on information from
CARB and SANDAG, including mobile and area source emissions, as well as information regarding projected growth in
the County as a whole and the cities in the County, to project future emissions and determine the strategies necessary
for the reduction of emissions through regulatory controls. CARB mobile source emission projections and SANDAG
growth projections are based on population, vehicle trends, and land use plans developed by the County and the cities
in the County as part of the development of their general plans.
If a project proposes development that is greater than that anticipated in the local plan and SANDAG’s growth
projections, the project might be in conflict with the SIP and the RAQS and may contribute to a potentially significant
cumulative impact on air quality. The General Plan Land Use Element designates the project site as Limited
Industrial (LI), which is intended for light manufacturing, warehousing, certain public utilities, auto repair, auto
salvage yards, and flexible-use projects that combine these uses with associated office space (City of Chula Vista
2005). Furthermore, the project proposes to redesignate the site from Industrial Park in the Sunbow General
Development Plan (City of Chula Vista 1989) and Sunbow Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan (City of Chula Vista
1990) to 718 multi-family residential units3 phased over approximately 7 years. The criteria air pollutant emissions
associated with operation of an Industrial Park land use would be greater than those for multi -family residential
2 For the purpose of this discussion, the relevant federal air quality plan is the 2016 8-Hour O3 Attainment Plan (SDAPCD 2016a).
The RAQS is the applicable plan for purposes of state air quality planning. Both plans reflect growth projections in the SDAB .
3 Note that the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report (Appendix C) assumed 720 proposed residential units
for a conservative analysis.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 199 of 1271
5.2 – Air Quality
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.2-21
units, particularly since Industrial Park land use generates more truck trips than residential land use. Thus, the
proposed Project would not result in emissions that are not accounted for in the RAQs.
The proposed project would involve development of 718 multi-family residential units but would be developed in
phases: 330 multi-family residential units would be operational in 2024, 165 units would be operational in 2025,
127 units would be operational in 2026, 75 units would be operational in 2027, and 23 units would be operational
in 2028. Based on SANDAG’s Series 13 forecast, the interpolated persons per household ratio in 2028 is 3.224.
Thus, the project would result in 2,315 persons. SANDAG Series 13 estimates the population in the City would grow
from 287,173 in 2020 to 326,625 in 2035. Furthermore, SANDAG Series 13 estimates that housing would increase
from 89,176 units in 2020 to 101,188 units in 2035. Thus, the addition of 330 multi-family residential units in
2024, 165 units in 2025, 127 units in 2026, 75 units in 2027, and 23 units in 2028 would provide balanced and
diverse housing to the City and would provide housing to accommodate the City’s future growth projections.
Therefore, the proposed project would not stimulate population growth or a population concentration or housing
above what is assumed in local and regional land use plans, or projections made by regional planning authorities.
Thus, impacts would be considered less than significant.
B. 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.
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. The poor air quality in the SDAB is the result
of cumulative emissions from motor vehicles, off-road equipment, commercial and industrial facilities, and other
emission sources. Projects that emit these pollutants or their precursors (i.e., VOCs and NOx for O3) potentially
contribute to poor air quality. In analyzing cumulative impacts from a project, the analysis must specifically evaluate
the project’s contribution to the cumulative increase in pollutants for which the SDAB is designated as
nonattainment for the CAAQS and NAAQS. However, a project would only be considered to have a significant
cumulative impact if the project’s contribution accounts for a significant proportion of the cumulative total
emissions (i.e., it represents a “cumulatively considerable contribution” to the cumulative air quality impact).
Additionally, for the SDAB, the RAQS serves as the long-term regional air quality planning document for the purpose
of assessing cumulative operational emissions in the SDAB to ensure that the SDAB continues to make progress
toward NAAQS and CAAQS attainment status. As such, cumulative projects located in the San Diego region would
have the potential to result in a cumulative impact to air quality if, in combination, they would conflict with or
obstruct implementation of the RAQS. Similarly, individual projects that are inconsistent with the regional planning
documents on which the RAQS is based would have the potential to result in cumulative operational impacts if they
represent development and population increases beyond regional projections.
The SDAB has been designated as a federal nonattainment area for O3 and a state nonattainment area for O3,
PM10, and PM2.5. The nonattainment status is the result of cumulative emissions from all sources of these air
pollutants and their precursors within the SDAB. As discussed previously, the project would not exceed significance
thresholds during construction or operation. As such, the project would result in less-than-significant impacts to air
quality relative to emissions.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 200 of 1271
5.2 – Air Quality
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.2-22
Construction Emissions
Emissions from the construction phase of the project were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model
(CalEEMod) Version 2016.3.2 (CAPCOA 2017). For the purposes of modeling, it was assumed that construction of the
project would commence in May 2021 and would last approximately 7 years, ending in May 2028. The analysis
contained herein is based on the assumptions outlined in Section 4.4.7, Construction and Phasing (duration of phases
is approximate), as well as well as other assumptions made for the purposes of modeling, is included in Appendix C.
For this analysis, it was assumed that heavy construction equipment would operate 5 days a week during project
construction. Construction-worker and vendor estimates by construction phase were generated by CalEEMod. As
specified by the applicant, the project would require 1.2 million cubic yards of balanced cut and fill. Additional project-
specific assumptions regarding vehicle trips and construction schedules and phasing—including information
regarding subphases and equipment used during each subphase—are included in Appendix C. In addition, the
following project design features (PDFs) (see Section 4.4.8, Project Design Features, for the full text of the PDFs)
would be implemented as part of the proposed project:
• PDF-AQ-1 (Fugitive Dust Control)
• PDF-AQ-2 (Architectural Coating)
Implementation of the project would generate air pollutant emissions from entrained dust, off-road equipment,
vehicle emissions, and asphalt pavement application. Entrained dust results from the exposure of earth surfaces
to wind from the direct disturbance and movement of soil, resulting in PM10 and PM2.5 emissions. The project is
subject to SDAPCD Rule 55, Fugitive Dust Control (SDAPCD 2009b). This rule requires that the 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) 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 three times daily, resulting in an
approximately 61% reduction of particulate matter (SCAQMD 2007).
The application of architectural coatings, such as exterior/interior paint and other finishes, would also produce VOC
emissions; however, the contractor is required to utilize architectural coatings in compliance with the requirements
of SDAPCD Rule 67.0.1, Architectural Coatings. This rule requires manufacturers, distributors, and end users of
architectural and industrial maintenance coatings to reduce VOC emissions from the use of these coatings,
primarily by placing limits on the VOC content of various coating categories 50 grams per liter (g/L) for interior
coating, 100 g/L for exterior architectural coating, and exterior architectural coatings and 250 g/L for parking
coating (SDAPCD 2015). Implementation of PDF-AQ-2, outlined in Section 4.4.8, would ensure that the project
would use no-VOC paints; therefore, 5 grams per liter VOC content was assumed for interior and exterior
architectural coating, which would be lower than the VOC content requirements of SDAPCD Rule 67.0.1.
Exhaust from internal combustion engines used by construction equipment and worker vehicles would result in
emissions of VOCs, NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5. The application of asphalt pavement and architectural coatings
would also produce VOC emissions.
Table 5.2-5 shows the estimated maximum daily construction emissions associated with construction of the
project without mitigation. Complete details of the emissions calculations are provided in Appendix C.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 201 of 1271
5.2 – Air Quality
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.2-23
Table 5.2-5. Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions
Year
VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Pounds per Day
2021 11.72 90.76 84.02 0.24 16.53 9.77
2022 10.68 79.77 79.63 0.24 16.01 6.77
2023 6.48 34.76 47.64 0.16 11.17 3.57
2024 6.17 33.31 45.80 0.16 11.07 3.48
2025 5.88 31.86 44.11 0.16 10.97 3.39
2026 5.73 31.50 42.77 0.15 10.97 3.39
2027 5.59 31.16 41.58 0.15 10.97 3.38
2028 5.43 30.87 40.57 0.15 10.96 3.38
Maximum daily emissions 11.72 90.76 84.02 0.24 16.53 9.77
Chula Vista threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold exceeded? No No No No No No
Source: Appendix C.
Notes: VOC = volatile organic compound; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; CO = carbon monoxide; SOx = sulfur oxides; PM10 = coarse
particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter.
See Appendix C for complete results.
The values shown are the maximum summer or winter daily emissions results from CalEEMod. Although not considered mitigation,
these emissions reflect CalEEMod “mitigated” output, which accounts for the required compliance with SDAPCD Rule 55 (Fugitive Dust
Control) and use of no-VOC architectural coatings.
As shown in Table 5.2-5, daily construction emissions would not exceed the City’s significance thresholds.
Therefore, impacts during construction would be less than significant.
Operational Emissions
Operation of the project would generate VOC, NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions from mobile sources, including
vehicle trips; area sources, including the use of consumer products and landscape maintenance equipment; and energy
sources. Pollutant emissions associated with long-term operations were quantified using CalEEMod. Project-generated
mobile source emissions were estimated in CalEEMod based on project-specific trip rates and trip distances. CalEEMod
default values were used to estimate emissions from the project site and energy sources.
Table 5.2-6 presents the maximum daily area, energy, and mobile source emissions associated with operation
(Year 2028) of the project. The values shown are the maximum summer or winter daily emissions results from
CalEEMod. Details of the emission calculations are provided in Appendix C.
Table 5.2-6. Estimated Maximum Daily Operational Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions
Year
VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Pounds per Day
Area 18.81 0.68 59.39 <0.01 0.33 0.33
Energy 0.29 2.48 1.06 0.02 0.20 0.20
Mobile 5.93 22.66 57.76 0.22 22.37 6.08
Total 25.03 25.83 118.20 0.24 22.90 6.61
Chula Vista
threshold
55 55 550 150 150 55
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 202 of 1271
5.2 – Air Quality
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.2-24
Table 5.2-6. Estimated Maximum Daily Operational Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions
Year
VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Pounds per Day
Threshold
exceeded?
No No No No No No
Source: Appendix C.
Notes: VOC = volatile organic compound; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; CO = carbon monoxide; SOx = sulfur oxides; PM10 = coarse
particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter.
See Appendix C for complete results.
Columns may not total precisely due to rounding.
The values shown are the maximum summer or winter daily emissions results from CalEEMod. These emissions reflect CalEEMod
“mitigated” output, which accounts for compliance with Rule 67.0.1 (Architectural Coatings).
As shown in Table 5.2-6, the combined daily area, energy, and mobile source emissions would not exceed the City’s
operational thresholds for VOC, NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5. Regarding long-term cumulative operational
emissions in relation to consistency with local air quality plans, the SIP and RAQS serve as the primary air quali ty
planning documents for the state and SDAB, respectively. The SIP and RAQS rely on SANDAG growth projections
based on population, vehicle trends, and land use plans developed by the cities and the County as part of the
development of their general plans. Therefore, 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 project would site is
designated as Industrial Park in the Sunbow General Development Plan (City of Chula Vista 1989) and Sunbow SPA
Plan (City of Chula Vista 1990). However, the criteria air pollutant emissions associated with operation of an Industrial
Park land use would be greater than those for multi-family residential units, particularly since Industrial Park land
use generates more truck trips than residential land use. Furthermore, the 718 multi-family residential uses would
provide balanced and diverse housing to the City and would provide housing to accommodate the City’s future
growth projections. As a result, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to regional
O3 concentrations or other criteria pollutant emissions. Impacts associated with project -generated operational
criteria air pollutant emissions would be less than significant.
C. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
Air quality varies as a direct function of the amount of pollutants emitted into the atmosphere, the size and
topography of the air basin, and the prevailing meteorological conditions. Air quality problems arise when the rate
of pollutant emissions exceeds the rate of dispersion. Reduced visibility, eye irritation, and adverse health impacts
on 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, elderly people, 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 sensitive
receptors to the project site are existing residences adjacent to the western and northern property boundaries.
The project would also introduce new on-site sensitive receptors to the area.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 203 of 1271
5.2 – Air Quality
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.2-25
Health Impacts of Toxic Air Contaminants
Incremental cancer risk is the net increased likelihood that a person continuously exposed to concentrations of TACs
resulting from a project over a 9-, 30-, and 70-year exposure period would contract cancer based on the use of standard
OEHHA risk-assessment methodology (OEHHA 2015). In addition, some TACs have non-carcinogenic effects. TACs that
would potentially be emitted during construction activities would be DPM emitted from heavy- duty construction
equipment and heavy-duty trucks. Heavy-duty construction equipment and diesel trucks are subject to CARB ATCMs to
reduce DPM emissions. According to the OEHHA, HRAs should be based on a 30-year exposure duration based on
typical residency period; however, such assessments should be limited to the period/duration of activities associated
with the project (OEHHA 2015). Thus, the duration of proposed construction activities (approximately 7 years) would
only constitute a small percentage of the total long-term exposure period and would not result in exposure of proximate
sensitive receptors to substantial TACs. Furthermore, the closest sensitive receptors to the proposed project site are
existing residences located 1,040 feet north of the project site. The heavy-duty construction equipment is subject to a
CARB ATCM for in-use diesel construction equipment to reduce diesel particulate emissions, and diesel trucks are
subject to a CARB ATCM that limits idling of equipment and trucks during loading and unloading to 5 minutes and
requires that electric auxiliary power units be used whenever possible. Also, construction equipment are subject to
CARB In-Use Off-Road Diesel Regulation that requires specific fleet average requirements be met for particulate matter
emissions, and apply Best Available Control Technology requirements. The future sensitive receptors of the project
would be exposed to the proposed construction activities from each phase of the project. The duration of construction
for each phase of the project would be approximately 7 years and would therefore constitute only a small percentage
of the total long-term exposure period and would not result in exposure of future sensitive receptors of the project.
As required by Policy E 6.10 in the General Plan Environmental Elemen t (City of Chula Vista 2005), 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 project. The project residences would be located
approximately 4,600 feet from Interstate 805 (I-805); therefore, the project is not subject to this requirement.
Impacts to sensitive receptors attributed to TACs would be less than significant.
Landfill Health Risk
For informational purposes only, an HRA was performed to estimate the Maximum Individual Cancer Risk, the
Chronic Hazard Index, and the Acute Hazard Index for the residential receptors as a result of emissions impacts
from the Otay Landfill operation on future sensitive receptors of the project.
The Landfill operation TAC emission sources include a diesel grinder generator, landfill gas (LFG) flares, LFG
fugitive emissions, off -road equipment, haul truck travel and idling emissions, and fugitive dust from land fill
operations. This HRA was prepared using information from the Air Toxics Health Risk Assessment for Otay Ranch
Village 3 North (CalRecycle 2020) and the AB 2588 Health Risk Assessment for Otay Landfill (SCS 2016).
Additional Landfill information was ob tained per the public records request to SDAPCD, including the Landfill
permit applications, engineering evaluations, emissions calculations, and past and current permits (Gould
2020a). The Landfill’s LFG-derived TAC emissions were estimated using SDAPCD’s default emission factors, the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) AP-42 emission factors, CARB’s EMFAC2017 emission factors, and
the EPA Landfill Gas Emissions Model (LandGEM), which projected future LFG generation.
Emission sources associated with operation of the Landfill, including haul vehicles, equipment, and the grinder
generator, are not expected to operate after the landfill reaches capacity, which is expected to occur on February
28, 2030 (CalRecycle 2020). LFG -derived sources, however, are expected to continue operating over the full
exposure duration.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 204 of 1271
5.2 – Air Quality
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.2-26
For risk assessment purposes, coarse particulate matter (PM10; particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter
equal to or less than 10 microns) in diesel exhaust is considered DPM, which is assumed to be originating mainly
from diesel haul trucks traveling on site, truck idling, off-road equipment and the diesel-fueled grinder generator.
Haul truck travel and idling emission rates were obtained from EMFAC2017. The LFG-derived fugitive and flare
TAC emissions were identified from EPA’s AP-42 (EPA 1995). The speciated suspended dust TAC emissions from
haul truck travel on paved and unpaved roads on site were from the soil samples collected for the site (SCS
2013a, 2016). The grinder generator TAC emissions were calculated using the Landfill’s Title V permit (Title V
Permit to Operate Number 971227). The off-road diesel equipment is subject to the Regulation for In-Use Off-
Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets, and the equipment tier standards were updated from the 2013 SCS analysis (SCS
2013a) and assumed to be in compliance with the Medium Fleet Average Best Available Control Technology
(BACT) Requirements (CARB 2018).
As required by the 2019 Title 24 Building Code and the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code
(CALGreen) standards, the project would install MERV 13-rated air filtration on all HVAC systems able to achieve a
90% reduction in particulate matter.4 EPA conducted the National Human Activity Pattern Survey (NHAPS) to study
where people spend their time. The results of the NHAPS showed that on average, people spend 87% of their time
in enclosed buildings and 6% of their time in enclosed vehicles (Kleipeis et al. 2001). This assessment of risk
includes accounting for time spent indoors (87% of the time) as identified in the NHAPS and time spent away from
home as recommended by OEHHA (OEHHA 2015). Accounting for the actual time spent indoors and exposure
related to the residents of the project provides a more realistic exposure scenario from TAC emissions from the
Otay Landfill operation. Detailed HRA methodology, emissions data, and results are provided in Appendix C.
A dispersion modeling analysis of the Landfill operations on the Project site was conducted for this HRA. The air
dispersion modeling methodology was based on the generally accepted modeling practices of SDAPCD (SDAPCD
2019a) and OEHHA (OEHHA 2015). The dispersion modeling was performed using AERMOD, which is the model that
EPA approved for atmospheric dispersion of emissions (EPA 2015). AERMOD is a steady-state Gaussian plume
model that incorporates air dispersion based on planetary boundary layer turbulence structure and scaling
concepts, including treatment of surface and elevated sources, building downwash, and simple and complex
terrain. Principal parameters of AERMOD for the Landfill modeling included the following:
• Dispersion Model: The air dispersion model used was AERMOD Version 19191, with the Lakes
Environmental Software implementation/user interface, AERMOD View Version 9.8.3 (Lakes Environmental
2019). A unit emission rate of 1.0 grams per second (g/s) was applied to each source (i.e., truck idling,
grinder generator, flares). Unit emission rate of 1 g/s was divided by the area of the area source to calculate
the emission rate in units of grams per second per square meter. Furthermore, a unit emission rate was
normalized over the line of adjacent volume sources (i.e., truck travel and equipment operation) for the
AERMOD run to obtain the “Χ/Q” values. Χ/Q is a dispersion factor that is the average effluent concentration
normalized by source strength, and is used as a way to simplify the representation of emissions from many
sources. The maximum concentrations were determined for the 1-hour and period averaging periods.
• Meteorological Data: AERMOD-specific meteorological data for the Chula Vista air monitoring station (CVA)
used for the dispersion modeling was provided by SDAPCD as the most recent, available, and
representative meteorological data available for the site (Gould 2020b). A 3-year meteorological data set
from 2010 through 2012 was provided by SDAPCD in a preprocessed format suitable for use in AERMOD.
• Urban and Rural Options: Based on the land use procedure, at least 50% of the land use within the
3-kilometer (1.9-mile) radius from the Landfill site is I1 (Heavy Industrial), I2 (Light-Moderate Industrial), C1
4 EPA reported that the MERV 13 filters remove 90% of particles ranging from 1 to 10 microns (EPA 2019a).
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 205 of 1271
5.2 – Air Quality
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.2-27
(Commercial), R1 (Common Residential), and R2 (Compact Residential). Therefore, the Urban dispersion
option was selected.
• Terrain Characteristics: Digital elevation data were imported into AERMOD and elevations were assigned
to receptors and emission sources, as necessary. Digital elevation data were obtained through the AERMOD
View in the U.S. Geological Survey’s National Elevation Dataset format with a resolution of 1/3 degree
(approximately 10 meters [33 feet]), consistent with the SDAPCD guidance (SDAPCD 2019a). The elevation
of the site is 350 feet (107 meters) above sea level.
• Sensitive Receptors: A 25-meter (82-foot) Cartesian receptor grid was applied across the proposed Project
site to establish the impact area and evaluate locations of maximum health risk impact.
• Source Release Scenario: Consistent with the 2013 and 2016 SCS Engineers analysis (SCS 2013a, 2016)
and the SDAPCD Engineering Evaluation Letter (SDAPCD 2017), the following sources were modeled:
o Flares 1 and 2 were modeled as point sources with 50-foot and 30-foot release height, respectively;
13-foot and 6-foot inside stack diameter, respectively; 1,601°F exit gas temperature; and 2.899-meter
per second (m/s) (or 9.511 feet per second [f/s]) exit gas velocity.
o On-site truck travel was modeled as a line of adjacent volume sources with a plume height and width
of 3 meters (9.8 feet) and release height of 1.5 meters (4.9 feet).
o Unpaved and paved dust from truck travel was modeled as a line of adjacent volume sources with a
plume height of 5.58 meters (18.31 feet), plume width of 8.51 meters (27.92 feet), and release height
of 2.55 meters (8.37 feet).
o Truck idling emissions were modeled as point sources with a release height of 4 meters (13.1 feet); inside
stack diameter of 0.33 feet; 442°F exit gas temperature; and 49.0 m/s (160.8 f/s) exit gas velocity.
o The grinder generator was modeled as a point source with a release height from the ground at 0 meters; inside
stack diameter of 0.33 feet; 1,100°F exit gas temperature; and 0.001 m/s (0.003 f/s) exit gas velocity.
o Off-road equipment was modeled as a line of adjacent volume sources with a plume height and width
of 2.33 meters (7.64 feet) and release height of 5 meters (16 feet).
o Landfill gas fugitive emissions were modeled as an area polygon source with a release height of
0 meters and initial vertical dimension of 0 meters.
o The grinder generator was modeled as a building (50 feet in length, 12 feet in width, and 13.5 feet in
height) to account for the grinder generator point source being affected by building downwash.
As shown in Table 5.2-7, the landfill operation would result in a Residential Maximum Individual Cancer Risk of
7.70 in 1 million, which would be less than the significance threshold of 10 in 1 million. Landfill operation would
result in a Residential Chronic Hazard Index and Acute Hazard Index of 0.244 and 0.080, respectively, which are
below the 1.0 significance threshold. These impact levels would be less than the SDAPCD significance threshold.
Furthermore, following closure of the Otay Landfill in 2030, the cancer risk impact from LFG fugitive and flare
emissions would be reduced to 6.61 in 1 million. In addition, chronic health risk and acute health risk would be
further reduced.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 206 of 1271
5.2 – Air Quality
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.2-28
Table 5.2-7. Landfill Health Risk Assessment Results – Unmitigated
Impact Parameter Units
Project
Impact
CEQA
Threshold Level of Significance
Maximum Individual Cancer Risk –
Residential
Per million 7.70 10 Less than significant
Chronic Hazard Index – Residential Index value 0.244 1.0 Less than significant
Acute Hazard Index -- Residential Index value 0.080 1.0 Less than significant
Source: SDAPCD 2019a.
Notes: CEQA = California Environmental Quality Act.
See Appendix C.
On April 26, 2020, the Otay Landfill submitted an application (proposed Otay Landfill Compostable Materials
Handling Facility, Permit #37-AA-0984) for the addition of up to 200 tons per day of agricultural and food waste
at the organics composting operation within the existing footprint of the Otay Landfill, which represents a 2.5%
increase in volume allowed to be processed onsite. Based upon the applicant’s environmental analysis (CEQA
Addendum #2, dated September 12, 2019, PDS2019-MUP-76-046W2M3; ER76-18-026B; and CEQA document,
dated October 29, 2020 SCH#96091009-6) there is a decrease in TAC emissions, specifically ammonia
emissions, and no change in vehicular emissions; therefore, the proposed composting operation would most likely
reduce health risk impacts as compared to the existing operation. Furthermore, the composting technology would
implement a Covered Aeriated Static Pile composting system with a GORETM Cover. The composting technology
would reduce volatile organic compound and ammonia emissions by 80% or more and divert methane -forming
organics away from landfill disposal. In addition, the composting operation would divert up to 100 tons per day of
oxidation of organic matter away from landfill disposal, resulting in lower TAC emissions and odors generated
onsite as compared to the existing operation.
Health Impacts of Carbon Monoxide
Mobile-source impacts occur on two basic scales of motion. Regionally, project -related travel will add to regional
trip generation and increase the vehicle miles traveled within the local airshed and the SDAB. Locally, project traffic
will be added to the City’s roadway system. If such traffic occurs during periods of poor atmospheric ventilation,
consists of a large number of vehicles cold-started and operating at pollution-inefficient speeds, and operates on
roadways already crowded with non- project traffic, there is a potential for the formation of microscale CO hotspots
in the area immediately around points of congested traffic. Because of continued improvement in mobile emissions
at a rate faster than the rate of vehicle growth and/or congestion, the potential for CO hotspots in the SDAB is
steadily decreasing.
Projects contributing to adverse traffic impacts may result in the formation of CO hotspots. As the City does not have
CO hotspot guidelines, the County of San Diego’s Guidelines (County of San Diego 2007) CO hotspot screening
guidance was followed to determine whether the project would require a site-specific hotspot analysis. The County
recommends that a quantitative analysis of CO hotspots be performed for intersections that are operating at or
below an LOS of E and that have peak-hour trips exceeding 3,000 trips. The methodology of the CO hotspot analysis is
presented in Appendix C.
The Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the project (see Section 5.15, Transportation, of this EIR) analyzed Existing
and Existing Plus Cumulative Projects Plus Project Near Term (2024) for nine existing intersections near the
project site. The results of the LOS assessment show that under Existing Plus Project conditions, two of the nine
study intersections are forecast to operate at unacceptable LOS (LOS E or worse) during the peak hours, with a
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 207 of 1271
5.2 – Air Quality
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.2-29
volume more than 3,000 trips. As shown in Appendix C of Appendix C, CO Hotspot Analysis, the two key study
intersections according to the criteria above are (1) Olympic Parkway and I-805 Southbound Ramps (LOS F in PM
peak hours) and (2) Olympic Parkway and I-805 Northbound Ramps (LOS F in AM peak hours). The remaining key
intersections are projected to operate at acceptable LOS conditions in the Existing Plus Project scenario.
Based on the CO hotspot screening evaluation (Appendix C of Appendix C), both failing intersections have 10 links
and are signal- controlled intersections. The potential impact of the project on local CO levels was assessed at these
intersections with the Caltrans CL4 interface based on the California LINE Source Dispersion Model (CALINE4),
which allows microscale CO concentrations to be estimated along each roadway corridor or near intersections
(Caltrans 1998a).
The emissions factor represents the weighted average emissions rate of the local County vehicle fleet expressed
in grams per mile per vehicle. Consistent with the traffic scenario, emissions factors for 2024, which is more
conservative than the operational year 2028, were used. Emissions factors were predicted by EMFAC2017 based
on a 5-mile-per-hour average speed for all of the intersections for approach and departure segments. The hourly
traffic volume anticipated to travel on each link, in units of vehicles per hour, was based on information provided
by the traffic consultant (see Section 5.15) and modeling assumptions are outlined in Appendix C of Appendix C.
Four receptor locations were modeled at each intersection to determine CO ambient concentrations. A receptor was
assumed on the sidewalk at each corner of the modeled intersections, to represent the future possibility of
extended outdoor exposure. CO concentrations were modeled at these locations to assess the maximum potential
CO exposure that could occur in 2024. A receptor height of 5.9 feet (1.8 meters) was used in accordance with
Caltrans recommendations for all receptor locations (Caltrans 1998b).
The highest 1-hour measurement in the last 3 years was used as the projected future 1-hour CO background concentration
for the analysis. A CO concentration of 1.6 parts per million by volume (ppm) was recorded in 2017 for the El Cajon
monitoring station in San Diego and was assumed in CALINE4 for 2024 (EPA 2019b). To estimate an 8-hour average CO
concentration, a persistence factor of 0.70 was applied to the output values of predicted concentrations in ppm at each
of the receptor locations. Model input and output data are available in Appendix C of Appendix C.
The maximum CO concentration predicted for the 1-hour averaging period at the studied intersections would be 1.7
ppm, which is below the 1-hour CO CAAQS of 20 ppm (CARB 2014). The maximum predicted 8 -hour CO
concentration of 1.37 ppm at the studied intersections would be below the 8-hour CO CAAQS of 9.0 ppm (CARB
2016b). Neither the 1-hour nor the 8-hour CAAQS would be equaled or exceeded at any of the intersections studied.
Accordingly, the project would not cause or contribute to violations of the CAAQS and would not result in exposure
of sensitive receptors to localized high concentrations of CO. CO tends to be a localized impact associated with
congested intersections. Therefore, the project’s CO emissions would not contribute to significant health effects
associated with this pollutant. As such, project operation would result in a less-than-significant impact to air quality
with regard to potential CO hotspots.
Health Impacts of Other Criteria Air Pollutants
Construction and operation of the project would not result in emissions that exceed the City’s emission thresholds
for any criteria air pollutants.
Some VOCs are associated with motor vehicles and construction equipment, while others are associated with
architectural coatings, the emissions of which would not result in the exceedances of SDAPCD’s thresholds.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 208 of 1271
5.2 – Air Quality
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.2-30
Generally, the VOCs in architectural coatings are of relatively low toxicity. Additionally, SDAPCD Rule 67.0.1 restricts
the VOC content of coatings for both construction and operational applications. Furthermore, with implementation
of PDF-AQ-2, outlined in Section 4.4.8, the project would use no-VOC paints.
In addition, VOCs and NOx are precursors to O3, for which the SDAB is designated as nonattainment with respect to
the NAAQS and CAAQS (the SDAB is designated by EPA as an attainment area for the 1 -hour O3 NAAQS and the
1997 8-hour NAAQS). The health effects associated with O3, as discussed in Section 5.2.1.4, Pollutants and Effects,
are generally associated with reduced lung function. The contribution of VOCs and NOx to regional ambient O3
concentrations is the result of complex photochemistry. The increases in O3 concentrations in the SDAB due to O3
precursor emissions tend to be found downwind from the source location to allow time for the photochemical
reactions to occur. However, the potential for exacerbating excessive O3 concentrations would also depend on the
time of year that the VOC emissions would occur, because exceedances of the O3 NAAQS and CAAQS tend to occur
between April and October when solar radiation is highest.
The holistic effect of a single project’s emissions of O3 precursors is speculative due to the lack of quantitative
methods to assess this impact. Nonetheless, the VOC and NOx emissions associated with project construction and
operations could minimally contribute to regional O3 concentrations and the associated health impacts. Due to the
minimal contribution during construction and operation, as well as the existing good air quality in coastal San Diego
areas, health impacts of other criteria air pollutants would be considered less than significant.
Regarding NO2, according to the construction emissions analysis, construction of the proposed project would not
contribute to exceedances of the NAAQS and CAAQS for NO2. As described in Section 5.2.1.4, NO2 and NOx health
impacts are associated with respiratory irritation, which may be experienced by nearby receptors during the periods
of heaviest use of off-road construction equipment. However, these construction activities would be relatively short
term. Additionally, off-road construction equipment would operate at various portions of the site and would not be
concentrated in one portion of the site at any one time. Construction of the proposed project would not require any
stationary emission sources that would create substantial localized NOx impacts.
The VOC and NOx emissions, as described previously, would minimally contribute to regional O3 concentrations and its
associated health effects. In addition to O3, NOx emissions would not contribute to potential exceedances of the NAAQS
and CAAQS for NO2. As shown in Table 5.2-3, the existing NO2 concentrations in the area are well below the NAAQS and
CAAQS standards. Thus, it is not expected that the project’s operational NOx emissions would result in exceedances of
the NO2 standards or contribute to the associated health effects. CO tends to be a localized impact associated with
congested intersections. The associated CO hotspots were discussed previously as a less-than- significant impact. Thus,
the proposed project’s CO emissions would not contribute to significant health effects associated with this pollutant.
PM10 and PM2.5 emissions from the proposed project would not contribute to potential exceedances of the NAAQS and
CAAQS for particulate matter, would not obstruct the SDAB from coming into attainment for these pollutants, and would
not contribute to significant health effects associated with particulates.
Based on the preceding considerations, health impacts associated with criteria air pollutants would be considered
less than significant.
Valley Fever Exposure
As discussed in Section 5.2.1.4, valley fever is not highly endemic to San Diego, and within the County, the
incidence rate in the project area is below the County average and the statewide average. Construction of the
project would incorporate PDF-AQ-1 (see Section 4.4.8) and comply with SDAPCD Rule 55, which limits the amount
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 209 of 1271
5.2 – Air Quality
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.2-31
of fugitive dust generated during construction. Strategies the project would implement to comply with SDAPCD
Rule 55 and control dust include watering three times per day, using magnesium chloride for dust suppression on
unpaved roads, and limiting speed on unpaved roads to 15 mph.
Based on the low incidence rate of coccidioidomycosis in the County and the project’s implementation of dust
control strategies, it is not anticipated that earthmoving activities during project construction would result in
exposure of nearby sensitive receptors to valley fever. Therefore, the project would have a less-than-significant
impact with respect to valley fever exposure for sensitive receptors.
D. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.
The State of California Health and Safety Code, Division 26, Part 4, Chapter 3, Section 41700 and SDAPCD Rule
51, commonly referred to as public nuisance law, prohibits emissions from any source whatsoever in suc h
quantities of air contaminants or other material that cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to the public
health or damage to property. Projects required to obtain permits from SDAPCD are evaluated by SDAPCD staff
for potential odor nuisance, and conditions may be applied (or control equipment required) where necessary to
prevent occurrence of public nuisance.
Section 19.66.090, Odors, of the Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC) requires that no emission shall be permitted
of odorous gases or other odorous matter in such quantities as to be readily detectable at the points of
measurement specified in CVMC Section 19.66.060(A). Any process that may involve the creation or emission of
any odors shall be provided with an adequate secondary safeguard system of control, so that control will be
maintained if the primary safeguard system should fail (City of Chula Vista 1969). SDAPCD Rule 51 (Public
Nuisance) also prohibits emission of any material that causes nuisance to a considerable number of persons or
endangers the comfort, health, or safety of any person. A project that proposes a use that would produce
objectionable odors would be deemed to have a significant odor impact if it would affect a considerable number
of off-site receptors. Odor issues are very subjective by the nature of odors themselves and due to the fact that
their measurements are difficult to quantify. As a result, this guideline is qualitative and will focus on the existing
and potential surrounding uses and the location of sensitive receptors.
Odors are generally regarded as an annoyance rather than a health hazard. Manifestations of a person’s reaction
to odors can range from psychological (e.g., irritation, anger, or anxiety) to physiological (e.g., circulatory and
respiratory effects, nausea, vomiting, and headache) (US Army Corps of Engineers 2006). The ability to detect odors
varies considerably among the population and overall is subjective. People may have different reactions to the
same odor. An odor that is offensive to one person may be perfectly acceptable to another (e.g., a coffee roaster).
An unfamiliar odor is more easily detected and is more likely to cause complaints than a familiar one. In a
phenomenon known as odor fatigue, a person can become desensitized to almost any odor, and recognition may
only occur with an alteration in the intensity. The occurrence and severity of odor impacts depend on the nature,
frequency, and intensity of the source; wind speed and direction; and the sensitivity of receptors.
Characterization of odor emissions and quantitative determination of off-site impacts is a complex problem due to
the often variable nature of emissions, changing source conditions and characteristics, and the subjective nature
of perceived impacts (US Army Corps of Engineers 2006). Odors can exist at one concentration and not be offensive,
but offensive odors are usually noticed even at minute concentrations. It is these odor events that heighten the
public’s awareness of an odor and hence the sensitivity, resulting in complaints.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 210 of 1271
5.2 – Air Quality
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.2-32
Most odorous chemicals generated by biogenic processes are ammonia based or contain sulfur. Historically, odor
panels have been used to determine the “strength” of an odor by a dilution to sensory threshold method (i.e. h ow
many parts of odor per unit of air could be detected). This gives some information about the severity of an odor, but
does not identify the individual chemical species responsible for the odor.
Construction
Odors would be potentially generated from vehicles and equipment exhaust emissions during construction of the
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 would occur at magnitudes that would not
affect substantial numbers of people. Therefore, impacts associated with odors during construction would be less
than significant.
Operation
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 facilities (SCAQMD 1993). The 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.
Odors Associated with Existing Landfill
A nuisance analysis was prepared for the project to evaluate the potential impacts of odors and fugitive dust emitted from
the Otay Landfill on future residents of the project.
LFG-derived odorous chemicals emitted from the Landfill were identified using EPA’s Compilation of Air Pollutant
Emission Factors (AP-42) (EPA 1995) and include TACs identified in the Village 3 North HRA and Nuisance Study
conducted by SCS Engineers (SCS) in October 2013 (SCS 2013a, 2013b). Every TAC listed for landfills in AP-42 was
included in the assessment. Landfill surface emissions were calculated using the estimated LFG generation rate
and the concentration of each chemical in the LFG. No recent LFG analysis was available to provide site -specific
TAC concentrations. The first choice for the concentration for each TAC was the Waste Industry Air Coalition (WIAC)
Comparison of Recent Landfill Gas Analyses with Historic AP-42 Defaults. If the chemical was not included in the
WIAC comparison, the AP-42 default concentration was used. All generated LFG not destroyed in the flare and
engines were assumed to be emitted through the landfill surface and were included in this odor analysis. This odor
analysis does not include DPM, metals found in soils at the Landfill, and crystalline silica, which are not odorous
chemicals and/or do not produce odors characteristic of landfills.
The potential odor for each LFG-derived chemical was determined by comparing the concentration of the chemical
emitted from the Landfill to the published odor threshold. The odor threshold concentration represents the odor
concentration that is detected by 50% of population. Nuisance levels typically occur at concentrations that are
several multiples higher than the ODT (Kern County 2017). Thus, using the ODT as a threshold for nuisance should
be overly conservative and is the approach taken in evaluating the model results. Individuals may be more o r less
sensitive to specific chemicals than the odor threshold. The odor threshold was typically obtained from Safety Data
Sheets. Details of the odor thresholds and LFG concentrations can be found in the complete nuisance analysis is
provided in Appendix D of Appendix C.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 211 of 1271
5.2 – Air Quality
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.2-33
Dust emissions were estimated from both combustion sources and fugitive sources at the Landfill. The combustion
sources include vehicles and heavy-duty equipment. Fugitive sources include vehicle travel on paved and unpaved
roads. Emission calculations were based on activity data from the 2013 HRA and nuisance analysis prepared by
SCS (SCS 2013a, 2013b), permitting information for the Landfill (SDAPCD 2019b), and updated emission factors
from the SDAPCD, CARB, and EPA. Detailed emission calculations and summary of dust sources are found in
Appendix D of Appendix C.
A dispersion modeling analysis was conducted for odorous TACs and dust emissions from the Landfill. Two separate
model runs were conducted, one for each analysis (odor and dust). The dispersion modeling was performed using
AERMOD, which is the model that EPA approved and SDAPCD recommends for atmospheric dispersion of
emissions. AERMOD is a steady-state Gaussian plume model that incorporates air dispersion based on planeta ry
boundary layer turbulence structure and scaling concepts, including treatment of surface and elevated sources,
building downwash, and simple and complex terrain. Principal parameters of AERMOD for the project operations
included the following:
• Dispersion Model: The air dispersion model used was AERMOD, Version 19191, with the Lakes
Environmental Software implementation/user interface, AERMOD View, Version 9.8.3. The emission rate
for the odor analysis was determined in accordance with the D/T for each odor source. Similarly, the
emission rate for the dust analysis utilized source-specific fugitive dust emission rates. The maximum
concentrations were determined for the 1-hour, 8-hour, and period-averaging periods. Detailed source
parameters for modeling emissions with AERMOD can be found within Appendix B. Source parameters were
based on information contained within the SCS analysis (SCS 2013a), the 2016 AB2588 HRA for the
Landfill (SCS 2016), and current permits for the Landfill (SDAPCD 2019b).
• Meteorological Data: AERMOD-specific meteorological data for CVA was used for the dispersion modeling
which was provided by SDAPCD as the most recent, available, and representative meteorological data
available for the site. A 3-year meteorological data set from 2010 through 2012 was provided by the
SDAPCD in a preprocessed format suitable for use in AERMOD.
• Urban and Rural Options: Typically, urban areas have more surface roughness and structures and low-
albedo surfaces that absorb more sunlight, and thus, more heat, relative to rural areas. Based on the land
use procedure, at least 50% of the land use within the 3-kilometer radius from the Landfill site is I1 (Heavy
Industrial), I2 (Light-Moderate Industrial), C1 (Commercial), R1 (Common Residential), and R2 (Compact
Residential). The urban dispersion option was selected based on the application of the land use procedure.
• Terrain Characteristics: Digital elevation model files were imported into AERMOD so that complex terrain
features were evaluated as appropriate. The National Elevation Dataset (NED) dataset with resolution of
1/3 arc-second was used.
• Sensitive Receptors: A uniform Cartesian grid 25-meter spacing was created to cover the entire Project site.
The grid was then converted into discrete Cartesian receptors.
• Source Release Scenario: Based on the Landfill operation schedule of 8 hours per day, 6 days per week,
the variable emission factor of 4.5 was applied to off-road equipment and the grinder generator. Based on
the haul truck schedule of 11 hours per day, 6 days per week, the variable emission factor of 3.27 was
applied to haul trucks exhaust, dust from roads, and idling.
• Buildings: The grinder was also modeled as a building to account for downwash from that source. No other
buildings were included.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 212 of 1271
5.2 – Air Quality
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.2-34
The results of the odor analysis are shown in Table 5.2-8. The maximally exposed receptor would be the
southeastern corner of the project site. The normalized results in Table 5.2-8 represent the concentration at the
maximally exposed receptor compared to the mixture ODT. Odor indices greater than one (1.0) indicate a greater
than 50% likelihood that odor would be detected and indices less than one (1.0) indicates less than 50% likelihood
that odor would be detected. Values that are lower than 1.0 are less than the ODT, and values greater than 1.0
exceed the ODT and are thus more likely to be detected as odor.
Table 5.2-8. Summary of Odor Analysis
Receptor Type UTME (m) UTMN (m) Odor Index
MEIR 498962.5 3607637.5 0.068
Notes: m = meters; MEIR = maximally exposed individual resident; UTME = Universal Transverse Mercator East; UTMN = Universal
Transverse Mercator North.
See Appendix D of Appendix C.
As shown in Table 4, the odor index for the Project site at the maximally exposed resident was less than 1.0.
Therefore, odors are not likely to be detected by future residents at the Project site.
The results of the dust analysis are presented in Table 5.2 -9. The threshold is based on the time-waited value for
the PEL for PMOC established by the Cal-OSHA. As such, emissions over the 8-hour averaging time are appropriate
to compare to the PEL. However, for information purposes the 1-hour averaging time results are also shown.
Table 5.2-9. Dust Analysis
Averaging Period Concentration (ppm) Threshold (ppm)
8-hour 0.05 10
1-hour 0.18 NA
Notes: ppm = parts per million; NA = not applicable.
See Appendix D of Appendix C.
As shown in Table 5.2-9, the results of the dust analysis would not exceed the 8-hour threshold established by the
Cal-OSHA. Therefore, the Landfill is not expected to cause a nuisance at the project site residential receptors based
on the dust emitted during operations.
As discussed above, on April 26, 2020, the Otay Landfill submitted an application (proposed Otay Landfill
Compostable Materials Handling Facility, Permit #37-AA-0984) for the addition of up to 200 tons per day of
agricultural and food waste at the organics composting operation within the existing footprint of the Otay Landfill,
which represents a 2.5% increase in volume allowed to be processed onsite. Based upon the applicant’s
environmental analysis (CEQA Addendum #2, dated September 12, 2019, PDS2019 -MUP-76-046W2M3; ER76-
18-026B; and CEQA document, dated October 29, 2020 SCH#96091009-6) there is a decrease in TAC emissions,
specifically ammonia emissions, and no change in vehicular emissions; therefore, the proposed composting
operation would most likely reduce odor levels as compared to the existing operation. Furthermore, the composting
technology would implement a Covered Aeriated Static Pile composting system with a GORETM Cover. The
composting technology would reduce volatile organic compound and ammonia emissions by 80% or more, reduce
odor units by 56%-80%, and divert methane-forming organics away from landfill disposal. In addition, the
composting operation would divert up to 100 tons per day of oxidation of organic matter away from landfill disposal,
resulting in lower ammonia emissions and odors generated onsite as compared to the existing opera tion.
Furthermore, the Otay Landfill would implement an Odor Impact Minimization Plan that identifies the sources of
odor and management techniques to minimize odors.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 213 of 1271
5.2 – Air Quality
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.2-35
It should be noted that the Landfill is anticipated to cease operations in 2030 according to its current permit. At
that time, emissions of equipment, trucks, and working face fugitive emissions would cease. As such, emissions of
odorous compounds and dust emissions would be significantly be reduced upon closure of the landfill. As such,
impacts from odor and dust to future residents from landfill operations would be less than significant.
5.2.4 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation
The proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on air quality.
5.2.5 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.
5.2.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation
No mitigation measures would be required. Impacts to air quality would be less than significant.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 214 of 1271
5.2 – Air Quality
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.2-36
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 215 of 1271
5.3 – Biological Resources
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.3-1
5.3 Biological Resources
This section of the environmental impact report (EIR) describes the existing biological resources within the proposed
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project (project or proposed
project) site, analyzes the potential environmental effects of the proposed project, and recommends mitigation
measures to reduce or avoid significant effects. Findings are based on the Biological Impact Analysis Report for the
Sunbow II Phase 3 Plan Amendment, City of Chula Vista, California (Biological Impact Analysis Report), prepared by
Merkel & Associates, and the Functional Equivalency Analysis for a Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP)
Boundary Line Adjustment and Facilities Siting Criteria Report for the proposed project, prepared by Merkel &
Associates (Functional Equivalency Analysis Report). Both of the reports are included in Appendix D of this EIR.
5.3.1 Existing Conditions
5.3.1.1 Regulatory Framework
Federal
Federal Endangered Species Act
The federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended (16 USC 1531 et seq.), provides for listing of
endangered and threatened species of plants and animals and designation of critical habitat for listed animal
species. The ESA also prohibits all persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction from “taking” endangered species, which
includes any harm or harassment. Section 7 of the ESA requires that federal agencies, prior to project approval,
consult the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to ensure
adequate protection of listed species that may be affected by the project.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 USC 703 et seq.) is a federal statute that implements treaties with several
countries on the conservation and protection of migratory birds. The list of bird species covered by the MBTA is
extensive and is detailed in 50 CFR 10.13. The regulatory definition of “migratory bird” is broad and includes any
mutation or hybrid of a listed species, including any part, egg, or nest of such a bird (50 CFR 10.12). Migratory birds
are not necessarily federally listed endangered or threatened birds under the ESA. The MBTA, which is enforced by
USFWS, makes it unlawful “by any means or in any manner, to pursue, hunt, take, capture, [or] kill” any migrato ry
bird or attempt such actions, except as permitted by regulation. The applicable regulations prohibit the take,
possession, import, export, transport, sale, purchase, barter, or offering of these activities, except under a valid
permit or as permitted in the implementing regulations (50 CFR 21.11). It is important to note that “take” as defined
under the federal MBTA is not synonymous with “take” as defined under the federal ESA. The MBTA definition of
“take” lacks a “harm and harassment” clause comparable to “take” under the ESA, thus, the MBTA authority does
not extend to activities beyond the nests, eggs, feathers, or specific bird parts. Clean Water Act
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 216 of 1271
5.3 – Biological Resources
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.3-2
The federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (Clean Water Act; 33 USC 1251 et seq.), as amended
by the Water Quality Act of 1987 (PL 1000-4), is the major federal legislation governing water quality. The purpose
of the Clean Water Act is to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s
waters.” Discharges into waters of the United States are regulated under Section 404. Waters of the United States
include (1) all navigable waters (including all waters subject to the ebb and flow of tides); (2) all interstate waters
and wetlands; (3) all other waters, such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams),
mudflats, sand flats, wetlands, sloughs, or natural ponds; (4) all impoundments of waters mentioned above; (5) all
tributaries to waters mentioned above; (6) the territorial seas; and (7) all wetlands adjacent to waters mentioned
above. In California, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the nine Regional Water Quality Control
Boards (RWQCBs) are responsible for implementing the Clean Water Act. Important applicable sections of the Clean
Water Act are discussed below:
• Section 303 requires states to develop water quality standards for inland surface and ocean waters
and submit to the EPA for approval. Under Section 303(d), the state is required to list waters that do
not meet water quality standards and to develop action plans, called total maximum daily loads, to
improve water quality.
• Section 304 provides for water quality standards, criteria, and guidelines.
• Section 401 requires an applicant for any federal permit that proposes an activity that may result in a
discharge to waters of the United States to obtain certification from the state that the discharge would
comply with other provisions of the Clean Water Act. Certification is provided by the respective RWQCB.
• Section 402 establishes the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), a permitting system
for the discharge of any pollutant (except for dredge or fill material) into waters of the United States. The
NPDES program is administered by the RWQCB. Conformance with Section 402 is typically addressed in
conjunction with water quality certification under Section 401.
• Section 404 provides for issuance of dredge/fill permits by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE).
Permits typically include conditions to minimize impacts on water quality. Common conditions include (1)
ACOE review and approval of sediment quality analysis before dredging, (2) a detailed pre- and post-
construction monitoring plan that includes disposal site monitoring, and (3) required compensation for loss
of waters of the United States.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
The ACOE has primary federal responsibility for administering regulations that concern waters and wetlands in the
project site. In this regard, ACOE acts under two statutory authorities, the Rivers and Harbors Act (33 USC, Sections
9 and 10), which governs specified activities in navigable waters, and the Clean Water Act (Section 404), which
governs specified activities in waters of the United States, including wetlands and special aquatic sites. Wetlands
and non-wetland waters, e.g., rivers, streams, and natural ponds, are a subset of waters of the United States and
receive protection under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The ACOE has primary federal responsibility for
administering regulations that concern waters and wetlands in the project area under statutory authority of the
Clean Water Act (Section 404). In addition, the regulations and policies of various federal agencies mandate that
the filling of wetlands be avoided to the extent feasible. The ACOE requires obtaining a permit if a project proposes
placing structures within navigable waters and/or alteration of waters of the United States.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 217 of 1271
5.3 – Biological Resources
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.3-3
State
California Endangered Species Act
Similar to the federal ESA, the California ESA of 1970 provides protection to species considered threatened or
endangered by the State of California (California Fish and Game Code, Section 2050 et seq.). The California ESA
recognizes the importance of threatened and endangered fish, wildlife, and plant species and their habitats, and
prohibits the taking of any endangered, threatened, or rare plant and/or animal specie s unless specifically
permitted for education or management purposes.
California Fish and Game Code
The California Fish and Game Code regulates the handling and management of the state’s fish and wildlife.
Most of the code is administered or enforced by th e California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). One
section of the code generally applies to public infrastructure projects such as the proposed project . as noted
in the following paragraph.
Section 1602 regulates activities that would divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed,
channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake that supports fish or wildlife. CDFW has jurisdiction over riparian
habitats associated with watercourses. Jurisdictional waters are delineated by the outer edge of riparian vegetation
or at the top of the bank of streams or lakes, whichever is wider. CDFW jurisdiction does not include tidal areas or
isolated resources.
Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibit the “take, possession, or
destruction of bird nests or eggs.” Section 3503 states: “It is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the
nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation made pursuant thereto.”
Section 3513 states: “It is unlawful to take or possess any migratory nongame bird as designated in the MBTA or
any part of such migratory nongame bird except as provided by rules and regulations adopted by the Secretary of
the Interior under provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.”
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act of 1969, updated in 2012 (California Water Code, Section 13000 et seq.),
provides for statewide coordination of water quality regulations. The act established the Cali fornia SWRCB as the
statewide authority, and nine separate RWQCBs were developed to oversee water quality on a day -to-day basis.
Local
City of Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan
The MSCP Subarea Plan is implemented through individual Subarea Plans adopted by each jurisdiction receiving
Take authorization for Covered Species. The Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan was approved by the City of Chula
Vista (City) in May 2003 and received take authorization in January 2005. The Subarea Plan provides for
conservation of upland habitats and species through Preserve design, regulation of impacts and uses, and
management of the Preserve. The MSCP Subregional Plan, dated August 1998, under the Natural Community
Conservation Planning Act of 1991, was prepared for 12 local San Diego jurisdictions including the City of Chula
Vista, and is to be implemented through MSCP Subarea Plans. Subarea Plans approved under the Natural
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 218 of 1271
5.3 – Biological Resources
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.3-4
Community Conservation Planning Act would allow “take” of various sensitive species through specific conditions
of coverage pursuant to Section 4(d) of the federal Endangered Species Act. The City has an adopted MSCP Subarea
Plan (City of Chula Vista 2003) and the Habitat Loss and Incidental Take (HLIT) Ordinance (City of Chula Vista 2005,
updated 2019) regulates the implementation of the Subarea Plan.
The western half of the proposed project site and much of the northern edges along Poggi Creek are designated
within the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan as 100% Conservation Area- Habitat Preserve (referred to as “Preserve”),
while the eastern half of the site is designated Development Area outside of Covered Projects (Figure 5.3-1, Local
Environmental Setting Map).
The terms and conditions from the 1995 Biological Opinion (BO) for the project, as well as conservation
recommendations as outlined below, would be applied to the proposed project where applicable (i.e., Diegan
coastal sage scrub). However, the MSCP Subarea Plan and HLIT requirements would be applied to the remainder
of the project elements.
A BO is a USFWS document that states the opinion of the USFWS as to whether the federal action is likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
The proposed project is part of the larger Sunbow Development (710 acres), which consists of the 108‐acre Sunbow
I residential development approved in a 1987 EIR (ERC Environmental and Energy Services Co.) and the 602 ‐acre
Sunbow II development consisting of Phases 1 and 2 (residential, commercial, open space) and a portion of Phase
3 (business park, open space) that was approved in a 1989 EIR/1990 Addendum to EIR (ERC Environmental and
Energy Services Co). The full Sunbow II development project was issued local, state, and federal approvals and
development was completed within Phase 1 and 2 sites (located north of Olympic Parkway), but only access
crossing improvements, permitted wetland impacts, and 7 acres of wetland mitigation within Poggi Canyon were
completed on the Phase 3 site located south of Olympic Parkway. The 1995 BO for the Sunbow II phases included
terms and conditions relevant to habitat in the proposed project, as follows:
• #2: No clearing of sage scrub habitat shall occur during the gnatcatcher nesting season (15 February through 31
July) unless it is first demonstrated to be un-occupied by California gnatcatchers or other nesting avian species.
• #5: To mitigate for direct impacts to gnatcatchers and coastal sage scrub, a combination of on-site and off-
site measures shall be employed in accordance with Table 1 of the 1995 BO. The on-site restoration
mitigation shall be conducted concurrent or preceding the phase for which mitigation is required. Off -site
mitigation must be acquired and under long-term management prior to initiation of impacts for the project
phase for which mitigation is required.
• #9: Off-site mitigation shall be conducted at the O’Neill Canyon mitigation area in southern San Diego County. An
alternative site may be proposed and utilized at the discretion of the USFWS in consultation with the Department
of Fish and Game. Any alternative site proposed shall have a demonstrable value to the California gnatcatcher and
long-term strategic planning value for multi-species and habitat protection in San Diego.
The BO further included one Conservation Recommendation relevant to the proposed project.
• #1: The open space habitats proposed for Sunbow site are considered to be important for numerous
species which are candidates or future candidates for federal listing. Many of these species currently carry
state listing status and are a focus of multi-species planning efforts intended to reduce the need for future
listings. Among the most important resources within the open space are coastal cactus wrens and Otay
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 219 of 1271
5.3 – Biological Resources
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.3-5
tarplant. Potential exists for the compatible enhancement of these resources along with the restoration of
San Diego thornmint to some of the open space clay lenses. The USFWS would look favorably on such multi-
species enhancement efforts should the ACOE or the applicant incorporate consideration of these species
into the on-site restoration and maintenance program.
Narrow Endemic Species Protection
The following specific provisions are applicable to the project site.
Development Areas outside of Covered Projects. Development projects within Development Areas outside of
Covered Projects and regulated by the HLIT will avoid impacts to covered Narrow Endemic Species to the maximum
extent practicable. Where impacts are demonstrated to be unavoidable, impacts within these Development Areas
will be limited to 20% of the total Narrow Endemic Species population within the project site. Findings of
equivalency, as defined in Section 5.2.3.6 of the Subarea Plan, will be made by the City for such Take Authorization
of the covered Narrow Endemic Species.
If, after comprehensive consideration of avoidance and minimization measures, impacts exceed 20% of the covered
Narrow Endemic Species population within the project site, the City must make a determination of biologically
superior preservation consistent with the MSCP. The City will forward its written determination of biologically
superior preservation to the USFWS and CDFW (the Wildlife Agencies) for review. Within 30 days of receipt of mailed
notice of findings from the City, the Wildlife Agencies may submit to the City a written finding of non-concurrence
on the facts of the City’s findings. If such finding of non-concurrence is made within 30 days, the City will confer
with the Wildlife Agencies to resolve Narrow Endemic Species issues associated with the proposed development. If
the Wildlife Agencies do not respond within 30 days after receipt of mailed notice, the City shall deem the written
findings accepted (City of Chula Vista 2003).
100% Conservation Areas outside of Covered Projects. Projects within 100% Conservation Areas outside of Covered
Projects and regulated by the HLIT Ordinance will be limited to uses described in Sections 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 of th e
Subarea Plan. In 100% Conservation Areas, planned and future facilities must avoid impacts to covered Narrow
Endemic Species to the maximum extent practicable. Where impacts are demonstrated to be unavoidable, impacts
within the 100% Conservation Areas will be limited to 5% of the total Narrow Endemic Species population within
the Project Area. Findings of equivalency will be made by the City for take of the covered Narrow Endemic Species,
pursuant to Section 5.2.3.6 of the Subarea Plan. The City will forward its written findings of equivalency to the
Wildlife Agencies. The Wildlife Agencies may submit to the City, within 30 days of receipt of mailed notice of findings
from the City, a written finding of non-concurrence on the facts of the City’s findings. If such finding of non-
concurrence is made within 30 days, the City will confer with the Wildlife Agencies to develop agreement upon an
appropriate location for the planned or future facility in question. If the Wildlife Agencies do not respond within 30
days after receipt of mailed notice, the City shall deem the written findings accepted.
If impacts exceed 5% of the covered Narrow Endemic Species population within the project site after comprehensive
consideration of avoidance and minimization measures, the City must make a determination of biologically superior
preservation, consistent with Section 5.2.3.7 of the Subarea Plan. The City will forward its written determination of
biologically superior preservation to the Wildlife Agencies for review. The Wildlife Agencies may submit to the City,
within 30 days of receipt of mailed notice of findings from the City, a written finding of non-concurrence on the facts
of the City’s findings. If such finding of non-concurrence is made within 30 days, the City will confer with the Wildlife
Agencies to develop agreement upon an appropriate location for the facility in question. If the Wildlife Agencies do
not respond within 30 days after receipt of mailed notice, the City shall deem the written findings accepted (City of
Chula Vista 2003).
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 220 of 1271
5.3 – Biological Resources
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.3-6
Wetlands Protection
As part of the CEQA review, development projects that contain wetlands would be required to demonstrate that
impacts to wetlands have been avoided to the greatest extent practicable and, where impacts are nonetheless
proposed, that such impacts have been minimized. For unavoidable impacts to wetlands within the Development
Area, the mitigation ratio would be in accordance with the wetlands mitigation ratios identified in the Subarea Plan.
The wetlands mitigation ratios provide a standard for each habitat type but may be adjusted depending on the
functions and values of both the impacted wetlands, as well as the wetlands mitigation proposed by the project.
The City may also consider the wetland habitat type(s) bein g impacted and used for mitigation in establishing
whether these standards have been met (City of Chula Vista 2003).
5.3.1.2 Existing Biological Resources
The proposed project encompasses approximately 135.7 acres (project area), which includes a 67.5‐acre
development area composed of 44.2 acres of residential, a 0.9‐acre Community Purpose Facility site, 5.9 acres of
public streets, and 16.5 acres of manufactured slopes/basins/wetland resources and associated buffer area.
Approximately 4.3 acres of proposed Poggi Canyon Conservation Easement area, a 0.3-acre wetland avoidance
area, and 63.6 acres of adjacent proposed MSCP Preserve area are also within the project site. The proposed MSCP
Preserve area within the project site can be seen in Figure 5.3-1.
Vegetation Communities
Several vegetation types were identified within the proposed project study area during the biological field surveys
(Figure 5.3-2, Biological Resources Map; Table 5.3-1). The project study area includes the proposed project site
and a 50-foot off-site mapping buffer (Figure 5.3-2). These identified vegetation types consist of upland habitats
including Diegan coastal sage scrub, native grassland, non‐native grassland, and non‐native vegetation as well as
wetland habitats including southern willow scrub, mule fat scrub and coastal and valley freshwater marsh. Acreages
of these vegetation types are summarized in Table 5.3-1, and each is discussed in more detail following the table.
A list of floral species observed or detected on site is included in the BTR (Appendix D).
Table 5.3-1. Habitats/Vegetation Communities within Project Site
Vegetation Type
MSCP Tier
Habitat Type
Holland/
Oberbauer Code
Total Area
(Acres)
Inside
Preserve
(Acres)
Outside
Preserve
(Acres)
Southern willow scrub
(including seep)
Wetland 63320 2.06 1.14 0.92
(0.01 seep)
Mule fat scrub Wetland 63310 0.03 0.03 0.00
Coastal and valley
freshwater marsh
Wetland 63300 7.66 6.31 1.35
Native grassland I 42100 24.09 19.38 4.71
Diegan coastal sage scrub II 32500 37.08 24.46 12.62
Non-native grassland III 42200 64.19 10.31 53.88
Non-native vegetation IV 11000 0.53 0.44 0.09
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 221 of 1271
5.3 – Biological Resources
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.3-7
Table 5.3-1. Habitats/Vegetation Communities within Project Site
Vegetation Type
MSCP Tier
Habitat Type
Holland/
Oberbauer Code
Total Area
(Acres)
Inside
Preserve
(Acres)
Outside
Preserve
(Acres)
Urban/developed N/A N/A 0.06 0.00 0.06
Total 135.70 62.07 73.63
Source: Appendix D.
Notes: MSCP = Multiple Species Conservation Program; N/A = not applicable.
Habitat/Vegetation Community Types
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub
Diegan coastal sage scrub vegetation is primarily found in the western half of the project site. It is also found in the
eastern half of the project site to a lesser extent where it is predominantly associated with the planted slopes of
Poggi Creek channel that serve as a buffer to the wetland habitats created with the Sunbow II, Phase I development.
The 108-acre Sunbow I residential development was approved in a 1987 EIR. However, only access crossing
improvements, permitted wetland impacts, and 7 acres of wetland mitigation within Poggi Canyon were completed
on the project site as part of the Sunbow I residential development. In the western half of the project site, Diegan
coastal sage scrub is characterized by large stands of lemonadeberry (Rhus integrifolia) as well as areas that
support a mix of lower‐growing shrubs such as coastal sagebrush (Artemisia californica), flat‐top buckwheat
(Eriogonum fasciculatum var. fasciculatum), California encelia (Encelia californica), and bladderpod (Peritoma
arborea). A patch of habitat occurring near the western portion of the proposed development area is characterized
by San Diego viguiera (Bahiopsis laciniata) mixed with purple needlegrass (Stipa pulchra). The San Diego viguiera
is a sensitive species. One San Diego Needlegrass (Stipa diegoensis), a sensitive species, was also found on this
slope. Restoration areas along the slopes of Poggi Creek channel include a diverse mix of planted sage scrub shrubs
and cacti including coastal sagebrush, flat‐top buckwheat, white sage (Salvia apiana), coast cholla (Cylindropuntia
prolifera), and coast prickly pear (Opuntia littoralis). Giant wild rye (Leymus condensatus) is common in some areas.
Several sensitive species including San Diego bursage (Ambrosia chenopodiifolia), Palmer’s sagewort (Artemisia
palmeri), coast barrel cactus (Ferocactus viridescens), and Orcutt’s bird’s‐beak (Dicranostegia orcuttiana) were
also planted and are present on these slopes.
Native Grassland
Native grassland is found throughout most of the western half of the project site in mostly open areas adjacent to
Diegan coastal sage scrub vegetation. It is also found in patches along the bottom of the north‐facing slope in the
eastern half of the project site where it gives way to non‐native grassland to the south in more disturbed soils
conditions. Native grassland is also found to the east on the adjacent Otay Ranch Village Two property near the
northeast corner of the project site. It should be noted that current mapping of this area exhibits a decline of
approximately 0.31 acres of native grassland from Dudek’s 2006 mapping effort (Dudek 2006). This decline may
be a result of the several drought years experienced in the local area during the past fifteen years. Clay soils
accommodate fields of purple needlegrass as well as numerous geophytes including common goldenstar
(Bloomeria crocea), blue dicks (Dichelostemma capitatum ssp. capitatum), and sharp‐toothed sanicle (Sanicula
arguta). The taller rayless gumplant (Grindelia camporum) and locally endemic Otay tarplant (Deinandra conjugens)
are also associated with these grasslands. Two populations of the sensitive small‐flower bindweed (Convolvulus
simulans) were also detected in this habitat.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 222 of 1271
5.3 – Biological Resources
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.3-8
Non‐native Eurasian grasses including ripgut grass (Bromus diandrus) and soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus) are
common, but typically comprise less than 60% of the overall cover. In some areas, clumps of the non‐native sweet
fennel (Foeniculum vulgare) are also found.
Non-Native Grassland
Much of the eastern half of the project site is comprised of non‐native grassland. A dense cover of non‐native, annual
grass species including ripgut grass, purple‐falsebrome (Brachypodium distachyon), soft chess, wild oat (Avena
barbata), and red brome (Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens) dominate these areas. The perennial darnel (Festuca
temulenta) grass is also common in some areas of mesic soils. Numerous perennial and annual non‐native forbs
including short‐pod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), tocalote (Centaurea melitensis), Russian thistle (Salsola tragus),
Crete hedypnois (Hedypnois cretica), smooth cat’s ears (Hypochaeris glabra), sweet fennel (Foeniculum vulgare),
crown daisy (Glebionis coronaria), and wild radish (Raphanus sativus) are found throughout this habitat amongst the
grasses. Some native annual forbs including silver puffs (Uropappus lindleyi), California cottonrose (Logfia
filaginoides), everlasting bedstraw (Stylocline gnaphaloides) and tread lightly (Cardionema ramosissima) occur
occasionally in this habitat. Although Otay tarplant is more common in native grassland, it is also found in the non‐
native grassland on site. Individual and small groupings of lemonadeberry surrounded by thatched non‐ native grasses
are found in some locations of the non‐native grassland on site; however, the lemonadeberry shrubs within the non‐
native grassland consist of no more than 5% absolute cover (AECOM et al. 2011).
Non-Native Vegetation
Non‐native vegetation is mapped for areas supporting individual or clusters of non‐native tree and shrub species
such as tamarisk (Tamarix parviflora), eucalyptus (Eucalyptus spp.), and cyclops acacia (Acacia cyclops). Typical
ornamental landscape plants which are less invasive such as pine (Pinus spp.) and mission olive (Olea europaea)
are also included in this category and can be found near the southwest border of the site immediately adjacent to
existing residential urban development (Figure 5.3-2).
Southern Willow Scrub
Southern willow scrub vegetation was planted within the created Poggi Creek channel as part of installation of Poggi
Canyon wetland mitigation for the Sunbow II, Phase 1, development project, which was originally approved in a
1987 EIR. Mature arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis) and black willow (Salix gooddingii) occur in patches along the
channel and shade an understory of mostly freshwater marsh vegetation. In drier areas, tall, hydrophytic shrubs
such as mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia) and narrow‐leaved willow (Salix exigua) occur in the understory. In saturated
soils, low growing herbaceous species including watercress (Nasturtium officinale), yerba mansa (Anemopsis
californica), and salt marsh fleabane (Pluchea odorata) were noted.
In addition, a presumed seep from the hillside on the City property to the south extends on to the project site along
the southern boundary. On‐site, saturated soils support a small patch of southern willow scrub consisting of one
black willow tree, a few tamarisk shrubs and lower‐growing forbs such as willow herb (Epilobium ciliatum) and bristly
ox‐tongue (Helminthotheca echioides).
Mule Fat Scrub
A small stand of mulefat occurs at the base of drainage that feeds into Poggi Creek channel, in the western half of
the project site.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 223 of 1271
5.3 – Biological Resources
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.3-9
Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh
Perennial water flow along Poggi Creek channel results in permanently saturated soils that support freshwater
marsh vegetation. This habitat is dominated by dense stands of southern cattail (Typha domingensis) with smaller
groupings of southern bulrush (Schoenoplectus californicus). Moist soils along the periphery of this habitat
accommodate relatively large groupings of two sensitive species, San Diego marsh ‐elder (Iva hayesiana) and
southwestern spiny rush (Juncus acutus ssp. leopoldii).
Wildlife Resources
Butterflies
Eighteen butterfly species were observed on site during spring protocol surveys conducted for the federally endangered
Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino). Painted Lady (Vanessa cardui) was the most commonly
encountered butterfly throughout upland vegetation types. Other frequently observed species included funereal dusky
wing (Erynnis funeralis), anise swallowtail (Papilio zelicaon), checkered white (Pontia protodice), and pacific sara orange‐
tip (Anthocharis sara sara). Each of these species are considered generalists that typically sip nectar from a wide variety
of plant species from the sunflower, carrot, buckwheat, mustard, pea, and mint families. Less commonly encountered
species included western tailed blue (Everes amyntula), marine blue (Leptotes marina), grey hairstreak (Strymon melinus
pudica), and Behr’s metalmark (Apodemia mormo virgulti). Except for the Behr’s metalmark, the caterpillars of these
species typically feed on pea family plants such as coastal deerweed, ocean locoweed (Astragalus trichopodus var.
lonchus) and western false‐indigo (Amorpha fruticosa), which are all found on site. Behr’s metalmark was typically
associated with flat‐top buckwheat which is the primary caterpillar food source for this species.
Amphibians
Baja California tree frog (Pseudacris hypochondriaca hypochondriaca) was commonly detected within Poggi Creek
channel, located within the northern portion of the site, and in adjacent coastal sage scrub and grassland habitats
during the winter and spring months. Although not detected, western toad (Anaxyrus boreas) is also expected to
utilize the creek channel and immediately adjacent vegetation communities. Bullfrog (Lithobates catesbeiana) may
also breed within areas of the creek where water is stagnant. Another common amphibian sp ecies, the garden
slender salamander (Batrachoseps major major), is expected to occur in upland habitats. This species prefers cool,
damp soils below leaf litter and debris.
Reptiles
Reptiles observed on‐site include several snake species including Southern Pacific rattlesnake (Crotalus oreganus
ssp. helleri), gophersnake (Pituophis catenifer), and California striped racer (Masticophis lateralis lateralis). The
sensitive two‐striped gartersnake (Thamnophis hammondii) was observed in coastal sage scrub vegetation in
preserved habitat just west of the proposed development area. This aquatic species is expected to primarily utilize
wetland habitats of Poggi Creek channel but also refuge in immediately adjacent upland mammal burrows during
the winter. Other expected snake species include the common kingsnake (Lampropeltis getula) and the sensitive
red‐diamond rattlesnake (Crotalus ruber). The red‐diamond rattlesnake has been observed within the last year
occurring east of the site on the banks of Poggi Creek channel. Lizard species observed on‐site include the western
fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), side‐blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana), and southern alligator lizard (Elgaria
multicarinata). A motion activated camera placed along the edge of Poggi Creek channel captured an image of the
sensitive orange‐throated whiptail (Aspidoscelis hyperythra beldingi) within a sandy wash area of one of the
drainages that connects to Poggi Creek. This species is expected to also utilize adjacent coastal sage scrub and
grassland habitats.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 224 of 1271
5.3 – Biological Resources
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.3-10
Birds
Numerous bird species were observed in Diegan coastal sage scrub habitat. Typical bird species detected in this
habitat include California towhee (Melozone crissalis), spotted towhee (Pipilo maculates), bushtit (Psaltriparus
minimus), Bewick’s wren (Thryomanes bewickii) Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna), and western scrub‐jay
(Aphelocoma californica). Fall migrant species observed included white‐crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys)
and yellow‐rumped warbler (Dendroica coronata). Other less commonly encountered species included California
thrasher (Toxostoma redivivum), blue grosbeak (Passerina caerulea), lark sparrow (Chondestes grammacus),
orange‐crowned warbler (Oreothlypis celata), Pacific slope flycatcher (Empidonax difficilis), and ash‐ throated
flycatcher (Myiarchus cinerascens).
The coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) was observed within coastal sage scrub habitat
during protocol surveys for this species. Two male territories were mapped. This listed species is discussed further
in the Sensitive Fauna section below.
Poggi Creek channel supported a variety of riparian bird species. Typical year‐long resident bird species including song
sparrow (Melospiza melodia) and common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas) were detected. Various migrant species
including Wilson’s warbler (Wilsonia pusilla), black‐throated gray warbler (Dendroica nigrescens), western tanager
(Piranga ludoviciana), and warbling vireo (Vireo gilvus) were detected during spring surveys. Sensitive migrant bird
species including yellow warbler (Dendroica petechial), yellow‐breasted chat (Icteria virens) and the federally listed
endangered least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) were also detected on‐site within Poggi Creek channel. The least Bell’s
vireo’s territory appears to extend from the eastern‐most 200 feet of the channel to a willow scrub basin located just
upstream of the project site to the east. Least Bell’s vireo is discussed further in the Sensitive Fauna section below.
Common yellowthroat, red‐winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), marsh wren (Cistothorus palustris) and Virginia Rail
(Rallus limicola) forage and nest in freshwater marsh habitat found within the channel.
Grassland habitats (including both native and non‐native grassland) provide foraging habitat for a variety of raptor
species. Observed species included urban tolerant species such as red‐tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), red‐
shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii) and American kestrel (Falco sparverius).
During early spring (i.e., March), a red‐tailed hawk pair nested in a Eucalyptus tree snag near the southeast corner
of the project site. Three eggs were visibly observed in this nest in mid‐March, but it later appeared that only one
of the young hatched. Surveys in early April did not reveal the nestling, and it was presumed that it was predated
upon by one of the many predatory birds (e.g., Cooper’s hawk, common raven) observed in the area. It should be
noted that the location of this nest was identified during the previous survey of the site and it is possible that it has
been routinely used by red‐tailed hawks if not other raptors throughout its existence.
Sensitive raptor species such as the northern harrier (Circus cyaneus) and white‐tailed kite (Elanus leucurus) were
also observed foraging over grassland habitat. No nests of these species were observed during the site
investigations. It should be noted that the northern harrier nests on the ground with the nest concealed within a
marsh or other dense vegetation (Appendix D). Grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum) is a sensitive
species that was historically identified to occur on site but was not observed during the recent surveys.
Given the abundance of grassland habitat throughout the site, western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) was
sought during the site investigations. No burrowing owls were observed during the numerous surveys of the site. In
addition, no burrows with evidence of sign (i.e., molted feathers, cast pellets, prey remains, eggshell fragments,
excrement) were observed during the surveys. Urban adapted bird species such as house finch (Haemorhous
mexicanus), house sparrow (Passer domesticus), and hooded oriole (Icterus cucullatus) were common within non‐
native, ornamental plantings that border the southwest project site boundary.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 225 of 1271
5.3 – Biological Resources
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.3-11
Mammals
Mammal species detected on‐site include coyote (Canis latrans clepticus), California ground squirrel (Spermophilus
beecheyi nudipes), Botta’s pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae), and desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii
sanctidiegi). Raccoon (Procyon lotor psora) tracks were observed along the muddy creek bottom of Poggi Creek
channel. Other urban adapted mammals such as the striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis holzneri) and Virginia
opossum (Didelphis virginiana) are also expected to scavenge for food along the channel at night. The dusky‐footed
woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes macrotis) is another mostly nocturnal species that is expected to occur on‐site.
Although no stick nests were detected, images of what is believed to be this species were captured by a motion
activated camera placed along the edge of the channel. Other species expected to occur on‐site include, California
vole (Microtus californicus sanctidiegi), agile kangaroo rat (Dipodomys agilis) and various species of mice including
western harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys megalotis longicaudus) and deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus).
These small mammals provide a food source for the various previously mentioned raptor species.
Other potentially occurring mammal species include bobcat (Lynx rufus) and the relatively urban adapted gray fox
(Urocyon cinereoargenteus californicus).
Watersheds found within the southern part of the County including the Tijuana River Valley, the Otay River Valley
and the Sweetwater River Valley support a relatively large diversity of bat species (Appendix D). Relatively common
species including the Mexican free‐tailed bat (Tadarida brasiliensis) and Yuma myotis (Myotis yumanensis) are
expected to forage for insects over the site, especially along Poggi Creek channel.
Jurisdictional Wetlands and Non-Wetlands Resources
ACOE, RWQCB, CDFW, and/or City of Chula Vista jurisdictional wetlands and non‐wetland waters are delineated for
the project site as described further below and shown in Figure 5.3-3, Wetland Delineation Map. Jurisdictional
wetland habitat types on the site include southern willow scrub, mule fat scrub, and coastal and valley freshwa ter
marsh. Jurisdictional non‐wetland waters (NWW), jurisdictional waters as defined by the ACOE that isn’t considered
a wetland, were also delineated where applicable. Table 5.3-2 summarizes the acreages of jurisdictional resources
within the project site and the following text discusses these habitats with regard to hydrophytic vegetation, hydric
soils, and wetland hydrology. Wetland determination data forms and photo points that support the delineation are
provided in Appendix D.
Table 5.3-2. Summary of Jurisdictional Resources Present within the Project Site
Jurisdictional Resources
On-Site Total
(Acres)
Jurisdiction
ACOE/RWQCB/ CDFW/City RWQCB CDFW/City
Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh 7.66 7.44 0.00 0.22
Southern Willow Scrub 2.06 1.85 0.01 0.20
Mule Fat Scrub 0.03 <0.01 0.00 0.03
Non-wetland Waters of the U.S./
Waters of the State/Streambed
0.17 (2,044
linear feet)
0.17 (2,044 linear feet) 0.00 0.00
Total 9.92 9.46 0.01 0.45
Source: Appendix D.
Notes: ACOE = Army Corps of Engineers; RWQCB = Regional Water Quality Control Board; CDFW = California Department of Fish and
Wildlife; City = City of Chula Vista.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 226 of 1271
5.3 – Biological Resources
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.3-12
Southern Willow Scrub
Southern willow scrub is primarily found along Poggi Creek channel and includes a tree stratum dominated by
various facultative wetland plants (FACW), plants that occur usually in wetlands, but can also occur in non-wetlands,
of willow species including arroyo willow, black willow, and Pacific willow (Salix lasiandra ssp. lucida). Species within
the shrub stratum included mule fat (facultative plants; plants with a similar likelihood of occurring in both wetlands
and non-wetlands [FAC]), San Diego marsh elder (FACW), and coyote brush. The herb stratum included mostly
obligate wetland plants (OBL), plants that occur almost always in wetlands under natural conditions but that may
also occur rarely in non-wetland areas, species such as southern cattail, southern bulrush, yerba mansa, and
watercress. Several FACW species including Mexican rush (Juncus mexicanus) and great‐marsh evening primrose
(Oenothera elata) were noted at higher elevations within this stratum. Areas in which hydrophytic vegetation
extends beyond the ordinary high water mark of the creek are mapped as CDFW jurisdiction only.
Soil tests pits revealed a relatively dark matrix with redox depletions within the upper 8 inches of the profile. Highly
decomposed organic matter in the surface layer and a sulfidic odor was also characteristic of the soils in these test
pits. Primary hydrology indicators included water stained leaves and hydrogen sulfide odor. Secondary hydrology
indicators included drainage patterns and drift deposits.
A small patch of willow scrub represented by one black willow (FACW), a few tamarisk (FAC) shrubs and low‐growing
forbs such as willow herb (FACW) and bristly ox‐tongue (FAC) occurs near the southern project site boundary. The
hydric plant species in this area are supported by a seep that occurs off site, to the south on City owned property.
No hydric soil indicators were observed within the excavated soils pit; however, hydrology was indicated by the
presence of surface water and saturated soils. Since this area lacks a defined bed, bank, and ordinary high water
mark and has no defined drainage connection to Poggi Creek channel it’s not jurisdictional under ACOE or CDFW
but rather it is considered Regional Water Quality Control Board Jurisdiction only.
Mule Fat Scrub
A small stand of mulefat (FAC) occurs within a narrow drainage ditch that feeds into Poggi Creek channel. Hydrology
was indicated by the presence of secondary indicators including drainage patterns and sediment deposits.
Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh
Perennial water flow along Poggi Creek channel results in permanently saturated soils that support freshwater marsh
vegetation. Two OBL species, southern cat‐tail and southern bulrush characterize this habitat. Other lower‐growing
species within the herb stratum include water cress (OBL), yerba mansa (OBL), and curly dock (Rumex crispus) (FAC).
Soils in these areas exhibited a loamy gleyed matrix with redox features noted within the upper 6 inches. Primary
hydrology indicators included inundation and oxidized rhizospheres within living roots. Secondary hydrology
indicators included drift deposits and drainage patterns.
Jurisdictional Non‐Wetland Waters and Streambeds
Jurisdictional non-wetland waters of the United States/streambeds were mapped for drainages with a defined bed
and bank but lacking hydric vegetation and soils.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 227 of 1271
5.3 – Biological Resources
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.3-13
Functions and Values of Jurisdictional Resources
Poggi Creek runs east–west within the project site along the northern boundary and directly adjacent to Olympic
Parkway (Figure 5.3-1). Surface flow is relatively slow throughout the year. This is fostered by upstream
manufactured design features associated with wetland mitigation created for the construction of Olympic Parkway.
These design features include riprap drop structures with shallow wading pools and rock-ribbed sandbars that force
flows to slow and meander down the channel, dropping sediment and allowing for the planted wetland vegetation
to effectively treat runoff. As a result, wetland functions such as groundwater recharge, flood flow alteration, and
sediment/toxicant retention is considered relatively high. The presence of significant woody (i.e., willow) and
herbaceous (i.e., cattail) vegetation contributes to high nutrient transformation and streambed stabilization
throughout the channel. The created wetlands within the channel have proven to provide significant wildlife value,
especially for birds. A high diversity of resident and migratory bird species use the channel, which is further
enhanced by the presence of the native Diegan coastal sage scrub that was planted on the channel banks to buffer
the wetlands. Sensitive migrant bird species including the least Bell’s vireo, yellow warbler, and yellow ‐breasted
chat breed within the created wetlands during the spring and summer months. The created coastal sage scrub on
the channel banks provides potential habitat for the resident coastal California gnatcatcher.
Rare, Threatened, Endangered, Endemic, and/or Sensitive or MSCP Covered Species
Sensitive species are those considered sensitive by the City or any state or federal agency. For purposes of this
report, species listed as endangered or threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA ; federally
endangered [FE] or federally threatened [FT]) and California Endangered Species Act (state endangered [SE] or
state threatened [ST]); species designated as California Species of Special Concern (SSC) or Fully Protected species
by the CDFW; and species listed as MSCP Narrow Endemic Species or Covered Species (Covered) by the City of
Chula Vista (2003) are considered “sensitive.” Species considered rare by the California Native Plant Society as
California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) species (CNPS 2020) or as Special Plants or Special Animals in the California
Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (CDFW 2020a, 2019), may be considered “sensitive” if they meet the CEQA
Guidelines Section 15380 definition for “endangered, rare or threatened species.”
Sensitive Flora
Twelve sensitive floral species were identified within the project study area during the general biological surveys:
Otay tarplant (FT, SE, MSCP Narrow Endemic Species, MSCP Covered), Orcutt’s birds‐beak (CRPR 2B.1, Special
Plant, MSCP Covered), decumbent goldenbush (Special Plant, CRPR 1B.2), coast barrel cactus (Special Plant, CRPR
2B.1), San Diego bursage (CRPR 2B.1), San Diego marsh elder (Special Plant, CRPR 2B.2), small‐flowered bindweed
(CRPR 4.2), Palmer’s sagewort (Special Plant, CRPR 4.2), San Diego County needlegrass (CRPR 4.2), San Diego
viguiera (Special Plant, CRPR 4.3), southwestern spiny rush (Special Plant, CRPR 4.2), and ashy spike‐moss (CRPR
4.1) (Table 5.3-3; Figure 5.3-2).
According to the California Native Plant Society’s website, the CRPR system ranges from 1A (for plants presumed
extirpated in California and either rare or extinct elsewhere) to 4 (plants of limited distribution) (CNPS 2020). The
sensitive flora found within the project study area include CRPR 1B, 2B, and 4. CRPR 1B are plants th at are rare
throughout their range with the majority of them endemic to California , and most of the plants that are ranked 1B
have declined significantly over the last century. CRPR 2B is used for plants that are rare, threatened, or endangered
in California but more common elsewhere. Plants with a California Rare Plant Rank of 4 are of limited distribution
or infrequent throughout a broader area in California, and their status should be monitored regularly.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 228 of 1271
5.3 – Biological Resources
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.3-14
Ranks at each level also include a threat rank (e.g., CRPR 4.3), and are determined as follows (CNPS 2020):
• 0.1 – Seriously threated in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened/high degree and immediacy of threat)
• 0.2 – Moderately threatened in California (20%–80% occurrences threatened/moderate degree and
immediacy of threat)
• 0.3 – Not very threatened in California (less than 20% of occurrences threatened/low degree and
immediacy of threat or not current threats known).
Otay tarplant was the only City Narrow Endemic Species identified and expected on site. Surveys were conducted
in 2020 during the flowering period (April–July) for this species. In addition, remaining remnants of plants from the
2019 growth season were mapped during the late fall of 2019. The 2020 Otay tarplant mapped locations and plant
numbers were combined with the 2019 Otay tarplant survey results taking the largest numbers if the locations
overlapped to estimate the on-site Otay tarplant population. It is recognized that the number and locations of
individual plants in any Otay tarplant population varies each year, due to a number of factors, including rainfall,
temperature, soil conditions, and seed bank (USFWS 2004). Table 5.3-3 identifies sensitive plant species detected
on site and their location relative to Preserve boundaries (Figure 5.3-2).
Table 5.3-3. Sensitive Flora Located On Site Inside and Outside Preserve Boundaries
Species Inside Preserve Outside Preserve Total
*Ashy spike‐moss (Selaginella cinerascens) 0 2 2
Coast barrel cactus (Ferocactus viridescens) 1 1 2
Decumbent goldenbush (Isocoma menziesii var. decumbens) 533 270 803
Orcutt’s bird’s‐beak (Dicranostegia orcuttiana) 705 206 911
Otay tarplant (Deinandra conjugens) 4,044 1,405 5,449
Palmer’s sagewort (Artemisia palmeri) 16 28 44
San Diego bursage (Ambrosia chenopodiifolia) 7 17 24
San Diego County needlegrass (Stipa diegoense) 9 1 10
San Diego County viguiera (Bahiopsis laciniata) 2,745 4,902 7,647
San Diego marsh elder (Iva hayesiana) 641 175 816
Small‐flowered bindweed (Convolvulus simulans) 91 0 91
Southwestern spiny rush (Juncus acutus ssp. leopoldii) 489 261 750
Source: Appendix D.
Note:
* Prostrate ground cover herb quantified by number of patches.
Otay tarplant is a federal and state listed species and MSCP Narrow Endemic and Covered Species. Otay tarplant
occurs throughout the project site based on biological field surveys conducted by Merkel & Associates (M&A) on
site in 2019 and 2020. In 2019, as provided in the Functional Equivalency Analysis Report (Appendix D) biological
surveys were conducted in November and December of 2019 which is outside of the Otay tarplant flowering season
(April–July) to get a preliminary assessment of the Otay tarplant population in preparation of the Functional
Equivalency Analysis Report. Remnants of Otay tarplant from the 2019 season were still highly detectable during
the November and December 2019 surveys and were counted and mapped. In 2020, focused Otay tarplant surveys
were conducted on site between late June and July 2020 during the flowering season when this annual species is
most detectable. The 2020 Otay tarplant mapped locations and plant numbers were combined with the 2019 Otay
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 229 of 1271
5.3 – Biological Resources
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.3-15
tarplant survey results taking the largest numbers if the locations overlapped to estimate the on-site Otay tarplant
population. Based on the 2019–2020 Otay tarplant field surveys, the on-site population is estimated to be 5,449
plants predominantly located in the western half of the project site within the existing Preserve (4,044 plants within
the Preserve and 1,405 plants outside the Preserve). It is recognized that the number and locations of individual
plants in an Otay tarplant population varies each year, due to a number of factors, including rainfall, temperature,
soil conditions, and seed bank (USFWS 2004).
Orcutt’s bird’s‐beak is a CNDDB Special Plant and MSCP Covered Species with a CRPR 2B.1 ranking. This species
has a very limited U.S. distribution, with nearly all its documented populations occurring south of Poggi Canyon and
west of Otay Mountain. Only one population has been documented north of the site, in Rice Canyon just south of
the Rancho Del Rey development.
Other Potentially Occurring Sensitive Flora
Multiple biological surveys including focused rare plant surveys were conducted on site throughout the blooming
period for all potentially occurring sensitive species. As a result, only one species, Palmer’s grappling ‐hook
(Harpagonella palmeri) (CRPR 4.2, Special Plant), has a moderate or greater potential to occur on site despite not
being observed during the biological surveys given the cryptic nature of this inconspicuous annual plant.
No other potential sensitive floral species are expected to have at least a moderate potential to occur within the
project site, predominantly based on a lack of potentially suitable habitat, soils, and/or the number of recent field
surveys conducted by M&A biologists on site throughout the year that would have likely detected most species, if
present. All of the potentially occurring sensitive floral species are discussed in Appendix D.
Sensitive Fauna
Ten sensitive fauna species were identified within the project study area during the general biological surveys and/or
protocol surveys: least Bell’s vireo (FE, SE, Special Animal, and MSCP Covered); California gnatcatcher (Polioptila
californica californica) (FT, SSC, Special Animal, and MSCP Covered); yellow‐breasted chat (SSC, Special Animal); yellow
warbler (SSC, Special Animal, USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern); Cooper’s hawk (Special Animal, CDFW Watch List,
MSCP Covered); Nuttall’s woodpecker (Special Animal); northern harrier (SSC, Special Animal, MSCP Covered); white‐
tailed kite (CDFW Fully Protected Species, Special Animal); orange‐throated whiptail (SSC, Special Animal, and MSCP
Covered); and two‐striped gartersnake (SSC, Special Animal). Several of the sensitive avian species on site, including the
yellow warbler, yellow breasted chat, Nuttall’s woodpecker, and least Bell’s vireo, were observed within riparian habitat
along Poggi Creek. These species are discussed further below (Table 5.3-4; Figure 5.3-2). The sensitive raptors observed
on site (i.e., Cooper’s hawk, northern harrier, white‐tailed kite) were detected only flying over and/or potentially foraging
throughout the site and were not observed to be nesting and are not expected to nest on site due to the limited amount
of nesting habitat. The orange‐throated whiptail and two‐striped gartersnake were briefly detected in the central portion
of the site within native grassland and Diegan coastal sage scrub habitats, respectively. Coastal California gnatcatcher
was identified on site and is discussed further below. The following table identifies sensitive animal species detected on
site and their location relative to Preserve boundaries.
Table 5.3-4. Sensitive Fauna Located On Site Inside and Outside Preserve Boundaries
Species Inside Preserve Outside Preserve Total
Coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica
californica)
1 1 2
*Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperi) N/A N/A N/A
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 230 of 1271
5.3 – Biological Resources
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.3-16
Table 5.3-4. Sensitive Fauna Located On Site Inside and Outside Preserve Boundaries
Species Inside Preserve Outside Preserve Total
Least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) 0 1 1
*Northern harrier (Circus cyaneus) N/A N/A N/A
Nuttall’s woodpecker (Picoides nuttallii) N/A 1 1
Orange‐throated whiptail (Aspidoscelis hyperythra) 1 0 1
Two‐striped gartersnake (Thamnophis hammondii) 1 0 1
*White‐tailed kite (Elanus leucurus) N/A N/A N/A
Yellow‐ breasted chat (Icteria virens) 2 1 3
Yellow warbler (Setophaga petechia) 4 1 5
Source: Appendix D.
Notes: N/A = not applicable.
* Fly-over species not limited to inside or outside the Preserve.
Least Bell’s Vireo
One least Bell’s vireo territorial male was incidentally detected by call within the southern willow scrub in Poggi
Creek during general biological surveys as well as during protocol surveys for Quino checkerspot butterfly and
coastal California gnatcatcher conducted by M&A throughout the spring months of 2020. The observations were
relatively consistent and limited to the northeastern portion of the proposed project site (see Figure 5.3-2). The
least Bell’s vireo’s territory appears to extend from the easternmost 200 feet of the channel on site to an off-site
basin that supports southern willow scrub located just upstream of the project site to the east.
Coastal California Gnatcatcher
The project site supports approximately 37 acres of potentially suitable gnatcatcher habitat consisting of Diegan
coastal sage scrub; however, not all of the 37 acres of the Diegan coastal sage scrub on site supports suitable
nesting gnatcatcher habitat. The suitable nesting habitat is located predominantly within the existing Preserve in
the central portion of the site along four rolling hillsides north of Poggi Creek and Olympic Parkway, as well as a
smaller patch of Diegan coastal sage scrub that is located in the southeastern corner of the project site and extends
off site (see Figure 5.3-2). The suitable gnatcatcher habitat quality in these areas is moderate to high, predominantly
due to the native species composition and diversity. The remaining areas of Diegan coastal sage scrub on site,
specifically those areas that consist entirely of lemonadeberry, are not considered suitable nesting habitat for
gnatcatcher due to the lack of plant species composition preferred for nesting (e.g., Artemisia californica,
Eriogonum fasciculatum). The narrow linear areas along Poggi Creek are less suitable gnatcatcher habitat and of
lower quality for gnatcatcher due to their linear configuration and fragmented locations on site.
Based on USFWS protocol surveys conducted in April 2020 (Appendix D), two coastal California gnatcatcher
territorial males were observed and heard within the survey area in two separate areas of Diegan coastal sage
scrub on site (Appendix D). One gnatcatcher territory is located in the central portion of the site within the larger
area of high-quality Diegan coastal sage scrub. The other gnatcatcher territory is located both on site and off site
within the southeastern corner of the project site where a small amount of Diegan coastal sage scrub occurs on
site with more suitable habitat that extends off site onto the County of San Diego (County) landfill property to the
south (Figure 5.3-2).
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 231 of 1271
5.3 – Biological Resources
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.3-17
Quino Checkerspot Butterfly
Based on USFWS protocol surveys for the federally listed endangered Quino checkerspot butterfly conducted by
M&A in 2020, Quino checkerspot butterfly is not present within the proposed project site (Appendix D).
Other Potentially Occurring Sensitive Fauna
The red‐diamond rattlesnake (Crotalus ruber) has been recorded to occur in open space habitat near the northwest
corner of the site in 1987 and 2006 (CNDDB 2020). M&A biologists have observed this often cryptic species east
of the site in Poggi Creek Channel within the last year. This cryptic species has a moderate potential to occur on ‐
site, given the presence of suitable habitat and the most recent sightings near the project site. This is the only
sensitive potentially occurring faunal species with at least a moderate potential of occurring on the site. No other
potential sensitive faunal species are expected to have at least a moderate potential to occur within the project
site, predominantly based on a lack of potentially suitable habitat and/or the number of recent field surveys
conducted by M&A biologists on site throughout the year that would have likely detected most species if present.
All of the potentially occurring sensitive faunal species are discussed in Appendix D.
Nesting Sensitive Raptor Species
No nests of sensitive raptor species were observed or are expected to occur on site. These include nests for tree/tall
shrub nesting species such as the white‐tailed kite and Cooper’s hawk, as well as ground nesting species such as
the northern harrier. These species were only observed flying over and/or foraging over the site. As discussed
earlier, no burrowing owls or burrows with evidence of sign (i.e., molted feathers, cast pellets, prey remains, eggshell
fragments, excrement) were observed during the surveys. Further, no ground squirrel burrows or other potential
burrows were observed on site. As such, this species is not expected to occur on‐site. Nesting potential for sensitive
raptor species is also discussed in Appendix D.
Wildlife Corridors and Connectivity
The northern portion of the project site and Olympic Parkway are located in an area that was historically Poggi
Canyon. The project site is not located within a known regional wildlife corridor. However, within the northern portion
of the project site, wetlands along Poggi Creek, upland slopes, dirt trails, game trails, and drainages throughout the
upland habitat likely serve as local wildlife corridors due to their topography, vegetation cover and location. These
areas support undeveloped land within an urbanized area to the north, west, and portions to the south.
City of Chula Vista MSCP
As provided in the City Subarea Plan, the proposed project is not an MSCP Covered Project; however, a MSCP 100%
Preserve designation is overlaid within the western half and the northern edge of the project site. The eastern half
of the project site is mapped as a Development Area in the MSCP.
The western half of the project site and much of the northern edges along Poggi Creek is designated as 100%
Preserve, while the eastern half of the site is designated as MSCP Development Area (Figure 5.3-1). In addition,
there are adjacent MSCP designations to the south and southeast (Figure 5.3-1). Directly south of the project site,
is a City-owned property that is an MSCP Minor Amendment Area. As provided in the MSCP Subarea Plan, these
Minor Amendment Areas will require the processing of a Minor Amendment to the Subarea Plan before Take
Authorization will apply to any portion of the properties with this designation. Directly southeast of the project site
is a County-owned property, developed as the Otay Landfill. The Otay Landfill is designated as an MSCP Take
Authorization Area that has granted take to the County under the County Subarea Plan presumably for County
landfill activities.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 232 of 1271
5.3 – Biological Resources
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.3-18
5.3.1.3 Methodology
Literature Review
Historical and currently available biological literature and data pertaining to the study area were reviewed prior to
initiation of current 2019‐2020 field investigation. This review included examination of:
1) EIR, Sunbow General Development Plan Pre‐Zone dated 1989
2) Addendum to Final EIR 88‐1 Sunbow II Draft SPA Plan dated January 1990
3) BO on Impacts to the Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) to Result from
Construction of the Sunbow Planned Community #1‐6‐95‐F‐172
4) Analysis of ultra‐low-altitude high-resolution ortho‐rectified aerial photography of the site acquired by
Merkel & Associates on January 3, 2020
5) Regional vegetation data for the project vicinity (City of Chula Vista 2019)
6) County Geographical Information System (GIS) data (Appendix D)
7) Google Earth Pro™ [Website Image Server], 2019 and 2020
8) Geological substrates and soil types mapped on the project site (Geocon geology data and USDA
2002, respectively)
9) CDFW CNDDB and USFWS special-status species records, and designated critical habitat for the project
vicinity (CDFW 2020, USFWS 2019a and 2019b, respectively)
Survey Dates, Times, and Conditions
M&A biologists conducted several general biological field surveys within the project study area (Table 5.3-5) that
consisted of the project site parcel and two areas directly offsite consisting of a portion of the Otay Village Two
property to the east and a portion of City of Chula Vista property to the south. Further, a 50 -foot habitat mapping
buffer is included in some of the report figures for context only and is not a part of the proposed project or project
study area.
Table 5.3-5. Schedule of Survey Dates, Times, Conditions, and Staff
Date Time Weather Conditions Biologist Survey
November 8, 2019 0800–1130 Weather: 0% cc
Wind: 0–1 BS
Temperature: 70°F–71°F
Kyle Ince General Biological
Survey
November 14,
2019
1115–1630 Weather: 0% cc
Wind: 0–2 BS
Temperature: 65°F–67°F
Kyle Ince
Gina Krantz
General Biological
Survey
November 18,
2019
1045–1600 Weather: 90% cc
Wind: 0–1 BS
Temperature: 80°F–76°F
Kyle Ince
Gina Krantz
General Biological
Survey
November 22,
2019
0730–0845 Weather: 0% cc
Wind: 0–1 BS
Temperature: 55°F–57°F
Kyle Ince General Biological
Survey
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 233 of 1271
5.3 – Biological Resources
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.3-19
Table 5.3-5. Schedule of Survey Dates, Times, Conditions, and Staff
Date Time Weather Conditions Biologist Survey
December 20,
2019
0830–1130 Weather: 0% cc
Wind: 0–1 BS
Temperature: 60°F–66°F
Kyle Ince
Gina Krantz
Jurisdictional Wetland
Delineation
January 3, 2020 1130–1530 Weather: 0% cc
Wind: 0–1 BS
Temperature: 61°F–68°F
Jordan Volker Low Altitude Aerial
Survey
January 10, 2020 0815–1300 Weather: 0% cc
Wind: 0–1 BS
Temperature: 50°F–63°F
Kyle Ince General Biological
Survey
March 6, 2020 1020–1340 Weather: 0% cc
Wind: 0–5 mph
Temperature: 63°F–64°F
Gina Krantz
Adam Behle
Kyle Ince
Quino Checkerspot
Butterfly Protocol
Survey #1
March 11, 2020 1245–1545 Weather: 30%–50% cc
Wind: 1–5 mph
Temperature: 62°F–69°F
Gina Krantz
Adam Behle
Kyle Ince
Quino Checkerspot
Butterfly Protocol
Survey #2
March 17, 2020 1300–1645 Weather: 40%–10% cc
Wind: 0–3 mph
Temperature: 60°F–62°F
Gina Krantz
Kyle Ince
Quino Checkerspot
Butterfly Protocol
Survey #3
March 21, 2020 1115–1515 Weather: 50%–5% cc
Wind: 0–3 mph
Temperature: 66°F–68°F
Kyle Ince
Adam Behle
Quino Checkerspot
Butterfly Protocol
Survey #4
March 24, 2020 1200–1600 Weather: 40%–10% cc
Wind: 5–3 mph
Temperature: 60°F–62°F
Gina Krantz
Adam Behle
Kyle Ince
Quino Checkerspot
Butterfly Protocol
Survey #5
March 27, 2020 1045–1415 Weather: 40%–0% cc
Wind: 0–5 mph
Temperature: 60°F–62°F
Gina Krantz
Adam Behle
Kyle Ince
Quino Checkerspot
Butterfly Protocol
Survey #6
April 3, 2020 1100–1500 Weather: 20%–30% cc
Wind: 0–4 mph
Temperature: 61°F–74°F
Gina Krantz
Adam Behle
Kyle Ince
Quino Checkerspot
Butterfly Protocol
Survey #7
April 14, 2020 1100–1420 Weather: 5% cc
Wind: 1–7 mph
Temperature: 64°F–66°F
Gina Krantz
Adam Behle
Kyle Ince
Quino Checkerspot
Butterfly Protocol
Survey #8
April 15, 2020 0830–1200 Weather: 0% cc
Wind: BS 0–1
Temperature: 63°F –75°F
Gina Krantz
Kyle Ince
Coastal California
Gnatcatcher Protocol
Survey #1
April 16, 2020 1000–1505 Weather: 0% cc
Wind: 3–7 mph
Temperature: 65°F–72°F
Adam Behle
Kyle Ince
Quino Checkerspot
Butterfly Protocol
Survey #9
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 234 of 1271
5.3 – Biological Resources
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.3-20
Table 5.3-5. Schedule of Survey Dates, Times, Conditions, and Staff
Date Time Weather Conditions Biologist Survey
April 22, 2020 0835–1200 Weather: 0% cc
Wind: BS 0–1
Temperature: 62°F–72°F
Gina Krantz
Kyle Ince
(Adam Behle/
Brandon Stidum)2
Coastal California
Gnatcatcher Protocol
Survey #2
April 23, 2020 0900–1235 Weather: 0% cc
Wind: 1–5 mph
Temperature: 64°F–78°F
Gina Krantz
Adam Behle
Kyle Ince
Quino Checkerspot
Butterfly Protocol
Survey #10
April 28, 2020 1000–1500 Weather: 0% cc
Wind: 0–5 mph
Temperature: 70°F–72°F
Amanda Gonzales
Kyle Ince
Jurisdictional Wetland
Delineation
April 29, 2020 0840–1145 Weather: 100% cc
Wind: BS 0–1
Temperature: 63°F–67°F
Gina Krantz
Kyle Ince
(Adam Behle/
Brandon Stidum)2
Coastal California
Gnatcatcher Protocol
Survey #3
April 30, 2020 1100–1430 Weather: 100%–50% cc
Wind: 1–3 mph
Temperature: 70°F–73°F
Gina Krantz
Adam Behle
Kyle Ince
Quino Checkerspot
Butterfly Protocol
Survey #11
May 7, 2020 0845–1215 Weather: 0% cc
Wind: 0–4 mph
Temperature: 64°F–74°F
Gina Krantz
Adam Behle
Kyle Ince
Quino Checkerspot
Butterfly Protocol
Survey #12
May 7, 2020 1215–1330 Weather: 0%–5% cc
Wind: 0–3 mph
Temperature: 74°F–75°F
Kyle Ince Rare Plant Survey
May 28, 2020 1545–1630 Weather: 100% cc
Wind: 0–5 mph
Temperature: 70°F–70°F
Kyle Ince Rare Plant Survey
June 8, 2020 1115–1445 Weather: 0%–5% cc
Wind: 3–5 mph
Temperature: 75°F–81°F
Kyle Ince General Biological
Survey and Rare Plant
Survey
July 9, 2020 0840–1420 Weather: 40%–5% cc
Wind: 0–2 mph
Temperature: 64°F–74°F
Kyle Ince
Gina Krantz
Rare Plant Survey
July 15, 2020 0830– Weather: 15%–0% cc
Wind: 0–5 mph
Temperature: 69°F–74°F
Kyle Ince
Gina Krantz
Rare Plant Survey
January 13, 2021 0900-1215 Weather: 50%-0% cc
Wind: 0-5 mph
Temperature: 61-72 F
Kyle Ince General Biological
Survey for Proposed
Slope and Berm on
Otay Village 2 Property
Source: Appendix D.
Notes: cc = cloud cover; BS = Beaufort Scale; mph = miles per hour; F= Fahrenheit.
1 Merkel & Associates (M&A) biologist in training supervised by permitted biologists.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 235 of 1271
5.3 – Biological Resources
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.3-21
General Biological Survey
Existing vegetation types were delineated onto a 1 inch = 100 feet scale, December 2019 color aerial photograph
of the site. Vegetation types were classified according to the Holland (1986) code classification system as modified
by Oberbauer et al. (2008). Directed searches for sensitive species with a potential to occur on site were conducted
within the study area, and any other potential occurrences were assessed in the field based on the existing
biological conditions. The scientific and common names utilized for the floral and faunal resources were noted
according to the following scientific nomenclature: flora, Rebman and Simpson (2014); butterflies, San Diego
Natural History Museum (2002); amphibians and reptiles, Crother (2017); birds, American Ornithological Society
(2019); and mammals, Wilson and Reeder (2005) for species names and Hall (1981) for subspecies. Additional
details on the survey can be found in Appendix D.
Protocol Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Surveys
Quino checkerspot butterfly surveys were conducted the first week of March 2020 and were conducted less than
a week apart when survey conditions were met to catch up to the protocol survey schedule. Specific Quino survey
dates varied within the timeframe provided in the protocol according to weather conditions and scheduling needs.
Biologists slowly walked a variable, winding course that generally followed 30‐foot transects within suitable habitat
in the pre‐ determined butterfly survey areas, carefully followed the movements of butterflies, and periodically
stopped within areas that appeared most suitable. A detailed account of the survey is present in Appendix D.
Protocol California Coastal Gnatcatcher Surveys
Three protocol surveys for coastal California gnatcatcher were conducted at least one week apart within the
gnatcatcher survey area that consisted of potentially suitable gnatcatcher habitat (e.g., Diegan coastal sage
scrub) and any immediately adjacent habitat within the project site. All on ‐site vegetation communities were
mapped, and survey routes were slowly walked in potentially suitab le gnatcatcher habitat. Taped recordings
of gnatcatcher vocalizations, as well as “pishing ,’were used to elicit initial vocal responses, and an appropriate
time interval was allowed for a response, particularly from advantageous viewpoints. A detailed account of the
survey is present in Appendix D .
Rare Plant Surveys
Rare plants were detected and mapped throughout the late winter, spring, and early summer months. All areas of
the project site were surveyed for rare plants although surveys were intensified in areas of clay soils which are
suitable for a variety of endemic sensitive species known from the area.
Surveys were conducted during the flowering period for all potentially occurring sensitive species A detailed account
of the survey is present in Appendix D
Jurisdictional Wetland Delineation
M&A, Inc. conducted a jurisdictional wetland delineation on December 20, 2019 and on April 28, 2020. The wetland
delineation surveys were conducted using the routine on-site determination methods noted in the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers’ (ACOE) Wetland Delineation Manual (ACOE 1987) and Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (ACOE 2008) (Appendix D). In addition, the delineation was
expanded to identify non‐wetland federally regulated waters as well as waters of the state. The extent of
jurisdictional boundaries was determined according to the ACOE, RWQCB, CDFW, and City definitions of wetlands,
navigable waters, and non‐wetland waters of the United States/streambed (NWW).
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 236 of 1271
5.3 – Biological Resources
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.3-22
General Survey Limitations
Biological inventories are generally subject to various survey limitations. Depending on the season and time of day
during which field surveys are conducted, some species may not be detected due to temporal species variability.
The biological surveys conducted for this project were performed during daylight hours and included late fall, winter,
spring, and the early summer months; thus, some nocturnal animal species that were not detected by sign (e.g.,
tracks, scat) during day surveys may not have been detected. Further, based on the literature review performed, as
well as knowledge of species‐specific habitat requirements, it is anticipated that any additional species potentially
present on the project site can be fairly accurately predicted, and that the surveys conducted were sufficient in
obtaining a thorough review of the biological resources present on the project site.
5.3.2 Thresholds of Significance
The significance criteria used to evaluate the project impacts to biological resources is based on the
recommendations provided in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.). A significant im pact
would occur if the project would:
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. 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 state or federally protected wetlands (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.
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.
Additionally, impacts to biological resources are further categorized as direct impacts and indirect impacts. CEQA
Guidelines Section 15358 define a “direct impact” as “effects which are caused by the project and occur at the
same time and place” that can produce a temporary or permanent biologically significant, “physical change” in
the environment.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15358 define an “indirect impact or secondary effect” as “effects which are caused by
the project and are later in time or farther removed in distance,but are still reasonably foreseeable” that can
produce a temporary or permanent biologically significant, “physical change” in the environment.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 237 of 1271
5.3 – Biological Resources
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.3-23
5.3.3 Impacts
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. Wildlife Service.
Direct Impacts
Sensitive Plant Species
The proposed project would directly impact several sensitive plant species as quantified in Table 5.3 -6 and
assessed by species further below. Additionally, Figure 5.3-4, Biological Impacts Map, shows a map of biological
impacts within the project site.
Table 5.3-6. Proposed Impacts to Sensitive Plant Species
Species
(in Alphabetical Order)
Existing Conditions within Project Site
(Inside Preserve and Outside Preserve)
Proposed Impacts
(Inside Preserve and Outside Preserve)
Inside
Preserve
Outside
Preserve Total
Inside
Preserve
Outside
Preserve Total
*Ashy spike‐moss
(Selaginella cinerascens)
0 2 2 0 1 1
Coast barrel cactus
(Ferocactus viridescens)
1 1 2 0 0 0
Decumbent goldenbush
(Isocoma menziesii var.
decumbens)
533 270 803 33 256 289
Orcutt’s bird’s‐beak
(Dicranostegia orcuttiana)
705 206 911 90** 1 91
Otay tarplant (Deinandra
conjugens)
4,044 1,405 5,449 142 694 836
Palmer’s sagewort (Artemisia
palmeri)
16 28 44 0 0 0
San Diego bursage
(Ambrosia chenopodiifolia)
7 17 24 0 16 16
San Diego County
needlegrass
(Stipa diegoense)
9 1 10 0 1 1
San Diego County viguiera
(Bahiopsis laciniata)
2,745 4,902 7,647 1,133 4,825 5,958
San Diego marsh elder (Iva
hayesiana)
641 175 816 0 3 3
Small‐flowered bindweed
(Convolvulus simulans)
91 0 91 0 0 0
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 238 of 1271
5.3 – Biological Resources
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.3-24
Table 5.3-6. Proposed Impacts to Sensitive Plant Species
Species
(in Alphabetical Order)
Existing Conditions within Project Site
(Inside Preserve and Outside Preserve)
Proposed Impacts
(Inside Preserve and Outside Preserve)
Inside
Preserve
Outside
Preserve Total
Inside
Preserve
Outside
Preserve Total
Southwestern spiny rush
(Juncus acutus ssp. leopoldii)
489 261 750 0 0 0
Source: Appendix D.
Notes:
* Prostrate ground cover herb quantified by number of patches.
** Impacts within Preserve are entirely within proposed Future Facility-Detention Basin footprint (see Figure 5.3-4).
Otay Tarplant
The proposed project would impact an estimated 836 Otay tarplants (142 located inside of the Preserve; 694
located outside of the Preserve) out of the total 5,449 Otay tarplants present on site (Table 5.3-4). Of the total Otay
tarplant impacts, the proposed residential development would permanently impact 142 Otay tarplant inside the
Preserve (including some impacted Otay tarplants within the Future Facility‐Detention Basin) (see Figure 5.3-4) and
424 Otay tarplants outside the Preserve. Further, construction related vegetation clearing and grading activities
would temporarily impact 270 Otay tarplants outside the Preserve.
Based on the sensitivity of this federally endangered and narrow endemic species, impacts to Otay tarplant would
be considered potentially significant (Impact BIO-1) under CEQA and would require appropriate mitigation that
would consist of on-site habitat mitigation (i.e., native grassland) within appropriate on-site conserved lands in the
Preserve. Mitigation Measure (MM) BIO-1 through MM-BIO-3 (see Section 5.3.5, Mitigation Measures) would be
implemented to reduce impacts to the Otay tarplant. The project also proposes habitat restoration efforts (soil
salvage, seed transplant) within appropriate on-site areas within the Preserve (Project Design Feature [PDF] BIO-1;
see Section 4.4.8, Project Design Features, of this EIR).
Orcutt’s Bird’s-Beak
Implementation of the proposed project would impact approximately 10% of the population of Orcutt’s bird’s‐ beak
population estimated to be present on site (91 out of 911 plants). The proposed impacts to Orcutt’s bird’s‐ beak
would occur from development of the proposed Future Facility-Detention Basin, located within Diegan coastal sage
scrub, just south of the previously restored slope along Poggi Creek, where the majority of the Orcutt’s bird’s beak
is located (Figure 5.3-4). The proposed impacts to Orcutt’s bird’s‐beak would be considered significant under CEQA
based on the sensitivity of this species and the rarity of this species in the region and the extent of impacts to the
on-site population.
The proposed project’s impacts to Orcutt’s bird’s-beak would be potentially significant (Impact BIO-2) and would
require appropriate mitigation that would consist of preserving 90% (820 out of 911) of the Orcutt’s bird’s-beak
estimated on-site population within the on-site Preserve (MM-BIO-3) and habitat mitigation (i.e., Diegan coastal
sage scrub) and habitat restoration efforts (soil salvage, seed translocation) within appropriate on-site conserved
lands in the Preserve (MM-BIO-3).
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 239 of 1271
5.3 – Biological Resources
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.3-25
Decumbent Goldenbush
Implementation of the proposed project would impact approximately 36% of the decumbent goldenbush on-site
population (289 out of 803 plants). A majority of the impacts to this species are associated with non ‐native
grassland habitat located within the proposed development area (Figure 5.3-4). The proposed impacts to
decumbent goldenbush would be considered potentially significant (Impact BIO-3). Therefore, require appropriate
mitigation that may consist of preserving 64% (513 out of 803) of the decumbent goldenbush estimated on -site
population within the on-site Preserve (MM-BIO-3) and habitat mitigation (i.e., native grassland) and habitat
restoration efforts (soil salvage, seed translocation) within appropriate on-site conserved lands in the Preserve, as
discussed further in Section 5.3.5 (MM-BIO-3).
San Diego Viguiera
Implementation of the proposed project would impact approximately 78% of the San Diego viguiera population
(5,958 out of 7,647 plants). Impacts to this species are associated with impacts to Diegan coastal sage scrub along
the western edge of the proposed development, discussed in further detail under Threshold B (Figure 5.3-4). The
proposed impacts to San Diego viguiera, a CNDDB Special Plant with a CRPR 4.3 ranking, would be considered
significant under CEQA primarily due to potential impacts to 5,958 plants out of 7,647 plants. The impacts to San
Diego viguiera would be potentially significant (Impact BIO-4). MM-BIO-3, which consists of habitat mitigation (i.e.,
Diegan coastal sage scrub) and may also include habitat restoration within appropriate on-site conserved lands in
the Preserve, would be implemented to reduce impacts to the San Diego viguiera.
San Diego County Needlegrass
Implementation of the proposed project would impact approximately 10% of the San Diego County needlegrass
population present on site (1 out 10 plants). Impacts to this species are associated with impacts to Diegan coastal
sage scrub along the western edge of the proposed development, which are discussed in further detail under
Threshold B (Figure 5.3-4, Biological Impacts Map). In the City’s MSCP, the impacts within Development Areas
outside of Covered Projects require that impacts to Narrow Endemic Species be avoided. Where impacts are
demonstrated to be unavoidable, impacts within these Development areas shall be limited to 20% of the total
Narrow Endemic Species population with the project areas. However, San Diego County Needlegrass is not listed
as a Narrow Endemic Species under the City’s MSCP, therefore there are no MSCP specific impact avoidance
guidelines. The CRPR for San Diego County Needlegrass is 4.2. As discussed earlier, CRPR 4 is the lowest rank
designated for plants “of limited distribution or infrequent throughout a broader area in California” (CNPS 2020).
Additionally, the threat level is 0.2 which is considered “moderately threatened in Cal ifornia.” Due to San Diego
County Needlegrass not being listed as a Narrow Endemic Species under the City’s MSCP, its low rank on the CRPR
list, and the impacts potentially affecting only 1 out of the 10 plants found within the project site, proposed impacts
would be less than significant.
Ashy Spike-Moss
Implementation of the proposed project would impact 100% (two patches) of ashy spike‐moss on site. Impacts to this
species are associated with impacts to coastal sage scrub vegetation near the southeast corner and non‐native
grassland along the eastern boundary of the site. In the City’s MSCP, the impacts within Development Areas outside of
Covered Projects require that impacts to Narrow Endemic Species be avoided. Where impacts are demonstrated to be
unavoidable, impacts within these Development Areas will be limited to 20% of the total Narrow Endemic Species
population with the project area. However, ashy spike-moss is not listed as a Narrow Endemic Species under the City’s
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 240 of 1271
5.3 – Biological Resources
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.3-26
MSCP. Therefore, there are no MSCP-specific impact avoidance guidelines. The CRPR for ashy spike-moss is 4.1. As
discussed earlier, CRPR 4 is the lowest rank designated for plants “of limited distribution or infrequent throughout a
broader area in California” (CNPS 2020). Additionally, the threat level is 0.1, which is considered “seriously threatened
in California.” However, because ashy spike-moss is only found in two patches within the project site, ashy spike-moss is
not listed as a Narrow Endemic Species within the City’s MSCP, and the plant’s CRPR is relatively low, the proposed
impacts to ashy spike‐moss would be less than significant based on the limited amount of proposed impact, sensitivity
of this species, and its local and regional abundance throughout the County.
Small-Flowered Bindweed, Coast Barrel Cactus, San Diego Bursage, Southwestern Spiny Rush, San Diego Marsh
Elder, and Palmer’s Sagewort
Implementation of the project result in no impacts to existing populations (within the project site) of coast barrel
cactus, palmer’s sagewort, small-flowered bindweed, and southwestern spiny rush (Table 5.3-6). The proposed
project would potentially result in impacts to 16 out of the 24 (66.7%) existing San Diego bursage plants, and 3 out
of the 816 (0.37%) existing San Diego marsh elder plants. None of the previously mentioned plants are listed as a
Narrow Endemic Species within the City MSCP.
San Diego marsh elder is ranked CRPR 2B.2, and San Diego bursage plant is ranked CRPR 2B.1. CRPR 2B is
designated for plants that are rare, threatened, or endangered in California but are more common elsewhere (CNPS
2020). Threat rank 0.2 is defined as “moderately threatened in California” (20%–80% of occurrences threatened
and a moderate degree and immediacy of threat), and threat rank 0.1 is defined as “seriously threatened in
California” (over 80% of occurrences threatened and a high degree and immediacy of threat). Although the rank for
San Diego marsh elder is relatively high, the amount that would be impacted resulting from implementation of the
proposed project (0.37% of the existing San Diego marsh elder plant population within the project site ) would be
considered less than significant. However, 66.7% of existing San Diego bursage plants would be impacted due to
implementation of the proposed project. Impacting 16 out of 24 existing San Diego bursage plants, paired with the
plant’s CRPR, would result in a potentially significant impact (Impact BIO-5). Impacts would be mitigated through
biological construction monitoring and implementation of construction best management practices (BMPs; MM-
BIO-12) and preparation of a Worker Environment Awareness Program (MM-BIO-13).
Sensitive Wildlife Species
Coastal California Gnatcatcher
Two coastal California gnatcatcher territories were determined to be present on site during the USFWS gnatcatcher
protocol surveys conducted by M&A in 2020 (Appendix D). One gnatcatcher territory is located in the central portion
of the site west of the proposed western access road within the larger area of high quality Diegan coastal sage
scrub, while the other gnatcatcher territory is located along the southeastern site boundary where a small amount
of Diegan coastal sage scrub occurs on site along with more suitable habitat that extends off site onto the County
of San Diego landfill property to the south (Figure 5.3-4).
The one gnatcatcher territory located along the southeastern parcel boundary would be directly impacted by the
proposed project vegetation clearing, grubbing, and grading activities (Figure 5.3-4) through the loss of a portion of
nesting habitat (i.e., Diegan coastal sage scrub). This project impact would be potentially significant (Impact BIO-6)
and would require implementation of mitigation measures (MM-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-2, and MM-BIO-4 and MM-
BIO-5). Further, gnatcatcher specific MSCP Conditions of Coverage, such as area-specific management directives
that must include measures to reduce edge effects and minimize disturbance during the nesting period, fire
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 241 of 1271
5.3 – Biological Resources
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.3-27
protection measures to reduce the potential for habitat degradation due to unplanned fire, management measures
to maintain or improve habitat quality including vegetation structure, and prohibition of clearing of occupied habitat
in the County of San Diego Multiple Habitat Planning Area may occur from March 1 through August 15, would apply
(City of Chula Vista 2003).
The other on-site gnatcatcher territory located in the central portion of the project site is not expected to be directly
impacted by the project. The gnatcatchers observed in this area were limited to the Diegan coastal sage scrub
located west of the proposed western main access road, largely within the existing Preserve that would remain
protected as proposed by the project. In addition, although suitable gnatcatcher habitat occurs in other surrounding
areas, no gnatcatchers were observed during the protocol surveys and/or any of the other biological surveys on
site. Nonetheless, the reduction of potentially suitable and contiguous habitat and the potential for nesting failure
due to the adjacent on-site construction related activities would result in potentially significant direct impacts
(Impact BIO-7) to gnatcatcher and would require implementation of MM-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-2, and MM-BIO-4
and MM-BIO-5 to reduce impacts to a level below significance.
Least Bell’s Vireo
The least Bell’s vireo that occurs on site is located entirely within Poggi Creek, where no development is proposed.
Therefore, least Bell’s vireo would not be directly impacted by the proposed project. Nonetheless, the potential for
nesting failure due to the adjacent on-site construction related activities would result in potential direct impacts to
vireo that would be considered potentially significant (Impact BIO-8) and would require implementation of MM-BIO-
6 in order to reduce impacts to a level below significance.
Quino Checkerspot Butterfly
Based on USFWS Quino checkerspot butterfly protocol surveys conducted by M&A in 2020, no Quino
checkerspot butterfly (USFWS federally endangered), were observed or detected to be present within the
project site and none are expected to occur (Appendix D). Therefore, the proposed project would have no
impact to Quino checkerspot butterflies.
Yellow Warbler, Yellow-Breasted Chat, and Nuttall’s Woodpecker
The proposed project is not expected to directly impact yellow warbler, yellow‐breasted chat, and Nuttall’s
woodpecker since these species occur in the riparian habitat within Poggi Creek , within the Preserve, or within an
existing conservation easement where the project proposes to avoid direct impacts. Therefore, the proposed project
would have no impact to yellow warblers, yellow-breasted chats, and Nuttall’s woodpeckers.
Sensitive Raptors
No nesting activities or potential nests of any sensitive raptor species, including white‐tailed kite, northern harrier,
and Cooper’s hawk were observed on site and therefore no potential nesting habitat for sensitive raptor species is
proposed to be impacted as a result of the project. Further, no indirect impacts such as construction elevated noise
levels during the breeding season would affect nesting sensitive raptors since none are expected to nest on site.
Raptors including sensitive species such as the white-tailed kite, northern harrier, and Cooper’s hawk were
observed flying over and potentially foraging on site and may be negatively affected by the loss of this potential
foraging habitat in the project area. The project would have direct impacts to potential raptor foraging habitat for
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 242 of 1271
5.3 – Biological Resources
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.3-28
white-tailed kite, northern harrier, and Cooper’s hawk associated with the loss of 61.0 acres of grassland habitat
(i.e., 53.28 acres of non‐native grassland, 7.72 acres of native grassland). As an important note, the potential
raptor foraging habitat proposed to be impacted is located almost entirely inside the MSCP Development Area and
is of lower habitat quality due to its densely thatched condition, while the proposed raptor foraging habitat mitigation
consists of higher quality native grassland, patches of non‐native grassland in a matrix of native habitats, and
proposed habitat restoration areas that is either currently or proposed to be in the Preserve. The proposed impact
to potential foraging habitat for white‐tailed kite, northern harrier, and Cooper’s hawk would be a potentially
significant impact (Impact BIO-9). and would require implementation of MM-BIO-1, which requires habitat mitigation
(i.e., native grassland, open Diegan coastal sage scrub) to reduce impacts to a level below significance.
Birds Protected under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code
The project site has the potential to support active nests for regionally common migratory birds and raptors that are
not designated as special status species under CEQA but are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act
(MBTA) and California Fish and Game (CFG) Code Sections 3503 and 3513.
The project could result in impacts to active bird and/or raptor nests protected under the federal MBTA and/or CFG
Code Sections 3503 and 3513 if construction-related activities were to occur during the avian and/or raptor
breeding season. The project construction activities undertaken for the project should comply with the regul atory
requirements of the federal MTBA and CDFG Codes Sections 3503 and 3513. As discussed previously, here is an
abundance of grassland onsite which is a potentially suitable habitat for burrowing owl; however, much of the
grassland is dense and/or thatched and thus not preferred by this species. Further, no burrowing owls were
observed during the numerous surveys of the site throughout the burrowing owl nesting and migratory season. In
addition, no potential burrows with evidence of burrowing owl sign (i.e., molted feathers, cast pellets, prey remains,
eggshell fragments, excrement) were observed during the surveys. As such, this species is not expected to occur
onsite. However, there is potential for burrowing owls to subsequently occupy the project site as a result of
construction vegetation clearing and grading activities that may temporarily create attractive conditions for
burrowing owl. The potential impact to active nests of birds (including burrowing owl) protected under MBTA and/or
CDFG Codes would be a potentially significant impact (Impact BIO-10) and would require avoidance of the avian
breeding season or conduct pre-construction active nest surveys through implementation of MM-BIO-7, which
requires to reduce impacts to a level below significance.
Sensitive Reptiles
Orange-Throated Whiptail and Two-Striped Gartersnake
Both the orange‐throated whiptail and two‐striped gartersnake were observed near the central portion of the site
within the existing Preserve. Both species are not expected to be abundant on site as they were each only observed
on one occasion during the numerous surveys that were conducted. Both species are expected to use riparian
habitat associated with Poggi Creek as well as adjacent coastal sage scrub vegetation. All riparian habitat and much
of the adjacent coastal sage scrub would be protected as part of the project. Therefore, the proposed project would
have no impacts to orange-throated whiptails and two-striped gartersnakes.
No other sensitive wildlife species are expected to occur on site based on recent negative focused surveys and/or
the lack of suitable habitat and thus would not be impacted by the proposed project.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 243 of 1271
5.3 – Biological Resources
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.3-29
Indirect Impacts
There would be no indirect impacts to sensitive wildlife species. There are few indirect impacts to the remaining
native vegetation. Many of these are related to habitat fragmentation, which occurs when a native vegetation
community is not entirely altered or developed, but what remains has a diminished wildlife habitat value due to
edge effects and lack of connectivity. Indirect impacts to native vegetation are further discussed in Threshold B.
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.
Vegetation Community
Based on the proposed project design, the proposed project would result in direct permanent and temporary
impacts to sensitive vegetation communities/habitats consisting of native grassland (Tier I), Diegan coastal sage
scrub (Tier II), and non‐native grassland (Tier III) habitats (see Table 5.3-7; Figure 5.3-4). Impacts would result in a
total of 69.28 acres of on-site impacts and 1.15 acres of off-site impacts (Table 5.3-7). Permanent project impacts
to sensitive vegetation communities would result from vegetation clearing, grading, and residential development
including houses, fuel modification zone activities, detention basins, and roadways. Temporary impacts to sensitive
vegetation communities would result from vegetation clearing, construction vehicular temporary access and
activities, grading in some areas, and subsequent revegetation efforts to ensure erosion control and/or native
habitat restoration activities to ensure long‐term biological functions and values.
Table 5.3-7. Quantitative Summary of Vegetation Community Impacts from the Proposed Project
Vegetation Type
MSCP
Tier
Habitat
Type
On-Site Impacts (Acres) Off-Site Impacts (Acres)
Total
On-
Site
Impact
Preserve
Development
Area
Total
Off-Site
Impact
City
Minor
Amend-
ment
Area
Otay
Ranch
Village 2 Perm Temp Perm Temp
Southern willow
scrub
Wetland 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mule fat scrub Wetland 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Coastal and valley
freshwater marsh
Wetland 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Native grassland I 7.72 3.22 0.18 4.21 0.11 0.04 0.00 0.03 temp/
0.01 perm
Diegan coastal
sage scrub
II 8.25* 2.24 0.39 5.08* 0.54 0.32 0.22
temp
0.05 perm/
0.05 temp
Non-native
grassland
III 53.28 1.66 0.10 48.61 2.91 0.79 0.35
temp
0.02 perm/
0.42 perm
Non-native
vegetation
IV 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Urban/developed N/A 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 69.28 7.12 0.67 57.92 3.57 1.15 0.57 0.58
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 244 of 1271
5.3 – Biological Resources
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.3-30
Source: Appendix D.
Notes: MSCP = Multiple Species Conservation Program; N/A = not applicable.
* The proposed project would permanently impact 7.58 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub in the Development Area; however, the
2.5 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub impact as documented in the USFWS 1995 BO has been applied to this proposed impact
acreage resulting in a residual amount of 5.08 acres impact.
In association with direct impacts to native vegetation communities, there are usually indirect impacts to the
remaining native vegetation. Many of these are related to habitat fragmentation, which occurs when a native
vegetation community is not entirely altered or developed, but what remains has a diminished wildlife habitat value
due to edge effects and lack of connectivity. Fragmented habitats may no longer be able to support large predators.
The presence of native predators has been demonstrated to hold in check populations of meso‐predators such as
domestic/feral cats. Without the presence of such predators, avian and small mammal diversity and abundance
declines, presumably due to increased depredation pressure from non‐native meso‐predators (Appendix D). Edge
effects may include increased predation pressure, increased brood parasitism, increased competition for nesting
cavities from non‐native species, and increased floral competition from weedy species. Outside of those effects
associated with fragmentation, indirect impacts may include elevated noise above 60 A-weighted decibels (dBA)
equivalent measured sound level (Leq), artificial night lighting within wildlife habitat, increased human disturbance,
change in duration and amount of surface water within a floodplain, and increased erosion or sedimentation. These
types of indirect impacts can affect vegetation communities or alter habitat use by sensitive species.
The project proposes to fill in gaps of the MSCP Preserve where areas have not been previously included in the in
the 2003 City Subarea Plan configuration with areas of the Preserve along Poggi Creek by adjusting the proposed
BLA. The proposed project would also extend the native habitat buffer widths between Poggi Creek and the
proposed project footprint that will be included in the Preserve.
Per Table 5.3-7, permanent impacts (totaling on-site 64.05 acres) and temporary impacts (totaling on-site 4.24
acres) to native grassland, Diegan coastal sage scrub, and non-native grassland from construction activities such
as vegetation clearing, grading, residential development, and construction vehicular temporary access and
activities would be considered potentially significant (Impact BIO-11) and would require implementation of MM-MM-
BIO-1, MM-BIO-2, MM-BIO-12, and MM-BIO-13, consistent with the City MSCP Subarea Plan as well as the HLIT, to
reduce impacts to a level below significance.
It is expected that the portions of the MSCP Preserve directly adjacent and closest to the proposed project
development boundaries would potentially be negatively affected by edge effects such as invasive plant invasion,
habitat degradation, increased predation pressure from domestic pets (i.e., cats), lighting, noise, irrigation, and human
disturbance. These potential indirect impacts would be considered potentially significant (Impact BIO-12) and would
require mitigation measures MM-BIO-8 through MM-BIO-13 to reduce impacts to a level below significance.
C. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.
Wetlands within the proposed project are located largely along the northern border of the project site within Poggi
Creek. Two streambeds are located along the western half of the project site (see Figure 5.3-3). As shown on Figure
5.3-4, the proposed project would avoid permanent and temporary impacts to jurisdictional resources, including
wetlands and any appropriate buffer around applicable jurisdictional resources. Therefore, there would be complete
avoidance during project construction and implementation. All of the state or federally protected wetlands are
located within the Preserve, which is an area intended to remain unimproved and/or restored and its use strictly
limited, or within the isolated 0.3-acre wetland avoidance area within HOA open space along the southern property
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 245 of 1271
5.3 – Biological Resources
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.3-31
boundary that would be completely fenced off and inaccessible to the public. No significant development is planned
to occur within the Preserve. Therefore, direct impacts to jurisdictional wetlands would be less than significant and
no wetland mitigation or regulatory permitting would be required.
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.
There are a few local wildlife corridors on site, including Poggi Creek, located along the northern extent of the project
site, as well as game trails and small drainages throughout the upland habitats particularly in the western half of
the project site. Poggi Creek includes existing culverts and creek crossings in two locations. The project proposes
to construct roadways on the existing creek crossings that currently support vegetation. Although the new access
roadways would bisect the habitat on the south side of the creek including portions of the dirt trail along the creek,
it is anticipated that wildlife movement would still be facilitated through the culverts under drier conditions as well
as across the roadways where vehicular traffic is expected to be relatively slow due to the locations near the
entrance and exit of the residential development.
Further, the project likely serves as part of a steppingstone corridor for bird species in the region due to the available
habitat on site that is generally surrounded by an urbanized area. As noted, the USFWS BO for the Sunbow II project
required off‐site habitat mitigation of sage scrub habitat associated with the further fragmentation of the habitat
connectivity associated with development of the proposed project. A BO (Biological Opinion) is a USFWS document
that states the opinion of the USFWS as to whether the federal action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence
of listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. As a result, the anticipation
of habitat connectivity impact associated with project development has been captured in regional conservation
planning and project-specific regulatory actions.
The wildlife species known or expected to occur on site consist of urban tolerant species such as coyote and raccoon
that are expected to continue to move throughout the site and along Poggi Creek after implementation of the
proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project is not expected to significantly impact any of the function and
use of the local wildlife corridors on site predominantly due to the urban tolerant nature of the wildlife species that
occur on site. Although there are local wildlife corridors present on site, the project site is not located within or in
the vicinity of a known regional wildlife corridor.
In addition, the project site likely serves as part of a steppingstone corridor for avian species in the region due to
the available habitat on site that is generally surrounded by urban development. Although the entire site may
provide habitat as part of a stepping stone corridor, the higher quality habitats are located in the western half and
northern portions of the project site that would located within the Preserve.
In addition, the 1995 USFWS BO for the Sunbow II project required off‐site habitat mitigation of coastal sage scrub
habitat associated with the further fragmentation of the habitat connectivity associated with development of Sunbow II
Phase 3. The proposed project would be required to implement the 1995 USFWS BO. As a result, the anticipation of
habitat connectivity impact associated with Phase 3 development has been captured in regional conservation planning
and project specific regulatory actions. Therefore, the proposed project would not interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. Impacts would be less than significant.
E. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy
or ordinance.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 246 of 1271
5.3 – Biological Resources
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.3-32
The proposed project would develop a 67.5-acre area composed of 44.2 acres of residential area, a 0.9 -acre
Community Purpose Facility site, 5.9 acres of public streets , and 16.5 acres of manufactured slopes/basins
within the City. The proposed project would not plan to remove any trees . The City does not have any codes
specific to tree removal or tree preservation. The closest related code would refer to the City of Chula Vista
Municipal Code 12.32.160, which state s that any tree, palm, shrub or plant shall be authorized (by the City’s
Department of Public Works) to be removed to remedy a dangerous condition. The proposed project would
abide by all local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources in the Cit y of Chula Vista. Therefore,
impacts would be less than significant.
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.
City of Chula Vista MSCP Consistency
Habitat Loss and Incidental Take Ordinance
The proposed project was assessed to ensure consistency with the City of Chula Vista’s HLIT Ordinance and City of
Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. As discussed in Section 5.3.1.2, Existing Biological Resources, the proposed
project is not a Covered Project and is designated within the MSCP as a Development Area outside of Covered
Projects. A portion of the project site is designated as MSCP 100% Preserve. For projects within Development Areas
outside of Covered Projects that contain sensitive biological resources, the HLIT Ordinance will require biological
evaluation of all resources on site. The surveys discussed earlier and detailed in Appendix D meet the biological
evaluation requirements. In addition, the HLIT does not limit encroachment into MSCP Tier I, II, and III except where
necessary to avoid and/or minimize potential impacts to Narrow Endemic Species and/or Wetlands. As discussed
earlier, where impacts are demonstrated to be unavoidable, impacts within these Development Areas will be limited
to 20% of the total Narrow Endemic Species population within the project site. The only Narrow Endemic Species
listed in the MSCP found within the project site is Otay tarplant, of which 836 out of the 5,449 existing Otay tarplant
would be impacted by the proposed project (Table 5.3-6). The impacts to Otay tarplant consist of approximately
15% of the existing population, which would be under the 20% of the total Narrow Endemic Species population
threshold as stated in the MSCP. Within areas mapped as 100% Preserve, impacts to Narrow Endemic Species
must be limited to 5% of the total population within a project site. The existing Otay tarplant population within the
Preserve is 4,044 plants, 142 of which would potentially be impacted by the proposed project. This would constitute
approximately 3.5% of the Otay tarplant population within the Preserve, which complies with the thresholds outlined
in the MSCP. The proposed project would comply with the HLIT Ordinance as stated within the MSCP and impacts
would be less than significant.
Boundary Line Adjustment
The current project proposes an MSCP Preserve BLA, as discussed further in the Functional Equivalency Analysis
Report (Appendix D). A biological function equivalency would demonstrate how the proposed MSCP Preserve BLA
within the project property would result in equal or higher biological value as compared to the existing Preserve in
accordance with meeting the six BLA functional equivalency criteria. The six BLA functional equivalency criteria are
further discussed below.
There is a conflict between the currently proposed development boundaries and the mapped Preserve on site.
The MSCP states that “these 100% Conservation Areas-Preserve are either already in public ownership or will be
dedicated into Preserve as part of the development approval process for Covered Projects ”. However, the
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 247 of 1271
5.3 – Biological Resources
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.3-33
placement of the 100% Conservation Areas/Preserve overlay rather than a 75%–100% Preserve was premature
on the project site based on the fact that the proposed project was not identified as a Covered Project and design
had not developed to the extent necessary to fully establish limits of preserve and d evelopment. The conflict
between the proposed project and the mapped Preserve requiring an MSCP Preserve BLA today would not have
existed if the preservation were 75%–100%. To rectify these issues between MSCP planned conservation and
the proposed developm ent, a MSCP Preserve boundary correction , or a BLA, would be required. A boundary
correction is characterized as a corrective action to address an inadvertent error in the initial mapping of the
preserve areas within the City. The proposed Preserve BLA would modify the existing Preserve boundary
predominantly in two distinct areas to accommodate the proposed project development footprint on either side
of the main access road where these areas are different from the mapped MSCP Development Areas on site
(Figure 5.3-4; Figure 5.3-5, MSCP Preserve BLA Map). The proposed Preserve BLA provided as Give and Take
areas is depicted on Figure 5.3-5.
As a part of the MSCP BLA process, the project would need to propose a potentially suitable area(s) currently located
outside of the Preserve to “Give” to the MSCP Preserve of equal size to the portion of land that would “Take” from the
Preserve (1:1 acreage ratio). In addition, a proposed Preserve BLA would need to result in equal or higher biological value
as compared to the existing Preserve in accordance with meeting the six Count of San Diego Multiple Habitat Planning
Area BLA functional equivalency criteria (Appendix D). These six criteria are outlined in detail below.
1. Effects on significantly and sufficiently conserved habitats
The applicable project site habitats that are considered significantly and/or sufficiently conserved include Diegan
coastal sage scrub, riparian scrub, and freshwater marsh. The MSCP BLA, as summarized in Table 5.3-8, would
result in a higher acreage of conservation of riparian habitat (i.e., southern willow scrub), and freshwater marsh
(i.e., coastal and valley freshwater marsh) through on-site preservation in the proposed Give; and equal
conservation for Diegan coastal sage scrub through on -site preservation of Diegan coastal sage scrub within the
proposed Give and habitat restoration of non‐native grassland restored to Diegan coastal sage scrub within
additional areas of proposed Give (Figures 5.3-4 and 5.3-5). It is estimated that 2.91 acres out of the total 4.53
acres of habitat restoration areas include proposed manufactured slopes that would be restored to support Diegan
coastal sage scrub habitat. It is expected that the proposed BLA exchange would maintain the conservation acreage
and status of these significantly and sufficiently conserved habitats.
2. Effects on Preserve configuration and management
The proposed project MSCP BLA, as shown on Figure 5.3 -5 and summarized in Table 5.3-8, would result in an
equal to or greater conservation corridor and configuration as compared to the existing Preserve. The proposed
MSCP Preserve BLA includes the addition of a wider conservation corridor along the easternmost portion of Poggi
Creek, a slight reduction of the Preserve conservation corridor along the central reach of Poggi Creek, and an
addition to the Preserve located just west of the main access entry that includes a portion of Poggi Creek itself
as well as the adjacent upland habitat that supports sensitive species to the south resulting in an equal to or
greater Preserve configuration (Figure 5.3-5 and Table 5-3-8). Further, the proposed BLA includes smaller areas
along the Poggi Creek habitat corridor to fill in gaps of Preserve that were not included in the Preserve
configuration in the 2003 City Subarea Plan. In addition, the proposed BLA would reduce the Preserve along the
southeastern extent of the existing Preserve that connects with off -site the MSCP Minor Amendment Area to the
south but is generally consistent with the on -site Preserve boundary geometry . As a note, there are three distinct
areas of proposed Take from temporary construction impacts that encroach into the existing Preserve where native
habitat restoration is proposed in the northeastern portion of the project site (Table 6 and Figure 6 of Appendix D2).
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 248 of 1271
5.3 – Biological Resources
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.3-34
These three Take areas are surrounded and contiguous with the existing Preserve and proposed Give-habitat
restoration areas that will be included in the Preserve and as such after habitat restoration is complete would
provide a biological function to the ultimate Preserve, despite being a Take in this proposed BLA. It is expected that
the proposed BLA exchange would maintain the Preserve general configuration and management as intended
and provided in the City’s MSCP Subarea Plan .
3. Effects on ecotones or other conditions affecting species diversity
The proposed project MSCP BLA would generally result in an equal or greater ecotone condition considering the
wider habitat buffer between Poggi Creek and the proposed development area in the eastern half of the project
site, the proposed addition of smaller areas to fill in the gaps of the existing Preserve, as well as the reduction of
edge in the proposed Preserve in the location where the proposed western main access bisects the existing
Preserve, as shown on Figure 5.3-5. In addition, the project proposes native habitat restoration in a majority of the
Give areas that currently support non‐native grassland in the vicinity of the eastern access road. These habitat
restoration areas are expected to improve the habitat quality, species diversity, and overall biological function within
the ecotones located between the proposed development and the proposed Preserve including Poggi Creek.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 249 of 1271
5.3 – Biological Resources
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.3-35
Table 5.3-8. City of Chula Vista MSCP Preserve Boundary Line Adjustment Habitats and Acreages
Habitat Type/
Biological Resources
MSCP Tier
Habitat Type
Total on Site
(Acres)
City of Chula Vista MSCP Preserve BLA (Acres)
Existing Proposed
Preserve
Development
Area
Proposed Preserve
Addition/Give
Proposed Preserve
Removal/Take
Net Change to
100% Preserve
Southern willow scrub Wetland 2.06 1.14 0.92 0.22 0.00 +0.22
Mule fat scrub Wetland 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Coastal and valley
freshwater marsh
Wetland 7.66 6.31 1.35 0.24 0.00 +0.24
Native grassland I 24.09 19.38 4.71 0.37 3.40 -3.03
Diegan coastal sage
scrub
II 37.08 24.46 12.62 0.91 1.48 and 0.04 Habitat
Restoration**
-0.61
Non-native grassland III 64.19 10.31 53.88 0.46 and 4.53
Habitat Restoration*
1.64 and 0.11 Habitat
Restoration**
+3.23
Non-native vegetation IV 0.53 0.44 0.09 0.04 0.00 +0.04
Urban/developed N/A 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 135.70 62.07 73.63 6.77 6.68 +0.09
Source: Appendix D.
* Proposed habitat restoration (4.53 acres) from non‐native grassland to native grassland and Diegan coastal sage scrub within Give areas located in the eastern portion of the
site. A portion of these habitat restoration areas (2.91 acres) are located within proposed manufactured slopes.
** Proposed habitat restoration within three distinct areas of take from temporary impacts that encroach into the existing Preserve.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 250 of 1271
5.3 – Biological Resources
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.3-36
4. Effects to species of concern not on the Covered Species list
The proposed project MSCP BLA would result in an equal to or greater Preserve that would include native grassland
and Diegan coastal sage scrub habitat restoration within the proposed Give Preserve areas. The proposed Preserve
BLA would benefit Covered Species as well as other sensitive species that are not covered under the City’s MSCP
Subarea Plan such as decumbent goldenbush, San Diego viguiera, San Diego marsh elder, southwestern spiny
rush, and potentially grasshopper sparrow (not currently present within the project site but may be potentially in
future) within the Give areas including the proposed habitat restoration areas that are contiguous with existing
Preserve that supports native habitat within a widened conservation buffer along Poggi Creek. These non-covered
species within the proposed Give areas would be conserved and managed within the Proposed Preserve and as
such benefit the onsite populations of these species. There are a few sensitive species not on the Covered Species
list (i.e., decumbent goldenbush, San Diego viguiera) found on site that will decrease in numbers due to the
proposed Take; however, the proposed native habitat restoration within the proposed Give areas would include
these species in the plant palette and therefore, it is expected that the on-site populations of these species would
be maintained in the proposed Preserve.
5. Effects to Covered Species
The proposed project MSCP BLA would affect the following Covered Species: Otay tarplant and coastal California
gnatcatcher. Approximately 142 Otay tarplant would be removed from the existing Preserve in the take area of
proposed BLA, as shown in Figure 5.3-5. The areas that are proposed to be added to the Preserve per the BLA
would support 718 Otay tarplant (400% greater counts) and the proposed Give‐habitat restoration from non‐native
grassland to native grassland would be restored to support Otay tarplant and other rare plants through clay soil
salvage and seed translocation (Appendix D). The combination of Give and Give-habitat restoration areas in the
proposed project BLA exchange would increase the conservation of Otay tarplant in the Preserve.
USFWS designated Otay tarplant critical habitat in 2001. The City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan adopted in
2003 included the extent of Otay tarplant critical habitat that occurs on site within the Preserve. The proposed
project BLA would overlap with Otay tarplant critical habitat in some areas (Appendix D). City MSCP Section 5.9
Critical Habitat, specifically addresses critical habitat for three Covered Species including Otay tarplant. It states
that in approving the MSCP, the USFWS included in their BO for the MSCP findings regarding whether activities
permitted under the Section 10(a)(1)(B) permit would result in the destruction or adverse modification of the critical
habitat. The MSCP permits development in nonessential areas for each of the Covered Species, establishes a
hardline Preserve, employs long‐term conservation for the protection of Covered Species, and employs added
protections for Narrow Endemic species (including Otay tarplant) and wetlands. Because of these factors, it is
anticipated that no additional special management considerations or protection would be necessary for the Otay
tarplant, as a result of either the implementation of the MSCP or any future federally permitted Covered Activity
within the areas designated as critical habitat for those species. Therefore, since the City MSCP provided for future
BLAs, the proposed BLA Take of Otay tarplant critical h abitat would be addressed by implementing the long-term
conservation and added protections for Narrow Endemic Species in the MSCP.
The proposed BLA would affect coastal California gnatcatcher suitable habitat through the take of Diegan coastal
sage scrub in the existing Preserve; however, the proposed Give to the Preserve includes additional good quality
Diegan coastal sage scrub located northeast of the gnatcatcher territory in the central portion of the project site
(Figure 5.3-5). In addition, the proposed BLA includes habitat restoration from non‐native grassland to Diegan
coastal sage scrub within the northeastern portion of the site that are not currently occupied by gnatcatcher but
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 251 of 1271
5.3 – Biological Resources
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.3-37
are located in proximity to existing Diegan coastal sage that would benefit gnatcatcher through an increase in
potential foraging and nesting habitat on site.
6. Effects on habitat linkages and functions of Preserve areas
The proposed project MSCP BLA would generally maintain the habitat linkages and functions of the Preserve.
In some areas of the proposed BLA, habitat linkages would be improved, but in other areas habitat linkages
would be reduced . More specifically, the p roposed BLA would result in a greater habitat linkage connectivity
and function in the Preserve along Poggi Creek due to the addition of smaller areas within Poggi creek to the
Preserve and the larger habitat buffers south of the creek that would better fa cilitate wildlife use and
movement in this area of the Preserve (Figure 5.3 -5). The proposed BLA along the southeastern extent of the
Preserve would result in less conserved habitat connectivity along the southern boundary to other habitat to
the south into the Minor Amendment Area.
Conclusion
The proposed project’s BLA would comply with the six Multiple Habitat Planning Area BLA functional equivalency
criteria, which is a requirement of the City MSCP BLA guidelines. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant
and no mitigation measures are required.
Facilities Siting Criteria
The proposed project includes a MSCP Future Facility (i.e., detention basin) that would be located partially in the
existing Preserve on site (see Figure 5.3-5). The relocation of this basin was considered in the project design to
avoid or minimize impacts to the Preserve but was determined to be site specific due to the necessary topography
for drainage and the confined development configuration due to the avoidance of wetlands and Otay tarplant (a
narrow endemic) in this area; however, the size and configuration of the basin was modified to reduce impacts to
the Preserve to the maximum extent practicable. The City MSCP, Chapter 6.0 Land Use Considerations in the
Preserve, identifies permitted uses including Future Facilities within the Preserve. Future Facilities are subject to
the MSCP Facilities Siting Criteria which ensures that the facilities located within the Preserve have been sited
within the least environmentally sensitive areas and that impacts to the Preserve have been minimized to the
maximum extent practical. The City of Chula Vista is allotted up to 50 acres of impact/”Take” for Future Facilities.
The cumulative impacts to covered habitats from Future Facilities, including the proposed Sunbow Future Facility
(i.e., detention basin) within the City of Chula Vista are summarized in Table 5.3-9 below. The proposed Future
Facility‐Detention Basin (1.12 acres) is partially within an area of the existing Preserve on site. The Future Facility-
Detention Basin can be seen in Figure 5.3-4.
Table 5.3-9. Cumulative Impacts to Covered Habitat from Future Facilities
Project Project Permanent Impacts to Covered Habitat (acres)
Village Eleven 0.50
Village Two 0.10
Village Eight West 0.09
Village Nine 0.20
Village Three North, Village Eight East, Village Ten 6.10
Village Four 1.23
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 252 of 1271
5.3 – Biological Resources
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.3-38
Table 5.3-9. Cumulative Impacts to Covered Habitat from Future Facilities
Project Project Permanent Impacts to Covered Habitat (acres)
UID 4.00
Sunbow II Phase 3 (Proposed Project) 1.12
Total Cumulative Impacts 13.34
Remaining Acres (out of 50 acres) 36.66
Source: Appendix D.
The proposed project has been designed to completely avoid any wetland habitat impacts and would predominantly
result in impacts to non‐native grassland consisting primarily of densely thatched non‐native grasses (Impact BIO-
11). In addition, the proposed project would result in significant impacts to Diegan coastal sage scrub, specifically
within the proposed Future Facility-Detention Basin area, as well as impacts to native grassland, within the
southwestern portion of the area proposed for residential uses, as discussed in Threshold B (Impact BIO-11). The
siting of the proposed Future Facility-Detention Basin within the Preserve is analyzed in the project Facility Siting
Criteria Report(Appendix D).
100% Preserve Compatible and Conditionally Compatible Uses
Projects within Preserve areas outside Covered Projects are limited to certain Compatible Uses or Allowed Uses
within the Preserve, as described in the City’s MSCP. The project’s consistency with Compatible Uses or Allowed
Uses within the Preserve is outlined below.
Compatible uses and conditionally compatible uses in the Preserve are land uses and activities that are compatible
with the biological objectives of the MSCP Subregional Plan and the City’s MSCP. 100% Preserve compatible uses
include public access and recreation, preserve management, including scientific and biological activities, and
emergency safety and police services. Conditionally compatible uses consist of mining, flood control, and
road/infrastructure activities that include planned and future facilities. As discussed in Chapter 4, Project
Description, of this EIR, the Preserve is intended to remain unimproved and/or restored and its use strictly limited.
Vegetation would consist of native plants that already occur on site. Only under limited circumstances may certain
amenities and facilities, as determined by the City to be compatible with the goals and objectives of the City’s MSCP,
be permitted within the Preserve. Any proposed amenities or facilities within the MSCP Preserve area shall be
subject to the prior review and approval of the Director of Development Services.
The project proposes a Future Facility-Detention Basin that is partially within an area of the existing Preserve on
site (see Figure 5.3-5). The relocation of this basin was considered in the project design to avoid or minimize impacts
to the Preserve but was determined to be site specific due to the necessary topography for drainage and the
confined development configuration due to the avoidance of wetlands and Otay tarplant (a narrow endemic) in this
area; however, the size and configuration of the basin was modified to reduce impacts to the Preserve to the
maximum extent practicable. This encroachment would qualify as a Future Facility in the Preserve.
Therefore, the proposed project would remain consistent with land uses within the Preserve and impacts would be
less than significant.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 253 of 1271
5.3 – Biological Resources
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.3-39
Narrow Endemic Policy and Wetland Protection Program Narrow Endemic Policy
Otay tarplant is the only Narrow Endemic Species that is known and/or expected to occur within the project site.
Based on 2019 ‐2020 Otay tarplant field surveys completed on the project site, the on-site population is
estimated to be 5,449 plants predominantly located in the western half of the project site within the existing
Preserve (4,044 plants within the Preserve and 1,405 plants outside the Preserve). Of the 5,449 on-site Otay
tarplant population, the proposed project would impact an estimated 142 Ota y tarplant plants (2.6%) inside the
Preserve and 694 Otay tarplant plants (12.7%) outside the Preserve/within Development Area (Table 5.3 -6).
Impacts to Otay tarplant would be potentially significant, as discussed in Threshold A (Impact BIO-1). However,
to ensure consistency with the City’s MSCP Narrow Endemic Policy, the proposed project would minimize impacts
to Otay tarplant to less than 5% within the Preserve and less than 20% within the Development Area with
implementation of MM-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-3.
The proposed project would meet the MSCP Narrow Endemic Policy based on the estimated Otay tarplant population
on-site totals and estimated plants to be impacted in the Preserve and the Development Area that are below the
Narrow Endemic Policy impact thresholds, as provided in Table 5.3-10. The proposed project would ensure
consistency with MSCP Narrow Endemic Policy Section 5.2.3.3 for Development Areas outside of Covered Projects,
where applicable by limiting the proposed impacts to the existing Otay tarplant population within the project site to
less than 5% of the population within the Preserve and less than 20% of the population outside of the Preserve
(see Table 5.3-10). Therefore, impacts related to plan consistency would be less than significant.
Table 5.3-10. Narrow Endemic Policy – Estimated Otay Tarplant Impact Assessment
Total Estimated Otay
Tarplant Population in
Project Area/ On Site
Preserve Development Area (Outside Preserve)
Individual
Impact Percent
Narrow Endemic
Policy (<5%)
Individual
Impact Percent
Narrow Endemic
Policy (<20%)
5,449 142 2.6% Consistent/
Meets Policy
694 12.7% Consistent/
Meets Policy
Source: Appendix D.
Wetlands Protection Program
As discussed under Threshold C, the project proposes to completely avoid any impacts to wetland; therefore, the
project would be consistent with the Wetlands Protection Program provided in the City’s MSCP, Section 5.2.4.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
MSCP Conditions of Coverage
Coastal California Gnatcatcher Condition of Coverage
The MSCP Condition of Coverage for coastal California gnatcatcher specifies that the area specific management
directives must include measures to reduce edge effects and minimize disturbance during the nesting period, fire
protection measures to avoid habitat degradation due to unplanned fire, management measures to maintain and
improve habitat quality, and prohibit clearing of occupied habitat during gnatcatcher breeding season (March 1‐August
15) within the Preserve. Therefore, prior to implementation of mitigation, impacts would be potentially significant (Impact
BIO-6 and BIO-7). However, the proposed project would comply with and address the applicable Conditions of Coverage
as specified in Section 5.3.5, Mitigation Measures (see MM-BIO-4 through MM-BIO-5). Therefore, with implementation
of MM-BIO-4 through MM-BIO-5, impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 254 of 1271
5.3 – Biological Resources
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.3-40
Least Bell’s Vireo Condition of Coverage
The MSCP Condition of Coverage for least Bell’s vireo specifies that the area specific management directives must
include measures consistent with the ACOE 404(b)(1) Guidelines into the project where applicable. In addition,
measures to provide appropriate successional habitat, upland buffers for known populations, cowbird control, and
measures to reduce edge effects, as well as, prohibit clearing of occupied habitat during vireo breeding season
(March 15‐September 15). Therefore, prior to implementation of mitigation, impacts would be potentially significant
(Impact BIO-8). However, the proposed project would completely avoid direct impacts to least Bell’s vireo through
implementation of MM-BIO-6) and would provide a conserved upland buffer to the one vireo pair on site that is
limited to the northeastern most portion of riparian habitat on site. Further, the project proposes measures such as
vegetation barriers, fencing, and night light shielding to avoid and/or reduce potential edge effects (MM-BIO-8
through MM-BIO-13) to the vireo pair within Poggi Creek. Due to the limited vireo presence/population on site and
uncertainty regarding a least Bell’s vireo population within Poggi Creek upstream to the east, the project does not
propose a brown‐headed cowbird control program on site. These cowbird control programs are typically
implemented and most cost effective within a river system where a larger known vireo population within conserved
lands would benefit. Although the project does not propose any direct impacts to vireo occupied habitat, the project
proposes to comply and address the applicable Conditions of Coverage as specified in Section 5.3.5 (MM-BIO-7).
Therefore, with implementation of MM-BIO-7, impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Orange-Throated Whiptail Condition of Coverage
The MSCP Condition of Coverage for orange‐throated whiptail specifies that the area specific management
directives must include measures to address edge effects. However, as discussed in Threshold A, the orange-
throated whiptail is not expected to be abundant within the project site as it was observed on one occasion during
the numerous surveys conducted during the 2019-2020 field survey effort, as summarized in the Table 5.3-5
above. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Cooper’s Hawk Condition of Coverage
The MSCP Condition of Coverage for Cooper’s hawk specifies that the area specific management directives
must include 300 ‐foot impact avoidance areas aro und active nests and minimization of disturbance to oak
woodlands and oak riparian forests. No Cooper’s hawk potentially suitable nesting habitat including oak
woodlands and oak riparian forests occur within the proposed development area. This species was not
observed nesting or exhibiting any nesting behavior on site. Therefore, the Conditions of Coverage are not
applicable and there would be no impacts .
Northern Harrier Condition of Coverage
The MSCP Condition of Coverage for northern harrier specifies that the area specific management directives must
include the following: (1) manage agricultural and disturbed lands (which become part of the Preserve) within four
miles of nesting habitat to provide foraging habitat; (2) include an impact avoidance area (900 feet or maximum
possible within the Preserve) around active nests; and (3) include measures for maintaining winter foraging habitat
in Preserve areas in Proctor Valley, around Sweetwater Reservoir, San Miguel Ranch, Otay Ranch east of Wueste
Road, Lake Hodges, and San Pasqual Valley. No nesting northern harrier occur on site and none are expected. The
northern harriers on site were only flying over and potentially foraging on site. No agricultural or disturbed lands
occur within the proposed Preserve or within the project site; however, the non‐native grassland along with the
other potential raptor foraging habitat within the on-site Preserve will be managed to provide potential foraging
habitat for a variety of raptors including northern harrier. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 255 of 1271
5.3 – Biological Resources
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.3-41
Otay Tarplant Condition of Coverage
The MSCP Condition of Coverage for Otay tarplant specifies that the area specific management directives must
include measures for monitoring of populations, adaptive management of preserves, and measures to protect
against detrimental edge effects. The project proposes to comply and address the Conditions of Coverage where
applicable as specified in Section 5.3.5. Additionally, impacts to Otay tarplant (Impact BIO-1) would be mitigated
with the implementation of MM-BIO-1 and MM-BIO-2. Therefore, with implementation of MM-BIO-1 and MM-BIO-2,
impacts would be reduced to less than significant.
Orcutt’s Bird’s-Beak Condition of Coverage
The MSCP Condition of Coverage for Orcutt’s bird’s‐beak specifies that strategies to provide protection for this
species within the Minor Amendment Area must be included at the time any MSCP Minor Amendments are
proposed. The proposed project temporary grading impacts in the Minor Amendment Area directly south of the
Sunbow property does not support Orcutt’s bird’s‐beak. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
Coast Barrel Cactus Condition of Coverage
The MSCP Condition of Coverage for coast barrel cactus specifies that the area specific management directives
must include measures to address edge effects, unauthorized collection, and fire management/control practices.
The project proposes to comply and address the Conditions of Coverage where applicable as specified in Section
5.3.5. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Adjacency Management Guidelines
The City of Chul a Vista requires that land uses adjacent to the MSCP Preserve be managed to avoid and
minimize impacts to the preserve; therefore, project mitigation measures pertaining to lighting (MM-BIO-9),
noise (MM-BIO-4 through MM-BIO-6 ), landscaping (MM-BIO-10), access (MM-BIO -8), and drainage (MM-BIO-
11) would be required to ensure consistency with the City’s MSCP , Section 7.5.2, Adjacency Management
Guidelines , and ensure the long ‐term viability of wildlife and sensitive habitats in the Preserve. These
Guidelines and applicability to the proposed project are summarized below and incorporated where applicable
into project mitigation measures as provided in Section 5.3.5.
Drainage
1. All developed and paved areas must prevent the release of toxins, chemicals, petroleum products, exotic
plant materials and other elements that might degrade or harm the natural environment or ecosystem
processes within the Preserve through the use of a variety of methods including natural detention basins,
grass swales or mechanical trapping devices.
2. Develop and implement urban runoff and drainage plans which will create the least impact
practicable for all development adjacent to the Preserve. All development projects will be required
to meet NPDES standards and incorporate BMP s as defined by the City ’s Standard Urban Storm
Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP).
3. Pursuant to the San Diego RWQCB Municipal Permit, and the City of Chula Vista Storm Water Management
Standards Requirements Manual, all development and redevelopment located within or directly adjacent
to or discharging directly to an environmentally sensitive area are required to implement site design, source
control, and treatment control BMPs.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 256 of 1271
5.3 – Biological Resources
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.3-42
4. Require all NPDES‐regulated projects to implement a combination of BMPs as close to potential pollutant
sources as feasible. The proposed project would comply with the applicable drainage and storm water
permits and implement features such as vegetated detention basins to avoid the potential release of toxins,
chemicals, and other elements from entering the Preserve and ensure consistency with the Guidelines.
The proposed project would comply with the applicable drainage and storm water permits and implement features such
as vegetated detention/water quality basins to avoid the potential release of toxins, chemicals, and other elements from
entering the Preserve and ensure consistency with the Guidelines. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Toxic Substances
All agricultural uses, including animal ‐keeping activities, and recrea tional uses that use chemicals or general
by‐products that are impactive to biological resources or water quality need to incorporate methods on their
site to reduce impacts caused by the application and/or drainage of such materials into the Preserve. Met hods
shall be consistent with requirements of the San Diego RWQCB and NPDES standards and therefore impacts
would be less than significant.
The proposed project does not include any agricultural uses or recreational uses that would result in potential
impacts from toxic substances entering into the Preserve.
Lighting
Lighting of all developed areas adjacent to the Preserve should be directed away from the Preserve wherever
feasible and consistent with public safety. Where necessary, development should prov ide adequate shielding with
non‐invasive plant materials (preferably native), berming, and/or other methods to protect the Preserve and
sensitive species from night lighting. As provided in the City’s MSCP, consideration should be given to the use of
low‐pressure sodium lighting.
Although the specificity of the proposed lighting plan is not available at this time, the proposed project would include
the use of outdoor lighting along roadways and in association with proposed buildings that may have the p otential
to spill into the adjacent Preserve (Impact BIO-12). Therefore, the proposed project would result in potentially
significant impacts. Due to this potential impact, the project would incorporate MM-BIO-9, which requires adequate
shielding and the potential use of low‐pressure sodium lighting to ensure consistency with the Guidelines.
Noise
Uses in or adjacent to the Preserve should be designed to minimize noise impacts. Berms or walls should be
constructed adjacent to commercial areas and any other use that may introduce noises that could impact or
interfere with wildlife utilization of the Preserve. Excessively noisy uses or activities adjacent to breeding areas,
including temporary grading activities, must incorporate noise reduction measures or be curtailed during the
breeding season of sensitive bird species, consistent with Table 3‐5 of the MSCP Subregional Plan.
The Poggi Creek portion of the Preserve and the north ‐facing slope directly adjacent to the creek are close to
Olympic Parkway, a busy roadway that is a source of consistent noise from vehicular traffic. The northern portion of
the project site likely has a higher ambient noise level than the southern portion of the site due to the Olympic
Parkway traffic noise levels and thus the proposed noise levels may or may not result in substantially greater noise
levels. Conversely, the proposed project may potentially introduce elevated noise levels into the Preserve
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 257 of 1271
5.3 – Biological Resources
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.3-43
particularly along the southwestern boundary of the proposed development where the current conditions are
relatively quiet. Therefore, impacts would be potentially significant (Impact BIO-12). Due to this potential impact,
the project would implement MM-BIO-4, MM-BIO-5, MM-BIO-6 and MM-BIO-7, which requires the avoidance of the
breeding season for construction activities to ensure consistency with the Guidelines.
Invasives
No invasive non‐native plant species shall be introduced into areas immediately adjacent to the Preserve. All open
space slopes immediately adjacent to the Preserve should be planted with native species that reflect the adjacent
native habitat. The plant list contained in the Wildland / Urban Interface: Fuel Modification Standards (Appendix K
of the City’s MSCP), must be utilized to the maximum extent practicable when developing landscaping plans in
areas adjacent to the Preserve.
The proposed project includes fuel modification zones within the project development adjacent to the Preserve as
well as landscape areas that have the potential to introduce invasive non-native species into the Preserve
Therefore, impacts would be potentially significant (Impact BIO-12). Due to this potential impact, the project would
incorporate MM-BIO-10, which requires the prohibition of invasive plant species in the planting palette as well as
the maintenance and monitoring of the adjacent areas to ensure consistency with the Guidelines.
Buffers
There are no requirements for buffers outside the Preserve, except as required for Wetlands pursuant to Federal
and/or State permits, or by local agency CEQA mitigation conditions. All open space requirements for the Preserve
shall be limited to the Preserve and do not include any buffers that extend beyond the Preserve boundary. Fuel
modification zones must be consistent with City’s MSCP, Section 7.4.4.
The proposed project has incorporated appropriate wetland buffers to ensure avoidance from project construction and
implementation. In addition, proposed fuel modification zones are included in the project development footprint as a
proposed impact. The proposed Preserve includes open space to be conserved in perpetuity as well as some areas of
proposed habitat restoration that will include sensitive plant species. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
MSCP Minor Amendment Area
The City-owned property directly south of the proposed project site is designated a Minor Amendment Area (Figure
5.3-1; Figure 5.3-4). Designated Minor Amendment Areas throughout the City are not currently a part of the City’s
MSCP and do not receive any take authorization or coverage benefits. Minor Amendment Areas may be incorporated
into the City’s MSCP through the Minor Amendment Process described in the City’s MSCP, Section 5.1.3.1.
The Applicant is working with the City to request a Minor Amendment to allow off-site temporary grading impacts
that would encroach 25 feet onto the City’s property and within this Minor Amendment Area, which is located directly
south of the proposed project (see Figure 5.3-1) (Impact BIO-15). This request for a Minor Amendment would also
require Wildlife Agency concurrence.
This potential encroachment onto the City property would consist of a 25‐foot grading buffer for temporary construction
equipment access and grading as well as a minor excavation and fill for a buttress to address slope stability that would be
located entirely within the 25‐foot construction buffer. The temporary impact areas in the 25‐foot grading buffer within the
Minor Amendment Area from project construction activities and buttress construction (Impact BIO-15) would be revegetated
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 258 of 1271
5.3 – Biological Resources
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.3-44
with a native erosion control hydroseed mix acceptable to the City and Wildlife Agencies to ensure soil stability and prevent
subsequent erosion (MM-BIO-14); further, these temporary impacts would be fully mitigated within the proposed project
site inside the Preserve. The requested off-site temporary impacts onto City property are included in the total proposed
project impacts and proposed on-site mitigation as provided above in the impact analysis and quantified in Tables 5.3-4
and 5.3-7. Because the proposed project would result in temporary impacts to the Minor Amendment Area, impacts would
be potentially significant (Impact BIO-15) and would require implementation of MM-BIO-14 through MM-BIO-16 to reduce
impacts to a level below significance.
HLIT Draft Findings
In order for the City of Chula Vista to approve or conditionally approve a HLIT permit, all of the draft Section
17.35.080 HLIT Findings such as those that demonstrate the project and associated mitigation are consistent with
the Subarea Plan and the project results in minimum disturbance to sensitive biological resources, except impacts
to natural vegetation in mapped development areas, shall be made by the decision maker.
The project is consistent with the HLIT Ordinance including the Findings the City needs to make for Issuance of HLIT
Permit (Section 17.35.080) and applicable MSCP Subarea Plan Sections 5.2.3 and 5.2.4 that addresses impacts
to Narrow Endemics and Wetlands, as discussed above. Further, the project is consistent with applicable general
and specific MSCP development regulations/standards as specified in the HLIT, Section 17.35.090, including but
not limited to those summarized below:
• Project impacts located on the least environmentally sensitive portions of the site to minimize impacts to
sensitive biological resources to the maximum extent practicable.
• Wetland impacts shall be avoided.
• Grading during applicable wildlife breeding seasons shall be avoided.
• Temporary impact areas to sensitive biological resources shall be revegetated with native species.
The draft HLIT Findings for the project are included in Appendix D. The City shall finalize the HLIT Findings during
the HLIT Permit process. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
5.3.4 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation
Prior to mitigation, the proposed project would have potentially significant impacts associated with sensitive flora, sensitive
fauna, loss of sensitive and important habitats, inconsistencies with the City’s MSCP, and temporary construction impacts
within the Minor Amendment Area. Impacts prior to mitigation would be potentially significant. Impacts would be reduced
to a less-than-significant level after implementation of the mitigation measures listed in Section 5.3.5.
5.3.5 Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures would reduce identified significant impacts associated with biological
resources to a less than significant level. Refer also to Table 5.3 -11 for the project habitat impact areas and
mitigation requirements.
Impacts to Sensitive Upland Habitats Consisting of Native Grassland, Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub, Non -native
Grassland (Impact BIO-11) that support Sensitive Wildlife and Plant Species (Impacts BIO-1 through BIO-7) and
Raptor Foraging Habitat (Impact BIO-9) would be mitigated by MM-BIO-1 and MM-BIO-2:
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 259 of 1271
5.3 – Biological Resources
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.3-45
MM-BIO-1 The Applicant shall include an irrevocable offer of dedication (IOD) to the City of Chula Vista on the
first final map for 62.16 acres of onsite Preserve land within Preserve Management Area 3,
Subunits 3-1a, 3-1b, and 3-1c of the Chula Vista Central City Preserve lands. The MSCP Preserve
land shall be conserved, maintained, and managed by the City of Chula Vista or its designee in
perpetuity as directed in the Chula Vista Central City Preserve Area-Specific Management Directives
(ASMDs) for Preserve Management Area 3 (PMA 3) (RECON Environmental, April 26, 2004) and
funded by the Sunbow Preserve Community Facilities District (No. 98-3). The City of Chula Vista
Preserve Habitat Manager shall be responsible for the long-term Preserve management activities
identified in the Central City Preserve ASMD. Said IOD for the 62.16 acres Proposed MSCP Preserve
shall include 48.95 acres to mitigate for significant habitat impacts to 7.79 acres of native
grassland, 8.55 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub, and 55.61 of non‐native grassland as well as
the following sensitive species significant impacts:
• Coastal California Gnatcatcher- occupied Diegan coastal sage scrub to mitigate for significant
direct impacts to coastal California gnatcatcher occupied habitat;
• Otay Tarplant- 0.34 acre of Otay tarplant occupied habitat (i.e.,native grassland) to mitigate for
direct impacts to 0.34 acre of Otay tarplant occupied habitat that currently supports 836 Otay
tarplant individual plants;
• Orcutt’s Bird’s-beak- Orcutt’s bird’s-beak habitat (i.e., Diegan coastal sage scrub) to mitigate
for significant direct impacts to onsite Diegan coastal sage scrub that currently supports 91
Orcutt’s bird’s‐beak individual plants;
• Decumbent Goldenbush- Decumbent goldenbush habitat (i.e., Diegan coastal sage scrub and
native grassland), that includes at least 289 decumbent goldenbush individual plants) to
mitigate for significant direct impacts to onsite native grassland and Diegan coastal sage scrub
that currently supports 289 decumbent goldenbush individual plants; and
• San Diego Viguiera - San Diego viguiera habitat (i.e., Diegan coastal sage scrub) that
includes at least 2,979 San Diego viguiera individual plants) to mitigate for significant
direct impacts to onsite Diegan coastal sage scrub that currently supports 5,958 San Diego
viguiera individual plants.
MM-BIO-2 Prior to initiation of construction related activities including clearing and grubbing or prior to
vegetation/ground disturbance or prior to site mobilization activities or issuance of a grading
permit, the Applicant shall submit documentation to the City demonstrating that the Applicant has
contracted with a qualified biologist(s) to monitor the project construction activities and avoid a ny
inadvertent impacts to sensitive biological and ensure complete avoidance of jurisdictional
resources. Each qualified biologist shall have demonstrated expertise with the sensitive habitats,
special status species of the project region. The qualified biologist(s) shall monitor the installation
of the construction temporary fencing and/or flagging, silt fencing, and other best management
practices (BMPs) along the construction limits prior to construction activities. The qualified biologist
shall be present full‐time during all initial vegetation clearing and grubbing activities, and
potentially on a less frequent basis during grading activities to ensure construction remains within
the approved project development area. The Applicant shall report results of biological monitoring
activities to the City on a regular basis through the preparation and submission of summary
monitoring reports.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 260 of 1271
5.3 – Biological Resources
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.3-46
Impacts to Sensitive Plant Species (Otay tarplant [Impact BIO-1], Orcutt’s bird’s-beak [Impact BIO-2], decumbent
goldenbush [Impact BIO-3], and San Diego County viguiera [Impact BIO-4]) would be mitigated by MM-BIO-1 and
MM-BIO-2 listed above, and MM-BIO-3:
MM-BIO-3 Prior to the issuance of any land development permits including for clearing and grubbing or grading,
the Applicant shall prepare a Restoration Plan prepared by a qualified biologist to mitigate for impacts
to sensitive plant species consisting of Otay tarplant, Orcutt’s bird’s-beak, decumbent goldenbush, and
San Diego County viguiera consistent with the Habitat Restoration and Sensitive Plant Specifies
Mitigation Plan (Merkel & Associates, Inc. 2021, Appendix D). The Applicant shall implement the 5-year
maintenance and monitoring activities consistent with the Conceptual Restoration Plan to the
satisfaction of the Development Services Director (or their designee). The revegetation plan must be
prepared by a qualified City approved biologist familiar with the City’s MSCP Subarea Plan and must
include, but not be limited to, an implementation plan; appropriate seed mixtures and planting method;
irrigation method; quantitative and qualitative success criteria; maintenance, monitoring, and reporting
program; estimated completion time; and contingency measures. The Project Applicant shall be
required to prepare and implement the revegetation plan subject to the oversight and approval of the
Development Services Director (or their designee). NOTE: Since the revegetation is critical to approving
the MSCP Boundary Line Adjustment, the applicant will be required to enter into a Secured Agreement
with the City and will be required to provide a cash deposit.
Impacts to coastal California gnatcatcher territories (Impact BIO-6) and coastal California gnatcatcher potential
suitable habitats (Impact BIO -7 ) would be mitigated by MM-BIO -1 to MM-BIO-2 above and MM-BIO-4 and MM-
BIO -5 below:
MM-BIO-4 To avoid any direct impacts to nesting coastal California gnatcatcher, all vegetation clearing,
grubbing and grading activities within gnatcatcher occupied habitat (i.e., Diegan coastal sage
scrub) shall be conducted outside of the gnatcatcher breeding season (February 15 to August 15).
MM-BIO-5 Prior to initiating any construction related activities requiring a clearing and grubbing or grading
permit, the Applicant shall delineate coastal California gnatcatcher occupied habitat located
adjacent to the proposed project development area during the breeding season (February 15 to
August 15) by orange biological fencing or comparable materials to ensure that no work shall occur
within these habitats. In addition, a minimum 300 -foot buffer and on-site noise
reduction/attenuation techniques shall be incorporated, as appropriate to avoid impacts to
breeding gnatcatcher from elevated construction noise levels. The City Development Services
Director (or their designee) shall have the discretion to modify the buffer width depending on site-
specific conditions. Noise monitoring may be required to ensure that the elevated construction
noise levels are appropriately attenuated at the edge of occupied habitat to a level that is not
expected to adversely affect nesting bird behavior (i.e., not to exceed an hourly average of 60 A-
weighted decibels (dBA) or ambient at the edge of occupied habitat).
Impacts to potentially suitable and contiguous habitat for least Bell’s vireo and nesting least Bell’s vireo (Impact BIO-8)
would be mitigated by MM-BIO-6:
MM-BIO-6 Prior to initiating any construction related activities requiring a clearing and grubbing or grading
permit, the Applicant shall delineate least Bell’s vireo occupied habitat by orange biological fencing
or comparable to avoid direct impact to vireo within occupied habitat located adjacent to the
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 261 of 1271
5.3 – Biological Resources
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.3-47
proposed project during the breeding season (March 15 to September 15). In addition, a minimum
300-foot buffer and on-site noise reduction/attenuation techniques shall be incorporated, as
appropriate to avoid impacts to breeding vireo from elevated construction noise levels. The City
Development Services Director (or their designee) shall have the discretion to modify the buffer
width depending on site-specific conditions. Noise monitoring may be required to ensure that the
elevated construction noise levels are appropriately attenuated at the edge of occupied habitat to
a level that is not expected to adversely affect nesting bird behavior (i.e., not to exceed an hourly
average of 60 dBA or ambient at the edge of occupied habitat).
Impacts to nesting birds protected under MBTA and CDFG Code Sections 3503 and 3513 (Impact BIO-10) would
be mitigated by MM-BIO-7:
MM-BIO-7 To avoid any direct impacts to migratory birds and/or raptors protected under the federal Migratory
Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503 and 3513, removal of habitat
that supports active nests on the proposed area of disturbance should occur outside of the
breeding season for these species. The breeding season is defined as January 15 –August 31 for
raptor species and February 15–August 15 for other non-raptor birds (excluding listed species). If
removal of habitat on the proposed area of disturbance must occur during the breeding season,
then prior to initiating any construction related activities requiring a clearing and grubbing or
grading permit, the Applicant shall retain a City-approved biologist to conduct a pre-construction
survey to determine the presence or absence of nesting birds (including burrowing owl) on the
proposed area of disturbance. The pre-construction survey must be conducted within 10 calendar
days prior to the start of construction, and the results must be submitted to the City for review and
approval prior to initiating any construction activities. If nesting birds are detected, a letter report
or mitigation plan, as deemed appropriate by the City, shall be prepared and include proposed
measures to be implemented to ensure that disturbance of breeding activities are avoided. The
report or mitigation plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval and implemented
to the satisfaction of the City. The City’s mitigation monitor shall verify and approve that all
measures identified in the report or mitigation plan are in place prior to and/or during construction.
To reduce potential impacts to burrowing owl during construction, the City-approved biologist shall
perform pre-construction inspection of potential habitat, and, at minimum, twice weekly
inspections be performed while rough grading is ongoing. All pre-construction survey efforts shall
be conducted prior to any project activities that could result in habitat disturbance to soil,
vegetation or other sheltering habitat for burrowing owl. If any burrowing owls or sign of burrowing
owls are detected, the Wildlife Agencies (jointly, CDFW and USFWS) shall be contacted; efforts shall
be made to determine the breeding status of the species on site, and whether it is safe at that
point to exclude burrowing owls from occupied burrows. Active or passive relocation methods shall
only be employed with concurrence by CDFW and USFWS.
The Applicant shall implement mitigation measures MM-BIO-4 to MM-BIO-6 above and the following mitigation
measures (MM-BIO-8 to MM-BIO-11) to further reduce indirect impacts including edge effects (Impact BIO-12) in
accordance with the City’s MSCP Adjacency Guidelines:
MM-BIO-8 Prior to approval of the first final map, the Applicant shall submit a Landscape Master Plan for the entire
project which shall demonstrate compliance with the proposed fence and wall plan for the project. The
proposed fence and wall plan shall include appropriate fencing and barriers (e.g., vegetation) where
applicable to shield human presence and deter human intrusion into the Preserve.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 262 of 1271
5.3 – Biological Resources
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.3-48
MM-BIO-9 Concurrent with design review and prior to issuance of a building permit for any development
located adjacent to the Preserve, the Applicant shall prepare, a lighting plan and photometric
analysis for review and approval the Development Services Director (or their designee). The lighting
plan shall illustrate the location of the proposed lighting standards and type of shielding measures.
Low-pressure sodium lighting shall be used, if feasible, and shall be subject to the approval of the
Development Services Director (or their designee).
MM-BIO-10 Prior to approval of the first final map, the Applicant shall submit a Landscape Master Plan for the entire
project which shall demonstrate compliance with the proposed plant palette for the project. The proposed
plant palette shall prohibit invasive non‐native plant species on the California Exotic Pest Plant Council
List of Exotic Pest Plants of Greatest Ecological Concern in California that could spread into the adjacent
Preserve. No invasive non-native plant species shall be introduced into areas immediately adjacent to the
preserve. All slopes immediately adjacent to the Preserve shall be planted with native species that reflect
the adjacent native habitat. Further, the proposed plant palette shall be consistent with the plant list
contained in the “Wildland/Urban Interface: Fuel Modification Standards,” and provided as Appendix L of
the Subarea Plan, must be reviewed and utilized to the maximum extent practicable when developing
landscaping plans in areas adjacent to the Preserve.
MM-BIO-11 To avoid habitat degradation to the adjacent Preserve lands, project irrigation shall be contained
to the project development and fuel modification zones and shall not drain or overspray resulting
in potential erosion/sedimentation, spread of invasive plant species, and/or non ‐native species
such as Argentine ants.
Inadvertent direct impacts to biological resources (Impacts BIO-5, BIO-11, and BIO-12) would be mitigated with
implementation of MM-BIO-12 and MM-BIO-13:
MM-BIO-12 Prior to initiating any construction related activities requiring a clearing and grubbing or grading
permit, the Applicant shall demonstrate how the project would avoid or minimize applicable
inadvertent impacts during construction. To ensure the avoidance and minimization of impacts to
biological resources during construction the following construction BMPs shall be implemented:
a) Prior to ground disturbance, all permanent and temporary disturbance areas shall be clearly
delineated by orange construction fencing and the identification of environmentally sensitive
areas with flagging and/or fencing.
b) To minimize disturbance of areas outside the project site, all construction and operation vehicle
traffic shall be restricted to established roads, construction areas, and other designated areas.
These areas shall be included in pre‐construction surveys and, to the extent possible, shall be
established in locations disturbed by previous activities to prevent further impacts.
c) Construction and operation vehicles shall observe appropriate safe speed limits and adhere to
safety practices.
d) Dust suppression shall occur during construction activities when necessary to meet air quality
standards and protect biological resources.
e) No vehicles or equipment shall be refueled or undergo maintenance within 100 feet of a
jurisdictional waters feature. Spill kits shall be maintained on the site in sufficient quantity to
accommodate at least three complete vehicle tank failures of 50 gallons each. Any vehicles
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 263 of 1271
5.3 – Biological Resources
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.3-49
driven or operated within or adjacent to drainages or wetlands shall be checked and
maintained daily to prevent leaks of contaminated fluids.
f) All general trash, food‐related trash items (wrappers, cans, bottles, food scraps, cigarettes,
etc.), and other human‐generated debris scheduled to be removed shall be stored in animal‐
proof containers and removed from the site on a regular basis (weekly during construction, and
at least monthly during operations). No deliberate feeding of wildlife shall be allowed.
g) Use of chemicals, fuels, lubricants, or biocides shall comply with all local, state, and fede ral
regulations. All uses of such compounds shall observe label and other restrictions mandated
by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, California Department of Food and Agriculture,
and other state and federal legislation. Use of first‐and second‐ generation rodenticides shall
not be permitted except for the limited use of zinc phosphide, or a rodenticide approved by the
City, and only after other means of pest control (e.g. rodent traps) have proven to be ineffective.
MM-BIO-13 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, prior to vegetation clearing, grubbing, grading, or any ground
disturbing activities, the Applicant shall submit evidence to the City that the Applicant has retained
qualified biologists to prepare a Worker Environmental Awareness Program that shall be presented to all
construction personnel and employees before any ground‐disturbing activities commence at the project
site and shall be continued through the construction phase for all new construction personnel. The
program shall consist of a brief presentation going over the on-site sensitive biological resources and
compliance with project impact and open space boundaries, and applicable environmental laws and
requirements with all personnel involved in the project. This presentation shall explain to construction
personnel how best to avoid impacts sensitive resources during construction. The program shall include
a description of all special status species potentially on the project site and their habitat needs; an
explanation of the status of the species and their protection under the state and federal regulations;
specific mitigation measures applicable to listed and other special status species; permit conditions, and
the penalties for violation of applicable laws. The program shall also explain to construction personnel how
to avoid impacts to jurisdictional waters, including wetlands. The program shall include a map and
description of jurisdictional waters on the site to be avoided and measures to implement to ensure the
protection and avoidance of jurisdictional waters.
Temporary impacts to the Minor Amendment Area (Impact BIO-15) would require implementation of the following
mitigation measure:
MM-BIO-14 Prior to initiating any construction related activities requiring a clearing and grubbing or grading permit,
the Applicant shall prepare a revegetation plan for the temporary impact areas within the 25-foot grading
buffer in the Minor Amendment Area that utilizes a native erosion control hydroseed mix acceptable to the
City and the Wildlife Agencies (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Wildlife)
to ensure soil stability and prevent subsequent erosion. The revegetation plan must be prepared by a
qualified City approved biologist familiar with the City’s MSCP Subarea Plan and must include, but not be
limited to, an implementation plan; appropriate seed mixtures and planting method; irrigation method;
quantitative and qualitative success criteria; maintenance, monitoring, and reporting program; estimated
completion time; and contingency measures. The Project Applicant shall be required to prepare and
implement the revegetation plan subject to the oversight and approval of the Development Services
Director (or their designee).The proposed project MSCP BLA and Minor Amendment would require
implementation of the following mitigation measure:
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 264 of 1271
5.3 – Biological Resources
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.3-50
MM-BIO-15 Prior to initiating any construction related activities requiring a clearing and grubbing or grading
permit, the Applicant shall receive approval by the City and Wildlife Agencies for the MSCP BLA. The
Applicant shall be required to implement conditions associated with the BLA subject to the
oversight and approval of the Development Services Director (or their designee).
MM-BIO-16 Prior to initiating any construction related activities requiring a clearing and grubbing or grading permit,
the Applicant shall receive approval by the City and Wildlife Agencies for the MSCP Minor Amendment.
The Applicant shall be required to implement conditions associated with the Minor Amendment subject
to the oversight and approval of the Development Services Director (or their designee).
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 265 of 1271
5.3 – Biological Resources
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.3-51
Table 5.3-11. Project Habitat Mitigation Ratios and Acreages
Vegetation Type
MSCP Tier
Habitat Type
Total on Site
(Acres)
Proposed On-Site and Off-Site Impacts (Acres)
Mitigation Ratio
Required Project Mitigation (Acres)
Available in Existing
Preserve for On-Site
Mitigation (Acres)
Proposed On-Site
Habitat Mitigation/
Surplus Preserved
Habitat (Acres)
Inside Preserve Outside Preserve
Total
Impact Inside
Preserve
Impact Outside
Preserve Total Perm Temp Perm Temp
Southern willow scrub Wetland 2.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1:1 to 2:1 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.14 N/A
Mule fat scrub Wetland 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1:1 to 2:1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 N/A
Coastal and valley
freshwater marsh
Wetland 7.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1:1 to 2:1 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.31 N/A
Native grassland I 24.09 3.22 0.18 4.22 0.17 7.79 2:1 (Impact Inside
Preserve)
1:1 (Impact Outside
Preserve)
6.80 4.39
11.19
15.98 11.19
(Existing Preserve)/
4.79
(Surplus)
Diegan coastal sage scrub II 37.08 2.24 0.39 5.15 0.77 8.55 1:5:1 (Impact
Inside Preserve)
1:1 (Impact Outside
Preserve)
3.94 5.92 9.86 21.83 9.86
(Existing Preserve)/
11.97
(Surplus)
Non-native grassland III 64.19 1.66 0.10 49.62 3.63 55.01 1:1 (Impact Inside
Preserve)
0.5:1 (Impact
Outside Preserve)
1.76 26.62 28.38 8.55 8.55
(NNG Existing
Preserve) and 16.76
(NG & DCSS Existing
Preserve), and 3.07
(NNG Proposed
Preserve)
Non-native vegetation IV 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 N/A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Urban/developed N/A 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 N/A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 135.70 7.12 0.67 59.01 4.58 71.38 N/A 12.50 36.93 49.43 54.33 46.36
(Existing Preserve)
3.07
(Proposed Preserve)
Source: Appendix D.
Notes: MSCP = Multiple Species Conservation Program; N/A = not applicable; NG = native grassland; NNG = non -native grassland; DCSS = Diegan coastal sage scrub.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 266 of 1271
5.3 – Biological Resources
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.3-52
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 267 of 1271
5.3 – Biological Resources
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.3-53
5.3.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation
The mitigation measures listed in Section 5.3.5 would reduce potential impacts associated with biological resources
to a less-than-significant level.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 268 of 1271
5.3 – Biological Resources
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.3-54
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 269 of 1271
0 1,000 2,000500FeetSoilsPoggi CreekFEMA 100 Year FloodplainFEMA 500 Year FloodplainOtay Tarplant Final Critical HabitatMSCP City of Chula Vista 100% PreserveMSCP Minor Amendment AreaMSCP County of San Diego Take Authorized AreaProject SiteLocal Environmental Setting MapSunbow Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIRFIGURE 5.3-1Path: Z:\Projects\j1261201\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\EIRSOURCE: Merkel & Associates 20202021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 270 of 1271
5.3 – Biological Resources
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.3-56
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 271 of 1271
0300600150
Feet
6SHFLDO6WDWXV6SHFLHV 1XPEHUV3URYLGHG,QGLFDWH
7RWDO2EVHUYHG2QVLWHIRU(DFK6SHFLHV
6SHFLDO6WDWXV)ORUD
Otay Tarplant (Deinandra conjugens)- 5,449
Decumbent Goldenbush (Isocoma menziessii var. decumbens)- 803
Orcutt's Bird's-beak (Dicranostegia orcuttianus)- 911
Ashy Spike-moss (Selaginella cinerascens)- 2
Coast Barrel Cactus (Ferocactus viridescens)- 2
Palmer's Sagwort (Artemisia palmeri)- 44
San Diego County Needlegrass (Stipa diegoense)- 10
San Diego Bursage (Ambrosia chenopodifolia)- 24
San Diego Marsh Elder (Iva hayesiana)- 816
Small-flowered Bindweed (Convolvulus simulans)- 91
Southwestern Spiny Rush (Juncus acutus ssp. leopoldii)- 750
San Diego County Viguiera (Bahiopsis laciniata)- 7,647
6SHFLDO6WDWXV)DXQD
)O\RYHU2QO\
Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica)- 2
Least Bell's Vireo (Vireo belli pusillus)- 1
Nuttall's Woodpecker (Picoides nuttallii)- 1
Yellow Breasted Chat (Icteria virens)- 3
Yellow Warbler (Dendroica petechia)- 5
Orange-throated Whiptail (Aspidoscelis hyperythra)- 1
Two-striped Garter Snake (Thamnophis hammondii)- 1
Cooper's Hawk (Accipiter cooperii)
White-tailed Kite (Elanus leucurus)
Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus)
2WKHU
MSCP City of Chula Vista 100% Preserve
50ft Offsite Mapping Buffer
Project Site
,
,
,
,
,
9HJHWDWLRQ&RPPXQLWLHV
Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh
Southern Willow Scrub
Mule Fat Scrub
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub
Native Grassland
Non-native Grassland
Non-native Vegetation
Urban/Developed
Waters of the State (RWQCB)/Streambed (CDFW)
Biological ResourceV Map
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR
FIGURE 5.3-2SOURCE: Merkel & Associates 2020Path: Z:\Projects\j1261201\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\EIR2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 272 of 1271
5.3 – Biological Resources
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.3-58
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 273 of 1271
Wϭ
WϮ
Wϯ
Wϰ
Wϱ Wϲ
Wϳ
Wϴ
Wϵ
ϯϮ͘ϲϭϬϴϳ͕
Ͳϭϭϳ͘ϬϭϮϴϱ
ϯϮ͘ϲϬϲϬϮ͕
Ͳϭϭϳ͘ϬϮϳϯϱ
0 300 600150
FeetCoastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh
Southern Willow Scrub
Mule Fat Scrub
Waters of the State (RWQCB)/Streambed (CDFW)
ACOE, CDFW, RWQCB
CDFW Only
RWQCB Only
Wetland (ACOE) Sampling Point
Water (RWQCB) Sampling Point
Upland Sampling Point
Map Reference Point
Aquatic Resource Delineation Survey Area
50ft Offsite Mapping Buffer
Wϰ
Wϯ
WϮ
Wϭ
Wϳ
WϲWϱ
Wϵ
Wϴ
Wetland Delineation Map
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR
FIGURE 5.3-3SOURCE: Merkel & Associates 2020Path: Z:\Projects\j1261201\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\EIR2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 274 of 1271
5.3 – Biological Resources
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.3-60
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 275 of 1271
0300600150
Feet
Coastal California Gnatcatcher - 2
Least Bell's Vireo - 1
Nuttall's Woodpecker - 1
Yellow Breasted Chat - 3
Yellow Warbler - 5
Orange-throated Whiptail - 1
Two-striped Garter Snake - 1
Cooper's Hawk
White-tailed Kite
Northern Harrier
Otay Tarplant - 5,449
Decumbent Goldenbush - 803
Orcutt's Bird's-beak - 911
Ashy Spike-moss - 2
Coast Barrel Cactus - 2
Palmer's Sagwort - 44
San Diego County Needlegrass - 10
San Diego County Viguiera - 7,647
San Diego Bursage - 24
San Diego Marsh Elder - 816
Small-flowered Bindweed - 91
Southwestern Spiny Rush - 750
,
,
,
,
,
Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh
Southern Willow Scrub
Mule Fat Scrub
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub
Native Grassland
Non-native Grassland
Non-native Vegetation
Urban/Developed
Waters of the State (RWQCB)/Streambed (CDFW)
ACOE, CDFW, RWQCB
CDFW Only
RWQCB Only
Permanent Impacts
Temporary Impacts
Fuel Modification Zone
MSCP City of Chula Vista 100% Preserve
MSCP Minor Amendment Area
MSCP County of San Diego Take Authorized Area
50ft Offsite Mapping Buffer
Project Site
Site Plans - September 2020 Hunsaker
Biological Impacts Map
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR
FIGURE 5.3-4SOURCE: Merkel & Associates 2020Path: Z:\Projects\j1261201\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\EIR2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 276 of 1271
5.3 – Biological Resources
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.3-62
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 277 of 1271
0300600150
Feet
Northern Harrier
Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh
Southern Willow Scrub
Mule Fat Scrub
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub
Native Grassland
Non-native Grassland
Non-native Vegetation
Urban/Developed
Waters of the State (RWQCB)/Streambed (CDFW)
Coastal California Gnatcatcher - 2
Least Bell's Vireo - 1
Nuttall's Woodpecker - 1
Yellow Breasted Chat - 3
Yellow Warbler - 5
Orange-throated Whiptail - 1
Two-striped Garter Snake - 1
Cooper's Hawk
White-tailed Kite
Otay Tarplant - 5,449
Decumbent Goldenbush - 803
Orcutt's Bird's-beak - 911
Ashy Spike-moss - 2
Coast Barrel Cactus - 2
Palmer's Sagwort - 44
San Diego County Needlegrass - 10
San Diego County Viguiera - 7,647
San Diego Bursage - 24
San Diego Marsh Elder - 816
Small-flowered Bindweed - 91
Southwestern Spiny Rush - 750
,
,
,
,
,
MSCP Minor Amendment Area
MSCP County of San Diego Take Authorized Area
MSCP Proposed Preserve Habitat Restoration
50ft Offsite Mapping Buffer
Project Site
MSCP City of Chula Vista 100% Preserve
Site Plans - September 2020 Hunsaker
MSCP Proposed Preserve (Hunsaker September 2020)
MSCP Preserve BLA Map
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR
FIGURE 5.3-5SOURCE: Merkel & Associates 2020Path: Z:\Projects\j1261201\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\EIRMapping Correction
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 278 of 1271
5.3 – Biological Resources
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.3-64
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 279 of 1271
5.4 – Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.4-1
5.4 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
This section of the environmental impact report (EIR) addresses potential impacts to cultural and tribal cultural
resources resulting from the proposed Sunbow Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II,
Phase 3 Project (project or proposed project). The discussion in this section is based on the Negative Cultural and
Paleontological Resources Inventory Report for the project, prepared for the project by Dudek (Appendix E).
5.4.1 Existing Conditions
5.4.1.1 Regulatory Framework
Federal
National Historic Preservation Act
The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (16 United States Code (USC) 470 et seq.) establishes the nation’s
policy for historic preservation and a program for the preservation of historic properties by requiring federal
agencies to consider effects to significant cultural resources (e.g., historic properties) prior to undertakings , which
includes a project, activity, or program either funded, permitted, licenses, or approved by a federal agency.
Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to consider the effects of projects on historic properties
(resources included in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)). It also gives the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation and the state historic preservation offices an opportunity to consult. Federal
agencies issuing permits for the proposed project will be required to comply with NHPA requirements.
Executive Order 11593, “Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment”
Executive Order 11593 (36 Federal Register 8921) (1) orders the protection and enhancement of the cultural
environment through requiring federal agencies to administer the cultural properties under their control in a spirit
of stewardship and trusteeship for future generations; (2) initiates measures necessary to direct their policies,
plans, and programs in such a way that federally owned sites, structures, and objects of historical, architectural, or
archaeological significance are preserved, restored, and maintained for the inspiration and benefit of the people;
and (3) in consultation with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, institutes procedur es to ensure that
federal plans and programs contribute to the preservation and enhancement of non-federally owned sites,
structures, and objects of historical, architectural, or archaeological significance (16 USC 470-1).
National Register of Historic Places
The NRHP is the nation’s official list of historic places. The register is overseen by the National Park Service and
requires that a property or resource eligible for listing in the register meet one or more of the following four criteria
at the national, state, or local level to ensure integrity and obtain official designation:
• The property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of
our history.
• The property is associated with the lives of persons significant to our past. Eligible properties based on this
criterion are generally those associated with the productive life of the individual in the field in which the
person achieved significance.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 280 of 1271
5.4 – Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.4-2
• The property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or
represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic value, or represents a significant and
distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinction.
• The property has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history.
In addition to meeting at least one of these four criteria, listed properties must also retain sufficient physical integrity
of those features necessary to convey historic significance. The register has identified the following seven aspects
of integrity: (1) location, (2) design, (3) setting, (4) materials, (5) workmanship, (6) feeling, and (7) association.
Properties are nominated to the register by the state historic preservation officer of the state in which the property
is located, by the federal preservation officer for properties under federal ownership or control, or by the tribal
preservation officer if on tribal lands. Listing in the NRHP provides formal recognition of a property’s historic,
architectural, or archaeological significance based on national standards used by every state. Once a property is
listed in the NRHP, it becomes searchable in the NRHP database of research information. Documentation of a
property’s historic significance helps encourage preservation of the resource.
State
California Environmental Quality Act
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that all private and public activities not specifically exempted be
evaluated for the potential to impact the environment, including effects to historical resources. Historical resources are
recognized as part of the environment under CEQA. It defines historical resources as “any object, building, structure, site,
area, or place, which is historically significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational,
social, political, military, or cultural annals of California” (Division I, Public Resources Code, Section 5021.1(b)).
Lead agencies have a responsibility to evaluate historical resources against the California Register of Historical
Resources (CRHR) criteria prior to making a finding as to a proposed project’s impacts to historical resources. Mitigation
of adverse impacts is required if the proposed project will cause substantial adverse change. Substantial adverse change
includes demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration such that the significance of an historical resource would be
impaired. While demolition and destruction are fairly obvious significant impacts, it is more difficult to assess when
change, alteration, or relocation crosses the threshold of substantial adverse change. The CEQA Guidelines provide that
a project that demolishes or alters those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical
significance (i.e., its character-defining features) can be considered to materially impair the resource’s significance.
The CRHR is used in the consideration of historic resources relative to significance for purposes of CEQA. The CRHR
includes resources listed in, or formally determined eligible for, some California State Landmarks and Points of
Historical Interest. Properties of local significance that have been designated under a local preservation ordinance
(local landmarks or landmark districts), or that have been identified in a local historical resources inventory may be
eligible for listing in the CRHR and are presumed to be significant resources for purposes of CEQA unless a
preponderance of evidence indicates otherwise.
Generally, a resource is considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the
criteria for listing in the CRHR (California Public Resources Code Section 5024.1; Title 14 California Code of
Regulations [CCR], Section 4852) consisting of the following:
1. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or
regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States; or
2. It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history; or
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 281 of 1271
5.4 – Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.4-3
3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents
the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values; or
4. It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local
area, California, or the nation.
A “unique” archaeological resource, as defined by the California Public Resources Code Section 21083.2, may be
considered significant under CEQA. If a significant archaeological resource is identified, defined mitigation would
be appropriately implemented. As used in this section, “unique archaeological resource” means an archaeological
artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body
of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:
1. Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a
demonstrable public interest in that information.
2. Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type.
3. Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.
CEQA was amended in 2014 through Assembly Bill (AB) 52, which created a new category of “tribal culture
resources” that must be considered under CEQA, and applies to all projects that file a Notice of Preparation or notice
of negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration on or after July 1, 2015. AB 52 requires lead agencies to
provide notice to and begin consultation with California Native American tribes that are traditionally and culturally
affiliated with the geographic area of a project if that tribe has requested, in writing, to be kept informed of projects
by the lead agency prior to the determination whether a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or
environmental impact report will be prepared. If a tribe requests consultation within 30 days upon receipt of the
notice, the lead agency must consult with the tribe. AB 52 also specifies mitigation measures that may be considered
to avoid or minimize impacts on tribal cultural resources. Specifically, California Public Resources Code Section
21074 provides the following guidance:
(a) Tribal Cultural Resources are either of the following:
(1) Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a
California Native American tribe that are either of the following:
(A) Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of
Cultural Resources.
(B) Included in a local register of cultural resources as defined in subdivision (k) of §5020.1.
(2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of §5024.1. In
applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of §5024.1 for the purposes of this
paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California
Native American tribe.
(b) A cultural landscape that meets the criteria of subdivision (a) is a tribal cultural resource to the
extent that the landscape is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape.
(c) A historical resource described in Section 21084.1, a unique archaeological resource as
defined in subdivision (g) of Section 21083.2, or a “nonunique archeological resource” as
defined in subdivision (h) of Section 21083.2 may also be a tribal cultural resource if it
conforms with the criteria of subdivision (a).
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 282 of 1271
5.4 – Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.4-4
In the event that Native American human remains or related cultural material are encountered, Section 15064.5(e) of
the state CEQA Guidelines (as incorporated from California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98) and Health and
Safety Code Section 7050.5 define the subsequent protocol. In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of
any human remains, excavation or other disturbances shall be suspended of the site or any nearby area reasonably
suspected to overlie adjacent human remains or related material. Protocol requires that a county-approved coroner be
contacted in order to determine if the remains are of Native American origin. Should the coroner determine the remains
to be Native American, the coroner must contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours. The
most likely descendent may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work,
for means of treating, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in
California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 (14 CCR 15064.5[e]).
Senate Bill 18
SB 18, approved in 2004, amends the California Civil Code and the California Government Code, requiring cities and
counties to contact and consult with California Native American tribes prior to adopting or amending any general plan or
specific plan, or designating land as open space in order to preserve or mitigate impacts to specified Native American
places, features and objects that are located within the city’s or county’s jurisdiction. SB 18 also requires cities and
counties to hold in strict confidence any information about the specific identity, location, character or use of these
resources. In 2005, OPR published Tribal Consultation Guidelines to guide cities and counties on the process of engaging
in consultation in accordance with SB 18. The NAHC maintains a list of California Native American Tribes with whom
cities and counties must consult pursuant to SB 18.
Local
City of Chula Vista Historic Designation Ordinance
The City of Chula Vista Historic Designation Ordinance (Title 21, Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC) Section
21.04.100) (CVMC 2011) establishes general standards by which the Historical Significance of a Historical
Resource is judged as eligible for designation:
1. A Resource is at least 45 years old; and
2. A Resource possesses historical Integrity defined under the CVMC §21.04.100 (discussed
below) and the resource is determined to have historical significance by meeting at least one
of the following criteria:
1. It is associated with an event that is important to prehistory or history on a national, state,
regional, or local level.
2. It is associated with a person or persons that have made significant contributions to
prehistory or history on a national, state or local level.
3. It embodies those distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period, or method of
construction, or represents the work of a master or important creative individual, and/or
possesses high artistic values.
4. It is an outstanding example of a publicly owned Historic Landscape, that represents the
work of a master landscape architect, horticulturalist, or landscape designer, or a publicly
owned Historical Landscape that has potential to provide important information to the
further study of landscape architecture or history.
5. It has yielded or may be likely to yield information important in prehistory or the history of
Chula Vista, the state, region, or nation.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 283 of 1271
5.4 – Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.4-5
Additionally, the designation of an exceptional historical resource may be considered only if:
1. The Historic Preservation Committee (HPC) considered and makes a recommendation to the Council; and
2. It has been demonstrated through expert technical analysis and verifiable evidence that all of the following
findings of fact are made:
a. The resource meets criteria and the findings of fact for designation found in subsections (A)(1) and
(A)(2) of this section; and
b. The resource is the best representative sample of its kind or the last of its kind; and
c. The resource is an exceptionally important component of the City’s history and loss or impairment of
the resource would be detrimental to the City’s heritage; and
3. Four-fifths vote of the Council vote to designate the resource as an exceptional historical resource.
City of Chula Vista Historic Preservation Program
The City’s Historic Preservation Program (HPP) establishes a screening process for determining historical significant of
potential historical resources that are 45 years or older, that have not previously been surveyed or designated as historic,
and that are proposed for alteration or demolition (City of Chula Vista 2011). The HPP is intended to be a resource
document that will educate and inform the user on the City's goals, policies, and procedures for preservation of historical
resources and may be used for all preservation activities in the City. The HPP provides the following:
1. Provides user-friendly preservation guides and procedures for both city staff and members of the public.
2. Establish consistency between historic preservation goals and land-use policies by incorporating a historical
significance review process and Certificate of Appropriateness permit process for historical resources into
the building permit and discretionary project review process.
3. Adopt a more detailed Historic Preservation Ordinance that provides clear and easy to follow processes and
procedures and complies with the requirements for Certified Local Government (CLG) status.
4. Attain and maintain CLG status.
5. Establish process and procedures for the identification and survey of historical resources.
6. Provide reference and technical assistance for preservation activities.
7. Utilize the State Historical Building Code.
8. Encourage the use of the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Treatment of Historical Properties:
Preservation, Rehabilitation, Restoration, and Reconstruction.
City of Chula Vista General Plan – Environmental Element
The Environmental Element of the City of Chula Vista General Plan (Chapter 9, Section 3.1.9) (City of Chula Vista
2005) specifically addresses potential impacts to cultural resources and outlines policies to mitigate negative
impacts. The objective and policies protecting cultural and historical resources are outlined below:
• Objective E-9: Protect Chula Vista’s important cultural resources and support and encourage their
accessibility to the public
• Policy E-9.1: Continue to assess and mitigate the potential impacts of private development and public facilities
and infrastructure to cultural resources, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 284 of 1271
5.4 – Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.4-6
• Policy E-9.2: Support and encourage the accessibility of Chula Vista’s important cultural resources to the
public for educational; religious; cultural; scientific; and other purposes, including the establishment of
museums and facilities accessible to the public, where such resources can be appropriately studied,
exhibited, curated, etc.
• Policy E-9.3: Discourage disruption, demolition, and other negative impacts to historic cultural resources.
5.4.1.2 Existing Cultural Setting
Prehistoric and Ethnohistoric Periods
Evidence for continuous human occupation in the San Diego region spans the last 10,000 years. Various attempts
to parse variability in archaeological assemblages over this broad time frame have led to the development of several
cultural chronologies; some of these are based on geologic time, most are based on temporal trends in
archaeological assemblages, and others are interpretive reconstructions. Each of these reconstructions describes
essentially similar trends in assemblage composition in more or less detail. This research employs a common set of
generalized terms used to describe chronological trends in assemblage composition: Paleoindian (pre-5500 BC),
Archaic (8000 BC.–AD 500), Late Prehistoric (AD 500–1750), and Ethnohistoric (post-AD 1750). A detailed
discussion on the prehistoric and ethnohistoric periods are available in Appendix E.
NAHC Sacred Lands File Search and Outreach
Dudek requested a Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) search of the Sacred Lands File on April 8,
2020, for Traditional Cultural Properties or Sacred Sites that have been identified to be within the proposed
project’s APE (Appendix E). The Sacred Lands file search found no Native American cultural resources within a
one-half mile distance of the proposed project area. The NAHC additionally provided a list of Native American
tribes and individuals/organizations that might have knowledge of cultural resources in this area.
Following the NAHC response, letters were sent to NAHC-listed tribal representatives with the intent of requesting
information, opinions or concerns relating to the proposed project impacts (Appendix E). These letters contained a brief
description of the planned project, reference maps, and a summary of the NAHC Sacred Lands File search results.
On April 27, 2020, Dudek archaeologist, Jessica Colston, sent an Information Request letter to John Christman
(Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians), John Flores (San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians), Michael Garcia
(Ewiiaapaayp Tribe), Ralph Goff (Campo Band of Diegueno Mission Indians), Allen E. Lawson (San Pasqual Band
of Diegueno Mission Indians), Clint Linton (Ipay Nation of Santa Ysabel), Michael Linton (Mesa Grande Band of
Dieguneo Mission Indians), Carmen Lucas (Kwaaymii Laguna Band of Mission Indians), Cody Martinez (Sycuan
Band of the Kumeyaay Nation), Javaughn Miller (La Posta Band of Diegueno Missi on Indians), Kristi Orosco
(Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation), Rebecca Osuna (Inaja-Cosmit Band of Indians), Gwendolyn Parada (La
Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians), Virgil Perez (Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel), Ernest Pingleton (Viejas Band
of Kumeyaay Indians), Erica Pinto (Jamul Indian Village), Robert Pinto (Ewiaapaayp Tribe), Edwin (Thorpe) Romero
(Barona Group of the Capitan Grande), and Angela Elliott Santos (Manzanita Band of Kumeyaay Nation). No
responses to these outreach attempts have been received to date. The lead agency will be provided with any
responses should they be received from tribal representatives.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 285 of 1271
5.4 – Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.4-7
Tribal Consultation
The proposed project is also subject to compliance with AB 52 (California Public Resources Code Section 21074)
which requires consideration of impacts to “tribal cultural resources” as part of the CEQA process. AB 52 requires
the City, lead agency responsible for CEQA compliance for the proposed project, to notify any groups (who have
requested notification) of the proposed project who are traditionally or culturally affiliated with the geographic
area of the project. Because AB 52 is a government-to-government process, all records of correspondence related
to AB 52 notification and any subsequent consultation are on file with the City.
SB 18 requires the City to contact and consult with California Native American tribes prior to adopting or amending
any general plan or specific plan, or designating land as open space in order to preserve or mitigate impacts to
specified Native American places, features and objects that are located within the city’s or county’s jurisdiction.
On December 14, 2020, the City sent notification letters pursuant to SB 18 to tribes listed on the NAHC contact
list. To date, one response from the San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians has been received, which deferred
consultation to other tribes and recommended the consideration of Native American monitoring. Consultation with
Native American tribes is ongoing.
Records Search and Previous Cultural Resource Investigations
Dudek conducted a California Historical Resources Information System records search through the South Coastal
Information Center (SCIC) database on April 2, 2020, for the proposed project and a 1-mile search buffer
surrounding the project. This search included their collection of mapped prehistoric, historical and built -
environment resources, Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Site Records, technical reports, archival
resources, and ethnographic references. Additional consulted sources included the National Register of Historic
Places, California Inventory of Historical Resources/CRHR and listed Office of Historic Preservation Archaeological
Determinations of Eligibility, California Points of Historical Interest, California Historical Landmarks, and Caltrans
Bridge Survey information.
Survey Methods
Dudek Archaeologists Patrick Hadel, Jessica Colston, and Loukas Barton conducted a pedestrian survey of the APE
for cultural resources on April 11, 2020. Areas throughout the APE were inspected at 10- and 15-meter transects.
Archaeological survey exceeded the applicable Secretary of Interior Professional Qualifications Standards for
archaeological survey and evaluation. Areas with a slope exceeding 25% are avoided as a matter of safety. The
survey crew was equipped with a GPS receiver. Location-specific photographs were taken using an Apple 3rd
Generation iPad equipped with 8 MP resolution and georeferenced PDF maps of the proposed project area.
Accuracy of this device ranged between 3 meters and 10 meters. Evidence for buried cultural and paleontological
deposits was sought through inspection of natural or artificial erosion exposures and the spoils from rodent burrows.
Disturbances
All areas of the project site showed evidence of surface disturbances from disking/plowing activities, as indicated
by the presence of furrows and irregular surface topography. Other areas have been previously subject to grading
and other mechanical earth-work. All areas have been subject to natural erosion processes. The presence of
numerous rodent burros throughout the site suggests that the site soils are likely heavily disturbed by wildlife. The
exact depth and character of past disturbances is unclear, allowing for the possibility that deeper strat a may have
been unaffected. This indicates that undisturbed resources could be present.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 286 of 1271
5.4 – Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.4-8
Results
Archival Review – Cultural Resources
A records search conducted on April 2, 2020, resulted in a total of 68 reports within the 1-mile buffer, of which only
16 reports fall within the proposed project APE (Table 5.4-1). One of these (SD- 10448) outlines the study of impacts
for a proposed pipeline through the middle of the proposed project APE. To date, only one intersecting report was
available at the SCIC.
Table 5.4-1. Reports within the Proposed Project APE
Report No. Year Title Publisher
SD-02690 1993 Final Cultural Resources Evaluation of the 23,088-Acre Otay
Ranch, San Diego County
Ogden Environmental
SD-03625 1999 A Cultural Resources Study for the Olympic Parkway Project The City of Chula Vista
SD-03625 1999 A Cultural Resources Study for the Olympic Parkway Project The City of Chula Vista
SD-03726 1996 Archaeological Survey Report for the Otay Annex Landfill
Project
Woodward-Clyde
Consultants
SD-03824 2000 Cultural Resource Survey for the Proposed Olympic Parkway
Project, City of Chula Vista, California
Kyle Consulting
SD-03824 2000 Cultural Resource Survey for the Proposed Olympic Parkway
Project, City of Chula Vista, California
Kyle Consulting
SD-03950 1997 Cultural Resources Report for the Otay Annex Landfill Project Gallegos and Associates
SD-04657 1992 Draft Program Environmental Impact Report, Otay Ranch Ogden Environmental and
Energy Services Co., Inc.
SD-06805 1987 Archaeological Overview and Planning Document for the
Proposed Rancho Otay Project
TMI Environmental
Services
SD-07163 1999 A Cultural Resources Study for the Olympic Parkway Project Brian F. Smith
SD-07668 2001 Archaeological Mitigation of Impact to Prehistoric Site SDI-
13864, Otay Ranch Village One West
Brian F. Smith & Assoc.
SD-07775 2000 A Report of an Archaeological Evaluation of Cultural
Resources at the Otay Ranch Village Two SPA
Brian F. Smith and
Associates
SD-10448 2005 Site Significance Evaluation of a Portion of Prehistoric
Archaeological Site CA-SDI-17668 located along the
Proposed Otay Water District, 30-Inch Recycled Water
Pipeline Route, in the Otay River Valley, San Diego County,
California
Mooney, Jones & Stokes
SD-10821 2007 Final Cultural Resources Mitigation Monitoring Report for the
Otay Water District 30- Inch Recycled Water Pipeline San
Diego County, California
Mooney, Jones & Stokes
SD-11502 1995 Results of an Archaeological Survey and the Evaluation of
Cultural Resources at the Otay Ranch Sectional Planning
Area One and Annexation Project
Brian F. Smith &
Associates
SD-12397 2009 Archaeological Monitoring of the Otay Ranch Village 2 Project Brian F. Smith &
Associates
Source: Appendix E.
Note: APE = area of potential effect; SPA = Sectional Planning Area.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 287 of 1271
5.4 – Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.4-9
SD-12397
Report SD-12397 is a summary of the archaeological monitoring effort in support of the Otay Ranch Village 2
Project, an 855-acre parcel located immediately to the east of (but not overlapping) the current proposed project
APE (Appendix E). Conducted by Brian F. Smith and Associates, from June 2006 to April 2007, the report
summarizes recoveries at three archaeological sites and four cultural isolates. None of the monitoring discoveries
were considered significant and the authors determined that construction of the Otay Ranch Village 2 Project would
not induce an adverse effect on cultural resources and recommended that no further archaeological mitigation was
necessary (Appendix E).
Archival Review – Cultural Resources found within the Project APE
The SCIC record search indicates that no cultural resources have been identified within the project APE. However, 82
cultural resources have been recorded within the 1-mile search buffer (Table 5.4-2). Of these, only 3 are historic resources,
while 79 are prehistoric resources. The density of resources within this 1-mile buffer attests to the potential for buried
resources within the proposed project APE, even though none have yet been identified (Appendix E).
Historic resources within the 1-mile buffer include the Otay Ranch Farm Complex (approximately 830 meters to the
east of the current proposed project APE), a farmhouse at 5401 Main Street, and a structure mapped on the 1903
map. Of the 79 prehistoric resources already identified within the 1-mile buffer, there is evidence of four temporary
camps, 27 light scatters of artifacts, most notably chipped stone, a single bedrock milling station, and 47 isolated
artifacts that include simple flake tools, cores, millingstones, and pestles. Though the majority of these have not been
fully evaluated, the nature and character of them attest to fairly light land-use patterns within the 1-mile buffer.
Table 5.4-2. Resource within Proposed Project Research Area (1-Mile Buffer)
Primary Trinomial Period Description CRHP Eligibility Intersect?
37-008065 SDI-008065 Prehistoric Lithic and artifact scatter Potentially Eligible No
37-008912 SDI-008912 Prehistoric Artifact scatter Potentially Eligible No
37-010471 SDI-010471 Prehistoric Artifact scatter Potentially Eligible No
37-010472 SDI-010472 Prehistoric Lithic scatter Potentially Eligible No
37-010473 SDI-010473 Prehistoric Artifact scatter Potentially Eligible No
37-010489 SDI-010489 Prehistoric Lithic scatter Potentially Eligible No
37-011145 SDI-011145 Prehistoric Lithic scatter Potentially Eligible No
37-011146 SDI-011146 Prehistoric Lithic scatter Potentially Eligible No
37-011387 SDI-011387 Historic Otay Ranch Farm Complex Not Eligible No
37-011968 SDI-011968 Prehistoric Lithic scatter Potentially Eligible No
37-012289 SDI-012289 Prehistoric Temporary Camp Not Eligible No
37-012290 SDI-012290 Prehistoric Lithic scatter Not Eligible No
37-012292 SDI-012292 Prehistoric Lithic scatter Not Eligible No
37-012293 SDI-012293 Prehistoric Artifact scatter Potentially Eligible No
37-013226 SDI-013226 Prehistoric Temporary camp Not Eligible No
37-013771 SDI-013776 Prehistoric Bedrock milling Potentially Eligible No
37-013872 SDI-013862 Prehistoric Lithic scatter Potentially Eligible No
37-013873 SDI-013863 Prehistoric Lithic scatter Potentially Eligible No
37-013874 SDI-013864 Prehistoric Lithic scatter Not Eligible No
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 288 of 1271
5.4 – Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.4-10
Table 5.4-2. Resource within Proposed Project Research Area (1-Mile Buffer)
Primary Trinomial Period Description CRHP Eligibility Intersect?
37-013875 SDI-013865 Prehistoric Lithic scatter Not Eligible No
37-013876 SDI-013866 Prehistoric Lithic scatter Potentially Eligible No
37-013877 SDI-013867 Prehistoric Lithic scatter Not Eligible No
37-013878 SDI-013868 Prehistoric Temporary camp Potentially Eligible No
37-014153 N/A Prehistoric Isolate – Flake and core Not Eligible No
37-014154 N/A Prehistoric Isolate – Millingstone Not Eligible No
37-014155 N/A Prehistoric Isolate – Flake Not Eligible No
37-014156 N/A Prehistoric Isolate – Simple Flake Tool Not Eligible No
37-014157 N/A Prehistoric Isolate – Core Not Eligible No
37-014159 N/A Prehistoric Isolate – Simple Flake Tool
and Flake
Not Eligible No
37-014160 N/A Prehistoric Isolate – Flake Not Eligible No
37-014161 N/A Prehistoric Isolate – Core Not Eligible No
37-014162 N/A Prehistoric Isolate – Core and flake Not Eligible No
37-014163 N/A Prehistoric Isolate – Flake Not Eligible No
37-014164 N/A Prehistoric Isolate – Flake Not Eligible No
37-014165 N/A Prehistoric Isolate – 2 Flakes Not Eligible No
37-014166 N/A Prehistoric Isolate – Retouched Flake
Tool
Not Eligible No
37-014167 N/A Prehistoric Isolate – Simple Flake Tool Not Eligible No
37-014168 N/A Prehistoric Isolate – Simple Flake Tool Not Eligible No
37-014178 N/A Prehistoric Isolate – Simple Flake Tool Not Eligible No
37-014179 N/A Prehistoric Isolate – 2 flakes Not Eligible No
37-014180 N/A Prehistoric Isolate – Core Not Eligible No
37-014181 N/A Prehistoric Isolate – Simple Flake Tool Not Eligible No
37-014182 N/A Prehistoric Isolate – Simple Flake Tool Not Eligible No
37-014183 N/A Prehistoric Isolate – Flake Not Eligible No
37-014184 N/A Prehistoric Isolate – 2 Simple Flake Tools Not Eligible No
37-014185 N/A Prehistoric Isolate – Simple Flake Tool Not Eligible No
37-014186 N/A Prehistoric Isolate – 2 Simple Flake Tools Not Eligible No
37-014187 N/A Prehistoric Isolate – Flake Not Eligible No
37-014188 N/A Prehistoric Isolate – 2 Flakes Not Eligible No
37-014189 N/A Prehistoric Isolate – Simple Flake Tool Not Eligible No
37-014190 N/A Prehistoric Isolate – Simple Flake Tool
and Flake
Not Eligible No
37-014191 N/A Prehistoric Isolate – Pestle Not Eligible No
37-014192 N/A Prehistoric Isolate – Simple Flake Tools Not Eligible No
37-014193 N/A Prehistoric Isolate – Flake Not Eligible No
37-014223 SDI-014055 Prehistoric Temporary Camp Potentially Eligible No
37-014224 SDI-014056 Prehistoric Artifact scatter Potentially Eligible No
37-014529 N/A Prehistoric Isolate – Core Not Eligible No
37-014542 SDI-014175 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Potentially Eligible No
37-014544 SDI-014177 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Not Eligible No
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 289 of 1271
5.4 – Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.4-11
Table 5.4-2. Resource within Proposed Project Research Area (1-Mile Buffer)
Primary Trinomial Period Description CRHP Eligibility Intersect?
37-014570 SDI-014203 Prehistoric Artifact Scatter Potentially Eligible No
37-015009 N/A Prehistoric Isolate – Flake Not Eligible No
37-015010 N/A Prehistoric Isolate – Core fragment Not Eligible No
37-015148 N/A Prehistoric Isolate – Simple Flake Tool Not Eligible No
37-015149 N/A Prehistoric Isolate – Core Not Eligible No
37-015231 N/A Prehistoric Isolate – Core Not Eligible No
37-015332 N/A Prehistoric Isolate – Flake Not Eligible No
37-015333 N/A Prehistoric Isolate – Flake Not Eligible No
37-015334 N/A Prehistoric Isolate – Assayed cobble and
flake
Not Eligible No
37-015335 N/A Prehistoric Isolate –Core and Flake Not Eligible No
37-015336 N/A Prehistoric Isolate – Flake Not Eligible No
37-015525 N/A Prehistoric Isolate – Flake Not Eligible No
37-015526 N/A Prehistoric Isolate – Flake Not Eligible No
37-015975 N/A Prehistoric Isolate – Flake Not Eligible No
37-025521 N/A Historic Farmhouse at 4501 Main St. Potentially Eligible No
37-026550 N/A Historic Structure mapped on 1903
map
Potentially Eligible No
37-028497 SDI-014303 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Potentially Eligible No
37-030154 SDI-019219 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Potentially Eligible No
37-030158 N/A Prehistoric Isolate – Flake Not Eligible No
37-030568 N/A Prehistoric Isolate – Flake Not Eligible No
37-030569 SDI-019432 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Potentially Eligible No
37-032800 SDI-020737 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Potentially Eligible No
37-032801 SDI-020738 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Potentially Eligible No
Source: Appendix E.
Notes: CRHP = California Register of Historical Places; N/A = not applicable.
Two previously recorded prehistoric artifact scatter sites, approximately 160 meters upslope from the proposed
project APE, are reflective of the kinds of resources that may be encountered within the proposed project APE. These
sites might also be subject to erosion and result in artifact drift downslope into the proposed project APE.
P-37-010471 (CA-SDI-10471)
This resource is a prehistoric artifact scatter found immediately upslope of the proposed project APE, on the adjacent
property to the south. The site measures roughly 45 meters in diameter. The site consists of moderate amounts of
large tools, cores, and flakes, as documented by Fink in 1973. A representative surface collection of the tools was
taken. The area had been recently burned; therefore, the presence of midden soils was impossible to determine.
P-37-010473 (CA-SDI-10473)
This resource is a prehistoric artifact scatter, consisting of large flakes, tools, cores situated on the crest of the
southern side of Poggi Canyon, upslope from the project’s southern boundary. The site measures approximately 32
meters in diameter. This site was heavily surface collected during recordation by Fink in 1974 and was subjected
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 290 of 1271
5.4 – Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.4-12
to subsurface testing at that time. The shovel test pits yielded no subsurface com ponent. The interpretation was
that this site constituted as surface scatter of a San Dieguito III lithic workshop.
Aerial Imagery Analysis
A review of historic aerial imagery for the proposed project APE extends back to 1953 (Appendix E) with photos
present from 1953, 1964, 1966, 1968, 1971, 1981, 1989, 1994, 1996, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2009, 2010,
2012, 2014, and 2016. The aerial imagery showed that for the vast majority of the proposed project APE, no
development of the property had been on site from the earliest aerial image in 1953. The proposed project APE is
located at the western end of Poggi Canyon, occupying the southern slope. The construction of Olympic Parkway
along the northern border of the proposed project APE began as a small dirt road visible in the 1953 photo but was
paved as a split lane highway between 1996 and 2002. The addition of the median and development of Olympic
Parkway also impacted the project APE with improvements related to Poggi Creek running parallel to Olympic
Parkway. The proposed project APE includes the culvert as well as engineered animal crossing overpasses with
surface vegetation. This impact runs along the northern 40 feet of the proposed project APE. From at least the early
1960s, the eastern section of the proposed project APE has been subject to cultivation as indicated by patterns of
mechanical plowing; this practice appears to have ended in the 1980s. Historic topographic maps consulted were
from 1904, 1908, 1911, 1915, 1920, 1928, 1932, 1941, 1943, 1955, 1960, 1962, 1977, 2002, 2012, 2015, and
2018. The topographical maps show the current location of the landfill to have been a historic borrow pit, as early
as 1904, with continuous use into the present.
Survey Results
The intensive pedestrian survey of the APE, conducted April 11, 2020, identified no new cultural resources within
the current APE limits. Visibility was overwhelmingly obscured by vegetation, allowing for less than one -third of the
ground surface to be viewed in many areas. In addition, the westernmost sector of the project site was inaccessible
due to the presence of an active, inhabited homeless camp located within the proposed open space and the MSCP
Preserve area. Fortunately, this section of the project site is not scheduled for either grading or residential
development. Across the proposed project site, surface visibility was confined to scattered exposures near stands of
lemonade berry (Rhus integrifolia), gopher and ground squirrel burrow spoils, and to a series of recently graded
roadways. Several different vegetation communities have been identified across the proposed project APE
(Appendix D), with elements of the Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub (namely, large stands of lemonade berry), as well as
Southern Willow Scrub (composed mainly of arroyo and black willows, Salix lasiolepis and Salix gooddingii
respectively) being particularly impenetrable. Recent growth in both native and non-native grasslands due to heavy
rains obscured surface visibility nearly everywhere else. Recent notable growth included blue-eyed grass
(Sisyrinchium bellum) sweet fennel (Foeniculum vulgare) and wild oat (Avena barbata). The invasive white garden
snail (Theba pisana) was in high abundance throughout the proposed project APE.
Crisscrossing the western sector of the project site is a network of recently graded roadways. These provided the most
extensive and unobstructed view of the ground surface, revealing rounded alluvial cobbles and pebbles embedded in a
clay-rich, fine-grained, and currently water-logged sediment matrix. Though the recorded roadways exposed roughly
2,350 square meters of bare ground, Dudek did not encounter any cultural resources in those areas.
Other notable disturbances, namely colluvial slope wash at the bottoms of the small tributary feeder drainages, on
the north side of the project site, obscured bedrock, active vegetation, and likely all cultural resources in the immediate
area. Indeed, the colluvial movement of sediment and gravels downslope during seasonal heavy rains would ensure
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 291 of 1271
5.4 – Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.4-13
that cultural resources at the bottom of the hill, in and adjacent to Poggi Canyon, located along the northern boundary
of the project site, are deeply buried, wherever present.
5.4.2 Thresholds of Significance
The significance criteria used to evaluate the project impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources is based on
the recommendations provided in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.). A significant impact
would occur if the project would:
A. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5.
B. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5.
C. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.
D. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public
Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically
defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a
California Native American tribe, and that is:
a. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
b. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1.
In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead
agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
5.4.3 Impacts
A. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.5.
As described in Section 5.4.1. Existing Conditions, no historic sites were identified in previous cultural
investigations, records search, or pedestrian survey. Therefore, construction and operation of the proposed project
would not cause a substantial change in the significance of an historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.5, and no impact would occur.
B. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5.
Based on Appendix E of this EIR, no known cultural resources will be impacted as a result of project implementation.
However, while no cultural resources have been identified or recorded within the proposed project APE, the
proximity to known sites beyond the southern boundary of the project site, P-37-010473 (CA-SDI-10473) and P-37-
010471 (CA-SDI-10471), indicates a high sensitivity of encountering intact subsurface cultural resources. The hills
dividing Poggi Canyon and its affiliated seasonal drainage (located within the northern portion of the site) from the
more substantial Otay River (located 1 mile directly south of the proposed project APE) likely housed numerous
trails connecting them, and may have hosted occasional gatherings or other activities. As with the existing
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 292 of 1271
5.4 – Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.4-14
archaeological record of the broader area, the proposed project APE may contain intact, buried evidence of
prehistoric or historic transit, transportation, short-term encampments, and/or resource acquisition. There is
potential to encounter previously unidentified subsurface cultural deposits. Therefore, impacts would be potentially
significant and mitigation, as required and detailed in MM-CUL-1, would reduce potentially significant impacts to a
level below significance.
C. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.
No evidence of human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, was discovered during the
records search, literature review, field survey, or site testing and evaluation. Further, the site has been previously
disturbed and never used as a formal cemetery. However, the possibility exists that human remains may be
discovered during project grading and construction. Any disturbance of human remains that may occur during
project grading or construction would be potentially significant. Therefore, impacts would be potentially significant
and mitigation, as required by mitigation measure MM-CUL-1 would reduce potentially significant impacts to a level
below significance.
D. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources
Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically define d in terms
of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native
American tribe, and that is:
a. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical
resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k).
As discussed under Threshold A, no historical resources, as defined by California Public Resources Code Section
5020.1(k), are present within areas that would be impacted by the proposed project. No previously recorded
tribal cultural resources (TCRs) listed in the CRHR or a local register were identified within the proposed project APE.
However, there is still potential to disturb unknown TCRs. Mitigation measure MM-CUL-1 would be implemented to
reduce potentially significant impacts to a level below significance.
b. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be
significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In
applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency
shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
No TCRs have been identified that could be impacted by the proposed project. However, there is still potential for
unknown subsurface TCRs to be present on site. Proposed grading activities have potential to disturb unknown
subsurface TCRs. Therefore, impacts would be potentially significant. Mitigation measure MM-CUL-1 would be
implemented to reduce potentially significant impacts to a level below significance.
5.4.4 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation
Prior to mitigation, the proposed project would have potentially significant impacts associated with cultural and
tribal cultural resources. Impacts prior to mitigation would be potentially significant. Impacts related to historic
resources would be less than significant.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 293 of 1271
5.4 – Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.4-15
5.4.5 Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measure is recommended to reduce potentially significant impacts to unrecorded
subsurface archaeological resources, unrecorded human remains, and tribal cultural resources within the proposed
project site:
MM-CUL-1 A. Prior to beginning construction activities, the project archaeologist and Native American
representative shall attend any pertinent preconstruction meetings with the construction manager
and/or grading contractor in order to provide recommendations and answer questions relating to
the archaeological monitoring program. The project archaeologist shall be familiar with the cultural
inventory conducted for the current project and shall be prepared to introduce any pertinent
information concerning expectations and probabilities of discovery during ground-disturbing
activities. Prior to the initiation of construction, the cultural consultant shall acquire all evaluation
information and the draft evaluation report, if a report was prepared.
B. Both an archaeological monitor familiar with local resources and a Native American monitor
shall be present full time during the initial disturbance of soil with potential to contain cultural
deposits. All areas of initial project-related subsurface disturbance shall be assumed to
have the potential to contain cultural deposits. Monitoring of initial ground disturbance shall
not exceed a depth of 5 feet (1.5 meters) unless cultural resources are identified or if, through
direct inspection of subsurface exposures by the project Archaeologist, an area is observed
to have the potential to support the presence of archaeological deposits at greater depths.
Cultural resources monitoring may be reduced from initial full-time monitoring to periodic
spot checks, or discontinued if appropriate, once the project archaeologist determines that
there is little or no risk of encountering cultural material.
C. Daily archaeological and Native American monitoring logs shall be prepared. Logs shall include
monitor names and affiliations, a description of general activities observed, cultural discoveries,
as well as comments or concerns as applicable.
D. In the event of an archaeological discovery, and when requested by the archaeological monitor or
Native American monitor, the resident contractor will divert, redirect, or temporarily halt ground
disturbing activities in the area of discovery or impacts to allow for preliminary inspection of
potentially significant archaeological resources or impacts. The significance of the discovered
resources or impacts shall be determined by the archaeologist, in consultation with the City of Chula
Vista (City). For significant cultural resources, a Research Design and Data Recovery Program shall
be prepared and carried out to mitigate impacts before grading activities in the area of discovery
shall be allowed to resume.
E. The project archaeologist shall be responsible for ensuring that all cultural materials collected
will be cleaned, catalogued, and curated permanently with an appropriate institution; that a
letter of acceptance from the curation institution has been submitted to the City; that all
artifacts are analyzed to identify function and chronology as they relate to the history of the area;
that faunal material will be identified as to species; and that specialty studies are completed, as
appropriate. The project archaeologist shall make a good-faith effort to ensure that all
archaeological material collected through previous work is appropriately curated with any
material recovered through construction monitoring.
F. If human remains are discovered, work shall halt in that area and procedures set forth in the
California Public Resources Code (Section 5097.98) and State Health and Safety Code (Section
7050.5) shall be followed by the archaeological monitor after notification to the County Coroner by
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 294 of 1271
5.4 – Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.4-16
the project Archaeologist. If Native American remains are present, the County Coroner shall contact
the Native American Heritage Commission to designate a Most Likely Descendant, who shall
arrange for the dignified disposition and treatment of the remains.
G. Within 3 months following the completion of monitoring, two copies of a monitoring results
report (even if negative) and/or evaluation report, if applicable, that describes the results,
analysis, and conclusions of the archaeological monitoring program (with appropriate graphics)
shall be submitted to City.
H. For significant archaeological resources encountered during monitoring, the Research Design
and Data Recovery Program shall be included as part of the final evaluation monitoring report.
Two copies of the final monitoring report for significant archaeological resources, if required,
shall be submitted to the City. This final monitoring report should also incorporate a summary
of the evaluation results and analyses previously conducted within the project area.
I. The archaeologist shall be responsible for recording (on the appropriate CA DPR 523 Series
forms) any significant or potentially significant resources encountered during the
archaeological monitoring program in accordance with Section 106 and the City’s Cultural
Resources Guidelines, and submittal of such forms to the South Coastal Information Center at
San Diego State University with the final monitoring results report.
5.4.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of MM-CUL-1 would reduce potentially significant impacts associated with archeological, human
remains and tribal cultural resources to a less-than-significant level.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 295 of 1271
5.5 -- Energy
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.5-1
5.5 Energy
This section of the environmental impact report (EIR) addresses potential impacts to energy resulting from the
proposed Sunbow Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project (project or
proposed project). The discussion in this section is based on the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Technical Report prepared for the proposed project by Dudek in September 2020. The complete report is provided
in Appendix C and the energy use calculations are provided as Appendix F of this EIR.
5.5.1 Existing Conditions
5.5.1.1 Regulatory Framework
Federal
Federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act
In 1975, Congress enacted the Federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act, which established the first fuel
economy standards for on-road motor vehicles in the United States. Pursuant to the act, the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration is responsible for establishing additional vehicle standards. In 2012, new fuel
economy standards for passenger cars and light trucks were approved for model years 2017 through 2021 (77
FR 62624–63200). Fuel economy is determined based on each manufacturer’s average fuel economy for the
fleet of vehicles available for sale in the United States.
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
On December 19, 2007, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) was signed into law. In addition
to setting increased corporate average fuel economy standards for motor veh icles, the EISA includes the following
other provisions related to energy efficiency:
• Renewable fuel standard (RFS) (Section 202)
• Appliance and lighting efficiency standards (Sections 301–325)
• Building energy efficiency (Sections 411–441)
This federal legislation (the RFS) requires ever -increasing levels of renewable fuels to replace petroleum (EPA
2017). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is responsible for developing and implementing regulations
to ensure that t ransportation fuel sold in the United States contains a minimum volume of renewable fuel. The
RFS program regulations were developed in collaboration with refiners, renewable fuel producers, and many
other stakeholders.
The RFS program was created under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and established the first renewable fuel
volume mandate in the United States. As required under the Energy Policy Act, the original RFS program (RFS1)
required 7.5 billion gallons of renewable fuel to be blended into gasoline b y 2012. Under the EISA, the RFS
program was expanded in several key ways that laid the foundation for achieving significant reductions of
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions through the use of renewable fuels, for reducing imported petroleum, and for
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 296 of 1271
5.5 -- Energy
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.5-2
encouraging the development and expansion of our nation’s renewable fuels sector. The updated program
(“RFS2”) includes the following:
• EISA expanded the RFS program to include diesel, in addition to gasoline.
• EISA increased the volume of renewable fuel required to be blended into transportation fuel from 9 billion
gallons in 2008 to 36 billion gallons by 2022.
• EISA established new categories of renewable fuel and set separate volume requirements for each one.
• EISA required the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to apply lifecycle GHG performance threshold
standards to ensure that each category of renewable fuel emits fewer GHGs than the petroleum fuel it replaces.
Additional provisions of the EISA address energy savings in government and public institutions, promoting research for
alternative energy, additional research in carbon capture, international energy programs, and the creation of green jobs.
State
Warren-Alquist Act
The California Legislature passed the Warren-Alquist Act in 1974. The Warren-Alquist Act created the California
Energy Commission (CEC). The legislation also incorporated the following three key provisions designed to address
the demand side of the energy equation:
• It directed the CEC to formulate and adopt the nation’s first energy conservation standards for both
buildings constructed and appliances sold in California.
• The act removed the responsibility of electricity demand forecasting from the utilities, which had a financial
interest in high demand projections, and transferred it to a more impartial CEC.
• The CEC was directed to embark on an ambitious research and development program, with a particular
focus on fostering what were characterized as non-conventional energy sources.
State of California Energy Action Plan
The CEC and the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) approved the first State of California Energy Action
Plan in 2003. The plan established shared goals and specific actions to ensure that adequate, reliable, and
reasonably priced electrical power and natural gas supplies are provided, and identified policies, strategies, and
actions that are cost-effective and environmentally sound for California's consumers and taxpayers. In 2005, a
second Energy Action Plan was adopted by the CEC and CPUC to reflect various policy changes and actions of the
prior 2 years.
At the beginning of 2008, the CEC and CPUC determined that it was not necessary or productive to prepare a new
energy action plan. This determination was based in part on a finding that the state’s en ergy policies have been
significantly influenced by the passage of Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of
2006 (discussed below). Rather than produce a new energy action plan, the CEC and CPUC prepared an “update”
that examines the state’s ongoing actions in the context of global climate change.
California Code of Regulations Title 20 and Title 24
Title 24, Part 6. Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations was established in 1978 and serves to enhance and
regulate California’s building standards. Part 6 of Title 24 specifically establishes Building Energy Efficiency
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 297 of 1271
5.5 -- Energy
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.5-3
Standards that are designed to ensure that new and existing buildings in California achieve energy efficiency and
preserve outdoor and indoor environmental quality. These energy efficiency standards are reviewed every few years by
the Building Standards Commission and the CEC (and revised if necessary) (California Public Resources Code, Section
25402[b][1]). The regulations receive input from members of industry, as well as the public, with the goal of “reducing
of wasteful, uneconomic, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy” (California Public Resources Code Section
25402). These regulations are carefully scrutinized and analyzed for technological and economic feasibility (California
Public Resources Code Section 25402[d]) and cost effectiveness (California Public Resources Code Sections
25402[b][2] and [3]). These standards are updated to consider and incorporate new energy-efficient technologies and
construction methods. As a result, these standards save energy, increase electricity supply reliability, increase indoor
comfort, avoid the need to construct new power plants, and help preserve the environment.
The 2019 Standards will continue to improve upon the 2016 Standards for new construction of, and additions and
alterations to, residential and nonresidential buildings. Significant efficiency improvements to residential
standards include the introduction of photovoltaic into the prescriptive package, improvements for attics, walls,
water heating, and lighting. Significant efficiency improvements to nonresidential standards include alignment
with the ASHRAE 90.1 2017 national standards. The 2019 Standards became effective on January 1, 2020. In
general, single-family residences built to the 2019 standards are anticipated to use approximately 7% less energy
due to energy efficiency measures than those built to the 2016 standards; once rooftop solar electricity generation
is factored in, single-family residences built under the 2019 standards will use approximately 53% less energy
than those under the 2016 standards (CEC 2018).
The 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards would improve upon the 2019 Energy Code for new construction
of, and additions and alterations to, residential and nonresidential buildings. The proposed standards would be
adopted in 2021 with an effective date of January 1, 2023 (CEC 2020a).
Title 24, Part 11. In addition to the CEC’s efforts, in 2008, the California Building Standards Commission adopted
the nation’s first green building standards. The California Green Building Standards Code is commonly referred to
as CALGreen and establishes minimum mandatory standards as well as voluntary standards pertaining to the
planning and design of sustainable site development, energy efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code
requirements), water conservation, material conservation, and interior air quality. The CALGreen standards first
took effect in January 2011 and instituted mandatory minimum environmental performance standards for all
ground-up, new construction of commercial, low-rise residential and state-owned buildings and schools and
hospitals. The California Building Standards Code is published and updated every 3 years. The updated CALGreen
2019 standards have mandatory standards require the following that are related to energy-use (CALGreen 2019):
• Inclusion of electric vehicle charging stations or designated spaces capable of supporting future charging stations
The CALGreen standards also include voluntary efficiency measures that are provided at two separate tiers and
implemented at the discretion of local agencies and applicants. CALGreen’s Tier 1 standards call for a 15%
improvement in energy requirements, stricter water conservation, 65% diversion of construction and demolition
waste, 10% recycled content in building materials, 20% permeable paving, 20% cement reduction, and cool/sola r-
reflective roofs. CALGreen’s more rigorous Tier 2 standards call for a 30% improvement in energy requirements,
stricter water conservation, 75% diversion of construction and demolition waste, 15% recycled content in building
materials, 30% permeable paving, 25% cement reduction, and cool/solar-reflective roofs (CALGreen 2019).
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 298 of 1271
5.5 -- Energy
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.5-4
The CEC’s 2019 Integrated Energy Policy Report indicates that California’s Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS)
calls for 33% of the retail sales to be served with renewable resources by 2020, and by 2018 the state achieved
approximately 34% (CEC 2020a). In 2017, 52% of total electricity generation, including in-state generation and
imported power, came from zero-carbon generation sources.
Title 20. Title 20 of the California Code of Regulations requires manufacturers of appliances to meet state and
federal standards for energy and water efficiency. Performance of appliances must be certified through the CEC to
demonstrate compliance with standards. New appliances regulated under Title 20 include refrigerators,
refrigerator-freezers, and freezers; room air conditioners and room air-conditioning heat pumps; central air
conditioners; spot air conditioners; vented gas space heaters; gas pool heaters; plumbing fittings and plumbing
fixtures; fluorescent lamp ballasts; lamps; emergency lighting; traffic signal modules; dishwaters; clothes washers
and dryers; cooking products; electric motors; low voltage dry-type distribution transformers; power supplies;
televisions and consumer audio and video equipment; and battery charger systems. Title 20 presents protocols for
testing for each type of appliance covered under the regulations, and appliances must meet the standards for
energy performance, energy design, water performance, and water design. Title 20 contains three types of
standards for appliances: federal and state standards for federally regulated appliances, state standards for
federally regulated appliances, and state standards for non-federally regulated appliances.
Senate Bill 1
SB 1 (2006) established a $3 billion rebate program to support the goal of the state to install rooftop solar energy
systems with a generation capacity of 3,000 megawatts through 2016. SB 1 added sections to the California Public
Resources Code, including Chapter 8.8 (California Solar Initiative), that require building projects applying for
ratepayer-funded incentives for photovoltaic systems to meet minimum energy efficiency levels and performance
requirements. Section 25780 established that it is a goal of the state to establish a self-sufficient solar industry in
which solar energy systems are a viable mainstream option for both homes and businesses within 10 years of
adoption and to place solar energy systems on 50% of new homes within 13 years of adoption. SB 1, also termed
“GoSolarCalifornia,” was previously titled “Million Solar Roofs.”
Senate Bill 1078
This bill established the California RPS Program and required that a retail seller of electricity purchase a specified
minimum percentage of electricity generated by eligible renewable energy resources as defined in any given year,
culminating in a 20% standard by December 31, 2017. These retail sellers include electrical corporations, community
choice aggregators, and electric service providers. The bill relatedly required the CEC to certify eligible renewable
energy resources, design and implement an accounting system to verify compliance with the RPS by retail sellers, and
allocate and award supplemental energy payments to cover above-market costs of renewable energy.
Senate Bills 107 (2006), X1-2 (2011), 350 (2015), and 100 (2018)
Senate Bill (SB) 107 (2006) accelerated the RPS established by SB 1078 by requiring that 20% of electricity retail sales
be served by renewable energy resources by 2010 (not 2017). Additionally, SB X1-2 (2011) requires all California utilities
to generate 33% of their electricity from eligible renewable energy resources by 2020. Specifically, SB X1-2 sets a three-
stage compliance period: by December 31, 2013, 20% shall come from renewables; by December 31, 2016, 25% shall
come from renewables; and by December 31, 2020, 33% shall come from renewables.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 299 of 1271
5.5 -- Energy
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.5-5
SB 350 (2015) requires retail seller and publicly owned utilities to procure 50% of their electricity from eligible
renewable energy resources by 2030, with interim goals of 40% by 2024 and 45% by 2027.
SB 100 (2018) accelerated and expanded the standards set forth in SB 350 by establishing that 44% of the total
electricity sold to retail customers in California per year by December 31, 2024, 52% by December 31, 2027, and
60% by December 31, 2030 be secured from qualifying renewable energy sources. SB 100 also states that it is the
policy of the state that eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply 100% of the retail
sales of electricity to California. This bill requires that the achievement of 100% zero-carbon electricity resources
does not increase the carbon emissions elsewhere in the western grid and that the achievement not be achieved
through resource shuffling.
Consequently, utility energy generation from non -renewable resources is expected to be reduced based on
implementation of the 60% RPS in 2030. Therefore, any project’s reliance on non-renewable energy sources would
also be reduced.
Assembly Bill 1470
This bill established the Solar Water Heating and Efficiency Act of 2007. The bill makes findings and declarations
of the Legislature relating to the promotion of solar water heating systems and other technologies that reduce
natural gas demand. The bill defines several terms for purposes of the act. The bill requires the commiss ion to
evaluate the data available from a specified pilot program and, if it makes a specified determination, to design and
implement a program of incentives for the installation of 200,000 solar water heating systems in homes and
businesses throughout the state by 2017.
Assembly Bill 1109
Enacted in 2007, AB 1109 required CEC to adopt minimum energy efficiency standards for general purpose lighting,
to reduce electricity consumption 50% for indoor residential lighting and 25% for indoor commercial lighting.
Assembly Bill 1007 (2005)
AB 1007 (2005) required the CEC to prepare a statewide plan to increase the use of alternative fuels in California
(State Alternative Fuels Plan). The CEC prepared the plan in partnership with the California Air Resources Board
(CARB) and in consultation with the other state, federal, and local agencies. The plan assessed various alternative
fuels and developed fuel portfolios to meet California’s goals to reduce petroleum consumption, increase
alternative fuels use, reduce GHG emissions, and increase in-state production of biofuels without causing a
significant degradation of public health and environmental quality.
Assembly Bill 32 (2006) and Senate Bill 32 (2016)
In 2006, the Legislature enacted AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 requires
California to reduce its GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. In 2016, the Legislature enacted SB 32, which
extended the horizon year of the state’s codified GHG reduction planning targets from 2020 to 2030, re quiring
California to reduce its GHG emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. In accordance with AB 32 and SB 32,
CARB prepares scoping plans to guide the development of statewide policies and regulations for the reduction of
GHG emissions. Many of the policy and regulatory concepts identified in the scoping plans focused on increasing
energy efficiencies and the use of renewable resources and reducing the consumption of petroleum -based fuels
(such as gasoline and diesel). As such, the state’s GHG emissions reduction planning framework creates co-benefits
for energy-related resources.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 300 of 1271
5.5 -- Energy
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.5-6
California Long-Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan
In 2008, the California Energy Commission (CEC) and CPUC, working with a broad range of stakeholders, developed
the first long-term strategic plan for California's energy efficiency efforts. The Strategic Plan was most recently
updated in January 2011. The plan outlines numerous policy and program objectives, including net-zero goals for
residential (2020) and (2030) commercial new construction. The Plan seeks to effect substantial and sustained
progress towards more efficient technologies and practices in each of the customer end use sectors (e.g.,
Commercial, Industrial, Residential, Agricultural). Likewise, the Plan describes the market transformation efforts
necessary in each of the cross-cutting areas discussed (e.g., Codes and Standards, Workforce Education and
Training, Marketing Education and Outreach, and Research and Technology) (CPUC 2011).
Energy Upgrade California
Energy Upgrade California is a statewide energy management initiative designed to help residents and small businesses
learn the best ways to improve energy efficiency, save money and be more comfortable at home and at work. This new
initiative will help our communities meet our energy efficiency and clean energy goals. Energy Upgrade California is a
program of the CPUC in collaboration with the CEC, California counties, cities, nonprofit organizations, and the state’s
investor-owned utilities. Funding comes from the utilities' ratepayers under the auspices of the CPUC in addition to
incremental funding from the DOE. Energy Upgrade California offers a wide variety of incentives and rebates to choose
from to help homeowners replace appliances, pool pumps, HVAC systems, hot water heaters, install windows, insulation,
and more. Incentives and rebates can help offset the cost of energy efficient products (Energy Upgrade California 2018).
California Air Resources Board (CARB) Climate Change Scoping Plan
CARB’s Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan) was adopted on December 2008, pursuant to AB 32 (CARB 2008).
The Scoping Plan called for expanding and strengthening existing energy efficiency programs as well as building and
appliance standards and achieving statewide renewables energy mix of 33%. The Scoping Plan also calls for local
governments to reduce GHG emissions to 15% below 2008 levels by 2020.
Senate Bill 1368
On September 29, 2006, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law SB 1368 (Perata, Chapter 598, Statutes
of 2006). The law limits long-term investments in baseload generation by the state’s utilities to those power plants
that meet an emissions performance standard jointly established by the CEC and the CPUC.
The CEC has designed regulations that accomplish the following (Perata, Chapter 598, Statutes of 2006):
• Establish a standard for baseload generation owned by, or under long-term contract to publicly owned
utilities, of 1,100 pounds carbon dioxide (CO2) per megawatt-hour. This would encourage the development
of power plants that meet California’s growing energy needs while minimizing their emissions of GHGs.
• Require posting of notices of public deliberations by publicly owned utilities on long-term investments on
the CEC website. This would facilitate public awareness of utility efforts to meet customer needs for energy
over the long-term while meeting the state’s standards for environmental impact.
• Establish a public process for determining the compliance of proposed investments with the emissions
performance standard (EPS).
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 301 of 1271
5.5 -- Energy
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.5-7
Assembly Bill 1493
Adopted in 2002 by the state legislature, Assembly Bill (AB) 1493 (“Pavley” regulations) required that the CARB
develop and adopt, no later than January 1, 2005, regulations to achieve the maximum feasible and cost-effective
reduction of GHG emissions from motor vehicles.
The first California request to implement GHG standards for passenger vehicles, known as a waive r request, was
made in December 2005 and was denied by the EPA in March 2008. That decision was based on a finding that
California’s request to reduce GHG emissions from passenger vehicles did not meet the Clean Air Act requirement
of showing that the waiver was needed to meet “compelling and extraordinary conditions.”
The EPA granted California the authority to implement GHG emission reduction standards for new passenger cars,
pickup trucks, and sport utility vehicles on June 30, 2009. On September 24, 2009, CARB adopted amendments to
the Pavley regulations that reduce GHG emissions in new passenger vehicles from 2009 through 2016. These
amendments are part of California’s commitment to a nationwide program to reduce new passenger vehicle GHGs
from 2012 through 2016. CARB’s September 2009 amendments will allow for California’s enforcement of the Pavley
rule while providing vehicle manufacturers with new compliance flexibility. The amendments also prepare California
to harmonize its rules with the federal rules for passenger vehicles.
It is expected that the Pavley regulations will reduce GHG emissions from California passenger vehicles by approximately
22% in 2012 and approximately 30% in 2016, while improving fuel efficiency and reducing motorists’ costs.
Executive Order S-1-07
Issued on January 18, 2007, Executive Order (EO) S-1-07 sets a declining Low Carbon Fuel Standard for GHG emissions
measured in CO2-equivalent (CO2e) grams per unit of fuel energy sold in California. The target of the Low Carbon Fuel
Standard is to reduce the carbon intensity of California passenger vehicle fuels by at least 10% by 2020. The carbon
intensity measures the amount of GHG emissions in the lifecycle of a fuel, including extraction/feedstock production,
processing, transportation, and final consumption, per unit of energy delivered. CARB adopted the implementing regulation
in April 2009. The regulation is expected to increase the production of biofuels, including those from alternative sources,
such as algae, wood, and agricultural waste. In addition, the Low Carbon Fuel Standard would drive the availability of plug-
in hybrid, battery electric, and fuel-cell power motor vehicles. The Low Carbon Fuel Standard is anticipated to lead to the
replacement of 20% of the fuel used in motor vehicles with alternative fuels by 2020.
Sustainable Communities Strategy
The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008, or SB 375, coordinates land use planning, regional
transportation plans, and funding priorities to help California meet its GHG emissions reduction mandates. As codified
in California Government Code, Section 65080, SB 375 requires metropolitan planning organizations (San Diego
Association of Governments) to include a sustainable communities strategy in its regional transportation plan. The main
focus of the sustainable communities strategy is to plan for growth in a fashion that will ultimately reduce GHG emissions,
but the strategy is also a part of a bigger effort to address other development issues within the general vicinity, including
transit and vehicle miles traveled (VMT), which influence the consumption of petroleum-based fuels.
Advanced Clean Cars Program
In January 2012, CARB approved the Advanced Clean Cars program, a new emissions-control program for model years
2015 through 2025. The program combines the control of smog- and soot-causing pollutants and GHG emissions into a
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 302 of 1271
5.5 -- Energy
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.5-8
single coordinated package. The package includes elements to reduce smog-forming pollution, reduce GHG emissions,
promote clean cars, and provide the fuels for clean cars (CARB 2011). To improve air quality, CARB will propose new
emission standards to reduce smog-forming emissions beginning with 2015 model year vehicles. It is estimated that in
2025 cars will emit 75% less smog-forming pollution than the average new car sold today. To reduce GHG emissions,
CARB, in conjunction with the EPA and the NHTSA, has adopted new GHG standards for model year 2017 to 2025
vehicles; the new standards are estimated to reduce GHG emissions by 34% in 2025. The zero-emissions vehicles (ZEV)
program will act as the focused technology of the Advanced Clean Cars program by requiring manufacturers to produce
increasing numbers of ZEVs and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles in the 2018 to 2025 model years. The Clean Fuels Outlet
regulation will ensure that fuels such as electricity and hydrogen are available to meet the fueling needs of the new
advanced technology vehicles as they come to the market.
Executive Order B-16-12
Governor Brown issued EO S-16-12 on March 23, 2012. The EO requires that state entities under the governor’s
direction and control support and facilitate the rapid commercialization of ZEVs. It orders CARB, the CEC, the CPUC,
and other relevant agencies work with the Plug-in Electric Vehicle Collaborative and the California Fuel Cell
Partnership to establish benchmarks to help achieve the following by 2015:
• The state’s major metropolitan areas will be able to accommodate ZEVs, each with infrastructure plans and
streamlined permitting.
• The state’s manufacturing sector will be expanding ZEV and component manufacturing.
• The private sector’s investment in ZEV infrastructure will be growing.
• The state’s academic and research institutions will be contributing to ZEV research, innovation, and education.
CARB, the CEC, and CPUC are also directed to establish benchmarks to help achieve the following goals by 2020:
• The state’s ZEV infrastructure will be able to support up to one million vehicles.
• The costs of ZEV will be competitive with conventional combustion vehicles.
• ZEVs will be accessible to mainstream consumers.
• There will be widespread use of ZEVs for public transportation and freight transport.
• Transportation sector GHG emissions will be falling as a result of the switch to ZEVs.
• Electric vehicle charging will be integrated into the electricity grid.
• The private sector’s role in the supply chain for ZEV component development and manufacturing will be expanding.
Benchmarks are also to be established to help achieve the following goals by 2025:
• Over 1.5 million ZEVs will be on California roads and their market share will be expanding.
• Californians will have easy access to ZEV infrastructure.
• The ZEV industry will be a strong and sustainable part of California’s economy.
• California’s clean, efficient vehicles will annually displace at least 1.5 billion gallons of petroleum fuels.
On a statewide basis, the EO establishes a target reduction of GHG emissions from the transportation sector
equaling 80% less than 1990 levels by 2050.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 303 of 1271
5.5 -- Energy
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.5-9
Local
San Diego Gas & Electric Company 2020 Individual Integrated Resource Plan
San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed its 2020 Individual Integrated Resource Plan (IIRP) to the CPUC
on September 1, 2020 (SDG&E 2020a). The IIRP is guided by the following key statutory principles: (1) ensuring
reliability, (2) reducing GHG emissions with the best-fit resources at the lowest possible cost, and (3) meeting the
state’s RPS Program goals. The IIRP provides two conforming portfolios. One portfolio achieves the 46 million metric
tons (MMT) GHG benchmark, and the second portfolio achieves the 38 MMT GHG benchmark.
International Council of Environmental Initiatives Local Governments for Sustainability
In 1992, the City of Chula Vista (City) participated in the Cities for Climate Protection Program, which aimed at
developing municipal action plans for the reduction of GHGs. This program was sponsored and developed by the
International Council of Environmental Initiatives and the United Nations Environment Program in response to the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, while recognizing that all local planning and
development has direct consequences on energy consumption, and cities exercise key powers over urban
infrastructure, including neighborhood design, and over transportation infrastructure, such as roads, streets,
pedestrian areas, bicycle lanes, and public transport.
City of Chula Vista Climate Action Plan
Since 2000, Chula Vista has been implementing a Climate Action Plan (CAP) to address climate change issues and
its impacts on the City. The City’s Climate Action Plan is a group of documents including various GHG emission
inventories, the original Carbon Dioxide Reduction Plan (2000), Climate Mitigation Plan (2008), new Climate
Adaptation Plan (2011), and Municipal Action (2014). The City’s Increased Energy Efficiency Ordinance, Green
Building Standards, and Solar Ready Ordinances are products of the Climate Action Plan. Actions and goals of the
2017 CAP relate to energy and water efficient buildings, smart growth and clean transit, zero waste, increased local
energy and water resources, leading by example, and community resilience (City of Chula Vista 2017).
Chula Vista Climate Adaptation Strategies – Implementation Plans
The Climate Adaptation Strategies – Implementation Plans document developed by the Climate Change Working
Group includes 11 strategies to adapt Chula Vista to the potential impacts of global climate change, including
energy supply. The strategies to reduce energy demand include cool paving, shade trees, and cool r oofs. For each
strategy, the plans outline specific implementation components, critical steps, costs, and timelines. To limit the
necessary staffing and funding required to implement the strategies, the plans were also designed to build upon
existing municipal efforts rather than create new, stand-alone policies or programs. Initial implementation of all 11
strategies is intended to be phased in over a 3-year period from plan adoption (City of Chula Vista 2011).
Chula Vista Green Building Standards
The City of Chula Vista amended the City Municipal Code Ordinance 15.12 pertaining to green building practices to
include residential and non-residential remodels and additions. The Code contains Residential Mandatory
Measures and Non-Residential Mandatory Measures and also provides Voluntary Measures that can be used by
developers to improve energy efficiency and reduce environmental impacts through design and construction.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 304 of 1271
5.5 -- Energy
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.5-10
San Diego Regional Energy Efficiency Plan/City of Chula Vista Energy Strategy and Action Plan
The San Diego Regional Energy Plan provided policy and program recommendations to achieve energy sustainability
and security (SANDAG 1994). The San Diego Regional Energy office worked with SANDAG to update the plan with
Energy 2030, the San Diego Regional Energy Strategy. The Regional Energy Strategy is intended to create a vision
of how energy will be produced and consumed in the San Diego region in 2030. It also provides an integrated
approach to meeting energy needs and ensures that an adequate supply and distribution of electricity, natural gas
and transportation fuels is available (SANDAG 2009).
The City has adopted an energy plan to address long-term energy issues and to protect its residents from unreliable
energy supply and volatile prices. The plan, called the Chula Vista Energy Strategy and Action Plan, addresses
demand side management, energy efficient and renewable energy outreach programs for businesses and
residents, energy acquisition, power generation, and distributed energy resources and legislative actions (City of
Chula Vista 2001).
City of Chula Vista Solar Ready Ordinances
CVMC, Section 15.28.015, solar water heater pre-plumbing, and Section 15.24.065, photovoltaic pre-wiring
requirements, are referred to as the Solar Ready ordinances. Section 15.28.015 requires all new residential units
to include plumbing specifically designed to allow the later installation of a system which utilizes solar energy as
the primary means of heating domestic potable water. Section 15.24.065 requires all new residential units to
include electrical conduit specifically designed to allow the later installation of a photovoltaic system which utilizes
solar energy as a means to provide electricity.
City of Chula Vista General Plan
The City of Chula Vista General Plan (General Plan) recognizes that to ensure adequate and reliable energy service,
efficient energy efforts throughout the City and transitioning to non-fossil fuel alternatives will help to extend limited
supplies, reduce the need for expensive new regional power generators and transmission lines, and contribute to
Chula Vista’s economic sustainability and regional competitiveness. The General Plan includes objectives in the
Public Facilities and Services Element to ensure adequate energy supplies throughout Chula Vista (Objective PFS
22) and in the Environmental Element to promote conservation through the efficient use of energy and through the
development of local, non-fossil fuel-based renewable sources of energy (Objective E 7) (City of Chula Vista 2005).
5.5.1.2 Existing Conditions
Electricity
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), California used approximately 255,224 gigawatt
hours of electricity in 2018 (EIA 2020a). Electricity usage in California for different land uses varies substantially by
the types of uses in a building, type of construction materials used in a building, and the efficiency of all electricity -
consuming devices within a building. Due to the state’s energy efficiency building standards and efficiency and
conservation programs, California’s electricity use per capita in the residential sector is lower than any other state
except Hawaii (EIA 2020b).
SDG&E, a subsidiary of Sempra Energy, provides electric services to 3.6 million customers through 1.4 million
electric meters throughout a 4,100-square-mile service area in San Diego and Southern Orange County (SDG&E
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 305 of 1271
5.5 -- Energy
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.5-11
2020b). According to the SDG&E Final 2019 Renewables Portfolio Standard Procurement Pla n, 43% of SDG&E’s
power came from eligible renewables in 2018, including biomass/waste, geothermal, small hydroelectric, solar,
and wind sources (SDG&E 2020c). Renewable resources, including hydropower and small-scale (less than 1-
megawatt) customer-sited solar photovoltaics, supplied almost half of California’s in-state electricity generation in
2018 (EIA 2020b). California’s RPS Program establishes a goal for California to increase the amount of electricity
generated from renewable energy resources to 20% by 2010 and to 33% by 2020. Recent legislation revised the
current RPS target for California to obtain 50% of total retail electricity sales from renewable sources by 2030, with
interim targets of 40% by 2024, and 45% by 2027 (CPUC 2016). In addition, the CAP set a goal of using 100%
clean renewable energy and the City is currently evaluating the feasibility of a Community Choice Aggregation
program (City of Chula Vista 2017, 2020a).
In San Diego County, electricity demand in 2019 was 19,048 million kilowatt-hour (kWh) (CEC 2020b). More
specifically, within the City, the annual community-wide electricity consumption (encompassing both residential and
non-residential) is approximately 828 million kWh in 2016 (City of Chula Vista 2020b).
Natural Gas
According to the EIA, California used approximately 2,154,030 million cubic feet of natural gas in 2019 (EIA 2020c).
Natural gas is used for cooking, space heating, generating electricity, and as an alternative transportation fuel.
The majority of California’s natural gas customers are residential and small commercial customers (core
customers), which accounted for approximately 35% of the natural gas delivered by California utilities in 2018
(CPUC 2020). Large consumers, such as electric generators and industrial customers (noncore customers),
accounted for approximately 65% of the natural gas delivered by California utilities (CPUC 2020). The CPUC
regulates California natural gas rates and natural gas services, including in -state transportation over transmission
and distribution pipeline systems, storage, procurement, metering, and billing. Most of the natural gas used i n
California comes from out-of-state natural gas basins. Biogas (e.g., from wastewater treatment facilities or dairy
farms) is just beginning to be delivered into the gas utility pipeline systems, and the state has been encouraging its
development (CPUC 2020).
SDG&E provides natural gas services to 3.6 million customers through 873,000 natural gas meters throughout a
4,100-square-mile service area in San Diego and Southern Orange County (SDG&E 2020b). SDG&E delivered
approximately 534 million therms (53 billion kilo British thermal units [kBtu]) to San Diego County (CEC 2020c).
Within the City of Chula Vista, the annual community-wide natural gas consumption (encompassing both residential
and non-residential) is approximately 3,531,230 million British thermal units or 35.3 million therms in 2016 (City
of Chula Vista 2020b).
Petroleum
According to the EIA, California used approximately 681 million barrels of petroleum in 2018, with the majority (584
million barrels) used for the transportation sector (EIA 2020d). This total annual consumption equates to a daily
use of approximately 1.9 million barrels of petroleum. There are 42 U.S. gallons in a barrel, so California consumes
approximately 78.4 million gallons of petroleum per day, adding up to an annual consumption of 28.7 billion gallons
of petroleum. Also, countywide total petroleum use by vehicles is expected to be 1.6 billion gallons per year in 2021
and 1.3 billion gallons per year in 2028 (CARB 2020).
By sector, transportation uses utilize approximately 85.5% of the state’s petroleum, followed by 11.1% from
industrial, 2.5% from commercial, 0.9% from residential, and 0.01% from electric power uses (EIA 2018b).
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 306 of 1271
5.5 -- Energy
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.5-12
Petroleum usage in California includes petroleum products such as motor gasoline, distillate fuel, liquefied
petroleum gases, and jet fuel. California has implemented policies to improve vehicle efficiency and to support use
of alternative transportation, which are described in Section 5.5.1.1, Regulatory Framework.
5.5.2 Thresholds of Significance
The significance criteria used to evaluate the project impacts to energy is based on the recommendations provided
in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.). A significant impact would occur if the project would:
A. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation.
B. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
5.5.3 Impacts
A. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption
of energy resources, during project construction or operation.
Construction
Electricity
Electrical power would be consumed to construct the proposed project. The demand would be supplied from existing
electrical services at the proposed project site. Construction activities would require minimal electricity
consumption and would not be expected to have any adverse impact on available electricity supplies and
infrastructure as the proposed project site is surrounded by developed residential parcels. The City’s noise
ordinance generally restricts construction during the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., Monday through Friday ,
and between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., Saturday and Sunday, which would minimize the need for
nighttime lighting. The electricity used for construction would be temporary, would be substantially less than
required for proposed project operation, and would therefore have a negligible contribution to the proposed
project’s overall energy consumption.
Natural Gas
Natural gas is not anticipated to be required during construction of the proposed project. Fuels used for construction
would primarily consist of diesel and gasoline, which are discussed under the petroleum subsection, below. Any
minor amounts of natural gas that may be consumed as a result of project construction would be substantially less
than that required for project operation and would have a negligible contribution to the proposed project’s overall
energy consumption.
Petroleum
Heavy-duty construction equipment of various types would be used during each phase of project construction. The
California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2016.3.2 analysis discussed in Section 5.2, Air Quality,
and included in Appendix C lists the assumed equipment usage for each phase of construction. Potential impacts
were assessed through projected traffic trip generation during construction, as provided by CalEEMod outputs
(Appendix C). Fuel consumption from construction equipment was estimated by converting the total carbon dioxide
(CO2) emissions from each construction phase to gallons using conversion factors for CO2 to gallons of gasoline or
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 307 of 1271
5.5 -- Energy
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.5-13
diesel. The conversion factor for gasoline is 8.78 kilograms per metric ton CO2 per gallon, and the conversion factor
for diesel is 10.21 kilograms per metric ton CO2 per gallon (The Climate Registry 2020). It is assumed that
construction workers would travel to and from the project site in gasoline-powered vehicles. Fuel consumption from
worker and vendor trips was estimated by converting the total CO2 emissions from the construction phase to gallons
using the conversion factors for CO2 to gallons of gasoline or diesel. Worker vehicles are assumed to be gasoline
fueled, and vendor vehicles are assumed to be diesel fueled. Based on that analysis, over all phases of construction,
diesel-fueled construction equipment would run for an estimated 142,582 hours as summarized in Table 5.5-1.
Table 5.5-1. Hours of Operation for Construction Equipment
Construction Phase Hours of Equipment Use
Site preparation 1,680
Grading 11,264
Architectural coating 9,990
Building construction 112,880
Paving 6,768
Total 142,582
Source: Appendix F.
The estimated diesel fuel use from construction equipment is shown in Table 5.5-2.
Table 5.5-2. Construction Equipment Diesel Demand
Phase Pieces of Equipmenta Equipment CO2 (MT)a kg CO2/Gallonb Gallons
Site preparation 7 50.15 10.21 4,912.19
Grading 8 479.60 10.21 46,973.45
Architectural coating 1 212.56 10.21 20,818.63
Building construction 9 1924.42 10.21 188,484.11
Paving 6 141.19 10.21 13,829.00
Total 275,017.38
Sources:
a Appendix F.
b The Climate Registry 2020.
Notes: CO2 = carbon dioxide; MT = metric ton; kg = kilogram.
Calculations for total worker and vendor fuel consumption are provided in Tables 5.5-3 and 5.5-4.
Table 5.5-3. Construction Worker Vehicle Gasoline Demand
Phase Trips Vehicle CO2 (MT)a kg CO2/Gallonb Gallons
Site Preparation 540 1.89 8.78 215.42
Grading 3,520 12.27 8.78 1,397.81
Architectural Coating 298,035 909.17 8.78 103,550.14
Building
Construction
1,482,380 4520.05 8.78 514,812.44
Paving 2,115 7.14 8.78 812.81
Total 620,788.62
Sources:
a Appendix F.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 308 of 1271
5.5 -- Energy
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.5-14
b The Climate Registry 2020.
Notes: CO2 = carbon dioxide; MT = metric ton; kg = kilogram.
Table 5.5-4. Construction Vendor Truck Diesel Demand
Phase Trips Vehicle CO2 (MT)a kg/CO2/Gallonb Gallons
Site Preparation 0 0.00 10.21 0.00
Grading 0 0.00 10.21 0.00
Architectural Coating 0 0.00 10.21 0.00
Building
Construction
370,180 4641.50 10.21 454,603.52
Paving 0 0.00 10.21 0.00
Total 454,603.52
Sources:
a Appendix F.
b The Climate Registry 2020.
Notes: CO2 = carbon dioxide; MT = metric ton; kg = kilogram.
As shown in Tables 5.5-3 and 5.5-4, the project is estimated to consume 1,350,410 gallons of petroleum during
the construction phase. The project would be required to comply with CARB’s Airborne Toxics Control Measure,
which restricts heavy-duty diesel vehicle idling time to 5 minutes, which would minimize fuel consumption. While
construction activities would consume petroleum-based fuels, consumption of such resources would be temporary
and would cease upon the completion of construction. Further, the petroleum consumed related to project
construction would be typical of construction projects of similar types and sizes and would not necessitate new
petroleum resources beyond what are typically consumed in California. In addition, the project site is served by
public transportation services and Interstate 805. Due to the presence of a MTS bus routes 703 and 704 bus stop
at Brandywine and Olympic Parkway, approximately 0.9 miles from the site and the East Palomar Transit Station
located approximately one mile from the project site, some construction workers would be anticipated to use public
transportation to access the project site during construction. Therefore, construction worker trips and associated
petroleum consumption would be expected to be reduced compared to similar construction projects in rural
locations. The project would also utilize Tier 3 off-road construction equipment as implemented under MM-GHG-1.
Therefore, because electricity, natural gas, and petroleum use during construction would be temporary and
relatively minimal, and would not be wasteful or inefficient, impacts would be less than significant.
Operation
Electricity
The operational phase would require electricity for multiple purposes including, but not limited to, building
heating and cooling, lighting, appliances, and electronics. Additionally, the supply, conveyance, treatment, and
distribution of water would indirectly result in electricity usage. CalEEMod was used to estimate proje ct emissions
from electricity uses (see Appendix F for calculations). Default electricity generation rates in CalEEMod were used
based on the proposed land use and climate zone and were adjusted to reflect compliance with 2019 Title 24
standards. The current Title 24, Part 6 standards, referred to as the 2019 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency
Standards, became effective on January 1, 2020. The current version of CalEEMod assumes compliance with
the 2016 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (CAPCOA 2017); however, the proposed project would be
required to comply with the 2019 Title 24 Standards. The project operational energy emissions were adjusted to
meet the 2019 Title 24 Standards, by assuming 53% less energy use than that under the 201 6 standards (CEC
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 309 of 1271
5.5 -- Energy
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.5-15
2018). This is because, as described in Section 5.5.1, once rooftop solar electricity generation is factored in,
residential units built under the 2019 standards will use approximately 53% less energy than those under the 2016
standards (CEC 2018). Using the 2019 Title 24 Standards , the proposed project’s estimated electricity
consumption is approximately 4,480,067 kWh per year (Appendix F). For disclosure, in comparison, for San Diego
County, electricity demand in 2019 was 19,048 million kWh (CEC 2020 b). More specifically, within the City, the
annual community-wide electricity consumption (encompassing both residential and non -residential) is
approximately 828 million kWh in 2016 (City of Chula Vista 2020b).
The proposed project’s impacts in the category of GHG emissions was determined to be potentially significant; thus,
the project would be required to comply with Mitigation Measure (MM) GHG-1, Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Reduction Measures (see Section 5.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, for details)., Reducing GHG emissions during
operation would help reduce operation-related electricity usage and operation related GHG emissions in the City.
The energy demand calculations do not take into account the energy saving measures from MM-GHG-1, including
installing energy-efficient lighting for all street, parking, and area lighting associated with the project and
implementing energy-efficient design practices, which include high-performance glazing, Energy Star compliant
systems and appliances, radiant heat roof barriers, insulation on all pipes, programmable thermostats, and sealed
ducts. Furthermore, the project would be consistent with the applicable measures within the City’s CAP to reduce
the proposed project’s energy use by planting 600 shade trees, installing solar photovoltaic systems consistent
with current building standards, and installing cool roof material with a greater solar reflectivity to help conserve
energy (see Section 5.7 for a complete consistency analysis with the CAP). In summary, the proposed project would
comply with the CAP and implement energy reducing measures in MM-GHG-1, as required to reduce GHG emissions,
but used to also further reduce electricity usage.
Natural Gas
The operation of the proposed project would require natural gas for space heating, water heating, and to power
appliances (EIA 2010). Default natural gas usage rates in CalEEMod for the proposed land use and climate
zone were used and adjusted based on compliance with 2019 Title 24 standards . The project’s estimated
natural gas consumption is approximately 9,841,430 kBTU per year , which is equivalent to 98,414 therms
(Appendix F).
For disclosure, 2019, SDG&E delivered approximately 534 million therms (53 billion kBtu) to San Diego County
(CEC 2020c). Within the City of Chula Vista, the annual community-wide natural gas consumption (encompassing
both residential and non-residential) is approximately 3,531,230 million Btu or 35.3 million therms in 2016 (City
of Chula Vista 2020b). Project-specific measures would be implemented under MM-GHG-1 (as listed in Section 5.7),
including energy-efficient design practices, which would minimize the proposed project’s natural gas use. The
project is subject to statewide mandatory energy requirements as outlined in Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code
of Regulations. Prior to project approval, the applicant would ensure that the project would meet Title 24
requirements applicable at that time, as required by state regulations through their plan review process.
Peak natural gas use for households typically occurs in the winter months (EIA 2016). In Southern California, peak
demand occurs in winter (California Gas and Electric Utilities 2016). As such, the proposed project’s peak natural
gas use is expected to align g enerally with typical peak use patterns in the region. In addition, the regulations
and design features described above would reduce the proposed project’s effect on peak and base periods of
natural gas demand.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 310 of 1271
5.5 -- Energy
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.5-16
In summary, the proposed project would implement energy reducing measures through implementation of MM-
GHG-1, the effects of which would be increased through implementation of green building standards, required for
implementation of the proposed project.
Petroleum
During operations, fuel consumption resulting from the project would involve the use of motor vehicles traveling to
and from the project site by residents.
Petroleum fuel consumption associated with motor vehicles traveling to and from the project site is a function of
the vehicle miles traveled as a result of project operation. The annual unmitigated VMT attributable to the proposed
project is expected to be 10,196,784 VMT (Appendix F). The proposed project would consume an estimated
324,636 gallons of gasoline per year and 58,548 gallons of diesel per year from operation of vehicle trips traveling
to and from the project site, or 383,184 gallons of petroleum per year. By comparison, California as a whole
consumes approximately 78.4 million gallons of petroleum per day, adding up to an annual consumption of 28.7 billion
gallons of petroleum (EIA 2020d). Also, for disclosure, countywide total petroleum use by vehicles is expected to be
1.3 billion gallons per year in 2028 (CARB 2020).
Over the lifetime of the proposed project, the fuel efficiency of the vehicles being used by the residents of the
proposed project is expected to increase. As such, the amount of gasoline consumed as a result of vehicular trips
to and from the project site during operation would decrease over time. As discussed under Section 5.5.1.1, there
are numerous regulations in place that require and encourage increased fuel efficiency. For example, CARB has
adopted a new approach to passenger vehicles by combining the control of smog-causing pollutants and GHG
emissions into a single coordinated package of standards. The new approach also includes efforts to support and
accelerate the numbers of plug-in hybrids and ZEVs in California (CARB 2017). As such, operation of the proposed
project is expected to use decreasing amounts of petroleum over time, due to advances in fuel economy.
The project would implement PDF-TRA-1 (see Section 4.4.8, Project Design Features, of the EIR), which includes strategies
that would further reduce the project’s vehicle miles traveled, including providing ride share coordination services,
coordinating with nearby schools to carpool to/from school, provide on-site transit opportunities information, and
encourage bicycling by providing on-site bicycle infrastructure such as bike racks.
The proposed project’s impacts in the category of GHG emissions was determined to be potentially significant; thus,
the project would be required to implement MM-GHG-1 (see Section 5.7 for details), which include pre-wiring two
parking spots and the project’s 718 parking garages to be electric vehicle capable. Furthermore, the two pre -wired
parking spots would be designated for carpool, shared, electric, and hydrogen vehicles. Reducing GHG emissions
during operation would help reduce operation-related fuel usage. Furthermore, the proposed project would provide
pedestrian and bicycle connectivity to the neighborhood due to proximity to bicycle routes and by providing
pedestrian sidewalk connections to the Chula Vista Regional Trail located along Olympic Parkway. The proposed
project would be located near MTS bus routes 703 and 704 and Interstate 805 and the East Palomar Transit Station
would be located approximately one mile from the project site. In addition, the project is located near commercial and
employment centers in an urban setting. These project characteristics would promote pedestrian and bicycle activity
and encourage alternate forms of transportation. Lastly, the project would be consistent with the applicable
measures within the CAP to reduce the proposed project’s petroleum use (see Section 5.7 of this EIR for a complete
consistency analysis with the CAP).
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 311 of 1271
5.5 -- Energy
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.5-17
In summary, over time. vehicles would use less petroleum due to advances in fuel economy. Additionally, the proposed
project would include a variety of features that are expected to reduce the proposed project’s petroleum use and
reduce the number of vehicles traveling to and from the site during operation. Given these considerations, the
electrictiy, natural gas, petroleum consumption associated with the proposed project would not be considered
inefficient or wasteful, and impacts would be less than significant.
B. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency
The proposed project would be subject to and would comply with, at a minimum, the California Building Energy
Efficiency Standards (24 CCR, Part 6). Part 6 of Title 24 establishes energy efficiency standards for residential and
non-residential buildings constructed in California in order to reduce energy demand and consumption.
Part 11 of Title 24 sets forth voluntary and mandatory energy measures that are applicable to the proposed project
under the California Green Building Standards Code. As discussed under Threshold A, the proposed project would
result in an increased demand for electricity, natural gas , and petroleum. During both construction and operation
of the project, the project would comply with all state regulations related to solid waste generation, storage, and
disposal, including the California Integrated Waste Management Act, as amended. As implemented by MM-GHG-1,
during construction, all wastes would be recycled to the maximum extent possible and exceed the City of Chula
Vista’s Construction and Demolition Debris Waste Management Plan’s 65% diversion of construction and
demolition waste. In addition, the proposed project is subject to the City’s CAP, City’s Green Building Standards,
and City’s Energy Code for Residential Development. The California Green Building Standards, on which the City’s
Green Building Standards Ordinance 15.12 is based, includes measures for reducing overall energy consumption
through water conservation, electricity and natural gas conservation, and building design. Included in these
standards is a mandate for 20% less water use than currently required by the state plumbing code. The City’s
Landscape Water Conservation Ordinance would further reduce water consumption and associated electricity use
through the use of drought-tolerant landscaping and water-efficient irrigation systems. As implemented under MM-
GHG-1, the project would install energy-efficient lighting for all street, parking, and area lighting associated with the
project. Furthermore, energy-efficient design practices, such as high-performance glazing, Energy Star compliant
systems and appliances, radiant heat roof barriers, insulation on all pipes, programmable thermostats, and sealed
ducts, shall be implemented. The project would install cool roof material with a greater solar reflectivity to help
conserve energy. In addition, the project would plant native species and drought-tolerant species would be used for a
minimum of 50% of the ornamental plant palette in non-turf areas to minimize the project’s water demand, and the project
would install purple pipes to use reclaimed water for irrigation.
The project would be consistent with the applicable measures within the CAP to reduce the proposed project’s
petroleum use and reduce the number of vehicles traveling to and from the project site. The project would implement
PDF-TRA-1 (see Section 4.4.8, Project Design Features, of the EIR), which includes the following strategies that would
further reduce the project’s vehicle miles traveled, including providing ride share coordination services, coordinating with
nearby schools to carpool to/from school, provide on-site transit opportunities information, and encourage bicycling by
providing on-site bicycle infrastructure such as bike racks. The project would pre-wire two parking spots and the project’s
718 parking garages to be electric vehicle capable. In addition, the two pre-wired parking spots would be designated
for carpool, shared, electric, and hydrogen vehicles. The project would be located near MTS bus routes 703 and
704 and I-805, and the East Palomar Transit Station is located approximately one mile from the project site. In addition,
the project is located near commercial and employment centers in an urban setting. These project characteristics would
promote pedestrian and bicycle activity and encourage alternate forms of transportation (see Section 5.7 of this
EIR for a complete consistency analysis with the CAP).
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 312 of 1271
5.5 -- Energy
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.5-18
The proposed project would use energy su pplied by SDG&E, which achieved a renewable procurement
percentage of 44% in 2017 as reported by CEC. In addition, the CAP set a goal of using 100% clean renewable
energy and the City is currently evaluating the feasibility of a Community Choice Aggregation program (City of
Chula Vista 2017, 2020a). In addition, the project would install a 1,462-kW solar photovoltaic system meeting
the minimum 2019 Title 24 standards.
Because the proposed project would comply with and exceed the existing energy standards and regulations, the
project would result in a less than significant impact associated with the potential to conflict with energy standards
and regulations.
5.5.4 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation
Impacts prior to mitigation would be less than significant.
5.5.5 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
5.5.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation
There are no mitigation measures proposed and impacts would remain less than significant.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 313 of 1271
5.6 – Geology and Soils
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.6-1
5.6 Geology and Soils
This section of the environmental impact report (EIR) describes the existing geology and soils setting of the proposed
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project (project or proposed project),
identifies associated regulatory requirements, evaluates potential impacts, and identifies mitigation measures to reduce
or avoid significant impacts. The following analysis is based on the Geotechnical Investigation Report (Geotechnical
Report) prepared by Geocon Inc. and the Cultural and Paleontological Resources Inventory Report prepared by Dudek.
The reports are provided as Appendix G and Appendix E to this EIR, respectively.
5.6.1 Existing Conditions
5.6.1.1 Regulatory Framework
Federal
International Building Code
The International Building Code (IBC) is a model building code developed by the International Code Council that
provides the basis for the California Building Code (CBC). The purpose of the IBC is to provide minimum standards
for building construction to ensure public safety, health, and welfare. Prior to the creation of the IBC, several
different building codes were used; however, by 2000, the IBC had replaced these previous codes. The IBC is
updated every 3 years.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration Regulations
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s Excavation and Trenching standard, Title 29 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, Part 1926.650, covers requirements for excavation and trenching operations. The
Occupational Safety and Health Administration requires that all excavations where employees could potentially be
exposed to cave-ins be protected by sloping or benching the sides of the excavation, supporting the sides of th e
excavation, or placing a shield between the side of the excavation and the work area.
State
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972 (California Public Resources Code Sections 2621 –2630)
regulates development and construction of buildings intended for human occupancy to avoid the hazard of surface
fault rupture. The act helps define areas where fault rupture is most likely to occur. The act groups faults into
categories of active, potentially active and inactive. Historic and Holocene age faults are considered active. Late
Quaternary and Quaternary age faults are considered potentially active and pre -Quaternary age faults are
considered inactive. These classifications are qualified by the conditions that a fault must be shown to be
sufficiently active and well defined by detailed site-specific geologic explorations to determine whether building
setbacks should be established. Cities and counties affected by the zones must regulate certain development
projects within the zones. They must withhold development permits for sites within the zones until geologic
investigations demonstrate that the sites are not threatened by surface displacement from future faulting.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 314 of 1271
5.6 – Geology and Soils
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.6-2
California Building Code
State regulations protecting structures from geo-seismic hazards are contained in the California Code of
Regulations, Title 24, Part 2 (the California Building Code [CBC]). The purpose of the CBC is to establish minimum
standards to safeguard the public health, safety, and general welfare through structural strength, means of egress
facilities, and general stability by regulating and controlling the design, construction, quality of materials, use and
occupancy, location, and maintenance of all building and structures within its jurisdiction. The CBC is based on the
International Building Code published by the International Code Conference. The CBC contains California
amendments based on the American Society of Civil Engineers Minimum Design Standards 7 -05, which provides
requirements for general structural design and includes means for determining earthquake loads and other loads
(such as wind loads) for inclusion into building codes. The provisions of the CBC apply to the construction, alteration,
movement, replacement, and demolition of every building or structure or any appurtenances connected or attached
to such buildings or structures throughout California.
California Environmental Quality Act
Paleontological resources are limited, nonrenewable resources of scientific, cultural, and educational value and are
afforded protection under state laws and regulations, notably, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
(California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.). This report satisfies project requirements in accordance
with CEQA and California Public Resources Code Section 5097.5. This analysis also complies with guidelines and
significance criteria specified by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP 2010).
Paleontological resources are explicitly afforded protection by CEQA, specifically in Section VII(f) of CEQA Guidelines
Appendix G, the Environmental Checklist Form, which addresses the potential for adverse impacts to “unique
paleontological resource[s] or site[s] or … unique geological feature[s]” (14 CCR 15000 et seq.). This provision covers
fossils of signal importance—remains of species or genera new to science, for example, or fossils exhibiting features
not previously recognized for a given animal group—as well as localities that yield fossils significant in their abundance,
diversity, preservation, and so forth. Further, CEQA provides that, generally, a resource shall be considered “historically
significant” if it has yielded or may be likely to yield information important in prehistory (14 CCR 15064.5 [a][3][D]).
Paleontological resources would fall within this category. The California Public Resources Code, Chapter 1.7, Sections
5097.5 and 30244, also regulates removal of paleontological resources from state lands, defines unauthorized
removal of fossil resources as a misdemeanor, and requires mitigation of disturbed sites.
California Geologic Survey
The California Geologic Survey (CGS) provides guidance with regard to seismic hazards. The CGS’s Special Publication
117, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California provides guidance for evaluation and
mitigation of earthquake-related hazards for projects within designated zones of required investigation.
State Earthquake Protection Law
The State Earthquake Protection Law (California Health and Safety Code 19100 et seq.) requires that structures be
designed to resist stresses produced by lateral forces caused by wind and earthquakes. Specific minimum seismic
safety and structural design requirements are set forth in the CBC. The CBC requires a site-specific geotechnical
study to address seismic issues and identify seismic factors that must be considered in structural design. Because
the project site is not located within an Alquist–Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (Exhibit 5.8-3, Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zone Map, in City of Murrieta 2011a), no special provisions would be required for project
development related to fault rupture.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 315 of 1271
5.6 – Geology and Soils
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.6-3
Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1990
The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1990 (SHMA) (California Public Resources Code Section 2690 et seq.) directs
the California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, to identify and map areas prone to
liquefaction, earthquake-induced landslides, and amplified ground shaking. The purpose of the SHMA is to minimize
loss of life and property through the identification, evaluation, and mitigation of seismic hazards.
The SHMA provides a statewide seismic hazard mapping and technical advisory program to assist cities and
counties in fulfilling their responsibilities for protecting public health and safety from the effects of strong ground
shaking, liquefaction, landslides, other ground failure, and other seismic hazards caused by earthquakes. Mapping
and other information generated pursuant to the SHMA is made available to local governments for planning and
development purposes. The state requires local governments to incorporate site-specific geotechnical hazard
investigations and associated hazard mitigation as part of the local construction permit approval process, and
requires the agent for a property seller, or the seller if acting without an agent, to disclose to any prospective buyer
if the property is located within a seismic hazard zone. The state geologist is responsible for compiling seismic
hazard zone maps. The SHMA specifies that the lead agency for a project may withhold development permits until
geologic or soils investigations are conducted for specific sites and mitigation measures are incorporated into plans
to reduce hazards associated with seismicity and unstable soils.
Local
City of Chula Vista General Plan – Environmental Element
Individual project development proposed on property under City of Chula Vista (City) jurisdiction has requirements
similar to IBC and CBC requirements, and must comply with Objective E 14 and its three associated policies (E
14.1, E 14.2, and E 14.3) contained in the Environmental Element of the General Plan (Chapter 9, Section 3.1.10)
(City of Chula Vista 2005). Implementation of this objective and policies are intended to reduce potential impacts
associated with geological hazards and public safety.
• Objective E 14: Minimize the risk of injury, loss of life, and property damage associated with geologic hazards.
• Policy E 14.1: To the maximum extent practicable, protect against injury, loss of life, and major property
damage through engineering analyses of potential seismic hazards, appropriate engineering design, and
the stringent enforcement of all applicable regulations and standards.
• Policy E 14.2: Prohibit the subdivision, grading, or development of lands subject to potential geologic
hazards in the absence of adequate evidence demonstrating that such development would not be adversely
affected by such hazards and would not adversely affect surrounding properties.
• Policy E 14.3: Require site-specific geotechnical investigations for proposals within areas subject to
potential geologic hazards; and ensure implementation of all measures deemed necessary by the City
Engineer and/or Building Official to avoid or adequately mitigate such hazards.
Additionally, the City’s Environmental Element addresses potential impacts to non-renewable paleontological
resources and outlines policies to mitigate negative impacts (City of Chula Vista 20 05). The objective and policies
protecting paleontological resources are outlined below:
• Objective E 10: Protect important paleontological resources and support and encourage public education
and awareness of such resources.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 316 of 1271
5.6 – Geology and Soils
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.6-4
• Policy E 10.1: Continue to assess and mitigate the potential impacts of private development and public
facilities and infrastructure to paleontological resources in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act.
• Policy E 10.2: Support and encourage public education and awareness of local paleontological resources,
including the establishment of museums and educational opportunities accessible to the public.
5.6.1.2 Existing Setting
Geologic Setting
The geology underlying the project site consists of surficial soil (previously placed fill, topsoil, alluvium and
colluvium) and the San Diego, Otay, and Sweetwater Formations, which are described in more detail below.
Previously Placed Fill
Compacted fill associated with previous grading operations for Olympic Parkway is present along the northern boundary
of the project site. The northern portion of these embankments is underlain by alluvium. However, the potentially
compressible portions of this unit were removed or compressed by surcharging during prior grading operations.
Topsoil
Topsoil was encountered in several of the exploratory borings and trenches performed at the site with a maximum
thickness of 4 feet. These deposits, in general, consist of unconsolidated, clayey sands to sandy clays with a high
expansion potential and will require remedial grading where present within the development area.
Alluvium
Alluvium is present within the three main drainages on the project site and along Olympic Parkway. These
deposits vary in thickness from 6 to 12 feet and primarily consist of expansive, silty to sandy clays to clayey
sands. The alluvium would require remedial grading where structural improvements are planned.
Colluvium
Colluvial deposits are present along the hillsides above the alluvial drainages. These deposits consist of clayey
sands to silty clays with a high expansion potential and vary from 3.5 to 8-feet-thick. Remedial grading will be
required where colluvium is located in areas of planned development.
San Diego Formation
The San Diego Formation overlies the Otay Formation and typically consists of dense, fine to medium -grained
sandstone with relatively low cohesion and moderate to high permeability. In general, the San Diego Formation
exhibits adequate shear strength and “very low” to “low” expansion characteristics in either an undisturbed or
properly compacted condition. Due to the potentially friable and higher permeability characteristics of this unit,
stability fills would be required where the San Diego Formation is exposed in cut slopes.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 317 of 1271
5.6 – Geology and Soils
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.6-5
Otay Formation
The Otay Formation, which overlies the Sweetwater Formation and underlies the San Diego Formation, is the
predominant geologic unit on the project site. This formation consists of dense, silty to clayey, sandstone and hard,
siltstone and claystone beds with continuous to discontinuous interbeds of weak, highly plastic bentonitic claystone.
The sandy portions of the Otay Formation typically possess a “very low” to “low” expansion potential and adequate
shear strength. The siltstone and claystone portions of the formation can exhibit a “medium” to “very high”
expansion potential. With the possible exception of the bentonitic claystone, the Otay Formation is suitable for the
support of compacted fill and structural loads. The laterally extensive bentonitic claystone beds, which are well
documented in the area, can vary in thickness from several inches up to 7 feet. The beds are typically flat lying to
gently dipping (0 to 3 degrees) and possess a very high expansion potential and very low shear strength. A laterally
continuous bentonitic claystone bed is mapped across the project site between elevations 341 feet and 371 feet
above mean sea level. This unit will require important consideration with respect to slope stability and its expansion
potential and will require remedial grading measures.
The Otay Mesa Lateral Spread, commonly referred to as an ancient “intra -formational landslide” by geologists, is
mapped within the project site. This ancient landslide, which is over 8 miles wide and approximately 2.5 miles long,
is entirely contained within the Otay Formation and terminates along the La Nación Fault to the west. This feature
has been observed and mapped during the grading operations for Olympic Parkway and other neighboring
residential developments.
The basal surface of the ancient “intra-formational landslide” occurred along a single, continuous, bentonitic clay
bed that coincides with the bentonitic clay bed previously mentioned. The slide mass consists of relatively
undisturbed consolidated blocks of the Otay Formation that have low to very low compressibility characteristics.
Some areas exhibit plastically deformed bentonite which has been squeezed into the overlying mass creating
unpredictable diapirs and flame structures that vary in dimension and orientation. If present, these features can
create problems for site improvements due to their expansion potential. Although not observed within the
exploratory borings and trenches, the potential for these conditions will be evaluated during the grading phase of
project development.
Sweetwater Formation
The Sweetwater Formation, commonly referred to as the “gritstone layer” of the Otay Formation, underlies the Otay
Formation and is characterized as dense to very dense, gravelly, and fine to coarse sandstone that is locally
cemented. The Sweetwater Formation generally has a high shear strength and a low expansive potential.
Expansive Soil
Expansive soils contain minerals, such as clay, that are capable of absorbing water and expanding, and losing water
and shrinking. As discussed in the Geotechnical Report, the project site contains soils that are both non-expansive
and expansive. Colluvial deposits which are present along the hillsides above the alluvial drainages , consist of
clayey sands to silty clays with a high expansion potential. Additionally, alluvium primarily consist of expansive, silty
to sandy clays to clayey sands. The sandy portions of the Otay Formation typically possess a “very low” to “low”
expansion potential and adequate shear strength. The siltstone and claystone portions of the formation can exhibit
a “medium” to “very high” expansion potential. Furthermore, the project site contains topsoil deposits, which in
general, consist of unconsolidated, clayey sands to sandy clays with a high expansion potential.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 318 of 1271
5.6 – Geology and Soils
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.6-6
Liquefaction
Liquefaction typically occurs when a site is located in a zone with seismic activity, on -site soils are cohesionless,
groundwater is encountered within 50 feet of the surface, and soil densities are less than about 70% of the relative
density. The Geotechnical Report states that the potential for liquefaction on the project site is considered negligible
due to the dense formational material on the project site, shallow groundwater table, and remedial grading
recommendation that will be discussed in Section 5.6.3, Impacts (refer to Appendix E for further details).
Groundwater Seepage
Groundwater was identified on site at depths of 165 and 275 feet, respectively, below the existing ground surface. Minor
seepage was observed along the alluvium and bedrock contact approximately 7 feet below existing grade (see Appendix
G for further details). The groundwater elevations and seepage conditions are expected to fluctuate seasonally.
Slope
The General Plan designates the majority of the project site as being in a steep slope area (City of Chula Vista
2005). Steep slope areas are classified as areas with slopes 25 degrees or steeper. Such areas are prone to
hazards such as slope instability, debris flow, rock falls, erosion, and slope creep (City of Chula Vista 2005). As
such, the Geotechnical Report analyzed the stability of the proposed and natural slopes on the project site.
Faulting and Seismicity
The closest known active fault” is the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone, located approximately 9 miles west of the
project site. An active fault is defined by the CGS, as a fault showing evidence of activity roughly within the last
11,000 years (Holocene time). Table 5.6-1 presents active faults in proximity to the project site. In addition, the
main strand of the La Nación Fault is mapped approximately 0.3 miles west of the project site and has been
classified as potentially active, which is defined by CGS as a fault showing evidence of activity within the last 1.8
million years. Furthermore, published geologic maps depict a north–south-striking fault within the eastern portion
of the project site. However, the Geotechnical Report did not identify the origin or activity of the fault.
Table 5.6-1. Principal Active Faults Near Project Site
Fault Name Distance from Project Site (Miles) Maximum Earthquake Magnitude (Mmax)
Newport–Inglewood 9 7.5
Rose Canyon 9 6.9
Coronado Bank 17 7.4
Palos Verdes Connected 17 7.7
Elsinore 42 7.9
Earthquake Valley 46 6.8
Source: Appendix G.
Landslides
The Geotechnical Report found no evidence of landslide deposits on the project site, or within the geologic literature
review other than the ancient “intra-formational landslide” within the Otay Formation that underlies the region. This
ancient landslide, which is more than 8 miles wide and approximately 2.5 miles long, is entirely contained within
the Otay Formation and terminates along the La Nación Fault to the west (Appendix E).
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 319 of 1271
5.6 – Geology and Soils
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.6-7
Paleontological Resources
Paleontological resources are the fossilized remains or traces of plants and animals that are preserved in the
earth’s crust, and per the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology guidelines (Appendix E), are older than written history
or older than approximately 5,500 years.
Methods
A pedestrian survey of the area of potential effect (APE) for cultural and paleontological resources was conducted
on April 11, 2020. Areas throughout the APE were inspected at 10- and 15-meter transects.
Additionally, a paleontological records search from the San Diego Natural History Museum (SDNHM) was conducted
on April 9, 2020. The records search request included the project APE and a 1-mile-radius buffer around the
proposed project. The purpose of the paleontological records search was to assist in identifying geological units
within the proposed project APE and determine if any paleontological localities exist within the proposed project
APE and 1-mile-radius buffer (refer to Appendix E for further details).
Results
Archival Review
The results of the archival review found that the project is underlain by Holocene (< 11,700 years ago) to late Pleistocene
(approximately 129,000 to 11,700 years ago) young alluvial floodplain deposits (map unit Qya), the late Pliocene to early
Pleistocene (approximately 3.6 million years ago to 1.8 million years ago) San Diego Formation (map unit Tsdss), and the
late Oligocene (approximately 1 million years ago) Otay Formation (map unit To) (Appendix E).
The San Diego National History Museum (SDNHM) paleontological records results were received on April 14, 2020,
and no records were found of fossil localities within the boundaries of the project APE. However, 14 fossil localities
are located within a 0.5-mile radius of the study area (Appendix E). Of these, two localities are from the Otay
Formation and 12 localities are from the San Diego Formation.
Survey Results
The pedestrian survey of the (APE) conducted April 11, 2020, identified no new paleontological resources within
the current APE limits. Visibility was overwhelmingly obscured by vegetation, allowing for less than one -third of the
ground surface to be viewed in many areas. In addition, the western-most sector of the proposed project site was
inaccessible due to the presence of an active, inhabited homeless camp located within the western portion of the
site, where open space/Preserve is proposed.
5.6.2 Thresholds of Significance
The significance criteria used to evaluate the project impacts to geology and soils is based on the recommendations
provided in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.). A significant impact w ould occur if the
project would:
A. Directly or indirectly cause 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).
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 320 of 1271
5.6 – Geology and Soils
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.6-8
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 direct or indirect risks to life or property.
E. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater.
F. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.
5.6.3 Impacts
A. Directly or indirectly cause 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).
An active fault is defined by the CGS as a fault showing evidence for activity within the last 11,000 years. According
to the Geotechnical Report, the project site is not located on any known active, potentially active, or inactive fault
traces or within a State of California Earthquake Special Study Zone or Alquist-Priolo Zone. Additionally, the
Geotechnical Report concluded that no active, potentially active, or inactive faults are present underlying or trending
toward the site (Appendix G). However, as discussed in Section 5.6.1, Existing Conditions, the Newport–Inglewood
and Rose Canyon Fault Zones are located approximately 9 miles from the project site. Newport–Inglewood and
Rose Canyon Fault Zones are the nearest known active faults and are the dominant source of potential ground
motion. Nonetheless, the proposed project would be constructed in accordance with the City’s Grading Ordinance,
current seismic design specifications, current CBC standards, and other regulatory requirements, which would
reduce the potential for risks related to seismic events. Therefore, since development would not be located within
an Alquist-Priolo Zone, and would be in compliance with applicable regulatory requirements, impacts associated
with the rupture of a known earthquake fault would be less than significant.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking.
Earthquakes that might occur on the Newport–Inglewood and Rose Canyon Fault Zones or other faults within the
Southern California and northern Baja California area are potential generators of significant ground motion at the
site. As previously discussed, the Newport–Inglewood and Rose Canyon Fault Zones are both located approximately
9 miles from the project site. Newport–Inglewood and Rose Canyon Fault Zones are the nearest known active faults
and are the dominant source of potential ground motion. In the event of a major earthquake on any of the active
faults within the Southern California and northern Baja California region, the project site, as with other sites in the
general vicinity, could be subject to moderate to severe ground shaking. However, the proposed project would be
constructed in accordance with the City’s Grading Ordinance, current seismic design specifications, current CBC
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 321 of 1271
5.6 – Geology and Soils
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.6-9
standards, and other regulatory requirements, which would reduce the potential for risks related to seismic events.
Therefore, impacts associated with strong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant.
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction.
As discussed in the Geotechnical Report, the potential for liquefaction at the project site is considered to be
negligible due to the dense formational material encountered on the project site, lack of a shallow groundwater
condition, and the recommendations for remedial grading. Remedial grading shall be required for areas with
expansive soils including topsoil, alluvium, and colluvial deposits (Refer to threshold D in this section for further
details). However, seismically induced settlement may occur whether the potential for liquefaction exists or not.
Although there is potential for seismic-related ground failure to occur, compliance with the City’s Grading Ordinance,
current seismic design specifications, current CBC standards, and other regulatory requirements, impacts
associated with seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction would be less than significant.
iv. Landslides.
The General Plan designates the majority of the project site as being in a steep slope area. However, the
Geotechnical Report found no evidence of landslide deposits on the project site, or within the geologic literature
review other than the ancient “intra-formational landslide” within the Otay Formation that underlies the region.
Additionally, as discussed in the Geotechnical Report, a slope stability analysis was conducted to evaluate the
stability of proposed and natural slopes. The findings indicated that a buttress, two shear keys, and stability fills
would be required to achieve surficial stability (for further details, refer to Appendix G). In addition, the project
proponent is working with the City, to request an MSCP Minor Amendment to allow off-site temporary project
impacts that would encroach 25 feet onto City’s property and within this Minor Amendment Area (see Figure 5.3-1,
Local Environmental Setting Map, and Figure 5.3-4, Biological Impacts Map). The natural ground along the
southwest boundary between project site, and the property owned by the City, is underlain by geologic conditions
that are below industry standards with respect to slope stability. Minor excavations are planned in this area as part
of the development of the project. To bring this area in compliance with code, a buttress fill will be required which
consists of over‐excavating weak materials from the natural ground and replacing them with soils of higher strength.
The dimension of the over‐excavation was calculated during slope stability analysis for the proposed project and
resulted in the proposed encroachment into the City’s property to construct the buttress (Appendix D, Biological
Resources Technical Report). The resulting condition after grading will comply with applicable codes and also
improve the existing stability of the City’s property. Although the project site and Minor Amendment Area resides in
a steep slope area, where there is potential for landslides to occur, compliance with the findings of the Geotechnical
Report, the City’s Grading Ordinance, current seismic design specifications, current CBC standards, and other
regulatory requirements ensures that impacts related to landslides would be less than significant.
B. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.
Construction Impacts
Excavation and ground-disturbing activities during construction of the proposed project could potentially leave loose
soil exposed to the erosive forces of rainfall and high winds, which increase the potential for soil erosion and loss
of topsoil. As discussed in Section 5.9 of this EIR, Hydrology and Water Quality, construction of the project would
result in more than 1 acre of land disturbance; therefore, the project will be required to prepare and implement a
site-specific Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in accordance with the State Water Resources Control
Board (SWRCB) Order No. 2009-0008-DWQ NPDES General Permit No. CAS00002 (Construction General Permit),
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 322 of 1271
5.6 – Geology and Soils
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.6-10
amended by Order No. 2010-0014-DWQ and Order No. 2012-0006-DWQ. Conditions of these existing regulations
would include adherence to sediment and stormwater pollutant control best management practices (BMPs),
effluent monitoring and compliance, post-construction-period requirements, worker training, and various other
measures designed to minimize potential for soil erosion and loss of top soil.
Furthermore, earth-disturbing activities associated with construction would be temporary. Therefore, with
construction activities being temporary and with compliance with the General Construction Permit and BMPs
outlined in the SWPPP, impacts related to soil erosion and the loss of topsoil would be less than significant.
Operational Impacts
During operation, the project would introduce a new residential use with associated infrastructure, resulting in more
impervious area to the site. As such, the proposed area to be developed would be graded and paved, greatly reducing
the possibility for soil erosion or loss of topsoil compared to current conditions. However, introducing more impervious
area would result in more surface runoff, which could lead to more soil erosion and loss of topsoil. As such, a stormwater
quality management plan (SWQMP) has been prepared for the project and is referred to as Appendix I1. The SWQMP
has been prepared consistent with the requirements of the City’s BMP Design Manual and with the requirements of San
Diego RWQCB Order No. R9-2013-0001 (Regional MS4 Permit).
The SWQMP prepared for the proposed project specifies site design BMPs that would be implemented to minimize soil
erosion and loss of topsoil. Site design BMPs include conserving natural areas, soils, and vegetation; minimizing impervious
areas; and minimizing soil compaction. Therefore, with implementation of the SWPPP and incorporation of the BMPs
described in the SWQMP, impacts associated with substantial erosion or siltation on or off site would be less than significant.
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.
According to the Geotechnical Report, the geology of the project site consists of surficial soil (previously placed fill,
topsoil, alluvium, and colluvium) and the San Diego, Otay, and Sweetwater Formations. The project site is underlain
by compressible surficial deposits (topsoil, alluvium, and colluvium) that are unsuitable in their present condition
and would require remedial grading (Appendix G). Remedial grading would include removal of unsuitable soils in
areas where improvements are planned and compaction of fill material.
The proposed project site is not located on any known active, potentially active, or inactive fault traces, although
cracking or lateral spreading of the ground surface as a result of nearby seismic events is possible (Appendix G).
Surface ground cracking or lateral spreading related to shaking from distant events is not considered a significant
hazard because the potential for liquefaction and seismically induced settlement occurring within the project site
is considered to be very low due to the dense nature of the formational materials and the lack of a shallow
groundwater condition (Appendix G).
According to the Geotechnical Report, potentially hazardous expansive and compressible soils are currently present
on site. However, the project shall incorporate recommendations in accordance with CBC standards regarding slab
and structural design criteria (refer to Appendix G for further details). Additionally, expansive soils that occur within
5 feet of finished grade on cut lots should be removed and replaced with properly compacted fill that possesses a
“very low” to “low” expansion potential. In addition, the proposed project would be required to comply with the City’s
Grading Ordinance, current seismic design specifications, current CBC standards, and other regulatory
requirements, in addition to implementation of project design features and BMPs and following recommendations
of the Geotechnical Report (Appendix G).
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 323 of 1271
5.6 – Geology and Soils
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.6-11
Therefore, compliance with existing regulations and recommendations of the Geotechnical Report would ensure
that the proposed project would have less than significant impacts associated with unstable geologic units.
D. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property.
As discussed in Section 5.6.1, the project site contains soils that present characteristics susceptible to expansion.
The project would be required to incorporate recommendations of the Geotechnical Report, in accordance with
CBC standards regarding slab and structural design criteria (refer to Appendix G for further details). Additionally,
per the Geotechnical Report, expansive soils that occur within 5 feet of finish grade on cut lots would be removed
and replaced with properly compacted fill that possesses a “very low” to “low” expansion potential. Therefore,
with adherence to current CBC standards and the recommendations of the Geotechnical Report, impacts
associated with expansive soil would be less than significant.
E. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater.
The proposed project would not include septic tanks or other alternative wastewater treatment methods. Therefore,
implementation of the proposed project would result in no impact associated with soils incapable of supporting septic
systems or alternative wastewater treatment methods.
F. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.
As discussed within the Cultural and Paleontological Resources Report (Appendix E), a review of record search data,
geological mapping, geological and paleontological literature, and on-site field survey did not identify any existing
paleontological resources within the proposed project APE boundaries. However, the paleontological records search
performed by SDNHM revealed there are 14 fossil localities within a 0.5-mile radius of the APE boundaries from the
San Diego and Otay Formations, which underlie the majority of the proposed project APE. Based on the records search
results and map and literature review, the study area has high potential to produce paleontological resources during
planned construction activities. Therefore, the project shall implement Mitigation Measure (MM) GEO-1 to reduce
potential impacts in the event paleontological resources are uncovered during construction activities. MM-GEO-1
requires that a qualified paleontologist be retained for the proposed project, in accordance with the Society of
Vertebrate Paleontology guidelines (Appendix E), and a complete paleontological monitoring program be adopted prior
to project-related earthmoving activities. Therefore, impacts would be potentially significant, but implementation of
MM-GEO-1 would reduce potentially significant impacts to a less-than-significant level.
5.6.4 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation
Prior to mitigation, the proposed project would have potentially significant impacts associated with paleontological
resources. Impacts prior to mitigation would be potentially significant. The remaining issues addressed in this
section would be less than significant.
5.6.5 Mitigation Measures
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce identified significant impacts associated with
paleontological resources to a less-than-significant level.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 324 of 1271
5.6 – Geology and Soils
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.6-12
MM-GEO-1 Paleontological Monitoring Program. 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-grading meeting shall be held that shall include 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., Otay Formation and 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.,
unnamed river terrace deposits and the Mission Valley Formation) to inspect cuts for contained fossils.
However, neither of these rock units have been mapped within the project area of potential effect (APE)
and are therefore not anticipated to be impacted during construction.
The monitor shall be on site on at least a quarter-time basis during the original cutting of previously
undisturbed sediments of low sensitivity geologic formations (e.g., Lindavista Formation and
Santiago Peak Volcanics [metasedimentary portion only]) to inspect cuts for contained fossils.
However, these deposits have not been mapped within the project APE and are therefore not
anticipated to be impacted during construction. The monitor shall periodically (every several weeks)
inspect original cuts in deposits with an unknown resource sensitivity (i.e., Quaternary alluvium).
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 (i.e., Santiago Peak Volcanics, metavolcanic portion).
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.
5.6.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of MM-GEO-1 would reduce potential impacts associated with geology and soils to a less-than-
significant level.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 325 of 1271
5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.7-1
5.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
This section of the environmental impact report (EIR) addresses potential impacts associated with greenhouse gas
emissions resulting from the proposed Sunbow Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II,
Phase 3 Project (project or proposed project). The discussion in this section is based on the Air Quality and
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report prepared for the project by Dudek. The complete report is contained
in Appendix C of this EIR.
5.7.1 Existing Conditions
5.7.1.1 Regulatory Framework
Federal
Massachusetts v. EPA
Massachusetts v. EPA. In Massachusetts v. EPA (April 2007), the U.S. Supreme Court directed the EPA administrator
to determine whether greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution
that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, or whether the science is too uncertain to
make a reasoned decision. In December 2009, the administrator signed a final rule with the following two distinct
findings regarding GHGs under Section 202(a) of the federal CAA:
• The administrator found that elevated concentrations of GHGs—CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6—in the
atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations. This is the
“endangerment finding.”
• The administrator further found the combined emissions of GHGs—CO2, CH4, N2O, and HFCs—from new
motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the GHG air pollution that endangers public
health and welfare. This is the “cause or contribute finding.”
These two findings were necessary to establish the foundation for regulation of GHGs from new motor vehicles as
air pollutants under the CAA.
Energy Independence and Security Act. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (December 2007),
among other key measures, would do the following, which would aid in the reduction of national GHG emissions
(EPA 2007):
• Increase the supply of alternative fuel sources by setting a mandatory Renewable Fuel Standard requiring
fuel producers to use at least 36 billion gallons of biofuel in 2022.
• Set a target of 35 miles per gallon for the combined fleet of cars and light trucks by model year 2020 and
direct National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to establish a fuel economy program for
medium- and heavy-duty trucks and create a separate fuel economy standard for work trucks.
• Prescribe or revise standards affecting regional efficiency for heating and cooling products and procedures
for new or amended standards, energy conservation, energy efficiency labeling for consumer electronic
products, residential boiler efficiency, electric motor efficiency, and home appliances.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 326 of 1271
5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.7-2
Federal Vehicle Standards. In response to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling discussed above, the Bush Administration
issued Executive Order (EO) 13432 in 2007 directing the EPA, the Department of Transportation, and the
Department of Energy to establish regulations that reduce GHG emissions from motor vehicles, non -road vehicles,
and non-road engines by 2008. In 2009, NHTSA issued a final rule regulating fuel efficiency and GHG emissions
from cars and light-duty trucks for model year 2011, and in 2010, EPA and NHTSA issued a final rule regulating
cars and light-duty trucks for model years 2012–2016 (75 FR 25324–25728).
In 2010, President Obama issued a memorandum directing the Department of Transportation, Department of
Energy, EPA, and NHTSA to establish additional standards regarding fuel efficiency and GHG reduction, clean fuels,
and advanced vehicle infrastructure. In response to this directive, the EPA and NHTSA proposed stringent,
coordinated federal GHG and fuel economy standards for model years 2017–2025 light-duty vehicles. The
proposed standards projected to achieve 163 grams/mile of CO2 in model year 2025, on an average industry fleet-
wide basis, which is equivalent to 54.5 miles per gallon if this level were achieved solely through fuel efficiency. The
final rule was adopted in 2012 for model years 2017–2021 (77 FR 62624–63200), and NHTSA intends to set
standards for model years 2022–2025 in a future rulemaking.
In addition to the regulations applicable to cars and light-duty trucks described above, in 2011, the EPA and NHTSA
announced fuel economy and GHG standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks for model years 2014–2018. The
standards for CO2 emissions and fuel consumption are tailored to three main vehicle categories: combination tractors,
heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans, and vocational vehicles. According to the EPA, this regulatory program will reduce GHG
emissions and fuel consumption for the affected vehicles by 6%–23% over the 2010 baselines (76 FR 57106–57513).
In August 2016, EPA and NHTSA announced the adoption of the phase two program related to the fuel economy
and GHG standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks. The phase two program will apply to vehicles with model
year 2018 through 2027 for certain trailers and model years 2021 through 2027 for semi-trucks, large pickup
trucks, vans, and all types of sizes of buses and work trucks. The final standards are expected to lower CO2
emissions by approximately 1.1 billion MT and reduce oil consumption by up to 2 billion barrels over the lifetime of
the vehicles sold under the program (EPA and NHTSA 2016).
Clean Power Plan and New Source Performance Standards for Electric Generating Units. In October 2015, EPA
published a final rule (effective December 2015) establishing the Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing
Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units (80 FR 64510–64660), also known as the Clean Power Plan.
These guidelines prescribe how states must develop plans to reduce GHG emissions from existing fossil-fuel-fired
electric generating units. The guidelines establish CO2 emission performance rates representing the best system of
emission reduction for two subcategories of existing fossil-fuel-fired electric generating units: (1) fossil-fuel-fired
electric utility steam-generating units and (2) stationary combustion turbines. Concurrently, EPA published a final
rule in October 2015 establishing Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New, Mo dified,
and Reconstructed Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units (80 FR 64661–65120). The rule prescribes
CO2 emission standards for newly constructed, modified, and reconstructed affected fossil-fuel-fired electric utility
generating units. Implementation of the Clean Power Plan has been stayed by the U.S. Supreme Court pending
resolution of several lawsuits; additionally, President Trump has called on EPA to review the Clean Power Plan.
State
The statewide GHG emissions regulatory framework is summarized below by category: state climate change targets,
building energy, renewable energy and energy procurement, mobile sources, solid waste, water, and other state
regulations and goals. The following text describes EOs, legislation, regulations, and other plans and policies that
would directly or indirectly reduce GHG emissions and/or address climate change issues.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 327 of 1271
5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.7-3
State Climate Change Targets
EO S-3-05. EO S-3-05 (June 2005) established the following statewide goals: GHG emissions should be reduced to
2000 levels by 2010; GHG emissions should be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020; and GHG emissions should be
reduced to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.
AB 32 and CARB’s Climate Change Scoping Plan. In furtherance of the goals established in EO S-3-05, the
Legislature enacted AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 requires California to reduce
its GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.
Under AB 32, CARB is responsible for and is recognized as having the expertise to carry out and develop the programs
and requirements necessary to achieve the GHG emissions reduction mandate of AB 32. Under AB 32, CARB must
adopt regulations requiring the reporting and verification of statewide GHG emissions from specified sources. This
program is used to monitor and enforce compliance with established standards. CARB also is required to adopt
rules and regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG emission reductions.
AB 32 also authorized CARB to adopt market-based compliance mechanisms to meet the specified requirements.
Finally, CARB is ultimately responsible for monitoring compliance and enforcing any rule, regulation, order, emission
limitation, emission reduction measure, or market-based compliance mechanism adopted.
In 2007, CARB approved a limit on the statewide GHG emissions level for year 2020 consistent with the determined
1990 baseline (427 million metric tons [MMT] CO2e). CARB’s adoption of this limit is in accordance with Health and
Safety Code Section 38550.
Further, in 2008, CARB adopted the Climate Change Scoping Plan: A Framework for Change (Scoping Plan) in
accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 38561. The Scoping Plan establishes an overall framework for
the measures that will be adopted to reduce California’s GHG emissions for various emission sources/sectors to
1990 levels by 2020. The Scoping Plan evaluates opportunities for sector -specific reductions, integrates all CARB
and Climate Action Team early actions and additional GHG reduction features by both entities, identifies additional
measures to be pursued as regulations, and outlines the role of a cap-and-trade program. The key elements of the
Scoping Plan include the following (CARB 2008a):
1. Expanding and strengthening existing energy efficiency programs, as well as building and appliance standards.
2. Achieving a statewide renewable energy mix of 33%.
3. Developing a California cap-and-trade program that links with other Western Climate Initiative partner programs
to create a regional market system and caps sources contributing 85% of California’s GHG emissions.
4. Establishing targets for transportation-related GHG emissions for regions throughout California, and
pursuing policies and incentives to achieve those targets.
5. Adopting and implementing measures pursuant to existing state laws and policies, including California’s
clean car standards, goods movement measures, and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard.
6. Creating targeted fees, including a public goods charge on water use, fees on high global warming potential
(GWP) gases, and a fee to fund the administrative costs of the State of California’s long-term commitment to
AB 32 implementation.
In the Scoping Plan, CARB determined that achieving the 1990 emissions level in 2020 would require a reduct ion
in GHG emissions of approximately 28.5% from the otherwise projected 2020 emissions level; i.e., those emissions
that would occur in 2020, absent GHG-reducing laws and regulations (referred to as “Business-As-Usual”). For
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 328 of 1271
5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.7-4
purposes of calculating this percent reduction, CARB assumed that all new electricity generation would be supplied
by natural gas plants; no further regulatory action would impact vehicle fuel efficiency; and building energy efficiency
codes would be held at 2005 standards.
In the 2011 Final Supplement to the AB 32 Scoping Plan Functional Equivalent Document (CARB 2011a), CARB revised
its estimates of the projected 2020 emissions level in light of the economic recession and the availability of updated
information about GHG reduction regulations. Based on the new economic data, CARB determined that achieving the
1990 emissions level by 2020 would require a reduction in GHG emissions of 21.7% (down from 28.5%) from the
Business-As-Usual conditions. When the 2020 emissions level projection also was updated to account for newly
implemented regulatory measures, including Pavley I (model years 2009–2016) and the Renewables Portfolio Standard
(RPS; CPUC 2015; 12%–20%), CARB determined that achieving the 1990 emissions level in 2020 would require a
reduction in GHG emissions of 16% (down from 28.5%) from the Business-As-Usual conditions.
More recently, in 2014, CARB adopted the First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan: Building on the Framework
(First Update). The stated purpose of the First Update is to “highlight California’s success to date in reducing its GHG
emissions and lay the foundation for establishing a broad framework for continued emission reductions beyond 2020,
on the path to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050” (CARB 2014a). The First Update found that California is on track to meet
the 2020 emissions reduction mandate established by AB 32 and noted that California could reduce emissions further
by 2030 to levels squarely in line with those needed to stay on track to reduce emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by
2050 if the state realizes the expected benefits of existing policy goals.
In conjunction with the First Update, CARB identified “six key focus areas comprising major components of the
state’s economy to evaluate and describe the larger transformative actions that will be needed to meet the state’s
more expansive emission reduction needs by 2050” (CARB 2014a). Those six areas are: (1) energy, (2)
transportation (vehicles/equipment, sustainable communities, housing, fuels, and infrastructure), (3) agriculture,
(4) water, (5) waste management, and (6) natural and working lands. The First Update identifies key recommended
actions for each sector that will facilitate achievement of EO S-3-05’s 2050 reduction goal.
CARB’s research efforts presented in the First Update indicate that it has a “strong sense of the mix of technologies
needed to reduce emissions through 2050” (CARB 2014a). Those technologies include energy demand reduction
through efficiency and activity changes; large-scale electrification of on-road vehicles, buildings, and industrial
machinery; decarbonizing electricity and fuel supplies; and the rapid market penetration of efficient and clean
energy technologies.
As part of the First Update, CARB recalculated the state’s 1990 emissions level using more recent GWPs identified
by IPCC. Using the recalculated 1990 emissions level (431 MMT CO2e) and the revised 2020 emissions level
projection identified in the 2011 Final Supplement, CARB determined that achieving the 1990 emissions level by
2020 would require a reduction in GHG emissions of approximately 15% (instead of 28.5% or 16%) from the
Business-As-Usual conditions.
On January 20, 2017, CARB released the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update (Second Update) for public
review and comment (CARB 2017a). This update presents CARB’s strategy for achieving the state’s 2030 GHG
target as established in SB 32 (discussed below), including continuing the Cap-and-Trade Program through 2030,
and includes a new approach to reduce GHGs from refineries by 20%. The Second Update incorporates approaches
to cutting short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs) under the Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy (SLCP
Reduction Strategy; CARB 2017b) and acknowledges the need for reducing emissions in agriculture and highlights
the work underway to ensure that California’s natural and working lands increasingly sequester carbon. During
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 329 of 1271
5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.7-5
development of the Second Update, CARB held a number of public workshops in the Natural and Working Lands,
Agriculture, Energy, and Transportation sectors to inform development of the Second Update (CARB 2017a). When
discussing project-level GHG emissions reduction actions and thresholds, the Second Update states “achieving no
net increase in GHG emissions is the correct overall objective, but it may not be appropriate or feasible for every
development project. An inability to mitigate a project’s GHG emissions to zero does not necessarily imply a
substantial contribution to the cumulatively significant environmental impact of climate change under CEQA” (CARB
2017a). The Second Update was adopted by CARB’s Governing Board on December 14, 2017.
EO B-30-15. EO B-30-15 (April 2015) identified an interim GHG reduction target in support of targets previously
identified under S-3-05 and AB 32. EO B-30-15 set an interim target goal of reducing statewide GHG emissions to
40% below 1990 levels by 2030 to keep California on its trajectory toward meeting or exceeding the long-term goal
of reducing statewide GHG emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 as set forth in S-3-05. To facilitate
achievement of this goal, EO B-30-15 calls for an update to CARB’s Scoping Plan to express the 2030 target in
terms of MMT CO2e. The EO also calls for state agencies to continue to develop and implement GHG emission
reduction programs in support of the reduction targets. EO B-30-15 does not require local agencies to take any
action to meet the new interim GHG reduction target.
SB 32 and AB 197. SB 32 and AB 197 (enacted in 2016) are companion bills that set a new st atewide GHG
reduction targets, make changes to CARB’s membership and increase legislative oversight of CARB’s climate
change–based activities, and expand dissemination of GHG and other air quality-related emissions data to enhance
transparency and accountability. More specifically, SB 32 codified the 2030 emissions reduction goal of EO B-30-
15 by requiring CARB to ensure that statewide GHG emissions are reduced to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. AB
197 established the Joint Legislative Committee on Climate Change Policies, consisting of at least three members
of the Senate and three members of the Assembly, in order to provide ongoing oversight over implementation of
the state’s climate policies. AB 197 also added two members of the Legislature to CA RB as nonvoting members;
requires CARB to make available and update (at least annually via its website) emissions data for GHGs, criteria air
pollutants, and TACs from reporting facilities; and requires CARB to identify specific information for GHG emissions
reduction measures when updating the Scoping Plan.
SB 605 and SB 1383. SB 605 (2014) requires CARB to complete a comprehensive strategy to reduce emissions
of SLCPs in the state, and SB 1383 (2016) requires CARB to approve and implement that stra tegy by January 1,
2018. SB 1383 also establishes specific targets for the reduction of SLCPs (40% below 2013 levels by 2030 for
CH4 and HFCs and 50% below 2013 levels by 2030 for anthropogenic black carbon) and provides direction for
reductions from dairy and livestock operations and landfills. Accordingly, and as mentioned above, CARB adopted
its SLCP Reduction Strategy in March 2017. The SLCP Reduction Strategy establishes a framework for the statewide
reduction of emissions of black carbon, CH4, and fluorinated gases.
Building Energy
Title 24, Part 6. Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations was established in 1978 and serves to enhance and
regulate California’s building standards. While not initially promulgated to reduce GHG emissions, Part 6 of Title 24
specifically establishes Building Energy Efficiency Standards that are designed to ensure that new and existing buildings
in California achieve energy efficiency and preserve outdoor and indoor environmental quality. These energy efficiency
standards are reviewed every few years by the Building Standards Commission and the California Energy Commission
(CEC) (and revised if necessary) (California Public Resources Code, Section 25402[b][1]). The regulations receive input
from members of industry, as well as the public, with the goal of “reducing of wasteful, uneconomic, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy” (California Public Resources Code, Section 25402). These regulations are carefully
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 330 of 1271
5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.7-6
scrutinized and analyzed for technological and economic feasibility (California Public Resources Code, Section 25402[d])
and cost effectiveness (California Public Resources Code, Sections 25402[b][2] and [3]). These standards are updated
to consider and incorporate new energy-efficient technologies and construction methods. As a result, these standards
save energy, increase electricity supply reliability, increase indoor comfort, avoid the need to construct new power plants,
and help preserve the environment.
The 2016 Title 24 standards became effective on January 1, 2017. In general, single -family homes built to the
2016 standards are anticipated to use about 28% less energy for lighting, heating, cooling, ventilation, and water
heating than those built to the 2013 standards, and nonresidential buildings built to the 2016 standards will use
an estimated 5% less energy than those built to the 2013 standards (CEC 2015a).
The 2019 Standards will continue to improve upon the 2016 Standards for new construction of, and additions and
alterations to, residential and nonresidential buildings. The 2019 Standards came into effect on January 1, 2020.
Nonresidential buildings built under the 2019 Title 24 Standards would use about 30% less energy than those built
under the 2016 Title 24 Standards due mainly to lighting upgrades (CEC 2018).
Title 24, Part 11. In addition to the CEC’s efforts, in 2008, the California Building Standards Commission adopted
the nation’s first green building standards. The California Green Building Standards Code is commonly referred to
as CALGreen and establishes minimum mandatory standards as well as voluntary standards pertaining to the
planning and design of sustainable site development, energy efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code
requirements), water conservation, material conservation, and interior air quality. The CALGreen standards first
took effect in January 2011 and instituted mandatory minimum environmental performance standards for all
ground-up, new construction of commercial, low-rise residential and state-owned buildings and schools and
hospitals. The updated CALGreen 2016 standards became effective on January 1, 2017. The mandatory standards
require the following (CALGreen 2016):
• Mandatory reduction in indoor water use through compliance with specified flow rates for plumbing fixtures
and fittings.
• Mandatory reduction in outdoor water use through compliance with a local water efficient landscaping
ordinance or the California Department of Water Resources’ Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance.
• 65% of construction and demolition waste must be diverted from landfills.
• Mandatory inspections of energy systems to ensure optimal working efficiency.
• Inclusion of electric vehicle charging stations or designated spaces capable of supporting future
charging stations.
• Low-pollutant-emitting exterior and interior finish materials, such as paints, carpets, vinyl flooring, and
particle boards.
The CALGreen standards also include voluntary efficiency measures that are provided at two separate tiers and
implemented at the discretion of local agencies and applicants. CALGreen’s Tier 1 standards call for a 15%
improvement in energy requirements, stricter water conservation, 65% diversion of construction and demolition
waste, 10% recycled content in building materials, 20% permeable paving, 20% cement reduction, and cool/solar-
reflective roofs. CALGreen’s more rigorous Tier 2 standards call for a 30% improvement in energy requirements,
stricter water conservation, 75% diversion of construction and demolition waste, 15% recycled content in building
materials, 30% permeable paving, 25% cement reduction, and cool/solar-reflective roofs.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 331 of 1271
5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.7-7
CPUC, CEC, and CARB also have a shared, established goal of achieving zero net energy (ZNE) for new construction
in California. The key policy timelines include (1) all new residential construction in California will be ZNE by 2020
and (2) all new commercial construction in California will be ZNE by 2030 (CPUC 2013).1 As most recently defined
by CEC in its 2015 Integrated Energy Policy Report, a ZNE code building is “one where the value of the energy
produced by on-site renewable energy resources is equal to the value of the energy consumed annually by the
building” using CEC’s Time Dependent Valuation metric (CEC 2015b).
Title 20. Title 20 of the California Code of Regulations requires manufacturers of appliances to meet state and
federal standards for energy and water efficiency. Performance of appliances must be certified through CEC to
demonstrate compliance with standards. New appliances regulated under Title 20 include refrigerators,
refrigerator-freezers, and freezers; room air conditioners and room air-conditioning heat pumps; central air
conditioners; spot air conditioners; vented gas space heaters; gas pool heaters; plumbing fittings and plumbing
fixtures; fluorescent lamp ballasts; lamps; emergency lighting; traffic signal modules; dishwaters; clothes washers
and dryers; cooking products; electric motors; low voltage dry-type distribution transformers; power supplies;
televisions and consumer audio and video equipment; and battery charger systems. Title 20 presents protocols for
testing for each type of appliance covered under the regulations, and appliances must meet the standards for
energy performance, energy design, water performance, and water design. Title 20 contains three types of
standards for appliances: federal and state standards for federally regulated appliances, state standards for
federally regulated appliances, and state standards for non-federally regulated appliances.
SB 1. SB 1 (2006) established a $3 billion rebate program to support the goal of the state to install rooftop solar
energy systems with a generation capacity of 3,000 megawatts through 2016. SB 1 added sections to the California
Public Resources Code, including Chapter 8.8 (California Solar Initiative), that require building projects applying for
ratepayer-funded incentives for photovoltaic systems to meet minimum energy efficiency levels and performance
requirements. Section 25780 established that it is a goal of the state to establish a self-sufficient solar industry in
which solar energy systems are a viable mainstream option for both homes and businesses within 10 years of
adoption and to place solar energy systems on 50% of new homes within 13 years of adoption. SB 1, also termed
“GoSolarCalifornia,” was previously titled “Million Solar Roofs.”
AB 1470. This bill established the Solar Water Heating and Efficiency Act of 2007. The bill makes findings and
declarations of the Legislature relating to the promotion of solar water heating systems and other technologies that
reduce natural gas demand. The bill defines several terms for purposes of the act. The bill requires the commission
to evaluate the data available from a specified pilot program and, if it makes a specified determination, to design
and implement a program of incentives for the installation of 200,000 solar water heating systems in homes and
businesses throughout the state by 2017.
AB 1109. Enacted in 2007, AB 1109 required CEC to adopt minimum energy efficiency standards for general
purpose lighting, to reduce electricity consumption 50% for indoor residential lighting and 25% for indoor
commercial lighting.
Renewable Energy and Energy Procurement
SB 1078. SB 1078 (2002) established the RPS program, which requires an annual increase in renewable
generation by the utilities equivalent to at least 1% of sales, with an aggregate goal of 20% by 2017. This goal was
subsequently accelerated, requiring utilities to obtain 20% of their power from renewable sources by 2010.
1 It is expected that achievement of the ZNE goal will occur via revisions to the Title 24 standards.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 332 of 1271
5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.7-8
SB 1368. SB 1368 (2006) requires CEC to develop and adopt regulations for GHG emission performance standards for
the long-term procurement of electricity by local publicly owned utilities. These standards must be consistent with the
standards adopted by CPUC. This effort will help protect energy customers from financial risks associated with
investments in carbon-intensive generation by allowing new capital investments in power plants for which GHG emissions
are as low as or lower than new combined-cycle natural gas plants by requiring imported electricity to meet GHG
performance standards in California and by requiring that the standards be developed and adopted in a public process.
SB X1 2. SB X1 2 (2011) expanded the RPS by establishing that 20% of the total electricity sold to retail customers
in California per year by December 31, 2013, and 33% by December 31, 2020, and in subsequent years be secured
from qualifying renewable energy sources. Under the bill, a renewable electrical generation facility is one that uses
biomass, solar thermal, photovoltaic, wind, geothermal, fuel cells using renewable fuels, small hydroelectric
generation of 30 megawatts or less, digester gas, municipal solid waste conversion, landfill gas, ocean wave, ocean
thermal, or tidal current and that meets other specified requirements with respect to its location. In addition to the
retail sellers previously covered by the RPS, SB X1 2 added local, publicly owned electric utilities to the RPS.
SB 350. SB 350 (2015) further expanded the RPS by establishing that 50% of the total electricity sold to retail
customers in California per year by December 31, 2030, be secured from qualifying renewable energy sources. In
addition, SB 350 includes the goal of doubling the energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas final end
uses (such as heating, cooling, lighting, or class of energy uses on which an energy-efficiency program is focused) of
retail customers through energy conservation and efficiency. The bill also requires CPUC, in consultation with CEC, to
establish efficiency targets for electrical and gas corporations consistent with this goal.
SB 100. SB 100 (2018) increased the standards set forth in SB 350 establishing that 44% of the total electricity sold to
retail customers in California per year by December 31, 2024, 52% by December 31, 2027, and 60% by December 31,
2030, be secured from qualifying renewable energy sources. SB 100 states that it is the policy of the state that eligible
renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply 100% of the retail sales of electricity to California. This
bill requires that the achievement of 100% zero-carbon electricity resources do not increase the carbon emissions
elsewhere in the western grid and that the achievement not be achieved through resource shuffling.
Mobile Sources
AB 1493. In a response to the transportation sector accounting for more than half of California’s CO 2 emissions, AB
1493 was enacted in July 2002. AB 1493 required CARB to set GHG emission standards for passenger vehicles, light-
duty trucks, and other vehicles determined by the state board to be vehicles that are primarily used for
noncommercial personal transportation in the state. The bill required that CARB set GHG emission s tandards for
motor vehicles manufactured in 2009 and all subsequent model years. CARB adopted the standards in September
2004. When fully phased in, the near-term (2009–2012) standards will result in a reduction of about 22% in GHG
emissions compared to the emissions from the 2002 fleet, while the mid-term (2013–2016) standards will result
in a reduction of about 30%.
EO S-1-07. Issued on January 18, 2007, EO S-1-07 sets a declining Low Carbon Fuel Standard for GHG emissions
measured in CO2e grams per unit of fuel energy sold in California. The target of the Low Carbon Fuel Standard is to
reduce the carbon intensity of California passenger vehicle fuels by at least 10% by 2020. The carbon intensity
measures the amount of GHG emissions in the lifecycle of a fuel, including extraction/feedstock production,
processing, transportation, and final consumption, per unit of energy delivered. CARB adopted the implementing
regulation in April 2009. The regulation is expected to increase the production of biofuels, including those from
alternative sources, such as algae, wood, and agricultural waste.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 333 of 1271
5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.7-9
SB 375. SB 375 (2008) addresses GHG emissions associated with the transportation sector through regional
transportation and sustainability plans. SB 375 required CARB to adopt regional GHG reduction targets for the
automobile and light-truck sector for 2020 and 2035. Regional metropolitan planning organizations are then
responsible for preparing an SCS within their Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The goal of the SCS is to establish
a forecasted development pattern for the region that, after considering transportation measures and policies, will
achieve, if feasible, the GHG reduction targets. If an SCS is unable to achieve the GHG reduction target, a
metropolitan planning organization must prepare an Alternative Planning Strategy demonstrating how the GHG
reduction target would be achieved through alternative development patterns, infrastructure, or additional
transportation measures or policies.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65080(b)(2)(K), an SCS does not: (1) regulate the use of land; (2) supersede
the land use authority of cities and counties; or (3) require that a city’s or county’s land use policies and regulations,
including those in a general plan, be consistent with it. Nonetheless, SB 375 makes regional and local planning
agencies responsible for developing those strategies as part of the federally required metropolitan transportation
planning process and the state-mandated housing element process.
In 2010, CARB adopted the SB 375 targets for the regional metropolitan planning organizations. The targets for the
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) are a 7% reduction in emissions per capita by 2020 and a 13%
reduction by 2035.
Advanced Clean Cars Program. In January 2012, CARB approved the Advanced Clean Cars program, a new
emissions-control program for model years 2015 through 2025. The program combines the control of smog- and
soot-causing pollutants and GHG emissions into a single coordinated package. The package includes elements to
reduce smog-forming pollution, reduce GHG emissions, promote clean cars, and provide the fuels for clean cars
(CARB 2011a). To improve air quality, CARB has implemented new emissions standards to reduce smog- forming
emissions beginning with 2015 model year vehicles. It is estimated that, in 2025, cars will emit 75% less smog-
forming pollution than the average new car sold before 2012. To reduce GHG emissions, CARB, in conjunction with
EPA and NHTSA, has adopted new GHG standards for model year 2017 to 2025 vehicles; the new standards are
estimated to reduce GHG emissions by 34% in 2025. The Zero -Emissions Vehicle (ZEV) program will act as the
focused technology of the Advanced Clean Cars program by requiring manufacturers to produce increasing numbers
of ZEVs and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles in the 2018 to 2025 model years. The Clean Fuels Outlet regulation will
ensure that fuels such as electricity and hydrogen are available to meet the fueling needs of the new advanced
technology vehicles as they come to the market.
EO B-16-12. EO B-16-12 (2012) directs state entities under the governor’s direction and control to support and
facilitate development and distribution ZEVs. This EO also sets a long-term target of reaching 1.5 million ZEVs on
California’s roadways by 2025. On a statewide basis, EO B-16-12 also establishes a GHG emissions reduction target
from the transportation sector equaling 80% less than 1990 levels by 2050. In furtherance of this EO, the Governor
convened an Interagency Working Group on ZEVs that has published multiple reports regarding the progress made
on the penetration of ZEVs in the statewide vehicle fleet.
AB 1236. AB 1236 (2015) as enacted in California’s Planning and Zoning Law, requires local land use jurisdictions
to approve applications for the installation of electric vehicle charging stations, as defined, through the issuance of
specified permits, unless there is substantial evidence in the record that the proposed installation would have a
specific, adverse impact on public health or safety and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid
the specific adverse impact. The bill provides for appeal of that decision to the planning commission, as specified.
The bill requires local land use jurisdictions with a population of 200,000 or more residents to adopt an ordinance
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 334 of 1271
5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.7-10
by September 30, 2016, that creates an expedited and streamlined permitting process for electric vehicle charging
stations, as specified. Prior to this statutory deadline, in August 2016, the County Board of Supervisors adopted
Ordinance No. 10437 (N.S.) adding a section to its County Code related to the expedited processing of electric
vehicle charging stations permits consistent with AB 1236.
SB 350. In 2015, SB 350—the Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act—was enacted into law. As one of its
elements, SB 350 establishes a statewide policy for widespread electrification of the transportation sector,
recognizing that such electrification is required for achievement of the state’s 2030 and 2050 reduction targets
(see California Public Utilities Code, Section 740.12).
Solid Waste
AB 939 and AB 341. In 1989, AB 939, known as the Integrated Waste Management Act (California Public Resources
Code, Sections 40000 et seq.), was passed because of the increase in waste stream and the decrease in landfill
capacity. The statute established the California Integrated Waste Management Board, which oversees a disposal
reporting system. AB 939 mandated a reduction of waste being disposed where jurisdictions were required to meet
diversion goals of all solid waste through source reduction, recycling, and composting activities of 25% by 1995
and 50% by the year 2000.
AB 341 (2011) amended the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 to include a provision declaring
that it is the policy goal of the state that not less tha n 75% of solid waste generated be source-reduced, recycled,
or composted by the year 2020 and annually thereafter. In addition, AB 341 required the California Department of
Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) to develop strategies to achieve the state’s policy goal. CalRecycle
has conducted multiple workshops and published documents that identify priority strategies that CalRecycle
believes would assist the state in reaching the 75% goal by 2020.
Water
EO B-29-15. In response to the ongoing drought in California, EO B-29-15 (April 2015) set a goal of achieving a
statewide reduction in potable urban water usage of 25% relative to water use in 2013. The term of the EO extended
through February 28, 2016, although many of the directives have since become permanent water-efficiency
standards and requirements. The EO includes specific directives that set strict limits on water usage in the state.
In response to EO B-29-15, the California Department of Water Resources has modified and adopted a revised
version of the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance that, among other changes, significantly increases the
requirements for landscape water use efficiency and broadens its applicability to include new development projects
with smaller landscape areas.
Other State Regulations and Goals
SB 97. SB 97 (Dutton) (August 2007) directed the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research to develop guidelines
under CEQA for the mitigation of GHG emissions. In 2008, the Office of Planning and Research issued a technical
advisory as interim guidance regarding the analysis of GHG emissions in CEQA documents. The advisory indicated
that the lead agency should identify and estimate a project’s GHG emissions, including those associated with
vehicular traffic, energy consumption, water usage, and construction activities (OPR 2008). The advisory further
recommended that the lead agency determine significance of the impacts and impose all mitigation measures
necessary to reduce GHG emissions to a level that is less than significant. The California Natural Resources Agency
adopted the CEQA Guidelines amendments in December 2009, which became effective in March 2010.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 335 of 1271
5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.7-11
Under the amended CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency has the discretion to determine whether to use a quantitative
or qualitative analysis or apply performance standards to determine the significance of GHG emissions resulting
from a particular project (14 CCR 15064.4[a]). The CEQA Guidelines require a lead agency to consider the extent
to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local
plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions (14 CCR 15064.4[b]). The Guidelines also allow a lead agency
to consider feasible means of mitigating the significant effects of GHG emissions, including reductions in emissions
through the implementation of project features or off-site measures. The adopted amendments do not establish a
GHG emission threshold, instead allowing a lead agency to develop, adopt, and apply its own thresholds of
significance or those developed by other agencies or experts. The California Natural Resources Agency also
acknowledges that a lead agency may consider compliance with regulations or requirements implementing AB 32
in determining the significance of a project’s GHG emissions (CNRA 2009).
With respect to GHG emissions, the CEQA Guidelines state in Section 15064.4(a) that lead agencies should “make
a good faith effort, to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate” GHG
emissions. The CEQA Guidelines note that an agency may identify emissions by either selecting a “model or
methodology” to quantify the emissions or by relying on “qualitative analysis or other performance based
standards” (14 CCR 15064.4[a]). Section 15064.4(b) states that the lead agency should consider the following
when assessing the significance of impacts from GHG emissions on the environment: (1) the extent a p roject may
increase or reduce GHG emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting; (2) whether the project
emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project; and (3) the
extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional,
or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions (14 CCR 15064.4[b]).
EO S-13-08. EO S-13-08 (November 2008) is intended to hasten California’s response to the impacts of global
climate change, particularly sea-level rise. Therefore, the EO directs state agencies to take specified actions to
assess and plan for such impacts. The final 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy report was issued in
December 2009 (CNRA 2009), and an update, Safeguarding California: Reducing Climate Risk, followed in July
2014 (CNRA 2014). To assess the state’s vulnerability, the report summarizes key climate change impacts to the
state for the following areas: Agriculture, Biodiversity and Habitat, Emergency Management, Energy, Forestry, Ocean
and Coastal Ecosystems and Resources, Public Health, Transportation, and Water. Issuance of the Safeguarding
California: Implementation Action Plans followed in March 2016 (CNRA 2016). Currently, a draft of the
Safeguarding California Plan: 2017 Update is being prepared to communicate current and needed actions that the
state government should take to build climate change resiliency (CNRA 2017).
2015 State of the State Address. In January 2015, Governor Brown in his inaugural address and annual report to the
Legislature established supplementary goals that would further reduce GHG emissions over the next 15 years.
These goals include an increase in California’s renewable energy portfolio from 33% to 50%, a reduction in vehicle
petroleum use for cars and trucks by up to 50%, measures to double the efficiency of existing buildings, and
decreasing emissions associated with heating fuels.
2016 State of the State Address. In his January 2016 address, Governor Brown established a statewide goal to
bring per capita GHG emissions down to 2 tons per person, which reflects the goal of the Global Climate Leadership
Memorandum of Understanding to limit global warming to less than 2°C by 2050. The Global Climate Leadership
Memorandum of Understanding agreement pursues emission reductions of 80% to 95% below 1990 levels by 2050
and/or reach a per capita annual emissions goal of less than 2 MT by 2050. A total of 187 jurisdictions representing
38 countries and 6 continents, including California, have signed or endorsed the Global Climate Leadership
Memorandum of Understanding (Under 2 Coalition 2017).
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 336 of 1271
5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.7-12
Local
San Diego Association of Governments
2050 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
SANDAG completed and adopted its 2050 RTP/SCS in October 2011 (SANDAG 2011). In November 2011, CARB,
by resolution, accepted SANDAG’s GHG emissions quantification analysis and determination that, if implemented,
the SCS would achieve CARB’s 2020 and 2035 GHG emissions reduction targets for the region.
After SANDAG’s 2050 RTP/SCS was adopted, a lawsuit was filed by the Cleveland National Forest Foundation and
others. The matter is pending before the California Supreme Court (Case No. S223603) for determination of
whether an environmental impact report for an RTP must include an analysis of the plan’s consistency with the GHG
reduction goals reflected in EO S-3-05 to comply with CEQA.
Although the environmental impact report for SANDAG’s 2050 RTP/SCS is pending before the California Supreme
Court, in 2015, SANDAG adopted the next iteration of its RTP/SCS in accordance with statutorily mandated
timelines, and no subsequent litigation challenge was filed. More specifically, in October 2015, SANDAG adopted
the Regional Plan. Like the 2050 RTP/SCS, this planning document meets CARB’s 2020 and 2035 reduction
targets for the region (SANDAG 2015). In December 2015, CARB, by resolution, accepted SANDAG’s GHG emissions
quantification analysis and determination that, if implemented, the SCS would achieve CARB’s 2020 and 2035
GHG emissions reduction targets for the region.
City of Chula Vista
International Council of Environmental Initiatives Local Governments for Sustainability
In 1992, the City of Chula Vista (City) participated in the Cities for Climate Protection Program, which aimed at
developing municipal action plans for the reduction of GHGs. This program was sponsored and developed by the
International Council of Environmental Initiatives and the United Nations Environment Program in response to the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, while recognizing that all local planning and
development has direct consequences on energy consumption, and cities exercise key powers over urban
infrastructure, including neighborhood design, and over transportation infrastructure, such as roads, streets,
pedestrian areas, bicycle lanes, and public transport.
Chula Vista Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Reduction Plan
Each participant in the International Council of Environmental Initiatives program was to create local policy
measures to ensure multiple benefits to the City and, at the same time, identify a carbon reduction goal through
the implementation of those measures. The carbon reduction goal was to fit within the realm of international climate
treaty reduction goals.
In its CO2 Reduction Plan, developed in 1996 and officially adopted in 2000, the City committed to lowering its CO2
emissions by diversifying its transportation system and using energy more efficiently in all sectors. To focus efforts
in this direction, the City adopted the international CO2 reduction goal of returning to pre-1990 levels by 2010. In
order to achieve this goal, eight actions were identified, which when fully implemented, were anticipated to save
100,000 tons of CO2 each year.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 337 of 1271
5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.7-13
As a result of the 2005 GHG Emissions Inventory Report, in May 2007, staff reported to the City Counci l that City-
wide GHG emissions had increased by 35% (mainly due to residential growth) from 1990 to 2005, while emissions
on a per capita basis and from municipal operations decreased by 17% and 18%, respectively. The City Council
directed staff to convene a Climate Change Working Group to develop recommendations to reduce the community’s
GHGs in order to meet the City’s 2010 GHG emissions reduction targets.
As a result of the 2012 GHG Emissions Inventory Report, staff reported to the City Council that citywide GHG levels are
1,011,481 MT CO2e. Compared to 2005, the City’s GHG emissions have increased by 8%. However, 2012 per capita
emissions are approximately 5% below 2005 levels and 33% below 1990 levels. Unlike the last two inventories, 2009
and 2010, there was a slight increase in City-wide energy consumption over the last couple of years due most likely to
local economic recovery. As with past inventories, community transportation activity has continued increasing with 2012
vehicle miles traveled about 29% higher than in 2005. In order to reach the current community emissions reduction goal
of 20% below 1990 emission levels, the City will have to reduce its GHG emissions by more than 359,332 MT CO2e
(35%); however, statewide initiatives are expected to help achieve some of these reductions by 2020.
Climate Change Working Group
The Climate Change Working Group, which is composed of residents, businesses, and community organization
representatives, helps the City develop climate-related programs and policies. In 2008, the group reviewed more than
90 carbon reduction measures and ultimately chose 7 measures to recommend for adoption to the City Council,
which the Council subsequently adopted. The measures were designed to reduce or mitigate climate change
impacts by reducing GHG emissions within the City to 20% below 1990 levels, in keeping with its CO2 Reduction
Plan and United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change goals.
In October 2009, the City Council directed the group to evaluate how the City could adapt to potential climate
change impacts. The group met throughout 2011 to develop recommendations based on the City’s vulnerabilities
and risks to climate change. In May 2011, the group adopted the Climate Adaptation Strategies – Implementation
Plans, described below, and in 2014, the group released the 2014 Climate Action Plan Update –
Recommendations, described below.
Chula Vista Climate Adaptation Strategies – Implementation Plans. The Climate Adaptation Strategies – Implementation
Plans document developed by the Climate Change Working Group includes 11 strategies to facilitate the City’s adaptation
to the potential impacts of global climate change related to energy and water supply, public health, wildfires, ecosystem
management, coastal infrastructure, and local economy sectors. The strategies include cool paving, shade trees, cool roofs,
local water supply and reuse, stormwater pollution prevention and reuse, education and wildfires, extreme heat plans, open
space management, wetlands preservation, sea-level rise and land development codes, and green economy. For each
strategy, the plans outline specific implementation components, critical steps, costs, and timelines. In order to limit the
necessary staffing and funding required to implement the strategies, the plans were also designed to build on existing
municipal efforts, rather than create new, stand-alone policies or programs. Initial implementation of all 11 strategies were
phased over a 3-year period after adoption of the plan in 2011.
Chula Vista Climate Protection Measures. On July 10, 2008, the City Council adopted implementation plans for
seven climate protection measures to reduce GHG emissions to 20% below 1990 levels by 2012. The
implementation plans outline the detailed strategy for initiating, funding, and tracking the following measures:
1. Clean Vehicle Replacement Policy for City Fleet: When City fleet vehicles are retired, they will be replaced
through the purchase or lease of alternative fuel or hybrid substitutes. In addition, the City fleet will begin
to pursue installing new fuel tanks to allow heavy-duty vehicles to convert to biodiesel fuel immediately.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 338 of 1271
5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.7-14
2. Clean Vehicle Replacement Policy for City-Contracted Fleets: As contracts for City-contracted fleet services
(such as transit buses, trash haulers and street sweeper trucks) are renewed, the City will encourage
contractors to replace their vehicles with alternative fuel or hybrid substitutes through the contract bid
process. In addition, the City will pursue implementing two hydrogen vehicle demonstration projects.
3. Business Energy Evaluations: Businesses with storefronts or offices need to participate in a no-cost energy
assessment of their facilities to help identify opportunities for them to reduce monthly energy costs. The
business assessment will be integrated into the existing business licensing process and codified through a
new municipal ordinance.
4. Green Building Standard: The City will implement a citywide, mandatory green building standard for new
residential and non-residential construction projects and major renovations. The standard includes four
components: 1) adopting a citywide Green Building Standard, 2) adopting a citywide Enhanced Energy
Efficiency Standard, 3) launching a Green Building Awareness program for builders, permit applicants and
the general public, and 4) developing design guidelines for sustainable development.
5. Solar and Energy Efficiency Conversion Program: The City will create a community program to provide
residents and businesses with a streamlined, cost-effective opportunity to implement energy efficiency
improvements and to install solar/renewable energy systems on their properties. The City will develop a
funding mechanism to allow program participants to voluntarily choose to place the improvement costs on
their property’s tax rolls, thereby avoiding large upfront capital costs. In addition, the program will promote
vocational training, local manufacturing, and retail sales op portunities for environmental products and
services. To help stimulate the private-sector renewable market and lower the cost for installing renewable
energy systems on new homes, the City will require all new residential buildings to include pre -wiring and
pre-plumbing for solar photovoltaic and solar hot water systems, respectively.
6. Smart Growth Around Trolley Stations: The City will continue to implement the smart growth design
principles, which promote mixed-use and walkable and transit-friendly development, particularly in and
around the E, H, and Palomar trolley stations. These principles were emphasized in the revised Chula Vista
General Plan and the Urban Core Specific Plan. In particular, the City will initiate site planning, design
studies and specific area plan development to further support smart growth development that
complements GHG reductions.
7. Turf Lawn Conversion Program: The City will create a community program to provide residents and businesses with
a streamlined, cost-effective opportunity to replace their turf lawns with water-saving landscaping and irrigation
systems. Some municipal turf lawn areas (such as medians, fire stations and non-recreational park areas) will also
be converted to act as public demonstration sites and to reduce monthly water costs. The City will establish the
model for water-wise landscaping for new development through an update of the Chula Vista Municipal Landscape
Ordinance and Water Conservation Plan guidelines.
Chula Vista Climate Protection Measures – 2013 Progress Report. Since 2000, the City has been implementing a
“Climate Action Plan” (CO2 Reduction Plan) to address the threat of climate change to the local community. This
original plan has been revised to incorporate new climate mitigation (2008) and adaptation (2011) measures to
strengthen the City’s climate action efforts and to facilitate the numerous community co-benefits, such as utility
savings, better air quality, reduced traffic congestion, local economic development, and improved quality of life.
Based on available funding, staff has been implementing the 18 climate -related actions and their 57 associated
components. Overall, 70% of the components have been successfully completed and/or are being implemented on
an ongoing basis, which represents a 7% increase since the last reporting period. Another 26% are still being
actively pursued, while only two components remain on hold (City of Chula Vista 2013).
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 339 of 1271
5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.7-15
2014 Climate Action Plan Update – Recommendations by the Climate Change Working Group. The Climate Change
Working Group has been evaluating new opportunities to help reach the Chula Vista Climate Action Plan (CAP) GHG
gas reduction goal of 30% below 2005 levels. As such, they have identified 12 action areas that could generate up
to 166,000 MT in reductions by 2020, while improving local air quality, generating utility savings, reducing traffic
congestion, and promoting a healthier community (City of Chula Vista 2014).
2017 Climate Action Plan. The latest version of the 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 is not
considered a CEQA “qualified” plan under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5, as it has not been adopted in a public
process following environmental review. The Climate Change Working Group has been evaluating new opportunities
to help reach the CAP’s GHG gas reduction goals, which are based on the Second Update goals of 6 MT CO2e per
person by 2030 and 2 MT CO2e per person by 2050. As such, they have identified the following 11 action areas
that could generate up to 208,220 MT in reductions by 2020, while improving local air quality, generating utility
savings, reducing traffic congestion, and promoting a healthier community (City of Chula Vista 2017):
Water Conservation & Reuse [Estimated Annual GHG Reductions = 12,357 MT CO2e]
1. Water Education & Enforcement
A. Expand education and enforcement [through fines] targeting landscape water waste
2. Water Efficiency Upgrades
A. Update the City’s Landscape Water Conservation Ordinance to promote more water ‐wise
landscaping designs
B. Require water‐savings retrofits in existing buildings at a specific point in time (not point of sale)
3. Water Reuse Plan & System Installations
A. Develop a Water Reuse Master Plan to maximize the use of storm water, graywater [recycled water]
and onsite water reclamation
B. Facilitate simple graywater systems for laundry-to-landscape applications
C. Streamline complex graywater systems’ permit review
Waste Reduction [Estimated Annual GHG Reductions = 38,126 MT CO2e]
1. Zero Waste Plan
A. Develop a Zero Waste Plan to supplement statewide green waste, recycling and plastic bag ban efforts
Renewable & Efficient Energy [Estimated Annual GHG Reductions = 70,763 MT CO2e]
1. Energy Education & Enforcement
A. Expand education targeting key community segments [e.g., do-it-yourselfers and Millennials] and
facilitating energy performance disclosure (e.g., Green Leases, benchmarking and Home Energy Ratings)
B. Leverage the building inspection process to distribute energy‐related information and to deter unpermitted,
low performing energy improvements
2. Clean Energy Sources
A. Incorporate solar photovoltaic into all new residential and commercial buildings [on a project-level basis]
B. Provide more grid ‐delivered clean energy (up to 100%) through Community Choice Aggregation
or other mechanism
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 340 of 1271
5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.7-16
3. Energy Efficiency Upgrades
A. Expand the City’s “cool roof” standards to include re‐roofs and western areas
B. Facilitate more energy upgrades in the community through incentives [e.g., tax breaks and rebates),
permit streamlining (where possible) and education [e.g., more local energy efficiency programming]
C. Require energy‐savings retrofits in existing buildings at a specific point in time (not at point of sale)
4. Robust Urban Forests
A. Plant more shade trees to save energy, address heat island issues and improve air quality
Smart Growth & Transportation [Estimated Annual GHG Reductions = 86,974 MT CO2e]
1. Complete Streets & Neighborhoods
A. Incorporate “Complete Streets” principles into municipal capital projects and plans [e.g., the Bicycle
and Pedestrian Master Plans and Capital Improvement Program]
B. Encourage higher density and mixed‐use development in Smart Growth areas, especially around trolley
stations and other transit nodes
2. Transportation Demand Management
A. Utilize bike facilities, transit access/passes and other Transportation Demand Management and
congestion management offerings
B. Expand bike-sharing, car-sharing and other “last mile” transportation options
3. Alternative Fuel Vehicle Readiness
A. Support the installation of more local alternative fueling stations
B. Designate preferred parking for alternative fuel vehicles
C. Design all new residential and commercial buildings to be “Electric Vehicle Ready”
Chula Vista Green Building Standards. Consistent with Measure 4 of the Chula Vista Climate Protection Measures,
the City Council adopted the Green Building Standards Ordinance (Ordinance No. 3140) on October 6, 2009, which
became effective November 5, 2009. The Green Building Standards Ordinance includes standards for energy
efficiency, pollutant controls, interior moisture control, improved indoor air quality and exhaust, indoor water
conservation, stormwater management, and construction waste reduction and recycling.
Building permit applications are required to indicate on project construction plans and specifications the Green
Building Standards measures that comply with the ordinance. Prio r to final building approval or issuance of a
certificate of occupancy, the Building Official reviews the information submitted by the applicant and determines
whether the applicant has constructed the project in accordance with the permitted plans and documents, and
whether the plans are in compliance with the Green Building Standards. In 2013, Chula Vista adopted CALGreen
for residential and non-residential development effective January 1, 2014.
Chapter 15.12 Green Building Standards. Title 24, Part 11 (CALGreen), was adopted as the Green Building Code of
the City for enhancing the design and construction of buildings, building additions, and alterations through the use
of building concepts having a reduced negative impact or positive environmental impact and encouraging
sustainable construction practices, excepting such portions as are hereinafter deleted, modified, or amended.
Chula Vista Increased Energy Efficiency Standards. On January 26, 2010, the City Council adopted the Increased Energy
Efficiency Standards Ordinance (Ordinance No. 3149). This ordinance became effective February 26, 2010, as Section
15.26 of the Municipal Code. Permit applications are required to comply with these energy efficiency standards.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 341 of 1271
5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.7-17
Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC) Section 15.26.030 requires permit applications to comply with increased
energy efficiency standards that achieve 15% to 20% greater efficiency than the requirements of the Title 24 2008
standards, depending on climate zone. The City falls within two climate zones, Zone 7 and Zone 10. The project site
is within Zone 7. For Zone 7, the code requires the following:
• All new low-rise residential building or additions, remodels or alterations to existing low-rise residential buildings
where the additions, remodels or alterations are greater than 1,000 square feet of conditional floor area, shall
use at least 15% less energy than the 2008 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards allow.
• All new non-residential, high-rise residential or hotel/motel buildings, or additions, remodels or alterations
to existing non-residential, high-rise residential or hotel/motel buildings where the additions, remodels or
alterations are greater than 10,000 square feet of conditioned floor area, shall use at least 15% less energy
than the 2008 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards.
• No city building permit shall be issued unless the permit application demonstrates to the Building Official
compliance with the requirements of Section 15.26.030. Compliance is to be demonstrated based on a
performance approach, using a CEC-approved energy compliance software program, as specified in the
Title 24 2008 Building Energy Efficiency Standards.
In 2013, the City adopted the Energy Code for Residential and Non-Residential development, effective July 1, 2014.
Energy efficiency measures adopted by the CVMC are as follows:
• Section 15.26.010 – California Energy Code. The California Energy Code is adopted as the energy code of
the City for the purpose of regulating building design and construction standards to increase efficiency in
the use of energy for new residential and nonresidential buildings.
• Section 15.26.020 – Outdoor Lighting Zones. The City has adopted an outdoor lighting zones map
amending state default lighting zones as applied to certain areas of the City. The location of outdoor lighting
zones in the City are per the adopted Outdoor Lighting Zones Map, dated September 2, 2005, and kept on
file with the City Planning and Building Department.
• Section 15.28.015 Solar Water Heater Pre-Plumbing (specific to the City). All new residential units shall
include plumbing specifically designed to allow the later installation of a system that utilizes solar energ y
as the primary means of heating domestic potable water. No building permit shall be issued unless the
requirements of this section and the Chula Vista Solar Water Heater Pre -Plumbing Installation
Requirements are incorporated into the approved building plans.
• Section 15.24.065 Pre-Wiring for Photovoltaic (specific to the City). All new residential units shall include
electrical conduit specifically designed to allow the later installation of a photovoltaic system that utilizes
solar energy as a means to provide electricity. No building permit shall be issued unless the requirements
of this section and the Chula Vista Photovoltaic Pre-Wiring Installation Requirements are incorporated into
the approved building plans.
• Section 15.28.020 Residential Graywater Stub-out (specific to the City). All new detached single-family dwellings
and duplexes shall include a single-source clothes washer graywater outlet and an outside stub-out to allow the
later installation of a clothes washer graywater irrigation system that complies with the requirements of Section
1602.1.1 of the 2013 California Plumbing Code. The outlet and stub-out shall be installed in accordance with
the Chula Vista Clothes Washer Graywater Pre-Plumbing and Stub-Out for New Residential Construction or an
equivalent alternate method and/or material approved by the Building Official.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 342 of 1271
5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.7-18
City of Chula Vista Mandatory Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance. Section 8.25.095 of the
Chula Vista Municipal Code requires that 90% of inert materials and a minimum of 50% of all other materials be
recycled and/or reused from certain covered projects. Covered projects include the following:
• Any project requiring a permit for demolition or construction, which has a project valuation of $20,000 or more
• Housing subdivision construction or demolition and/or any sequenced development will be considered a
project in its entirety and not a series of individual projects
• Tenant improvements greater than 1,000 square feet but less than 10,000 square feet and individual
single-family home construction, remodel, addition or renovation, shall submit a Waste Management
Report only (no deposit required)
• All City projects
Covered projects must submit a waste management plan to the Chula Vista Public Works Department,
Environmental Services Division, which must be reviewed and approved prior to the issuance of a demolition or
building permit. The waste management plan will indicate how the applicant will recycle and/or reuse 90% of inert
materials and at least 50% of the remaining construction and demolition debris generated from the project.
City of Chula Vista Clean Transportation Energy Roadmap (2012). The Clean Transportation Energy Roadmap
(Roadmap) can serve as a resource for the City as it continues to promote clean transportation measures, both in
its municipal operations and in the community. The Roadmap identifies petroleum reduction measures and tools
specific to the City that generally result in cost savings and benefits to the environment, including the following:
• An assessment of alternative fuel vehicles and fuel availability for the City’s vehicle fleet
• Commuter programs, including vanpools, carpools, and teleworking that the City could promote to its employees
• Online tools to establish a baseline of petroleum consumed and GHGs emitted from employee commutes,
as well as annual tracking tools
• Smart growth and active transportation policies that enhance local walking and biking options
• Outreac h materials on Clean Transportation programs that can be shared with local residents,
schools, and businesses
The Roadmap also recognizes the significant steps that the City has taken already. Since 2000, Chula Vista has
been implementing a “Climate Action Plan” (CO2 Reduction Plan) that includes measures to reduce energy and fuel
use at municipal facilities and throughout the community.
City of Chula Vista General Plan
The General Plan (City of Chula Vista 2005) includes various policies related to reducing GHG emissions (both
directly and indirectly). Applicable policies include the following:
Land Use and Transportation Element
• Policy LUT-23.1: Encourage the use of bicycles and walking as alternatives to driving.
• Policy LUT-23.2: Foster the development of a system of inter-connecting bicycle routes throughout the City
and region.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 343 of 1271
5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.7-19
• Policy LUT-23.5: Provide linkages between bicycle facilities that utilize circulation element alignments and
open space corridors.
• Policy LUT-23.8: Provide and maintain a safe and efficient system of sidewalks, trails, and pedestrian crossings.
• Policy LUT-23.14: Require new development projects to provide internal bikeway systems with connections
to the citywide bicycle networks.
Environmental Element
• Policy E-6.1: Encourage compact development featuring a mix of uses that locate residential areas within
reasonable walking distance to jobs, services, and transit.
• Policy E-6.5: Ensure that plans developed to meet the City’s energy demand use the least polluting
strategies, wherever practical. Conservation, clean renewables, and clean distributed generation should be
considered as part of the City’s energy plan, along with larger natural gas-fired plants.
• Policy E-6.7: Encourage innovative energy conservation practices and air quality improvements in new
development and redevelopment projects consistent with the City’s Air Quality Improvement Plan
Guidelines or its equivalent, pursuant to the City’s Growth Management Program.
• Policy E-6.8: Support the use of alternative fuel transit, City fleet and private vehicles in Chula Vista.
• Policy E-7.1: Promote development of regulations and building design standards that maximize energy
efficiency through appropriate site and building design and through the use of energy -efficient materials,
equipment, and appliances.
• Policy E-7.6: Encourage the construction and operation of green buildings, considering such programs as
the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System.
• Policy E-7.8: Ensure that residential and non-residential construction complies with all applicable City
energy efficiency measures and other green building measures that are in effect at the time of discretionary
permit review and approval or building permit issuance, whichever is applicable.
• Policy E-8.1: Promote efforts to reduce waste, minimize the need for additional landfills, and provide
economically and environmentally sound resource recovery, management, and disposal facilities.
• Policy E-8.3: Implement source reduction strategies, including curbside recycling, use of small collection
facilities for recycling, and composting.
5.7.1.2 Climate Change Overview
Climate change refers to any significant change in measures of climate, such as temperature, precipitation, or
wind patterns, lasting for an extended period (decades or longer). The Earth’s temperature depends on the
balance between energy entering and leaving the planet’s system. Many factors, both natural and human, can
cause changes in Earth’s energy balance, including variations in the Sun’s energy reaching Earth, changes in the
reflectivity of Earth’s atmosphe re and surface, and changes in the greenhouse effect, which affects the amount
of heat retained by Earth’s atmosphere (EPA 2017).
The greenhouse effect is the trapping and buildup of heat in the atmosphere near the Earth’s surface (the
troposphere). The greenhouse effect traps heat in the troposphere through a threefold process as follows: short-
wave radiation emitted by the Sun is absorbed by the Earth; the Earth emits a portion of this energy in the form of
long-wave radiation; and GHGs in the upper atmosphere absorb this long-wave radiation and emit it into space and
toward the Earth. The greenhouse effect is a natural process that contributes to regulating the Earth’s temperature
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 344 of 1271
5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.7-20
and creates a pleasant, livable environment on the Earth. Human activities that emit additional GHGs to the
atmosphere increase the amount of infrared radiation that gets absorbed before escaping into space, thus
contributing substantially to the greenhouse effect and causing the Earth’s surface temperature to rise.
The scientific record of the Earth’s climate shows that the climate system varies naturally over a wide range of time
scales and that, in general, climate changes prior to the Industrial Revolution in the 1700s can be explained by
natural causes, such as changes in solar energy, volcanic eruptions, and natural changes in GHG concentrations.
However, recent climate changes, in particular the warming observed over the past century, cannot be explained
by natural causes alone. Rather, it is extremely likely that human activities have been the dominant cause of that
warming since the mid-20th century and that they are the most significant driver of observed climate change (IPCC
2013; EPA 2017). Human influence on the climate system is evident from the increasing GHG concentrations in
the atmosphere, positive radiative forcing, observed warming, and improved understanding of the climate system
(IPCC 2013). The atmospheric concentrations of GHGs have increased to levels unprecedented in the last 800,000
years, primarily from fossil fuel emissions and secondarily from emissions associated with land use changes (IPCC
2013). Continued emissions of GHGs will cause further warming and changes in all components of the climate
system, which is discussed further in Appendix C.
5.7.1.3 Greenhouse Gases
A GHG is any gas that absorbs infrared radiation in the atmosphere; in other words, GHGs trap heat in the
atmosphere. GHGs include, but are not limited to, carbon dioxide (CO 2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), O3,
water vapor, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur
hexafluoride (SF6).2 Some GHGs, such as CO2, CH4, and N2O, occur naturally and are emitted to the atmosphere
through natural processes and human activities. Of these gases, CO2 and CH4 are emitted in the greatest quantities
from human activities. Manufactured GHGs, which have a much greater heat-absorption potential than CO2, include
fluorinated gases, such as HFCs, HCFCs, PFCs, and SF6, which are associated with certain industrial products and
processes. A summary of the most common GHGs and their sources is included in the following text. Also included
is a discussion of other climate-forcing substances.
Carbon Dioxide. CO2 is a naturally occurring gas and a by-product of human activities and is the principal
anthropogenic GHG that affects the Earth’s radiative balance. Natural sources of CO 2 include respiration of bacteria,
plants, animals, and fungus; evaporation from oceans; volcanic out-gassing; and decomposition of dead organic
matter. Human activities that generate CO2 involve the combustion of fuels, such as coal, oil, natural gas, and wood,
and changes in land use.
Methane. CH4 is produced through both natural and human activities. CH4 is a flammable gas and is the main
component of natural gas. CH4 is produced through anaerobic (without oxygen) decomposition of waste in landfills,
flooded rice fields, animal digestion, decomposition of animal wastes, production and distribution of natural gas
and petroleum, coal production, and incomplete fossil fuel combustion.
Nitrous Oxide. N2O is produced through natural and human activities, mainly through agricultural activities and natural
biological processes, although fuel burning and other processes also create N2O. Sources of N2O include soil cultivation
practices (microbial processes in soil and water), especially the use of commercial and organic fertilizers, manure
2 California Health and Safety Code 38505 identifies seven GHGs that CARB is responsible for monitoring and regulating to reduce
emissions: CO2, CH4, N2O, SF6, HFCs, PFCs, and nitrogen trifluoride (NF3).
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 345 of 1271
5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.7-21
management, industrial processes (such as in nitric acid production, nylon production, and fossil- fuel-fired power plants),
vehicle emissions, and using N2O as a propellant (such as in rockets, race cars, and aerosol sprays).
Fluorinated Gases. Fluorinated gases (also referred to as F-gases) are synthetic, powerful GHGs emitted from many
industrial processes. Fluorinated gases are commonly used as substitutes for stratospheric O3-depleting
substances (e.g., chlorofluorocarbons [CFCs], HCFCs, and halons). The most prevalent fluorinated gases include
the following:
• Hydrofluorocarbons: HFCs are compounds containing only hydrogen, fluorine, and carbon atoms. HFCs are
synthetic chemicals used as alternatives to O3-depleting substances in serving many industrial, commercial, and
personal needs. HFCs are emitted as byproducts of industrial processes and are used in manufacturing.
• Perfluorocarbons: PFCs are a group of human-made chemicals composed of carbon and fluorine only.
These chemicals were introduced as alternatives, with HFCs, to the O3-depleting substances. The two main
sources of PFCs are primary aluminum production and semiconductor manufacturing. Since PFCs have
stable molecular structures and do not break down through the chemical processes in the lower
atmosphere, these chemicals have long lifetimes, ranging between 10,000 and 50,000 years.
• Sulfur Hexafluoride: SF6 is a colorless gas soluble in alcohol and ether and slightly soluble in water. SF6 is
used for insulation in electric power transmission and distribution equipment, semiconductor
manufacturing, the magnesium industry, and as a tracer gas for leak detection.
• Nitrogen Trifluoride: NF3 is used in the manufacture of a variety of electronics, including semiconductors,
and flat panel displays.
Chlorofluorocarbons. CFCs are synthetic chemicals that have been used as cleaning solvents, refrigerants, and
aerosol propellants. CFCs are chemically unreactive in the lower atmosphere (troposphere), an d the production of
CFCs was prohibited in 1987 due to the chemical destruction of stratospheric O3.
Hydrochlorofluorocarbons. HCFCs are a large group of compounds with a structure very close to that of CFCs—
containing hydrogen, fluorine, chlorine, and carbon atoms—but including one or more hydrogen atoms. Like HFCs,
HCFCs are used in refrigerants and propellants. HCFCs were also used in place of CFCs for some applications;
however, their use in general is being phased out.
Black Carbon. Black carbon is a component of fine particulate matter (PM 2.5), which has been identified as a
leading environmental risk factor for premature death. It is produced from the incomplete combustion of fossil
fuels and biomass burning, particularly from older diesel engines an d forest fires. Black carbon warms the
atmosphere by absorbing solar radiation, influences cloud formation, and darkens the surface of snow and
ice, which accelerates heat absorption and melting. Black carbon is a short -lived species that varies spatially,
which makes it difficult to quantify the GWP. DPM emissions are a major source of black carbon and are TACs
that have been regulated and controlled in California for several decades to protect public health. In relation
to declining DPM from CARB’s regula tions pertaining to diesel engines, diesel fuels, and burning activities,
CARB estimates that annual black carbon emissions in California have reduced by 70% between 1990 and
2010, with 95% control expected by 2020 (CARB 2014 b).
Water Vapor. The primary source of water vapor is evaporation from the ocean, with additional vapor generated by
sublimation (change from solid to gas) from ice and snow, evaporation from other water bodies, and transpiration
from plant leaves. Water vapor is the most important, abundant, and variable GHG in the atmosphere and maintains
a climate necessary for life.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 346 of 1271
5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.7-22
Ozone. Tropospheric O3, which is created by photochemical reactions involving gases from both natural sources
and human activities, acts as a GHG. Stratospheric O3, which is created by the interaction between solar ultraviolet
radiation and molecular oxygen (O2), plays a decisive role in the stratospheric radiative balance. Depletion of
stratospheric O3, due to chemical reactions that may be enhanced by climate change, results in an increased
ground-level flux of ultraviolet-B radiation.
Aerosols. Aerosols are suspensions of particulate matter in a gas emitted into the air through burning biomass
(plant material) and fossil fuels. Aerosols can warm the atmosphere by abso rbing and emitting heat and can cool
the atmosphere by reflecting light.
5.7.1.4 Global Warming Potential
Gases in the atmosphere can contribute to climate change both directly and indirectly. Direct effects occur when
the gas itself absorbs radiation. Indirect radiative forcing occurs when chemical transformations of the substance
produce other GHGs, when a gas influences the atmospheric lifetimes of other gases, and/or when a gas affects
atmospheric processes that alter the radiative balance of the Earth (e.g., affect cloud formation or albedo) (EPA
2016). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) developed the Global Warming Potential (GWP)
concept to compare the ability of each GHG to trap heat in the atmosphere relative to another gas. The G WP of a
GHG is defined as the ratio of the time-integrated radiative forcing from the instantaneous release of 1 kilogram of
a trace substance relative to that of 1 kilogram of a reference gas (IPCC 2014). The reference gas used is CO 2;
therefore, GWP-weighted emissions are measured in metric tons (MT) of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e).
The current version of CalEEMod (version 2016.3.2) assumes that the GWP for CH4 is 25 (so emissions of 1 MT of
CH4 are equivalent to emissions of 25 MT of CO2), and the GWP for N2O is 298, based on the IPCC Fourth
Assessment Report (IPCC 2007). The GWP values identified in CalEEMod were applied to the project.
5.7.1.5 Potential Effects of Climate Change
Globally, climate change has the potential to affect numerous environmental resources through uncertain impacts
related to future air temperatures and precipitation patterns. In California, climate change impacts have the
potential to affect sea-level rise, agriculture, snowpack and water supply, forestry, wildfire risk, public health, and
electricity demand and supply (CCCC 2006). The effects of climate change are discussed in detail in Appendix C.
5.7.2 Thresholds of Significance
The significance criteria used to evaluate the project impacts associated with greenhouse gas emissions is based
on the recommendations provided in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.). A significant
impact would occur if the project would:
A. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact
on the environment .
B. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases.
Global climate change is a cumulative impact; a project participates in this potential impact through its incremental
contribution combined with the cumulative increase of all other sources of GHGs. There are currently no established
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 347 of 1271
5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.7-23
thresholds for assessing whether the GHG emissions of a project, such as the project, would be considered a
cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change; however, all reasonable efforts should be made
to minimize a project’s contribution to global climate change. In addition, while GHG impacts are recognized
exclusively as cumulative impacts (CAPCOA 2008), GHG emissions impacts must also be evaluated on a project
level under CEQA.
The CEQA Guidelines do not prescribe specific methodologies for performing an assessment, do not establish
specific thresholds of significance, and do not mandate specific mitigation measures. Rather, the CEQA Guidelines
emphasize the lead agency’s discretion to determine the appropriate methodologies and thresholds of significance
consistent with the manner in which other impact areas are handled in CEQA (CNRA 2009). The State of California
has not adopted emissions-based thresholds for GHG emissions under CEQA. The Governor’s Office of Planning
and Research’s Technical Advisory “CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change through California
Environmental Quality Act Review” states that “public agencies are encouraged but not required to adopt thresh olds
of significance for environmental impacts. Even in the absence of clearly defined thresholds for GHG emissions, the
law requires that such emissions from CEQA projects must be disclosed and mitigated to the extent feasible
whenever the lead agency determines that the project contributes to a significant, cumulative climate change
impact” (OPR 2008). Furthermore, the advisory document indicates that “in the absence of regulatory standards
for GHG emissions or other scientific data to clearly define what constitutes a ‘significant impact,’ individual lead
agencies may undertake a project -by- project analysis, consistent with available guidance and current CEQA
practice.” Section 15064.7(c) of the CEQA Guidelines specifies that “when adopting thresholds o f significance, a
lead agency may consider thresholds of significance previously adopted or recommended by other public agencies,
or recommended by experts, provided the decision of the lead agency to adopt such thresholds is supported by
substantial evidence” (14 CCR 15064.7[c]).
Neither the State of California, nor the City, nor SDAPCD has adopted emission-based thresholds of significance for
GHG emissions under CEQA.
An efficiency threshold sets a per capita emissions limit. The total emissions from a given project are summed and
divided by a project’s service population (SP) to determine emissions per capita and are compared to the efficiency
threshold.3 Efficiency thresholds have been proposed by various agencies and air districts, including both the B ay
Area Air Quality Management District and South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The Bay Area Air
Quality Management District and SCAQMD have each developed an efficiency threshold of 6.6 MT CO2e/SP for plan
level developments. Additionally, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District suggested a project-level efficiency
threshold of 4.6 MT CO2e per SP, while SCAQMD suggested a project-level efficiency threshold of 4.8 MT CO2e per
SP. The fault in these proposed thresholds is that they rely on CARB’s Scoping Plan reduction goal and statewide
population for 2020. The California Supreme Court’s decision on the Center for Biological Diversity vs. California
Department of Fish and Wildlife determined that project-level analyses should not rely on statewide data. A more
localized efficiency threshold must be developed based on the population at the city level. These thresholds were
developed assuming compliance with AB 32’s 2020 goals.
To develop an efficiency threshold that would satisfy the requirements of Center for Biological Diversity vs. California
Department of Fish and Wildlife and EO B-30-15, the City’s 1990 emissions inventory, less 40%, must be divided by the
City’s 2030 SP (residents and employees). Project level emissions can then be directly evaluated against a threshold
based on local emission reduction goals and local population densities in accordance with the Court’s decision on Center
for Biological Diversity vs. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. It should be noted that the downward trajectory
3 Service population is defined as the number of residents plus the number of employees within the City.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 348 of 1271
5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.7-24
from AB 32 to SB 32 is greater than that from AB 32 to EO S-3-05, of 80% below 1990 by 2050 (CARB 2017a). By
analyzing the project against the quantitative efficiency metric thresholds for the buildout year and for the milestone year
for the next legislatively adopted target (2030), this analysis demonstrates that the project would demonstrate progress
toward, and be on the trajectory toward, helping the state comply with its long- term targets in EO S-3-05. Developing
community-wide mass reduction goals using this approach is consistent with CARB recommendations to determine the
targets “based on local emissions sectors” and to “develop community- wide GHG emissions reduction goals necessary
to reach 2030 and 2050 climate goals” (CARB 2017a, pp. 100–101).
As provided in the City’s 2012 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory, the City’s 1990 GHG emissions inventory
totals approximately 847,166 MT CO2e. Based on the 1990 US Census (U.S. Census Bureau 1992), the City’s SP
in 1990 was 235,344 (135,243 residents + 100,101 employees). Dividing the City’s 1990 GHG emissions of
847,166 MT CO2e by the 1990 SP gives an efficiency metric of 3.60 MT CO2e per SP.
Consistent with EO B-30-15, the City’s 2030 goal is 508,300 MT CO2e (847,166 × [1−0.40]). Based on the SANDAG
Series 13 model (SANDAG 2013), the City’s SP in 2030 is estimated at 407,524 (313,474 residents + 94,050
employees).4 Dividing the City’s 2030 GHG emissions goal by the City’s 2030 population results in an efficiency
metric of 1.25 MT CO2e per SP.
To develop an efficiency metric for the project’s buildout year of 2028, it is necessary to interpolate between the
efficiency metrics in 1990 and 2030. Table 5.7-1 shows the calculated efficiency metric for 2028, which is consistent
with EO B-30-15.
Table 5.7-1. 2028 Interpolated Efficiency Metric
1990 Efficiency Metric (MT/SP/yr) 2030 Efficiency Metric (MT/SP/yr) 2028 Efficiency Metrica (MT/SP/yr)
3.60 1.25 1.37
Source: Appendix C
Notes: MT = metric tons; SP = service population; yr = year.
a The 2028 efficiency metric was calculated as follows: {[(2030 Efficiency Metric − 1990 Efficiency Metric) ÷ (2030 − 1990)] × (2028 −
1990)} + (1990 Efficiency Metric).
As shown in Table 5.7-1, the calculated efficiency metric for 2028 based on the City’s emissions inventory in 2012
and GHG emissions reduction goal for 2030 was 1.37 MT CO2e per SP, based on the statewide targets. If the project
achieves the 2028 efficiency metric, it would not interfere with attainment of the 2030 and 2050 statewide
emission reduction targets and therefore would not interfere with the state’s and the City’s ability to achieve the
mid-term and long-term GHG reduction targets in the CAP.
5.7.3 Impacts
A. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.
Construction Impacts
Construction of the 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. GHG emissions
4 The SANDAG Series 13 model provides forecasts for years 2020 and 2035. The forecast for year 2030 was interpolated using
the forecasts for 2020 and 2035.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 349 of 1271
5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.7-25
associated with temporary construction activity were quantified using CalEEMod. A detailed depiction of the
construction schedule—including information regarding phasing, equipment used during each phase, haul trucks,
vendor trucks, and worker vehicles—is included in Appendix C.
Table 5.7-2 shows the estimated annual GHG construction emissions associated with the project, as well as the
amortized construction emissions over a 30-year project life.
Total construction-related GHG emissions for the project were 12,928 MT CO2e. Estimated 30-year amortized
project- generated construction emissions would be approximately 431 MT CO2e per year. However, because there
is no separate GHG threshold for construction emissions alone, the evaluation of significance is discussed in the
operational emissions analysis below.
Table 5.7-2. Estimated Annual Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Year
CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Metric Tons
2021 557.82 0.16 0.00 561.77
2022 2,235.46 0.22 0.00 2,240.93
2023 1,970.91 0.15 0.00 1,974.59
2024 1,945.56 0.14 0.00 1,949.18
2025 1,898.52 0.14 0.00 1,902.07
2026 1,863.72 0.14 0.00 1,867.21
2027 1,832.90 0.14 0.00 1,836.35
2028 595.08 0.05 0.00 596.21
Total emissions 12,928.31
30-year amortized emissions 430.94
Source: Appendix C.
Notes: CO2 = carbon dioxide; CH4 = methane; N2O = nitrous oxide; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent.
See Appendix A of Appendix C for complete results.
Operational Emissions
Operation of the 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 project); solid waste disposal; and generation of electricity associated with water supply, treatment, and
distribution and wastewater treatment. CalEEMod was used to calculate the annual GHG emissions based on the
operational assumptions described in Appendix C. Although GHG emission reductions from implementation of PDF-
TRA-1 (see Section 4.4.8, Project Design Features) were not quantified, implementation of the following strategies
would further reduce the project’s vehicle miles traveled, which include providing ride share coordination services,
coordinating with nearby schools to carpool to/from school, provide on-site transit opportunities information, and
encourage bicycling by providing on-site bicycle infrastructure such as bike racks.
The estimated operational (year 2028) project-generated GHG emissions from area sources, energy usage, motor
vehicles, solid waste generation, and water usage and wastewater generation are shown Table 5.7-3.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 350 of 1271
5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.7-26
Table 5.7-3. Estimated Annual Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Emission Source
CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Metric Tons per Year
Area 8.74 0.01 0.00 8.95
Energy 1,150.05 0.04 0.01 1,155.24
Mobile 3,448.08 0.18 0.00 3,452.51
Solid waste 33.62 1.99 0.00 83.28
Water supply and wastewater 178.62 1.54 0.04 228.13
Total 4,928.10
Amortized Construction Emissions 430.94
Operation + Amortized Construction Total 5,359.05
Notes: CO2 = carbon dioxide; CH4 = methane; N2O = nitrous oxide; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent.
See Appendix A for detailed results.
These emissions reflect CalEEMod “mitigated” output and operational year 2028.
As shown in Table 5.7-3, estimated annual project-generated GHG emissions in 2028 would be approximately
4,928 MT CO2e per year as a result of project operations. Estimated annual project -generated emissions in 2028
from area, energy, mobile, solid waste, water/wastewater, and amortized project construction emissions would be
approximately 5,359 MT CO2e per year.
City-Specific Efficiency Metric
As discussed in Section 5.7.2, Thresholds of Significance, a quantitative analysis using a City -specific efficiency
metric threshold for a post-2020 year (i.e., 2028) was developed. The efficiency metric calculated for 2028 (as
shown in Section 5.7.2) is 1.37 MT CO2e per SP.
The proposed project is anticipated to generate 2,321 residents.5 Using the estimated operational plus amortized
construction emissions of 5,359 MT CO2e and SP of 2,321, the project would have a GHG efficiency metric of 2.31
MT CO2e per SP. The project’s efficiency metric would exceed the significance threshold efficiency metric of 1.37
MT CO2e per SP. Therefore, impacts related to GHG emissions associated with the project would be potentially
significant. Therefore, Mitigation Measure (MM) GHG-1, outlined in Section 5.7.5, Mitigation Measures, would be
implemented and would minimize GHG emissions associated with project operations. However, approximately 64%
of the proposed project’s annual GHG emissions are from mobile sources; therefore, to reduce GHG emissions to
a less-than-significant level, the project would need to reduce its total GHG emissions by approximately 65% to
reduce the project-generated GHG emissions below the City’s efficiency threshold. Because the project’s SP-based
emissions would be more than the City’s efficiency metric of 1.37 MT CO2e per SP, potential GHG emissions impacts
associated with exceedance of the City’s efficiency metric would be considered significant and unavoidable (see
Section 5.7.6, Level of Significance After Mitigation, for more details).
B. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases.
The project’s consistency with the CAP, SANDAG’s Regional Plan, and CARB’s Scoping Plan is discussed below.
5 Note that, while the proposed project would result in construction of 718 residential units, the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Technical Report (Appendix C) assumed 720 proposed residential units for a conservative analysis.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 351 of 1271
5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.7-27
Consistency with the CAP
The 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. Therefore, this consistency analysis is
included for informational purposes only and will not be used to determine significance.
The project includes several design features that will help reduce its GHG emissions in line with the CAP. Table
5.7-4 identifies the measures and goals within the CAP and the project’s consistency with them.
Table 5.7-4. City of Chula Vista Climate Action Plan Consistency Analysis
Category Policy Objective or Strategy Consistency Analysis
Water Conservation & Reuse
Water Education
& Enforcement
Expand education and enforcement
[through fines] targeting landscape water
waste
Consistent. The project would not impair the ability
of the City to expand education and enforcement
targeting landscape water waste. Furthermore, as
implemented by MM-GHG-1, native species and
drought-tolerant species shall be used for a
minimum of 50% of the ornamental plant palette in
non-turf areas to minimize the project’s water
demand. The project would install purple pipes to
use reclaimed water for irrigation.
Water Efficiency
Upgrades
Update the City’s Landscape Water
Conservation Ordinance to promote
more water‐wise landscaping designs
Consistent. The project would be consistent with
the City’s Landscape Water Conservation
Ordinance. Furthermore, as implemented by MM-
GHG-1, native species and drought-tolerant species
shall be used for a minimum of 50% of the
ornamental plant palette in non-turf areas to
minimize the project’s water demand. The project
would install purple pipes to use reclaimed water
for irrigation.
Require water‐savings retrofits in
existing buildings at a specific point in
time (not point of sale)
Not applicable. The project would not impair the
ability of the City to require water-savings retrofits
for existing buildings.
Water Reuse Plan
& System
Installations
Develop a Water Reuse Master Plan to
maximize the use of storm water,
graywater [recycled water] and onsite
water reclamation
Consistent. The project would not impair the ability
of the City to develop a Water Reuse Master Plan.
As implemented by MM-GHG-1, the project would
install purple pipes to use reclaimed water for
irrigation.
Facilitate simple graywater systems for
laundry-to-landscape applications
Consistent. As implemented by MM-GHG-1, the
project would install purple pipes to use reclaimed
water for irrigation.
Streamline complex graywater systems’
permit review
Not applicable. The project would not impair the
ability of the City to streamline complex graywater
systems permit review.
Waste Reduction
Zero Waste Plan Develop a Zero Waste Plan to
supplement statewide green waste,
recycling and plastic bag ban efforts
Consistent. The project would not impair the ability
of the City to develop a Zero Waste Plan. During
both construction and operation of the project, the
project would comply with all state regulations
related to solid waste generation, storage, and
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 352 of 1271
5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.7-28
Table 5.7-4. City of Chula Vista Climate Action Plan Consistency Analysis
Category Policy Objective or Strategy Consistency Analysis
disposal, including the California Integrated Waste
Management Act, as amended. As implemented by
MM-GHG-1, during construction, all wastes would
be recycled to the maximum extent possible and
exceed the City of Chula Vista’s Construction and
Demolition Debris Waste Management Plan’s 65%
diversion of construction and demolition waste.
Renewable & Energy Efficiency
Energy Education
& Enforcement
Expand education targeting key
community segments [e.g., do-it-
yourselfers and Millennials] and
facilitating energy performance
disclosure (e.g., Green Leases,
benchmarking and Home Energy
Ratings)
Not applicable. The project would not impair the
ability of the City to expand energy education.
Leverage the building inspection process
to distribute energy‐related information
and to deter unpermitted, low
performing energy improvements
Not applicable. The project would not impair the
ability of the City to distribute energy-related
information during the building inspection process.
Clean Energy
Sources
Incorporate solar photovoltaic into all
new residential and commercial
buildings [on a project-level basis]
Consistent. The project would install a 1,462-kW
solar photovoltaic system meeting the minimum
2019 Title 24 requirement.
Provide more grid‐delivered clean energy
(up to 100%) through Community Choice
Aggregation or other mechanism
Not applicable. The project would not impair the
ability of the City to provide a Community Choice
Aggregation of clean energy.
Energy Efficiency
Upgrades
Expand the City’s “cool roof” standards
to include re‐roofs and western areas
Consistent. The project would install cool roof
material, as implemented under MM-GHG-1, with a
greater solar reflectivity to help conserve energy.
Facilitate more energy upgrades in the
community through incentives [e.g., tax
breaks and rebates], permit streamlining
(where possible) and education [e.g.,
more local energy efficiency
programming]
Not applicable. The project would not impair the
ability of the City to incentivize additional energy
upgrades in the community.
Require energy‐savings retrofits in
existing buildings at a specific point in
time (not at point of sale)
Not applicable. The project would not impair the
ability of the City to require energy-savings retrofits
for existing buildings.
Robust Urban
Forests
Plant more shade trees to save energy,
address heat island issues and improve
air quality
Consistent. The project would plant 600 shade
trees on site to save energy and reduce heat island
issues, consistent with the City’s Shade Tree Policy
No. 576-19.
Smart Growth & Transportation
Complete Streets
& Neighborhoods
Incorporate “Complete Streets”
principles into municipal capital projects
and plans [e.g., the Bicycle and
Pedestrian Master Plans and Capital
Improvement Program]
Not applicable. The project would not impair the
ability of the City to incorporate Complete Streets
principles into the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master
Plans and Capital Improvement Program.
Furthermore, the Project would install bicycle racks.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 353 of 1271
5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.7-29
Table 5.7-4. City of Chula Vista Climate Action Plan Consistency Analysis
Category Policy Objective or Strategy Consistency Analysis
Encourage higher density and mixed‐use
development in Smart Growth areas,
especially around trolley stations and
other transit nodes
Consistent. The Project would be building on a site
within the City and is located close to public transit
and I-805 and install bicycle racks. The East
Palomar Transit Station is located approximately one
mile from the project site. Furthermore, the project is
located near commercial and employment centers
in an urban setting.
Transportation
Demand
Management
Utilize bike facilities, transit
access/passes and other Transportation
Demand Management and congestion
management offerings
Consistent. The project would implement PDF-TRA-
1 (see Section 4.4.8, Project Design Features, of
the EIR), which includes the following strategies
that would further reduce the project’s vehicle
miles traveled, including providing ride share
coordination services, coordinating with nearby
schools to carpool to/from school, provide on-site
transit opportunities information, and encourage
bicycling by providing on-site bicycle infrastructure
such as bike racks.
Expand bike-sharing, car-sharing and
other “last mile” transportation options
Consistent. The project would implement PDF-TRA-
1 (see Section 4.4.8, Project Design Features, of
the EIR), which includes the following strategies
that would further reduce the project’s vehicle
miles traveled, including providing ride share
coordination services, coordinating with nearby
schools to carpool to/from school, provide on-site
transit opportunities information, and encourage
bicycling by providing on-site bicycle infrastructure
such as bike racks.
Alternative Fuel
Vehicle Readiness
Support the installation of more local
alternative fueling stations
Consistent. The project would be in compliance
with the current building standards. As
implemented under MM-GHG-1, the project would
pre-wire two parking spots and the project’s 718
parking garages to be electric vehicle capable.
Furthermore, the two pre-wired parking spots
would be designated for carpool, shared, electric,
and hydrogen vehicles.
Designate preferred parking for
alternative fuel vehicles
Consistent. As implemented under MM-GHG-1, the
project would pre-wire two parking spots and the
project’s 718 parking garages to be electric vehicle
capable. Furthermore, the two pre-wired parking
spots would be designated for carpool, shared,
electric, and hydrogen vehicles.
Design all new residential and
commercial buildings to be “Electric
Vehicle Ready”
Consistent. As implemented under MM-GHG-1, the
project would pre-wire two parking spots and the
project’s 718 parking garages to be electric vehicle
capable.
Source: City of Chula Vista 2017.
Notes: City = City of Chula Vista; project = Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project.
As shown in Table 5.7-4, the project would be consistent with the applicable measures within the CAP.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 354 of 1271
5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.7-30
Consistency with San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan
Regarding consistency with SANDAG’s Regional Plan, the project would include site design elements and project
design features (PDFs) (see Section 4.4.8, Project Design Features) developed to support the policy objectives of
the RTP and SB 375.
Table 5.7-5 illustrates the project’s consistency with all applicable goals and policies of the Regional Plan (SANDAG 2015).
Table 5.7-5. San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan Consistency Analysis
Category Policy Objective or Strategy Consistency Analysis
The Regional Plan – Policy Objectives
Mobility Choices Provide safe, secure, healthy,
affordable, and convenient travel
choices between the places where
people live, work, and play.
Consistent. The project would provide pedestrian and
bicycle connectivity to the neighborhood.
Furthermore, the project would be located near MTS
bus routes 703 and 704 and I-805. The project
would implement PDF-TRA-1 (see Section 4.4.8,
Project Design Features, of the EIR), which includes
the following strategies that would further reduce the
project’s vehicle miles traveled, including providing
ride share coordination services, coordinating with
nearby schools to carpool to/from school, provide on-
site transit opportunities information, and encourage
bicycling by providing on-site bicycle infrastructure
such as bike racks.
Mobility Choices Take advantage of new technologies
to make the transportation system
more efficient and environmentally
friendly.
Not applicable. The project would not impair
SANDAG’s ability to employ new technologies to make
travel more reliable and convenient.
Habitat and Open
Space Preservation
Focus growth in areas that are
already urbanized, allowing the
region to set aside and restore more
open space in our less developed
areas.
Consistent. The project would be located close to
major urban centers, and the project would provide
housing to the area, while preserving adjacent open
space as part of the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan.
Furthermore, the project is located near commercial
and employment centers in an urban setting.
Habitat and Open
Space Preservation
Protect and restore our region’s
urban canyons, coastlines, beaches,
and water resources.
Not applicable. The project would not impair the
ability of SANDAG to protect and restore urban
canyons, coastlines, beaches, and water resources.
Regional Economic
Prosperity
Invest in transportation projects that
provide access for all communities
to a variety of jobs with competitive
wages.
Not applicable. The project would not impair
SANDAG’s ability to invest in transportation projects
available to all members of the community.
Regional Economic
Prosperity
Build infrastructure that makes the
movement of freight in our
community more efficient and
environmentally friendly.
Not applicable. The project does not propose regional
freight movement, nor would it impair SANDAG’s
ability to preserve and expand options for regional
freight movement.
Partnerships/Collab
oration
Collaborate with Native American
tribes, Mexico, military bases,
neighboring counties, infrastructure
providers, the private sector, and
local communities to design a
Not applicable. The project would not impair
SANDAG’s ability to provide transportation choices to
better connect the San Diego region with Mexico,
neighboring counties, and tribal nations.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 355 of 1271
5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.7-31
Table 5.7-5. San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan Consistency Analysis
Category Policy Objective or Strategy Consistency Analysis
transportation system that connects
to the mega‐region and national
network, works for everyone, and
fosters a high quality of life for all.
Partnerships/Collab
oration
As we plan for our region, recognize
the vital economic, environmental,
cultural, and community linkages
between the San Diego region and
Baja California.
Not applicable. The project would not impair
SANDAG’s ability to provide transportation choices to
better connect the San Diego region with Mexico.
Healthy and
Complete
Communities
Create great places for everyone to
live, work, and play.
Consistent. The project would provide pedestrian and
bicycle connectivity to the neighborhood and install
bicycle racks. Furthermore, the project would be
located near MTS bus routes 703 and 704 and I-
805. The East Palomar Transit Station is located
approximately one mile from the project site.
Furthermore, the project is located near commercial
and employment centers in an urban setting.
Healthy and
Complete
Communities
Connect communities through a
variety of transportation choices that
promote healthy lifestyles, including
walking and biking.
Consistent. The project would provide pedestrian and
bicycle connectivity to the neighborhood and install
bicycle racks. Furthermore, the project would install
bicycle racks and be located near MTS bus routes 703
and 704 and I-805. The East Palomar Transit Station
is located approximately one mile from the project site.
Furthermore, the project is located near commercial
and employment centers in an urban setting.
Environmental
Stewardship
Make transportation investments
that result in cleaner air,
environmental protection,
conservation, efficiency, and
sustainable living.
Consistent. The project would provide pedestrian and
bicycle connectivity to the neighborhood and install
bicycle racks. Furthermore, the project would be
located near MTS bus routes 703 and 704 and I-805.
The East Palomar Transit Station is located
approximately one mile from the project site.
Furthermore, the project is located near commercial
and employment centers in an urban setting. As
implemented under MM-GHG-1, the project would pre-
wire two parking spots and the project’s 718 parking
garages to be electric vehicle capable. Furthermore,
the two pre-wired parking spots would be designated
for carpool, shared, electric, and hydrogen vehicles.
Environmental
Stewardship
Support energy programs that
promote sustainability.
Consistent. The project would install a 1,462-kW
solar photovoltaic system meeting the minimum
2019 Title 24 requirement.
Sustainable Communities Strategy – Strategies
Strategy No. 1 Focus housing and job growth in
urbanized areas where there is
existing and planned transportation
infrastructure, including transit.
Consistent. The project would be located close to
major urban centers, existing MTS transit service and
the project would provide housing to the area. The
East Palomar Transit Station is located approximately
one mile from the project site. Furthermore, the
project is located near commercial and employment
centers in an urban setting.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 356 of 1271
5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.7-32
Table 5.7-5. San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan Consistency Analysis
Category Policy Objective or Strategy Consistency Analysis
Strategy No. 2 Protect the environment and help
ensure the success of smart growth
land use policies by preserving
sensitive habitat, open space,
cultural resources, and farmland.
Consistent. The project would be located close to
major urban centers, and the project would provide
housing to the area, while preserving on-site open
space at part of the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan.
Furthermore, the project is located near commercial
and employment centers in an urban setting.
Strategy No. 3 Invest in a transportation network
that gives people transportation
choices and reduces greenhouse
gas emissions.
Consistent. The project would provide pedestrian and
bicycle connectivity to the neighborhood.
Furthermore, the project would be located near MTS
bus routes 703 and 704 and I-805. The East
Palomar Transit Station is located approximately one
mile from the project site. The project would
implement PDF-TRA-1 (see Section 4.4.8, Project
Design Features, of the EIR), which includes the
following strategies that would further reduce the
project’s vehicle miles traveled, including providing
ride share coordination services, coordinating with
nearby schools to carpool to/from school, provide on-
site transit opportunities information, and encourage
bicycling by providing on-site bicycle infrastructure
such as bike racks. As implemented under MM-GHG-
1, the project would pre-wire two parking spots and
the project’s 718 parking garages to be electric
vehicle capable. Furthermore, the two pre-wired
parking spots would be designated for carpool,
shared, electric, and hydrogen vehicles.
Strategy No. 4 Address the housing needs of all
economic segments of the
population.
Consistent. The project would provide multifamily
residential units that would expand the housing
choices in the region.
Strategy No. 5 Implement the Regional Plan
through incentives and
collaboration.
Not applicable. The project would not impair
SANDAG’s ability to implement the Regional Plan
through incentives and collaboration.
Source: SANDAG 2015.
Notes: MTS = San Diego Metropolitan Transit System; project = Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II,
Phase 3 Project; SANDAG = San Diego Association of Governments; MSCP = Multiple Species Conservation Program.
As shown in Table 5.7-5, the project is consistent with all applicable Regional Plan policy objectives or strategies.
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. In the Final Statement of
Reasons for the Amendments to the CEQA Guidelines, the California Natural Resources Agency observed that
“[t]he [Scoping Plan] may not be appropriate for use in determining the significance of individual projects because
it is conceptual at this stage and relies on the future development of regulations to implement the strategies
identified in the Scoping Plan” (CNRA 2009). However, under the Scoping Plan, there are several state regulatory
measures aimed at the identification and reduction of GHG emissions. CARB and other state agencies have adopted
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 357 of 1271
5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.7-33
many of the measures identified in the Scoping Plan. Most of these measures focus on area source emissions (e.g.,
energy usage, high-GWP GHGs in 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. The project would
comply with all applicable regulations adopted in furtherance of the Scoping Plan to the extent required by law.
The Scoping Plan recommends strategies for implementation at the statewide level to meet the goals of AB 32 and
establishes an overall framework for the measures that will be adopted to reduce California’s GHG emissions. Table
5.7-6 highlights measures that have been developed under the Scoping Plan, including the recommended
approaches for interim GHG thresholds under CEQA (CARB 2008b), and the project’s consistency with Scoping Plan
measures. The table also includes measures in the 2017 Scoping Plan Update. To the extent that these regulations
are applicable to the project and its inhabitants or uses, the project would comply with all applicable regulations
adopted in furtherance of the Scoping Plan.
Table 5.7-6 illustrates the project’s consistency with all applicable measures of the CARB Scoping Plan.
Table 5.7-6. Project Consistency with Scoping Plan Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Strategies
Scoping Plan Measure Measure Number Project Consistency
Transportation Sector
Advanced Clean Cars T-1 The project’s residents would purchase vehicles in
compliance with CARB vehicle standards that are in effect
at the time of vehicle purchase.
1.5 Million Zero-Emission and
Plug-In Hybrid Light-Duty Electric
Vehicles by 2025 (4.2 Million
Zero-Emissions Vehicles by 2030)
N/A As implemented under MM-GHG-1, the project would pre-
wire two parking spots and the project’s 718 parking
garages to be electric vehicle capable. Furthermore, the
two pre-wired parking spots would be designated for
carpool, shared, electric, and hydrogen vehicles.
Low Carbon Fuel Standard T-2 Motor vehicles driven by the project’s residents would use
compliant fuels.
Low Carbon Fuel Standard (18%
reduction in carbon intensity by
2030)
N/A Motor vehicles driven by the project’s residents would use
compliant fuels.
Regional Transportation-Related
GHG Targets
T-3 The project would provide pedestrian and bicycle
connectivity to the neighborhood. Further, the project
would be located near MTS bus routes 703 and 704 and
I-805. The East Palomar Transit Station is located
approximately one mile from the project site. The project
would implement PDF-TRA-1 (see Section 4.4.8, Project
Design Features), which includes the following strategies
that would further reduce the project’s vehicle miles
traveled, including providing ride share coordination
services, coordinating with nearby schools to carpool
to/from school, provide on-site transit opportunities
information, and encourage bicycling by providing on-site
bicycle infrastructure such as bike racks. Furthermore,
the project is located near commercial and employment
centers in an urban setting.
Advanced Clean Transit N/A This measure does not apply to the project. The project
would not inhibit CARB from implementing this Scoping
Plan measure.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 358 of 1271
5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.7-34
Table 5.7-6. Project Consistency with Scoping Plan Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Strategies
Scoping Plan Measure Measure Number Project Consistency
Last Mile Delivery N/A This measure does not apply to the project. The project
would not inhibit CARB from implementing this Scoping
Plan measure.
Reduction in Vehicle Miles
Traveled
N/A The project would provide pedestrian and bicycle
connectivity to the neighborhood and install bicycle racks.
Further, the project site is located near MTS bus routes
703 and 704 and I-805. The East Palomar Transit Station
is located approximately one mile from the project site.
The project would implement PDF-TRA-1 (see Section
4.4.8, Project Design Features, of the EIR), which includes
the following strategies that would further reduce the
project’s vehicle miles traveled. Furthermore, the project
is located near commercial and employment centers in
an urban setting.
Vehicle Efficiency Measures
1. Tire Pressure
2. Fuel Efficiency Tire Program
3. Low-Friction Oil
Solar-Reflective Automotive Paint
and Window Glazing
T-4 This measure does not apply to the project. The project
would not inhibit CARB from implementing this Scoping
Plan measure.
Ship Electrification at Ports (Shore
Power)
T-5 This measure does not apply to the project. The project
would not inhibit CARB from implementing this Scoping
Plan measure.
Goods Movement Efficiency
Measures
1. Port Drayage Trucks
2. Transport Refrigeration Units
Cold Storage Prohibition
3. Cargo Handling Equipment,
Anti- Idling, Hybrid,
Electrification
4. Goods Movement Systemwide
Efficiency Improvements
5. Commercial Harbor Craft
Maintenance and Design
Efficiency
6. Clean Ships
7. Vessel Speed Reduction
T-6 This measure does not apply to the project. The project
would not inhibit CARB from implementing this Scoping
Plan measure.
California Sustainable Freight
Action Plan
N/A This measure does not apply to the project. The project
would not inhibit CARB from implementing this Scoping
Plan measure.
Heavy-Duty Vehicle GHG Emission
Reduction
1. Tractor-Trailer GHG
Regulation
2. Heavy-Duty Greenhouse Gas
T-7 This measure does not apply to the project. The project
would not inhibit CARB from implementing this Scoping
Plan measure.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 359 of 1271
5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.7-35
Table 5.7-6. Project Consistency with Scoping Plan Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Strategies
Scoping Plan Measure Measure Number Project Consistency
Standards for New Vehicle and
Engines (Phase I)
Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicle
Hybridization Voucher Incentive
project
T-8 This measure does not apply to the project. The project
would not inhibit CARB from implementing this Scoping
Plan measure.
Medium and Heavy-Duty GHG
Phase 2
N/A This measure does not apply to the project. The project
would not inhibit CARB from implementing this Scoping
Plan measure.
High-Speed Rail T-9 This measure does not apply to the project. The project
would not inhibit CARB from implementing this Scoping
Plan measure.
Electricity and Natural Gas Sector
Energy Efficiency Measures
(Electricity)
E-1 The project will comply with current Title 24, Part 6, of the
California Code of Regulations energy efficiency
standards for electrical appliances and other devices at
the time of building construction. As implemented by MM-
GHG-1, the project would install energy-efficient lighting
for all street, parking, and area lighting associated with
the Project. Furthermore, energy-efficient design
practices, such as high-performance glazing, Energy Star
compliant systems and appliances, radiant heat roof
barriers, insulation on all pipes, programmable
thermostats, and sealed ducts, shall be implemented.
The project would install cool roof material with a greater
solar reflectivity to help conserve energy. In addition, the
project would install a 1,462-kW solar photovoltaic
system meeting the minimum 2019 Title 24
requirement.
Energy Efficiency (Natural Gas) CR-1 The project will comply with current Title 24, Part 6, of the
California Code of Regulations energy efficiency
standards for electrical appliances and other devices at
the time of building construction.
Solar Water Heating (California
Solar Initiative Thermal Program)
CR-2 The project would not employ solar water heating.
However, the project would comply with the energy-
efficient requirements of the current building codes.
Combined Heat and Power E-2 This measure does not apply to the project. The project
would not inhibit CARB from implementing this Scoping
Plan measure.
Renewables Portfolio Standard
(33% by 2020)
E-3 The project would use energy supplied by SDG&E, which
is in compliance with the Renewables Portfolio Standard.
In addition, the project would install a 1,462 -kW solar
photovoltaic system meeting the minimum 2019 Title
24 requirement.
Renewables Portfolio Standard
(50% by 2050)
N/A The project would use energy supplied by SDG&E, which
is in compliance with the Renewables Portfolio Standard.
In addition, the project would install a 1,462 -kW solar
photovoltaic system meeting the minimum 2019 Title
24 requirement.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 360 of 1271
5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.7-36
Table 5.7-6. Project Consistency with Scoping Plan Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Strategies
Scoping Plan Measure Measure Number Project Consistency
Senate Bill 1 Million Solar Roofs
(California Solar Initiative, New
Solar Home Partnership, Public
Utility Programs) and Earlier Solar
Programs
E-4 The project would install a 1,462-kW solar
photovoltaic system meeting the minimum 2019 Title
24 requirement.
Water Sector
Water Use Efficiency W-1 The project’s buildings would meet water use efficiency
standards that are in effect at the time of construction.
Furthermore, as implemented by MM-GHG-1, the project
shall install low-flow water fixtures such as low-flow
toilets, faucets, showers, etc.
Water Recycling W-2 As implemented by MM-GHG-1, The project would install
purple pipes to use reclaimed water for irrigation.
Water System Energy Efficiency W-3 This is applicable for the transmission and treatment of
water, but it is not applicable for the project.
Reuse Urban Runoff W-4 This measure does not apply to the project. The project
would not inhibit CARB from implementing this Scoping
Plan measure.
Renewable Energy Production W-5 Applicable for wastewater treatment systems. Not
applicable for the project.
Green Buildings
State Green Building Initiative:
Leading the Way with State
Buildings (Greening New and
Existing State Buildings)
GB-1 The project would be constructed in compliance with
state or local green building standards in effect at the
time of building construction.
Green Building Standards Code
(Greening New Public Schools,
Residential and Commercial
Buildings)
GB-2 The project’s buildings would meet green building
standards that are in effect at the time of construction. As
implemented by MM-GHG-1, the project would install
energy-efficient lighting for all street, parking, and area
lighting associated with the Project. Furthermore, energy-
efficient design practices, such as high-performance
glazing, Energy Star compliant systems and appliances,
radiant heat roof barriers, insulation on all pipes,
programmable thermostats, and sealed ducts, shall be
implemented. In addition, the project would install a
1,462-kW solar photovoltaic system meeting the
minimum 2019 Title 24 requirement.
Beyond Code: Voluntary Programs
at the Local Level (Greening New
Public Schools, Residential and
Commercial Buildings)
GB-3 The project would be constructed in compliance with local
green building standards in effect at the time of building
construction. As implemented by MM-GHG-1, the project
would install energy-efficient lighting for all street,
parking, and area lighting associated with the Project.
Furthermore, energy-efficient design practices, such as
high-performance glazing, Energy Star compliant systems
and appliances, radiant heat roof barriers, insulation on
all pipes, programmable thermostats, and sealed ducts,
shall be implemented. In addition, the project would
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 361 of 1271
5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.7-37
Table 5.7-6. Project Consistency with Scoping Plan Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Strategies
Scoping Plan Measure Measure Number Project Consistency
install a 1,462-kW solar photovoltaic system meeting
the minimum 2019 Title 24 requirement.
Greening Existing Buildings
(Greening Existing Homes and
Commercial Buildings)
GB-4 This measure does not apply to the project. The project
would not inhibit CARB from implementing this Scoping
Plan measure.
Industry Sector
Energy Efficiency and Co-Benefits
Audits for Large Industrial Sources
I-1 This measure does not apply to the project. The project
would not inhibit CARB from implementing this Scoping
Plan measure.
Oil and Gas Extraction GHG
Emission Reduction
I-2 This measure does not apply to the project. The project
would not inhibit CARB from implementing this Scoping
Plan measure.
Reduce GHG Emissions by 20% in
Oil Refinery Sector
N/A This measure does not apply to the project. The project
would not inhibit CARB from implementing this Scoping
Plan measure.
GHG Emissions Reduction from
Natural Gas Transmission and
Distribution
I-3 This measure does not apply to the project. The project
would not inhibit CARB from implementing this Scoping
Plan Measure.
Refinery Flare Recovery Process
Improvements
I-4 This measure does not apply to the project. The project
would not inhibit CARB from implementing this Scoping
Plan Measure.
Work with the Local Air Districts to
Evaluate Amendments to Their
Existing Leak Detection and
Repair Rules for Industrial
Facilities to Include Methane
Leaks
I-5 This measure does not apply to the project. The project
would not inhibit CARB from implementing this Scoping
Plan measure.
Recycling and Waste Management Sector
Landfill Methane Control Measure RW-1 This measure does not apply to the project. The project
would not inhibit CARB from implementing this Scoping
Plan measure.
Increasing the Efficiency of Landfill
Methane Capture
RW-2 This measure does not apply to the project. The project
would not inhibit CARB from implementing this Scoping
Plan measure.
Mandatory Commercial Recycling RW-3 During both construction and operation of the project, the
project would comply with all state regulations related to
solid waste generation, storage, and disposal, including
the California Integrated Waste Management Act, as
amended. As implemented by MM-GHG-1, during
construction, all wastes would be recycled to the
maximum extent possible and exceed the City of Chula
Vista’s Construction and Demolition Debris Waste
Management Plan’s 65% diversion of construction and
demolition waste.
Increase Production and Markets
for Compost and Other Organics
RW-4 This measure does not apply to the project. The project
would not inhibit CARB from implementing this Scoping
Plan measure.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 362 of 1271
5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.7-38
Table 5.7-6. Project Consistency with Scoping Plan Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Strategies
Scoping Plan Measure Measure Number Project Consistency
Anaerobic/Aerobic Digestion RW-5 This measure does not apply to the project. The project
would not inhibit CARB from implementing this Scoping
Plan measure.
Extended Producer Responsibility RW-6 This measure does not apply to the project. The project
would not inhibit CARB from implementing this Scoping
Plan measure.
Environmentally Preferable
Purchasing
RW-7 This measure does not apply to the project. The project
would not inhibit CARB from implementing this Scoping
Plan measure.
Forests Sector
Sustainable Forest Target F-1 This measure does not apply to the project. The project
would not inhibit CARB from implementing this Scoping
Plan measure.
High Global Warming Potential Gases Sector
Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning
Systems: Reduction of Refrigerant
Emissions from Non-Professional
Servicing
H-1 This measure does not apply to the project. The project
would not inhibit CARB from implementing this Scoping
Plan measure.
SF6 Limits in Non-Utility and Non-
Semiconductor Applications
H-2 This measure does not apply to the project. The project
would not inhibit CARB from implementing this Scoping
Plan measure.
Reduction of Perfluorocarbons in
Semiconductor Manufacturing
H-3 This measure does not apply to the project. The project
would not inhibit CARB from implementing this Scoping
Plan measure.
Limit High Global Warming
Potential Use in Consumer
Products
H-4 The project’s residents would use consumer products that
would comply with the regulations that are in effect at the
time of manufacture.
Air Conditioning Refrigerant Leak
Test During Vehicle Smog Check
H-5 This measure does not apply to the project. The project
would not inhibit CARB from implementing this Scoping
Plan measure.
Stationary Equipment Refrigerant
Management Program –
Refrigerant
Tracking/Reporting/Repair
Program
H-6 This measure does not apply to the project. The project
would not inhibit CARB from implementing this Scoping
Plan measure.
Stationary Equipment Refrigerant
Management Program –
Specifications for Commercial and
Industrial Refrigeration
H-6 This measure does not apply to the project. The project
would not inhibit CARB from implementing this Scoping
Plan measure.
SF6 Leak Reduction Gas Insulated
Switchgear
H-6 This measure does not apply to the project. The project
would not inhibit CARB from implementing this Scoping
Plan measure.
40% Reduction in Methane and
Hydrofluorocarbon Emissions
N/A This measure does not apply to the project. The project
would not inhibit CARB from implementing this Scoping
Plan measure.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 363 of 1271
5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.7-39
Table 5.7-6. Project Consistency with Scoping Plan Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Strategies
Scoping Plan Measure Measure Number Project Consistency
50% reduction in black carbon
emissions
N/A This measure does not apply to the project. The project
would not inhibit CARB from implementing this Scoping
Plan measure.
Agriculture Sector
Methane Capture at Large Dairies A-1 This measure does not apply to the project. The project
would not inhibit CARB from implementing this Scoping
Plan measure.
Source: CARB 2008a, 2008b, 2017a.
Notes: project = Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project; CARB = California Air Resources
Board; N/A = not applicable; GHG = greenhouse gas; MTS = San Diego Metropolitan Transit System; SDG&E = San Diego Gas & Electric
Company; SF6 = sulfur hexafluoride.
As shown in Table 5.7-6, the project would be consistent with the applicable measures and policy goals of CARB’s
Scoping Plan. Because the proposed project is consistent with the applicable plans, policies, and regulations
adopted for regulation of GHG emissions, the Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
However, as discussed in Threshold A., above, because project’s SP-based emissions would be more than the City’s
efficiency metric of 1.37 MT CO2e per SP, the proposed project would potentially conflict with the state’s ability to
meet future GHG emission reductions. Therefore, the project’s GHG emissions impact would be potentially
significant. Although GHG emission reductions from implementation of PDF-TRA-1 (see Section 4.4.8, Project
Design Features, of the EIR) were not quantified, implementation of the following strategies would further reduce the
project’s vehicle miles traveled, which include providing ride share coordination services, coordinating with nearby schools
to carpool to/from school, provide on-site transit opportunities information, and encourage bicycling by providing on-site
bicycle infrastructure such as bike racks. The project would provide pedestrian and bicycle connectivity to the
neighborhood due to proximity to bicycle routes, provide pedestrian sidewalk connections. Furthermore, the Project
would be located near MTS bus routes 703 and 704 and I-805. These Project characteristics would promote
pedestrian and bicycle activity and alternate forms of transportation. GHG emissions associated with project would
be minimize to the extent feasible with implementation of MM-GHG-1, which include installation of low-flow water
fixtures, use of reclaimed water, pre-wiring for EV capable, installing energy-efficient appliances and design
practices, installing cool roofs, and planting 600 trees and 40 acres of shrubs. However, since the specific path to
compliance for the state with regard to the long-term goals will likely require development of technology or other
changes that are not currently known or available, specific additional mitigation measures for the proposed project
would be speculative and cannot be identified at this time. The proposed project’s GHG emissions would therefore
result in a significant and unavoidable impact (see Section 5.7.6 for more details).
5.7.4 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation
The Project would implement PDF-TRA-1 (see Section 4.4.8, Project Design Features, of the EIR), which includes the
following strategies that would further reduce the Project’s vehicle miles traveled, including providing ride share
coordination services, coordinating with nearby schools to carpool to/from school, provide on-site transit opportunities
information, and encourage bicycling by providing on-site bicycle infrastructure such as bike racks. Furthermore, the
project would provide pedestrian and bicycle connectivity to the neighborhood due to proximity to bicycle routes,
provide pedestrian sidewalk connections. Furthermore, the project would be located near MTS bus routes 703 and
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 364 of 1271
5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.7-40
704 and I-805, and the East Palomar Transit Station is located approximately one mile from the project site. The project
is located near commercial and employment centers in an urban setting. These project characteristics would promote
pedestrian and bicycle activity and encourage alternate forms of transportation. Prior to mitigation, the proposed
project would have potentially significant impacts associated with project’s efficiency metric and the state’s ability
to meet future GHG emission reductions. Impacts prior to mitigation would be potentially significant.
5.7.5 Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measure would be implemented to reduce identified significant impacts associated with
climate change:
MM-GHG-1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Measures. The following GHG emissions reduction
measures shall be implemented:
• Off-road construction equipment with engines rated at 75 horsepower or greater shall meet at
a minimum Tier 3 standard.
• Install purple pipes to provide reclaimed water for outdoor water use.
• Install low-flow water fixtures such as low-flow toilets, faucets, showers, etc.
• Two parking spaces shall be pre-wired for electric vehicle (EV) capable and designated as
preferential parking spaces shall be provided for carpool, shared, electric, and hydrogen vehicles.
• 718 parking garages shall be pre-wired to be EV capable.
• Energy-efficient lighting shall be used for all street, parking, and area lighting associated with
the proposed project, including all on-site and off-site lighting.
• Energy-efficient design practices, such as high-performance glazing, Energy Star compliant
systems and appliances, radiant heat roof barriers, insulation on all pipes, programmable
thermostats, and sealed ducts, shall be implemented.
• Native species and drought-tolerant species shall be used for a minimum of 50% of the
ornamental plant palette in non-turf areas to minimize water demand.
• Recycling of construction debris and waste shall be ensured through administration by an on-
site recycling coordinator and presence of recycling/separation areas. Exceed the City of Chula
Vista’s Construction and Demolition Debris Waste Management Plan’s 65% diversion of
construction and demolition waste.
• Install cool roofs that meet the U.S. Green Building Council standards with a greater solar
reflectivity to help conserve energy.
• Install 1,462-kilowatt solar photovoltaic system meeting the minimum 2019 Title 24 standards.
• Install bicycle racks.
• The project shall plant 600 trees and 40 acres of shrubs.
5.7.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of MM-GHG-1 would minimize GHG emissions associated with project construction and operations
to the extent feasible. The project would implement PDF-TRA-1 (see Section 4.4.8, Project Design Features, of the EIR),
which includes the following strategies that would further reduce the project’s vehicle miles traveled, including providing
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 365 of 1271
5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.7-41
ride share coordination services, coordinating with nearby schools to carpool to/from school, provide on-site transit
opportunities information, and encourage bicycling by providing on-site bicycle infrastructure such as bike racks.
Furthermore, the project would provide pedestrian and bicycle connectivity to the neighborhood due to proximity to
bicycle routes, provide pedestrian sidewalk connections. Furthermore, the project would be located near MTS bus
routes 703 and 704 and I-805, and the East Palomar Transit Station is located approximately one mile from the project
site. The project is located near commercial and employment centers in an urban setting. The project would pre-wire two
parking spots and the project’s 718 parking garages to be electric vehicle capable. In addition, the two pre -wired
parking spots would be designated for carpool, shared, electric, and hydrogen vehicles. These project
characteristics would promote pedestrian and bicycle activity and encourage alternate forms of transportation.
However, approximately 64% of the project’s annual GHG emissions are from mobile sources; therefore, to reduce
GHG emissions to a less-than-significant level, the project would need to reduce its total GHG emissions by
approximately 65% to reduce the project-generated GHG emissions below the City’s efficiency threshold. Because
the project’s SP-based emissions would be more than the City’s efficiency metric of 1.37 MT CO2e per SP, potential
GHG emissions impacts would be considered significant and unavoidable .
In addition, since the specific path to compliance for the state with regard to the long-term goals will likely require
development of technology or other changes that are not currently known or available, specific additional mitigation
measures for the proposed project would be speculative and cannot be identified at this time. While implementation
of MM-GHG-1 would help reduce the GHG emissions of the proposed project, many measures are not quantifiable
and/or the extent to which some measures that may be developed in the future would apply to the project is
unknown. The proposed project’s GHG emissions would therefore result in a significant and unavoidable impact.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 366 of 1271
5.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.7-42
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 367 of 1271
5.8 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.8-1
5.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
This section of the environmental impact report (EIR) addresses hazardous materials, airport hazards, wildland
fire, and emergency response and evacuation plan issues associated with the proposed Sunbow Sectional
Planning Area (SPA) Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project (project or proposed project). This
analysis provides information on the existing c onditions of the project site, the locations of potentially hazardous
materials sites, and the potential for the proposed project to expose the public or the environment to hazards or
hazardous materials. Information provided in this section is based on the Phase 1 Environmental Site
Assessment (ESA) and Soil Vapor Investigation Memorandum (Memo) prepared by Geosyntec and included in
Appendix H1 and Appendix H2, respectively; the Fire Protection Plan (FPP), prepared by Dudek and included in
Appendix H3 of this EIR; and other sources are as cited throughout this section.
5.8.1 Existing Conditions
5.8.1.1 Regulatory Framework
Federal
Federal Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976
The Federal Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 tasked the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with
authority to require reporting, record-keeping and testing requirements, and restrictions relating to chemical
substances and/or mixtures. The Federal Toxic Substances Control Act addresses the production, importation, use,
and disposal of specific chemicals including PCBs, asbestos, radon, and lead-based paint (EPA 2020a).
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
The objectives of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 are to protect human health and the
environment from the potential hazards of waste disposal, conserve energy and natural resources, reduce the
amount of waste generated, and ensure that wastes are managed in an environmentally sound manner. The
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act affirmed and extended the “cradle-to-grave” system of regulating
hazardous wastes. The use of certain techniques for the disposal of some hazardous wastes was specifically
prohibited by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Act. The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 also added
Subtitle I, which governs underground storage tanks (EPA 2020b).
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly known as “Superfund,”
was enacted by Congress on December 11, 1980. This law provided broad federal authority to respond directly to releases
or threatened releases of hazardous substances that may endanger public health or the environment. CERCLA established
requirements concerning closed and abandoned hazardous waste sites, provided for liability of persons responsible for
releases of hazardous waste at these sites, and established a trust fund to provide for cleanup when no responsible party
could be identified. CERCLA also enabled the revision of the National Contingency Plan. The National Contingency Plan
provided the guidelines and procedures needed to respond to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants. The National Contingency Plan also established the National Priorities List, which is a list of
contaminated sites warranting further investigation by EPA. CERCLA was amended by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act on October 17, 1986 (EPA 2018a).
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 368 of 1271
5.8 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.8-2
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act amended CERCLA on October 17, 1986. The Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act had several changes and additions, including the following:
• Stressed the importance of permanent remedies and innovative treatment technologies in cleaning up
hazardous waste sites
• Required Superfund actions to consider the standards and requirements found in other state and fede ral
environmental laws and regulations
• Provided new enforcement authorities and settlement tools
• Increased state involvement in every phase of the Superfund program
• Increased the focus on human health problems posed by hazardous waste sites
• Encouraged greater citizen participation in making decisions on how sites should be cleaned up
• Increased the size of the trust fund to $8.5 billion
The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act also required the EPA to revise the Hazard Ranking System
to ensure that it accurately assessed the relative degree of risk to human health and the environment posed by
uncontrolled hazardous waste sites that may be placed on the National Priorities List (EPA 2018b).
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act
The U.S. Department of Transportation regulates hazardous materials transportation between states under the Code
of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Chapter 1, Parts 100–185. In California, the California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans) and the California Highway Patrol enforce federal law related to the transport of hazardous materials.
Together, these agencies determine driver training requirements, load labelling procedures, and specifications for
container types.
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 and Occupational Safety and Health Administration
The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 was passed to prevent workers from being killed or seriously
harmed at work. The Occupational Safety and Health Act created the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA), which sets and enforces protective workplace safety and health standards. OSHA also provides information,
training, and assistance to employers and workers. Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, employers have
the responsibility to provide a safe workplace (OSHA 2014).
Federal Aviation Administration Functions
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has primary responsibility for the safety of civil aviation. The FAA’s major
functions regarding hazards include (1) developing and operating a common system of air traffic control and
navigation for both civil and military aircraft, (2) developing and implementing programs to control aircraft noise and
other environmental effects of civil aviation, (3) regulating U.S. commercial space transportation, (4) researching and
developing the National Airspace System and civil aeronautics, (5) regulating civil aviation to promote safety, and (6)
encouraging and developing civil aeronautics, including new aviation technology (FAA 2019).
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 369 of 1271
5.8 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.8-3
Federal Response Plan
The Federal Response Plan of 1999 (FEMA 1999) is a signed agreement among 27 federal departments and
agencies, including the American Red Cross, that (1) provides the mechanism for coordinating delivery of federal
assistance and resources to augment efforts of state and local governments overwhelmed by a major disaster or
emergency; (2) supports implementation of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Act, as well as
individual agency statutory authorities; and (3) supplements other federal emergency operations plans developed
to address specific hazards. The Federal Response Plan is implemented in anticipation of a significant event likely
to result in a need for federal assistance or in response to an actual event requiring federal ass istance under a
presidential declaration of a major disaster or emergency.
State
Hazardous Materials Management Act
Requires that businesses handling or storing certain amounts of hazardous materials prepare a hazardous
materials business plan, which includes an inventory of hazardous materials stored on site (above specified
quantities), an emergency response plan, and an employee training program.
Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65)
Requires the governor to publish and update, at least annually, a list of chemicals known to the state to cause
cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm and to inform citizens about exposures to such chemicals.
Hazardous Waste Management Planning and Facility Siting, also known as the Tanner Act (Assembly Bill 2948, 1986)
Requires counties to prepare, for California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) approval, hazardous waste
management plans and prescribes specific public participation activities, which must be carried out during the local land
use permit process for siting new or expanding off-site commercial treatment, storage, and disposal facilities.
California Environmental Protection Agency
The boards, departments, and offices that make up the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) include the
California Air Resources Board, the Department of Pesticide Regulation, the Department of Resources Recycling and
Recovery, DTSC, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, and the State Water Resources Control Board.
These boards, departments, and offices were placed within the CalEPA “umbrella” to create a cabinet-level voice for the
protection of human health and the environment (such as clean air, clean water, clean soil, safe pesticides, and waste
recycling and reduction) to assure the coordinated deployment of state resources (CalEPA 2020a).
Cortese List/Government Code Section 65962.5
Pursuant to Government Code, Section 65962.5, environmental regulatory database lists are compiled to identify
and locate properties with known hazardous substance contamination (California Government Code, Section
65960 et seq.). Four state agencies are required to provide lists of facilities that have contributed to, harbor, or are
responsible for environmental contamination within their jurisdiction. The four state agencies that are required to
provide these lists to the Secretary for Environmental Protection include DTSC, the State Department fo r Health
Services, the State Water Resources Control Board, and the California Integrated Waste Management Board. The
Secretary for Environmental Protection then takes each of the four respective agency lists and forms one list,
referred to as the Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List – Site Cleanup (Cortese List), which is made available
to every city and/or county in California (CalEPA 2020b).
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 370 of 1271
5.8 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.8-4
California Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Cal/OSHA is the primary agency responsible for worker safety in the handling and use of chemicals in the workplace.
Cal/OSHA standards are generally more stringent than federal regulations. The employer is required to monitor
worker exposure to listed hazardous substances and notify workers of exposure (8 California Code of Regulations
[CCR], Sections 337–340). The regulations specify requirements for employee training, availability of safety
equipment, accident prevention programs, and hazardous substance exposure warnings.
California Hazardous Waste Control Law
The California Hazardous Waste Control Law (California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.5) is
administered by CalEPA to regulate the management of hazardous wastes. While the California Hazardous Waste
Control Law is generally more stringent than the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, until EPA approves the
California Hazardous Waste Control Program (which is charged with regulating the generation, treatment, storage,
and disposal of hazardous waste), both the state and federal laws apply in California. The Hazardous Waste Control
Law lists 791 chemicals and approximately 300 common materials that may be hazardous; establishes criteria for
identifying, packaging, and labeling hazardous wastes; prescribes manageme nt controls; establishes permit
requirements for treatment, storage, disposal, and transportation; and identifies some wastes that cannot be
disposed of in landfills.
California Accidental Release Prevention Program
Similar to the Federal Risk Management Program, the California Accidental Release Prevention Program includes
additional state requirements and an additional list of regulated substances and thresholds. The regulations of the
program are contained in California Code of Regulations Title 19, Division 2, Chapter 4.5. The intent of the California
Accidental Release Prevention Program is to prevent accidental releases of substances that can cause serious harm to
the public and the environment, minimize the damage if releases do occur, and satisfy community right-to-know laws.
California Health and Safety Code
The handling and storage of hazardous materials is regulated by Division 20, Chapter 6.95, of the California Health and
Safety Code. Under Sections 25500–25543.3, facilities handling hazardous materials are required to prepare a hazardous
materials business plan. Hazardous materials business plans contain basic information on the location, type, quantity, and
health risks of hazardous materials stored, used, or disposed of in the state. Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and
Safety Code establishes minimum statewide standards for hazardous materials business plans.
In addition, in the event that a facility stores quantities of specific acutely hazardous materials above the thresholds set
forth by the California Health and Safety Code, facilities are also required to prepare a risk management plan and
California accidental release plan. The risk management plan and California accidental release plan provide information
on the potential impact zone of a worst-case release and require plans and programs designed to minimize the probability
of a release and mitigate potential impacts (California Health and Safety Code, Chapter 6.95).
Title 24 California Building Standards Code
California Building Code
California Building Standards Code Title 24, Part 2 contains the California Building Code. California Building Code
Chapter 7A regulates building materials, systems, and/or assemblies used in the exterior design and construction of
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 371 of 1271
5.8 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.8-5
new buildings located within a fire hazard area. Fire hazard areas as defined by the California Building Code include
areas identified as a Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) within a State Responsibility Area or a wildland–urban interface
fire area. The purpose of Chapter 7A is to establish minimum standards for the protection of life and property by
increasing the ability of structures located in a fire hazard area to resist the intrusion of flames or burning embers
projected by a wildfire, and to contribute to a systematic reduction in structural losses from a wildfire. New buildings
located in such areas must comply with the ignition-resistant construction standards outlined in Chapter 7A.
California Fire Code
California Building Standards Code Title 24, Part 9 contains the California Fire Code (CFC), which incorporates by
adoption the International Fire Code with necessary California amendments. The purpose of the CFC is to establish
the minimum requirements to safeguard the public health, safety, and general welfare from the hazards of fire,
explosion, or dangerous conditions in new and existing buildings, structures, and premises, and to provide safety
and assistance to firefighters and emergency responders during emergency operations. CFC, Chapter 49 contains
minimum standards for development in the wildland–urban interface and fire hazard areas.
The CFC and Office of the State Fire Marshal provide regulations and guidance for local agencies in the development
and enforcement of fire safety standards. The CFC is updated and published every 3 years by the California Building
Standards Commission. The 2016 CFC took effect on January 1, 2017, and the 2019 CFC took effect on January
1, 2020. The City adopted the 2016 CFC with local amendments in August 2018.
California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 1.5
California Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 1.5, establishes the regulations for the California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) and is applicable in all State Responsibility Areas—areas where CAL FIRE is
responsible for wildfire protection. Most of the unincorporated area of San Diego County is a State Responsibility
Area, and any development in State Responsibility Areas must comply with these regulations. Among other things,
Title 14 Section 1270, et seq. establishes minimum standards for emergency access, fuel modification, setback to
property line, signage, and water supply. The County of San Diego’s (County) most recent adoption of the
Consolidated Fire Code (2014) was certified by the State Board of Forestry, indicating that its code requirements
meet or exceed Title 14 Section 1270 et seq., and with that certification, the County Consolidated Fire Code
supersedes Title 14 Section 1270 et seq. in the unincorporated areas of the County.
California Emergency Services Act
Under the Emergency Services Act (California Government Code, Section 8550 et seq.), the State of California
developed an emergency response plan to coordinate emergency services provided by federal, state, and local
agencies. Rapid response to incidents involving hazardous materials or hazardous waste is an inte gral part of the
plan, which is administered by the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services. The Office of Emergency Services
coordinates the responses of other agencies, including the EPA, California Highway Patrol, Regional Water Quality
Control Boards (RWQCBs), air quality management districts, and county disaster response offices.
California Code of Regulations Title 5, Division 1, Chapter 13, Subchapter 1 – School Facilities Construction
California Code of Regulations Title 5, Division 1, Chapter 13, Subchapter 1 establishes minimum standards for
siting of schools and school construction to provide safety for students and staff. The regulation establishes
minimum distances that schools can be located from potential hazards such as power line easements and sets
screening distances for other hazards that would require a safety study, such as a railroad track easement. Section
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 372 of 1271
5.8 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.8-6
14010(h) states that schools shall not be located near an above-ground water or fuel storage tank or within 1,500
feet of the easement of an above-ground or underground pipeline that can pose a safety hazard as determined by
a risk analysis study. Section 14010(t) states that if the proposed site is on or within 2,000 feet of a significant
disposal of hazardous waste, the school district shall contact DTSC for a determination of whether the property
should be considered a hazardous waste property or border zone property and unsuitable for school development.
South Coast Air Quality Management District – Rule 1403
The purpose of this rule is to specify work practice requirements to limit asbestos emissions from building
demolition and renovation activities, including the removal and associated disturbance of asbestos -containing
materials (ACM). The requirements for demolition and renovation activities include asbestos surveying, notification,
ACM removal procedures and time schedules, ACM handling and clean-up procedures, and storage, disposal, and
landfilling requirements for asbestos-containing waste materials (ACWM). All operators are required to maintain
records, including waste shipment records, and are required to use appropriate warning labels, signs, and markings.
Local
San Diego County Department of Environmental Health
The San Diego County Department of Environmental Health (DEH) serves to protect the environment and enhance
public health by preventing disease, promoting environmental responsibility and, when necessary enforcing
environmental and public health laws. Within DEH, the Hazardous Materials Division (HMD) protects human health
and the environment by ensuring that hazardous materials, hazardous waste, medical waste and underground
storage tanks are properly managed. To accomplish this goal, HMD regulates facilities that handle or store
hazardous materials, are part of the California Accidental Release Prevention Program, generate or treat hazardous
wastes or medical waste, store at least 1320 gallons of aboveground petroleum, and own or operate underground
storage tanks. DEH identifies disposal locations for household hazardous waste as well as scheduled household
waste collection events (DEH 2020).
Regional Water Quality Control Board
The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) implements the California Water Code, which regulates waste
discharges to land. If a discharge of waste threatens a water of the state, a report of waste discharge or an application
for a waiver of a report of waste discharge must be filed with the RWQCB. The RWQCB accomplishes its permitting
responsibility by issuing either a general or site-specific permit (Waste Discharge Permit) or a waiver of a permit.
San Diego County Emergency Operations Plan
The San Diego County Emergency Operations Plan is a comprehensive emergency management system that provides
for a planned response to disaster situations associated with natural disasters, technological incidents, and nuclear
defense operations. The Emergency Plan includes operational concepts relating to various emergency situations,
identifies components of the Emergency Management Organization and describes the overall responsibilities for
protecting life and property and assuring the overall well-being of the population. The plan also identifies the sources of
outside support that might be provided (through mutual aid and specific statutory authorities) by other jurisdictions, state
and federal agencies, and the private sector (County of San Diego 2018).
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 373 of 1271
5.8 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.8-7
County of San Diego, Consolidated Fire Code
The County, in collaboration with the local fire protection districts, created the first Consolidated Fire Code in 2001.
The Consolidated Fire Code contains the County and fire protection districts amendments to the California Fire
Code. The purpose of consolidation of the County and local fire districts’ adoptive ordinances is to promote
consistency in the interpretation and enforcement of the fire code for the protection of the public health and safety.
The ordinances include permit requirements for the installation, alteration, or repair of new and existing fire
protection systems, and penalties for violations of the Consolidated Fire Code. The Consolidated Fire Code provides
the minimum requirements for access, water supply and distribution, construction type, fire protection systems,
and vegetation management. Additionally, the Consolidated Fire Code regulates hazardous materials and
associated measures to ensure that public health and safety are protected from incidents relating to hazardous
substance releases. San Diego County’s 2020 Consolidated Fire Code (the most recent adoption) was certified by
the State Board of Forestry, resulting in its superseding California Code of Regulations Title 14, Section 1270 et
seq., as it would otherwise apply within San Diego County (County of San Diego 2020).
San Diego County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan
The San Diego County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan was originally prepared in July 2010 and updated
in October 2017 to meet federal and state requirements for disaster preparedness to make the County eligible for
funding and technical assistance from state and federal hazard mitigation programs. The plan includes a risk
assessment to enable local jurisdictions to identify and prioritize appropriate mitigation actions to reduce losses
from potential hazards, including flooding, earthquakes, fires, and man-made hazards. To address potential
hazards, the plan then incorporates mitigation goals and objectives, mitigation actions and priorities, an
implementation plan, and documentation of the mitigation planning process for each of the 22 participating
jurisdictions, including Chula Vista (County of San Diego 2017).
California Disaster and Civil Defense Master Mutual Aid Agreement
As provided for in the California Emergency Services Act, the California Disaster and Civil Defense Master Mutual Aid
Agreement was developed in 1950 and adopted by all 58 California counties. This statewide mutual aid system is
designed to ensure that adequate resources, facilities, and other support is provided to jurisdictions whenever their own
resources prove to be inadequate to cope with a given situation. San Diego County is located in Mutual Aid Region 6 of
the state system, which also includes Imperial, Riverside, San Bernardino, Inyo, and Mono Counties (OES 2017).
Community Emergency Response Team Program
The City of Chula Vista provides a Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) program that offers citizens
training on how to effectively and efficiently respond to emergency situations without placing themselves or others
in unnecessary danger. CERT training includes lessons on managing utilities, putting out small fires, providing basic
emergency medical aid, searching for and rescuing victims safely, effectively organizing volunteers, and collecting
disaster information to support first responders (City of Chula Vista 2020).
Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan–Brown Field
The San Diego County Regional Airport Authority, designated as the Airport Land Use Commission for all public
airports in the County of San Diego, adopted the Brown Field Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) in
September 1981 (last updated in December 2010). The ALUCP assists in achieving compatible land use
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 374 of 1271
5.8 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.8-8
development in the area surrounding Brown Field airport located in Otay Mesa on Heritage Road, east of Interstate
(I) 805. Brown Field is a general aviation airport accommodating both propeller- and jet-powered aircraft and serves
as a port of entry for private aircraft coming into the United States from Mexico. Brown Field is also heavily used by
military and law enforcement agencies and is classified as a “reliever airport” by the Federal Aviation Administration
(SDCRAA 2010). The ALUCP designates the airport influence area and contains projected noise contours, flight
activity zones, a land use compatibility matrix, and plan recommendations for areas surrounding Brown Field. The
airport influence area is delineated by using the projected 60-decibel (dB) community noise equivalency level
(CNEL) contour and is generally the area in which current and future airport-related noise, overflight, safety, and/or
airspace protection factors may affect land uses or necessitate restrictions on uses. The airport influence area is
divided into Review Area 1 and Review Area 2.
The composition of each area is determined as follows (SDCRAA 2010):
• Review Area 1 consists of locations where noise or safety concerns may necessitate limitations on the types
of land use actions. Specifically, Review Area 1 encompasses locations exposed to aircraft noise levels of
60 dB CNEL or greater together with all of the safety zones identified in the ALUCP.
• Review Area 2 consists of locations beyond Review Area 1 but within the airspace protection and/or
overflight notification areas. Limits on the heights of structures, particularly in areas of high terrain, are the
only restrictions on land uses within Review Area 2.
A portion of the project site is within the Brown Field Airport Influence Area Review Area 2 and the entire project site
is within the FAA Height Notification Boundary (SDCRAA 2010).
City of Chula Vista General Plan
The goal of the General Plan to remediate future development sites in accordance with applicable state and federal
standards to manage household hazardous waste and to minimize the risk of injury and property damage
associated with wildland fire hazards (Objective E 16) and ensure that adequate remediation of contaminated sites
as redevelopment occurs to protect public health and safety (Objective E 17) and ways to minimize damage due to
flooding (Objective E 15) (City of Chula Vista 2005).
5.8.1.2 Regulatory Databases
Government Code Section 65962.5, referred to as the Cortese List, was originally enacted in 1985. Provisions set
forth in Section 65962.5 require that the DTSC compile and update a list of the following:
• All hazardous waste facilities subject to corrective action
• All land designated as hazardous waste property or border zone property
• All information received by the Depart of Toxic Substances Control on hazardous waste disposals on
public lands
• All sites listed pursuant to Section 25356 of the Health and Safety Code (hazardous substance release sites)
• All sites included in the Abandoned Site Assessment Program
As part of the Phase I ESA (Appendix H1), a database search report was obtained from Environmental Data
Resources, Inc. (EDR). The report documents findings of various federal, state, and local regulatory database
searches regarding properties with known or suspected releases of hazardous materials or petroleum
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 375 of 1271
5.8 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.8-9
hydrocarbons. The results of the search found that the project site was not identified by EDR; however, several
adjoining and nearby properties were identified by EDR and are included in Table 5.8-1.
Table 5.8-1. Database Search Report Findings
Site Name Location Site History
Distance from
Project Site*
Hernandez
Custom Paints
599
Portsmouth
Drive
The site is listed within the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) small-quantity generator (SQG)
database for handling ignitable waste. No violations were
noted for this facility, and based on the benign nature of
the listing, it is unlikely this site has adversely affected the
project site.
The site is
approximately 164
feet west of the
project site.
Otay Sanitary
Landfill and
Appropriate
Technologies II
1700
Maxwell
Road
The site consists of the closed Otay Class I Landfill
adjacent to the active Otay Sanitary Annex Class landfill
(Class III). The Otay Class I Landfill is listed within the
California Waste Management Unit Database/Solid
Waste Assessment Testing (WMUDS/SWAT) and
Historical Cortese databases. Appropriate Technologies is
also listed at 1700 Maxwell Road, and is listed as a
hazardous waste facility that accepted hazardous and
non-hazardous liquid sludge and slurry wastes in bulk,
hazardous liquid/solid waste in drums or other approved
containers, as well as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
and explosive and radioactive materials. It appears that a
washout pit and unlined effluent pipes also existed at or
near this facility, which were closed under the DTSC in
1995 after a remedial feasibility investigation (RFI)
concluded that there is no further investigation necessary
for the washout pit and pipes, and the facility was closed
under the DTSC in 1996.
This site is directly
south of the project
site.
A&W Smelter
and Refinery
Silver
Queen
Road
The site is identified as A&W smelter and refinery (A&W)
on Silver Queen Road. However, A&W attempted to send
seven truckloads across the Mexico border to dispose of
unusable ore containing lead and considered hazardous
waste (Appendix H1). These trucks were detained and
temporarily impounded at the Appropriate Technologies II
facility by U.S. Customs. Soil discussed in this listing was
not present at the site and therefore is not likely to have
adversely affected the project site.
The site is reportedly
located
approximately 0.4
miles southeast of
the project site;
however, the actual
refinery is not located
near the project site.
Ecology Auto
Parks
825 Energy
Way
Two closed leaking underground storage tank (LUST) sites
are mapped at this location; one LUST received NFA from
the RWQCB in July 2019 and no information is provided
about the second LUST with the exception of a monitoring
report from 2006; it is suggested these were part of the
same investigation. Based on the closure of the cases at
this facility, the distance from the project site of 0.5 mile,
and orientation hydraulically down gradient to the project
site, it is not likely that this facility has adversely impacted
the project site.
The site is within 0.5
mile of the project
site.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 376 of 1271
5.8 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.8-10
Table 5.8-1. Database Search Report Findings
Site Name Location Site History
Distance from
Project Site*
Omar Rendering
Facility
1886 Auto
Park Place
The site housed six Class I waste ponds, the contents of
which were removed in 1980. The impacted soils
beneath the pond were excavated and placed in a lined
cell in the northwest corner of the project site, which is
currently capped and used as a parking lot accessed from
Auto Park Place. One Leaking Underground Storage Tank
(LUST) is also reported at this facility; however, the
impacted soil was excavated, and the release received
closure from the Department of Environmental Health in
1993 with residual contamination below method
detection limits (MDLs). As stated in the GeoTracker
database, a “no further action (NFA)” statement was
released. Based on this facility’s distance from the project
site and its orientation hydraulically down gradient from
the project site, it is unlikely this facility has adversely
impacted the project site.
The site is
approximately 0.7
miles southeast of
the project site.
Nakano Farms 4501 Otay
Valley Road
The site (4501 Otay Valley Road) and is listed under
Nakano Farms and within the EnviroStor, Cleanup
Program Sites – Spills, Leaks, Investigations, and
Cleanups (CPS-SLIC), Statewide Environmental Evaluation
and Planning System (SWEEPS), Historical UST, and
HMMD databases. One underground storage tank is
reported at this property, and the cleanup is reported to
have been completed and closed as of May 1996.
The site is located
approximately 0.8
miles southwest of
the project site.
Apache
Services
4551 Otay
Valley Road
The site (4551 Otay Valley Road) is listed under the
EnviroStor and Bond Expenditure Plan databases under
Apache Services. This property was used as a salvage
yard that may have received materials from nearby naval
facilities. The property is impacted with metals, petroleum
products, and solvents and is located on fill material. No
further information was provided; however, based on
distance from the project site and nature of surficial
impacts, it is not likely this property has adversely
impacted the project site.
The site is located
approximately 0.8
miles south of the
project site.
Proposed Otay
Ranch Village 3
Elementary
School
Camino
Prado
Proposed Otay Ranch Village 3 Elementary School on
Camino Prado is listed under the Envirostor and School
databases. The potential school site is being investigated
for potential methane mitigation and is being evaluated
for suitability for school use under the Department of
Toxic Substance Control (DTSC). Based on the nature of
the listing, it is not likely this property has adversely
affected the project site.
The site is within 1
mile of the project
site.
Source: Appendix H1.
* Distance when measured from the proposed residences on -site will vary from the distance measured from the
project site boundary.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 377 of 1271
5.8 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.8-11
5.8.1.3 Historical Aerial Photographs and Topographic Maps
A combination of historical aerial photographs and U.S. Geological Survey topographic maps of the project site,
from a variety of years (1949 being the earliest and 2020 the most recent), were observed. Key observations from
the aerial photographs and topographic maps include:
• The oldest available topographic maps indicate the Poggi Canyon Creek flowed through the northern portion
of the project site. The Otay River is shown south of the project site, south of a road with several small
structures. Telegraph Canyon and several additional roads are shown to the north of the project site.
• A 1949 aerial indicates a pit mine with benched side walls visible south of the project site, as well as a
property that may have been agricultural located south of the pit mine. An unpaved access road traverses
through this property to the pit mine. The surrounding area appears to be largely undeveloped native land.
• A 1953 topographic map depicted a “borrow pit” in the area south of the project site, alluding to mining of
bentonite that occurred in this area prior to landfill use. The 1953 aerial confirmed the presence of the
borrow pit and the agricultural property south of the borrow pit appeared to be a dairy or cattle feed lot. By
1964, it appears the borrow pit was converted to its landfill use and surrounding operations, including the
rendering landfill and other industrial facilities located further south. It appears borrowing or surveying for
an expansion of the Class I landfill took place around this time, based on a cleared grid around the existing
boundaries of the landfill, and what appears to be a sludge or liquid treatment area with six beds is visible
within the landfill footprint. By 1966, the water tower on the top of the hill south of the project site had
been constructed. The project site remained undeveloped.
• The 1970 aerial indicated the landfill had been expanded to the south, and a second water tower had been
constructed southwest of the project site. Grading activities are visible in the aerial to the north and appear
to be pre-construction or agriculture. The project site remained undeveloped.
• The 1975 topographic map shows the areas west, northwest, and southwest of the project site had been
developed with residential subdivisions and schools. The 1979 aerial showed subdivisions constructed
adjoining the project site to the southwest and west, and construction of the existing medical facility and
ancillary structures has begun approximately 0.5 miles north of the project site. The landfill operations in
the areas south of the project site, likely indicating the Class III landfill had begun operating. It appears soil
was borrowed from the eastern portion of the project site around this time, for landfill use or some other
purpose. By 1985, landfill operations had expanded to the east. The project site remained undeveloped.
• The 1991 topographic map depicted the landfill area to the south as a “Gravel Pit,” but the aerial appears
to indicate the area south of the project site was primarily used for landfilling. By 1994, the extent of the
Class III landfill appeared similar to its current footprint.
• By 2005, Olympic Parkway had been constructed north of the project site, and the area north of Olympic
Parkway had been developed with residences. The project site remained vacant and undeveloped, with
access points to the Site from Olympic Parkway. By 2006, a third larger water tower had been constructed
south of the project site. Landfill operations at the Class III landfill appeared similar.
• The 2018 aerial indicated the project site remained undeveloped, and landfill activiti es continued on the
adjoining property southeast of the project site. The adjoining areas southeast and east of the landfills had
either been developed with residences or were undergoing residential development.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 378 of 1271
5.8 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.8-12
5.8.1.4 City Directories
In preparation of the Phase I ESA, City directories were searched by EDR for available years from 1971 to 2014 to
assess occupancy at the project site and adjoining properties (Appendix H1). The project site was not listed in the
City Directory. Properties within the vicinity of the project site along Olympic Parkway, Brandywine Avenue, East
Palomar Street, and Maxwell Road included listings from 1965 to 2014 for various residential, commercial, and
light industrial properties. Based on city directory listings obtained, no evidence of additional recognized
environmental conditions were identified. Refer to Appendix H1 for further details regarding surrounding properties.
5.8.1.5 Existing Setting
The project site is situated on a hillside and slopes steeply from the south to a permitted wetland along the northern
boundary of the project site. The project site is directly underlain by the San Diego Formation, followed by the Otay
Formation and the Mission Valley Formation. The elev ation of the site ranges from approximately 220 to 450 feet
above mean sea level. The project site has been historically known to be vacant and undeveloped. However,
properties surrounding the project site have been used for bentonite (clay mining), landfi lling, and other
industrial, commercial, and residential purposes. While the project site remains undeveloped, the site contains
seven gas probes, three vadose monitoring wells, and two monitoring wells. Additionally, monuments and vaults
labeled “CP Test,” believed to be associated with a recycled water pipeline, traverse the project site.
The project site is bounded to the north by Olympic Parkway; directly north of this is an undeveloped hillside,
followed by residential subdivisions. Portions of the Otay Annex Sanitary Landfill adjoin the project site to the
southeast, and the property directly east of the project site is vacant and undeveloped. The Otay Annex Sanitary
Landfill, also known as the Otay Class III landfill, extends west and also adjoins the project site to the south and
surrounds the adjoining Otay Class I Landfill. Residential developments are situated southwest and directly west of
the project site, and east and south of the Otay Class III landfill. Both the Class I and Class III landfills have
groundwater monitoring networks which are monitored semiannually under orders issued by the San Diego
Regional Water Quality Control Board. Groundwater flow at both landfills is generally to the south-southwest away
from the project site, and there are no indications of groundwater impacts beneath the site attributable to the two
adjoining landfills. The Class III landfill is equipped with a landfill gas control system (LFGCS) and a perimeter probe
monitoring network which is routinely monitored under the direction of the County of San Diego Local Enforcement
Agency. Methane has not been detected above 1% by volume at the perimeter probes closest to the project site.
Hazardous Risk
A Phase I ESA was prepared for the project site in January 2020, which revealed no evidence of recognized
environmental conditions (RECs) in connection with the project site. However, historical investigations performed
in the 1990s to assess potential impacts to the project site from the adjoining landfill properties identified
subsurface methane which had migrated beneath the project site from the Class III landfill adjacent to the project
site. Methane concentration was reported to be up to 3,300 parts per million (ppm), which is more than an order
of magnitude lower than the lower explosive limit (LEL) of methane (50,000 ppm, or 5% by volume). As required by
California Code of Regulations Title 27, the landfill owner is required to install and operate an LFGCS and install
and monitor a network of perimeter monitoring probes. Operation of the LFGCS at the Class III landfill is ongoing
and methane has not been detected above 1% by volume at perimeter probes closest to the project site. Therefore,
the engineering controls on the adjoining Class III landfill appear to be effectively controlling subsurface methane
migration from the landfill to the project site (refer to Appendix H1).
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 379 of 1271
5.8 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.8-13
The absence of recent soil vapor data for the project site was noted as a data gap in the Phase I ESA (Appendix H1). Available
data for the Class III landfill perimeter monitoring network indicates that gas concentrations at the landfill boundary
adjoining the project site are below regulatory thresholds, and historical data collected at the site in the 1990s indicated
that the methane LEL in the subsurface was not exceeded. However, recent data regarding the potential presence of volatile
organic compounds (VOCs; e.g., benzene, tetrachloroethene, trichloroethene) commonly associated with landfill gas are not
available to evaluate potential vapor intrusion concerns for future structures planned for construction at the site. Therefore,
a Soil Vapor Investigation Memo (referred to as Appendix H2 in this EIR) was prepared separately from the Phase I ESA to
address this data gap by conducting a soil vapor survey at the project site to evaluate current on-site subsurface soil vapor
conditions and potential subsurface impacts attributable to the adjoining Otay Class III landfill.
Additionally, the conditions identified on the project site included debris and several pieces of discarded furniture,
including a couch and a mattress (refer to Appendix H1). However, these environmental conditions do not present
a threat to human health or the environment and would not be subject to an enforcement action if brought to the
attention of the appropriate governmental agencies.
Wildfire Risk
The project site is within a wildland–urban interface location that is in an area statutorily designated a Local
Responsibility Area Non-FHSZ by the City and CAL FIRE. The project site is within a Supplemental Fire Hazard Zone
as designated by the City. As seen in Figure 9-9, Wildland Fire Hazards Map, of the General Plan, the project site is
designated as a High Hazard area (City of Chula Vista 2005).
As discussed in the Fire Protection Plan (FPP) prepared for the project, the project site has been subject to one
wildfire during the recorded fire history period. The Maxwell Fire in 1984 burned along the southern portion of the
project site. In addition to the one fire burning on the project site, the majority of other large wildfires historically
start east of the proposed project site area and are typically contained east of Lower Otay Lake.
The lack of recent fire history does not indicate that a fire cannot occur in the vegetation that would be adjacent to
the proposed site. It is expected that fires have not consistently spread into the proposed project site area due to
three factors: the position of the surrounding urban developments which are newer, ignition resistant construction;
the position of lower Otay Lake to the east, presenting a very wide firebreak; and the effective wildland fire fighting
capabilities of the Chula Vista Fire Department (CVFD). Refer to Appendix H3 for more details.
Airports
The nearest airport to the project site is the Brown Field Municipal Airport, which is located approximately 2.6 miles south
of the project site. A portion of the project site is located in the Brown Field Airport Influence Area, Review Area 2, but the
entire project site is located outside of safety and noise zones for Brown Field Airport (SDCRAA 2010). The entire project
site is also located within the FAA Height Notification Boundary. The project applicant would be required to notify the FAA
of the proposed project. However, no conflicts with the Brown Field ALUCP would occur.
5.8.2 Thresholds of Significance
The significance criteria used to evaluate the project impacts to hazards and hazardous materials is based on the
recommendations provided in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.). A significant impact
would occur if the project would:
A. Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of
hazardous materials.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 380 of 1271
5.8 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.8-14
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 that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, a significant hazard to the public or the environment is created.
E. Be 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 and would result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people
residing or working in the project area.
F. Impair implementation of or physically interferes with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan.
G. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving
wildland fires.
5.8.3 Impacts
A. Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of
hazardous materials.
Construction Impacts
Construction of the proposed project would involve the transport of commonly used hazardous substances, such
as gasoline, diesel fuel, lubricating oil, grease, and solvents. All such uses of these substances would be subject to
applicable and required regulatory controls as described above under Regulatory Framework. Specifically, this
would include conformance with applicable federal, state, and local standards related to hazardous materials and
wastes, such as controls on use, handling, storage, transportation, and disposal.
Consequently, use of these materials for their intended purpose would not pose a significant risk to the public or
environment. Per regulatory ordinances adopted in the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC) Chapter 8.34,
persons handling hazardous materials shall disclose such information to the department of health services of the
county in a manner required by the department. Additionally, a second ordinance would establish a permit system,
using the fees generally therefrom to carry out an enforcement and surveillance program (CVMC 2020a).
Furthermore, construction is temporary and use of these materials would cease upon completion. Therefore,
impacts would be less than significant impact.
Operational Impacts
Once project construction is complete, the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would be limited to
consumer products such as household cleaning products, landscaping chemicals and fertilizers, and other substances
associated with household and recreation (community purpose facility) uses. As mentioned in the General Plan,
household hazardous waste generated by the City residents cannot be disposed of at the local and regional landfills
serving the City and is therefore handled separately from non-hazardous solid waste. As such, the City’s Household
Hazardous Waste Program, initiated in 1997, includes a temporary storage facility to accommodate waste from the
South Bay area, including areas outside the City limits. Although the proposed project would result in the increase in
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 381 of 1271
5.8 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.8-15
routine transport, use and disposal of hazardous materials and/or wastes generated by future growth, all hazardous
materials would be transported and handled in accordance with all federal, state, and local laws regulating the
management and use of hazardous materials. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
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.
Construction Impacts
As discussed under Threshold A, construction of the proposed project would involve the transport of commonly
used hazardous substances, such as gasoline, diesel fuel, lubricating oil, grease, and solvents. As stated in the
Phase I ESA, the project site has been historically vacant as early as 1943 (Appendix H1). Though there have been
historic agriculture operations in the surrounding area, the Phase I ESA does not identify any potential issues
resulting from hazardous materials associated with such uses . Additionally, properties within the vicinity of the
project site have been historically used for bentonite (clay) mining, landfilling, and other uses such as industrial,
commercial, and residential (Refer to Appendix H1). As discussed in the Phase I ESA, soils on the project may
contain potentially harmful levels of fixed gases or volatile organic compounds (VOCs; e.g., benzene,
tetrachloroethene, trichloroethene) that could be exposed during construction activities.
As described in Section 5.8.1.5, Existing Setting, recent data regarding the potential presence of VOCs is not
available to evaluate potential vapor intrusion concerns for future structures planned for construction at the site.
At worst, vapor intrusion can present a safety hazard when flammables are involved and result in an explosion.
Therefore, a Soil Vapor Investigation Memo (Appendix H2) was prepared to address this data gap by conducting a
soil vapor survey at the project site to evaluate current on-site subsurface soil vapor conditions and potential
subsurface impacts attributable to the adjoining Otay Class III landfill. To determine the level of existing soil vapor,
five soil vapor probes (SVPs) were constructed near the perimeter of the project site, where the project site adjoins
the Otay Landfill. The SVPs were sampled on January 27, 2020 and sent for laboratory testing to be analyzed for
fixed gases (methane, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, etc.) and VOCs. The Soil Vapor Investigation Memo found that
methane was not detected in the soil samples, indicating that the LFGCS is effectively controlling the migration of
methane from the adjoining Class III landfill.
Low-level concentrations of VOCs were detected from the soil samples, including four analytes (benzene,
bromodichloromethane, chloroform, and vinyl chloride) detected in one or more samples at concentrations above
their respective Tier 1 environmental screening levels or EPA regional screening levels for a residential site scenario.
However, none of these analyte concentrations exceeded calculated DTSC screening levels for future residential
construction. Therefore, with the understanding that the adjoining Class III landfill owner/operator will continue to
operate the LFGCS in accordance with Title 27 requirements, future earth -moving activities in preparation for site
development and construction would likely result in dissipation of residual VOC concentrations in shallow soil vapor,
and future structures would be constructed using modern building practices with competent concrete slabs.
Furthermore, as discussed under Threshold A, construction materials would be used and stored in designated
construction staging areas within the project site boundaries and materials would be transported and handled in
accordance with all federal, state, and local laws regulating the management and use. Therefore, impacts
associated with reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment during construction of the project would be less than significant.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 382 of 1271
5.8 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.8-16
Operational Impacts
As discussed under Threshold A, once project construction is complete, the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials would be limited to consumer products such as household cleaning products, landscaping chemicals and
fertilizers, and other substances associated with household and recreation (community purpose facility) uses. As
previously discussed, a soil vapor survey (Refer to Appendix H2, Soil Vapor Investigation Memo) was conducted to
evaluate current on-site subsurface soil vapor conditions and potential subsurface impacts attributable to the
adjoining Otay Class III landfill. The Soil Vapor Investigation Memo found that methane was not detected in the soil
samples, indicating that the LFGCS, owned and operated by the Otay Landfill owner/operator, is effectively
controlling the migration of methane from the adjoining Class III landfill. While low-level concentrations of VOCs
were detected in soil vapor samples collected at the site, concentrations would not exceed calculated DTSC
screening levels for future residential construction. Furthermore, it is anticipated that the Otay Landfill will cease
operation in 2030 (CalRecycle 2020). Thus, there is no apparent unacceptable risk to future residential site
occupants due to methane and/or VOC impacted soil vapor during operations.
Furthermore, as discussed under Threshold A, all hazardous materials would be transported and handled in
accordance with all federal, state, and local laws regulating the management and use of hazardous materials.
Therefore, impacts associated with reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment during operation of the project would be less than significant.
C. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.
The only existing school located within one-quarter mile of the site is Valle Lindo Elementary School, located
approximately 0.25 miles west of the project site. Other existing schools near the project site include Hedenkamp
Elementary School, located approximately 0.38 miles north of the project site; Saburo Muraoka Elementary School,
located approximately 0.39 miles east of the project site; Parkview Elementary School, located approximately 0.45
miles north of the project site; Otay Ranch High School, located approximately 0.6 miles east of the project site;
Palomar Elementary School, located approximately 1 mile west of the project site; and Fred H Rohr Elementary
School, located approximately 0.9 miles west of the project site.
As discussed under Threshold A, construction materials would be used and stored in designated construction
staging areas within the project site boundaries and materia ls would be transported and handled in accordance
with all federal, state, and local laws regulating the management and use. Additionally, all hazardous materials
used during operation of the project would be transported and handled in accordance with all federal, state, and
local laws regulating the management and use of hazardous materials. Furthermore, the findings from the Soil
Vapor Investigation Memo determined that methane was not detected in the soil samples, indicating that the
LFGCS, owned and operated by the Otay Landfill owner/operator, is effectively controlling the migration of methane
from the adjoining Class III landfill. While low-level concentrations of VOCs were detected in soil vapor samples
collected at the site, concentrations would not exceed calculated DTSC screening levels for future residential
construction. Furthermore, it is anticipated that the Otay Landfill will cease operation in 2030 (CalRecycle 2020).
As such, the use of hazardous materials during construction and operation of the proposed project as well as the
presence of potential vapor intrusion would not result in a significant hazardous risk to the project site or surrounding
area. Therefore, impacts to schools within one-quarter mile of the project site would be less than significant.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 383 of 1271
5.8 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.8-17
D. Be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, a significant hazard to the public or the environment is created.
As outlined in Section 5.8.1.2, Regulatory Databases, a database search report was obtained from EDR. The report
documents findings of various federal, state, and local regulatory database searches regarding properties with
known or suspected releases of hazardous materials or petroleum hydrocarbons. The results of the search found
that the project site was not identified by EDR on any government list of hazardous materials; however, several
adjoining and nearby properties were identified by EDR and are included in Table 5.8-1. Representatives from
RWQCB and DTSC were contacted to confirm whether hazardous materials sites identified through the EnviroStor
or GeoTracker databases were present within the project site. It was confirmed through RWQCB and DTSC that no
sites listed within either database were recorded on the project site. However, a document reporting the closure of
a listed facility adjacent to the project site was identified in the EnviroStor database. The listed facility, Appropriate
Technologies II, was closed in accordance with an approved closure plan on October 29, 1998. The facility included
a tank farm and chemical mixing plant to treat liquid waste prior to disposal at the landfill. However, disposal did
not occur at the facility and based on the ongoing monitor of the surrounding Class I landfill, it is unlikely the facility
has adversely impacted the project site.
Additionally, the RWQCB’s GeoTracker Database identified four listed sites within the vicinity of the project site. The
sites are listed in the following paragraphs.
Otay Class I Landfill: This site is located adjacent to the project site. This closed landfill accepted
hazardous waste from 1963 to 1980. This landfill does not have a liner and therefore has no leachate collection
system. A groundwater monitoring network exists at the landfill and is monitored on a semiannua l basis. Based on
the results of groundwater monitoring at the facility, no VOCs were detected in the monitoring wells closest to the
project site at this facility. Additionally, groundwater within this facility flows away from the project site; thus, it is
not likely that this facility has adversely impacted the project site. Methane monitoring is discussed under the Otay
Annex Sanitary Landfill which is another listed facility located adjacent to the Otay Class I Landfill.
Otay Annex Sanitary Landfill (Class III): This site is located adjacent to the Class I Landfill and adjoining the project site to
the southwest. The Class III landfill detached from the Class I unit in 1997 and is now operated by San Diego Landfill
Systems. The most recent semiannual groundwater monitoring report, dated October 2019, indicated that VOCs were
detected in monitoring wells in the southern portion of the project site, and no VOCs were detected in the monitoring
wells closest to the project site. VOCs were detected in wells down gradient of a subsurface slurry wall and the extraction
wells that remove groundwater and pump it to a tank used for dust control as part of the corrective action program.
Groundwater flow depicted in the October report indicates that groundwater in the Class III landfill is to the west in the
eastern portion of the landfill and to the northwest in the western portion of the landfill, both toward the project site. The
lack of detections of VOCs in the down gradient wells closest to the project site indicate impacts have not migrated onto
the project site within the intermediate aquifer, and detections at the Class I landfill in the perched zone in the
southeastern corner of the Class I landfill indicate VOCs are most likely confined to the southern portions of each landfill.
In addition to the groundwater monitoring network and corrective action program, an LFGCS also operates at the Class
III landfill, and the landfill is monitored by a network of perimeter probes. Review of several methane monitoring reports
indicate methane has not been detected in the perimeter probes closest to the project site, indicating the LFGCS is
effectively controlling landfill gas migration from the landfill.
Ecology Auto Parts (825 Energy Way): This site is located approximately 0-5-mile south of the project site. Two
closed leaking underground storage tank (LUST) sites are mapped at this location; one LUST received NFA from the
RWQCB in July 2019 and no information is provided about the second LUST with the exception of a monitoring
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 384 of 1271
5.8 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.8-18
report from 2006; it is suggested these were part of the same investigation. Based on the closure of the cases at
this facility, the distance from the project site of 0.5 mile, and orientation hydraulically down gradient to the project
site, it is not likely that this facility has adversely impacted the project site.
Former Omar Rendering Facility: Refer to Table 5.8-1 in Section 5.8.1.2.
As described above, the proposed project is not located on a site included in the Cortese List, or pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5. Although some facilities located near the project site have been previously
included in government databases related to hazardous materials, as discussed above, these facilities would not
have adverse impacts on the project (for further information regarding databases refer to Appendix H1). Therefore,
impacts associated with the project being located on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 would be less than significant.
E. Be 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 and would result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or
working in the project area.
As described in Section 5.8.1.5, the nearest airport to the project site is the Brown Field Municipal Airport, which is
located approximately 2.6 miles south of the project site. A portion of the project site is located in the Brown Field
Airport Influence Area, Review Area 2, but the entire project site is located outside of safety and noise zones for
Brown Field Airport. The entire project site is also located within the FAA Height Notification Boundary. The project
applicant would be required to notify the FAA of the proposed project. However, no conflicts with the Brown Field
ALUCP would occur. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
F. Impair implementation of or physically interferes with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan.
The proposed project may result in a temporary increase in traffic on roadways surrounding the project site due to
increased truck loads or the transport of construction equipment to and from the project site during the construction
period. All construction activities including staging would occur in accordance with City requirements (such as CVMC
Chapter 12.12, which prohibits street obstructions), which would ensure that adequate emergency access would
be provided during construction of the project (CVMC 2020b). Additionally, the proposed project is incorporated
into the City’s existing emergency disaster programs, including all fire and emergency services and mutual aid
agreements. Emergency response to the project site would be serviced by the City of Chula Vista Fire Department,
Police Department, and other responsible agencies. Furthermore, the City is part of the San Diego County
Emergency Operations Plan, which includes a detailed evacuation response plan in the event of an emergency. As
stated in the Emergency Operations Plan, major ground transportation corridors shall be used as primary
evacuation routes in the event of an emergency. As such, Olympic Parkway would be the closest evacuation route
to the project site. As previously stated, all construction activities including staging would occur in accordance with
City requirements, which would ensure that adequate emergency access would be provided during construction of
the project. Thus, construction of the proposed project is not anticipated to interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or evacuation plan, nor would it substantially impede public access or roadway circulation.
Direct access to the project site would be provided by two proposed public streets, Street ‘A’ and Street ‘B’ (Streets A and
B). Street A would extend south from Olympic Parkway, through the project site, and curve to the east to connect with
Street B. Street B would also extend south from the eastern portion of Olympic Parkway, adjacent to the project site (see
Figure 4-6, Illustrative Concept Plan, and Figure 4-9, Vehicular Circulation Plan). The proposed driveways and roadways
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 385 of 1271
5.8 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.8-19
providing access to the project site would comply with the requirements of the Chula Vista Fire Code (including 2019 Fire
Code and 2018 Urban–Wildland Interface Code), and would be reviewed and approved by Chula Vista Fire Department
(CVFD). Additionally, all on-site roads would be constructed to current Fire Codes and City of Chula Vista Standards for
public and private roads, including minimum 24-foot-wide unobstructed road widths.
Therefore, the proposed project would not interfere with an adopted emergency response or emergency evacuation
plan during construction or operation activities; impacts would be less than significant.
G. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving
wildland fires.
As discussed in Chapter 5.17, Wildfire, of this EIR, the project could result in an impact related to exacerbating
wildfire risk that exposes project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrollable spread
of a wildfire if it would increase the risk of a wildfire occurring and the climatic, topographic, vegetation, weather
conditions, and other factors that aid in increasing the severity of such an occurrence. The project site is within a
wildland–urban interface location that is in an area statutorily designated a Local Responsibility Area Non-FHSZ by
the City and CAL FIRE. The project site is within a Supplemental Fire Hazard Zone as designated by the City . As seen
in Figure 9-9, Wildland Fire Hazards Map, of the General Plan, the project site is designated as a High Hazard area
(City of Chula Vista 2005).
Construction
Construction of the project would introduce potential ignition sources to the project site, including the use of heavy
machinery and the potential for sparks during welding activities or other hot work. However, the project would be
required to comply with City and state requirements for activities in hazardous fire areas, including fire safety
practices, to reduce the possibility of fires during construction activities. As discussed in the FPP prepared for the
project, pre-construction requirements would be adhered to in order to reduce the potential of fire caused by
construction-related activities. These requirements include establishing perimeter fuel modification areas that are
approved by the CVFD prior to combustible materials being brought on site; reducing existing flammable vegetation
by 50% on vacant lots upon commencement of construction; removing dead fuel, ladder fuel (fuel which can spread
fire from ground to trees), and downed fuel; and ensuring that on-site trees/shrubs shall be properly limbed, pruned,
and spaced. While vegetation management would not be required on vacant lots until constriction begins, perimeter
fuel modification zones (FMZs) must be implemented prior to commencement of construction utilizing combustible
materials. In addition, vacant lots adjacent to active construction areas/lots would be required to implement
vegetation management if they are within 50 feet of the active construction area. Prior to issuance of a permit for
any construction, grading, digging, installation of fences, etc., on a vacant lot, the 50 feet at the perimeter of the lot
shall be maintained as a vegetation management zone.
Operational
As mentioned previously, the project site is located in an area statutorily designated as an LRA Non-FHSZ. However,
the project site is within a Supplemental Fire Hazard Zone as designated by the City. The General Plan designates
the project site as a High Hazard area (City of Chula Vista 2005). Thus, the project includes fire resistance-related
measures that shall lessen the potential impact of the project exacerbating wildfire risk.
All new structures within the project site would be in accordance with the enhanced ignition-resistant construction
standards of the 2019 CBC (Chapter 7A) and the Urban–Wildland Interface code Chapter 5, except where buildings
require enhanced ignition resistance as part of an alternative material and method proposal. These re quirements
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 386 of 1271
5.8 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.8-20
address roofs, eaves, exterior walls, vents, appendages, windows, and doors and result in hardened structures that
have been proven to perform at high levels (resist ignition) during the typically short duration of exposure to burning
vegetation from wildfires. Buildings that include higher occupancies shall meet all California Fire and Building
requirements for higher occupancy structures. Included in the high occupancy category are multi-family residences
over three units, attached condominiums, and attached townhomes up to three stories, but less than 30 feet overall
height. In addition, the project would include fire protection systems including fire hydrants, automatic fire sprinkler
system, and fire alarm systems and residential hazard detectors (see Appendix H3 for further details).
Per CVMC Chapter 15.36 , the City shall incorporate vegetation management and clearance standards set by the
California Fire Code (CVMC 2020c). As such, all non-maintained combustible vegetation, and or other such
accumulations of combustible vegetation materials in open space areas, as determined by the Fire Code Official,
shall not be located within one hundred feet of any building or structu re designated or intended for occupancy by
humans or animals. As described in the FPP, FMZs shall be implemented to provide vegetation buffers that
gradually reduce fire intensity and flame lengths from advancing fire by strategically placing thinning zone s,
restricted vegetation zones, and irrigated zones adjacent to each other. FMZs would be located on the perimeter of
all structures and along both ingress/egress roadways to and from Olympic Parkway. Typical fuel modification
includes establishment of a minimum 50-foot-wide irrigated zone (Zone 1) and a 50-foot-wide thinned zone (Zone
2) on the periphery of the project site, beginning from the rear or side yard lot line (For further details regarding
Zone 1 and Zone 2 criteria refer to Appendix H3). As discussed in the FPP, FMZ areas experience a significant reduction
in flame length and intensity. Reduction of flame lengths and intensities are assumed to occur within the full 100 feet of
fuel modification (a combination of Zones 1 and 2). However, due to site constraints, it is not feasible to achieve a 100-
foot FMZ width on the south side of the project site. As such, to potential structure fire exposure related to the
provided FMZs for buildings along the southern edge of the project site would be potentially significant. Mitigation
Measure (MM)-WF-1 would be incorporated, applying only to the walls of the structures that face the open space
areas adjacent to the project site, to ensure impacts would be less than significant.
5.8.4 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation
Prior to mitigation, the proposed project would have potentially significant impacts associated with wildfire. The
remaining issues addressed in this section would be less than significant.
5.8.5 Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measure would reduce identified significant impacts associated with wildfire to a less than
significant level.
MM-WF-1 Site Access
Site access, including fire lane, driveway, and entrance road widths, primary and secondary access,
gates, turnarounds, dead end lengths, signage, aerial fire apparatus access, surface, and other
requirements will comply with the requirements of the 2019 California Fire Code and the Chula
Vista Fire Department (CVFD) Standards. Fire access will be reviewed and approved by CVFD prior
to construction (see the FPP, Appendix H3, for additional details).
The developer will provide information illustrating the new roads, in a format acceptable to the City,
for updating of City maps.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 387 of 1271
5.8 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.8-21
Ignition Resistant Construction
All new structures within the Proposed Project will be constructed to at least the California Fire
Code standard. Each of the proposed buildings will comply with the enhanced ignition -resistant
construction standards of the 2019 CBC (Chapter 7A) and Chapter 5 of the Urban -Wildland
Interface code, except where buildings require enhanced ignition resistance as part of an
alternative material and method p roposal. These requirements address roofs, eaves, exterior
walls, vents, appendages, windows, and doors and result in hardened structures that have
been proven to perform at high levels (resist ignition) during the typically short duration of
exposure to burning vegetation from wildfires (see the FPP, Appendix H3, for additional details).
Fire Protection Systems
1. Water supply requirements specified in the California Fire Code (see FPP, Appendix H3, for
additional details) including for hydrants and interior sprinklers will be provided for the
proposed project.
2. Hydrants shall be located along fire access roadways and cul-de-sacs as determined by the CVFD
Fire Marshal to meet operational needs. Hydrants will be consistent with CVFD Design Standards
and provided every 500 feet (on-center).
3. All structures within the Proposed Project will include interior sprinklers, per code requirements
(see FPP, Appendix H3, for additional details). Sprinklers will be specific to each occupancy
type and based on the most recent National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 13, 13R, or
13D, requirements.
4. All residential units shall have a fire alarm system be installed in accordance with NFPA 72,
Fire Protection Signaling System and CVFD requirements. The fire alarm system will be
supervised by a third-party alarm company. The system will be tested annually, or as needed,
with test results provided to CVFD.
Additionally, all residences will be equipped with residential smoke detectors and carbon monoxide
detectors and comply with current CBC, CFC, and California Residential Code standards.
All residential dwelling units shall have electric-powered, hard-wired smoke detectors with battery
backup per CVFD.
Defensible Space and Vegetation Management
Fuel Modification Zones (FMZs) would be located on the perimeter of all structures and along both
ingress/egress roadways to and from Olympic Parkway. All brush management zones and related
fuel modification activities shall occur outside of the Preserve. FMZs shall be a minimum of 100
feet in width. A 100-foot-wide FMZ will be installed for lots abutting designated Preserve Lands to
the north and west of the Project Site. To ensure long-term identification and maintenance, each
respective FMZ shall be identified by a permanent marker system meeting the approval of CVFD.
Other Vegetation Management
1. New roads will be subject to fuel modification zones with Zone 1 and/or Zone 2 standards
described above. The combustible vegetation will be modified within 30 feet from each side of
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 388 of 1271
5.8 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.8-22
Streets A and B. Roadway-adjacent fuel modification does not preclude the planting of street trees
in these fuel modification zones, as long as they are not found on the Prohibited Plant List (Appendix
D of the FPP) and are included in the Approved Plant Palette (Appendix C of the FPP).
2. Pre-Construction Requirements:
• Perimeter fuel modification areas must be implemented and approved by the CVFD prior
to combustible materials being brought on site.
• Existing flammable vegetation shall be reduced by 50% on vacant lots upon commencement
of construction.
• Dead fuel, ladder fuel (fuel which can spread fire from ground to trees), and downed fuel shall
be removed, and trees/shrubs shall be properly limbed, pruned, and spaced per this plan.
3. Undesirable Plants. Certain plants are considered to be undesirable in the landscape due to
characteristics that make them highly flammable. These characteristics can be physical
(structure promotes ignition or combustion) or chemical (volatile chemicals increase
flammability or combustion characteristics). The plants included in the Prohibited Plant List
(Appendix D of Appendix H3, FPP) are unacceptable from a fire safety standpoint and will not
be planted on the site or allowed to establish opportunistically within fuel modification zones
or landscaped areas. No fuel modification zones are proposed within the MSCP areas, thus no
vegetation within the MSCP will be removed.
Tree Notes for Publicly Owned Areas.
The project shall maintain all trees in publicly owned areas, per the project's FPP. These
requirements include, but are not limited to (see Appendix H3 for additional details):
• All standard form (single trunk) trees to include a single strong central leader with no branches
extending at an angle narrower than 30 degrees from the main trunk. If the tree does not
display a single strong central leader, a tree may be approved if the Developer’s arborist or
landscape architect of record can demonstrate that a single strong central leader can be
achieved through structural pruning.
• No grafted species that sucker from the base stock will be allowed as a street tree.
Vacant Parcels and Lots
The project shall comply with requirements of the project's FPP related to vacant parcels and lots.
These requirements include, but are not limited to:
• Vegetation management would not be required on vacant lots until construction begins.
However, perimeter FMZs must be implemented prior to commencement of construction
utilizing combustible materials.
• Vacant lots adjacent to active construction areas/lots would be required to implement
vegetation management if they are within 50 feet of the active construction area. Perimeter
areas of the vacant lot would be maintained as a vegetation management zone extending 50
feet from roadways and adjacent construction areas.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 389 of 1271
5.8 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.8-23
• Prior to issuance of a permit for any construction, grading, digging, installation of fences, etc.,
on a vacant lot, the 50 feet at the perimeter of the lot is to be maintained as a vegetation
management zone.
• FMZ on slope L&I does not have to be completed prior to construction starting, but all
flammable vegetation and plants found on the Prohibited Plant List, needs to grubbed and
graded or mowed prior to any construction.
Fuel Modification Area Vegetation Maintenance
All fuel modification area vegetation management shall be completed annually by May 1 of each
year and more often as needed for fire safety, as determined by the CVFD.
Annual Fuel Modification Area Vegetation Maintenance
The property owner would obtain an FMZ inspection and report from a qualified CVFD-approved
3rd party inspector in May of each year certifying that vegetation management activities throughout
the Project Site have been performed pursuant to this FPP. A copy of the annual inspection report
would be provided to the proposed project homeowner association (HOA) and a copy made
available to CVFD, if requested.
Reduced Fuel Modification Zone Discussion
Due to site constraints, it is not feasible to achieve a 100-foot FMZ width on the south side of the
proposed development. This FPP incorporates additional fire protection measures as described in
this mitigation measure that shall be implemented to compensate for potential fire related threats.
These measures are were customized for this site based on the analysis results and focus on
providing functional equivalency for reduced defensible space.
Landscape and Building Hardening.
1. Provide exterior glazing in windows (and sliding glass doors, garage doors, or decorative or
leaded glass doors) facing the open space areas to be dual pane with both panes tempered
glass, exceeding the fire-building code requirement.
2. Ensure no eave overhangs and combustible construction in portion of yards facing natural open
space areas.
3. Install 1-hour rated walls (Type X- 5/8-inch thickness of gypsum) behind non-combustible covering
(stucco, fiber cement siding) for a façade facing the open space areas to the east and south.
4. Conduct a formal landscaping plan review for structures with a façade facing open space area.
Landscape plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Chula Vista Fire Department.
5. Annually hire a third-party inspector to evaluate whether designated fuel modification zone
areas meet the requirements of the project Fire Protection Plan.
6. Provide a non-combustible fire-rated 6-foot-tall masonry block or view wall at the property line
on the south and east sides of the proposed project to provide a physical, non-combustible
barrier that would deflect heat and flame and would capture ground-blowing embers before
they reached the proposed project’s developed areas.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 390 of 1271
5.8 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.8-24
The proposed project’s slopes to the south provide an opportunity to place a non-combustible, 6-foot-tall,
heat-deflecting wall (or view wall with lower 1 to 2 feet block wall and upper 4 to 5 feet dual-pane, one
pane tempered glazing) to provide additional deflection for these lots to compensate for the reduced fuel
modification zones. The wall shall meet any of the following specifications:
• Be constructed of multi-pane glazing with a minimum of one tempered pane meeting the
requirements of Section 2406 Safety Glazing, or
• Have a fire-resistance rating of not less than 20 minutes when tested according to NFPA 257, or
• Be tested to meet the performance requirements of SFM Standard 12-7A-2.
Homeowner’s Wildfire Education Program
Per the FPP, the proposed project’s residents shall be provided a proactive educational component
disclosing the potential wildfire risk and this report’s requirements as part of their purchase documents.
Property owners shall be required to sign notice of receiving this information during escrow. This
educational information must include maintaining the landscape and structural components according
to the appropriate standards and embracing a “Ready, Set, Go” stance on evacuation.
5.8.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of MM-WF-1 would reduce potential impacts associated wildfire to a less-than-significant level.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 391 of 1271
5.9 –Hydrology and Water Quality
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.9-1
5.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
This section of the environmental impact report (EIR) describes the hydrologic setting within the proposed Sunbow
Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project (project or proposed project)
site, and evaluates the potential for changes in drainage, runoff, and water quality resulting from implementation
of the proposed project. The discussion in this section is based on the Stormwater Quality Management Plan
(SWQMP) and the Drainage Study for the project, which were prepared by Hunsaker and Associates. The complete
reports are provided in Appendices I1 and I2 of this EIR.
5.9.1 Existing Conditions
5.9.1.1 Regulatory Framework
Federal
Clean Water Act
The federal Clean Water Act (CWA) was enacted with the primary purpose of restoring and maintaining the chemical,
physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s navigable waters. The State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB) and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) are responsible for enforcing water quality
standards within the state. As mandated by Section 303(d) of the CWA, the SWRCB maintains and updates a lis t of
“impaired water bodies” (i.e., water bodies that do not meet state and federal water quality standards). This list is
known as the Section 303(d) list of impaired water bodies. The state is required to prioritize waters/watersheds for
development of total maximum daily load (TMDL) regulations. Section 303(d) of the CWA bridges the technology -
based and water-quality-based approaches for managing water quality and requires each state to make a list of
waters that are not attaining standards after implementation of the technology-based limits. For waters on this list
(and where the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] administrator deems it appropriate), the states develop
TMDLs that are established at the level necessary to implement applicable water quality standards. A TMDL must
account for all sources of pollutants that cause the water to be listed. Federal regulations require that TMDLs, at a
minimum, account for contributions from point sources and nonpoint sources. This information is compiled in a list
and submitted to the EPA for review and approval. Section 303(c)(2)(b) of the CWA requires states to update the
TMDLs every 3 years (SWRCB 2019).
Section 319 of the CWA mandates specific actions for the control of pollution from nonpoint sources. The EPA
has delegated responsibility for implementation of portions of the CWA, including water quality control planning
and programs such as the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program, to the SWRCB and
the RWQCBs.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit
The NPDES permit system was established by the CWA to regulate both point-source discharges and nonpoint-
source discharges. Nonpoint pollution often enters receiving waters in the form of surface runoff and is not
conveyed by way of pipelines or discrete conveyances. Each NPDES permit contains limits on allowable
concentrations and mass emissions of pollutants contained in the discharge. Sections 401 and 402 of the CWA
contain general requirements regarding NPDES permits. Section 307 of the CWA describes the factors that the EPA
must consider in setting effluent limits for priority pollutants.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 392 of 1271
5.9 –Hydrology and Water Quality
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.9-2
A detailed discussion of the NPDES program is provided under the discussion of state regulations in this section,
since the authority to implement the NPDES program has been delegated to the SWRCB and RWQCBs.
Federal Antidegradation Policy
The federal Antidegradation Policy (40 CFR 131.12) requires states to develop statewide antidegradation policies
and identify methods for implementing them. Pursuant to this policy, state antidegradation policies and
implementation methods will, at a minimum, protect and maintain (1) existing in -stream water uses; (2) existing
water quality where the quality of the waters exceeds levels necessary to support existing beneficial uses, unless
the state finds that allowing lower water quality is necessary to accommodate economic and social development in
the area; and (3) water quality in waters considered an outstanding national resource. State permitting actions
must be consistent with the federal Antidegradation Policy.
National and State Safe Drinking Water Acts
The federal Safe Drinking Water Act, established in 1974, is administered by the EPA and sets drinking water
standards throughout the country. The drinking water standards established in the act, as set forth in the Code
of Federal Regulations (CFR), are referred to as the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (Primary
Standards; 40 CFR 141), and the National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations (Secondary Standards; 40 CFR
143). According to the EPA, the Primary Standards are legally enforceable standards that apply to public water
systems. The Secondary Standards are non -enforceable guidelines regulating contaminants that may cause
cosmetic or aesthetic effects in drinking water. The EPA recommends the Secondary Standards for water systems
but does not require systems to comply. California passed its own Safe Drinking Water Act in 19 86 that authorizes
the state’s Department of Health Services to protect the public from contaminants in drinking water by
establishing maximum contaminant levels (as set forth in the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 22,
Division 4, Chapter 15) that are at least as stringent as those developed by the EPA, as required by the federal
Safe Drinking Water Act.
State
Responsibility for the protection of water quality in California rests with the SWRCB and nine RWQCBs. The SWRCB
establishes statewide policies and regulations for the implementation of water quality control programs mandated
by federal and state water quality statutes and regulations. The RWQCBs develop and implement water quality
control plans that consider regional beneficial uses, water quality characteristics, and water quality problems. The
project site is located within the jurisdiction of the San Diego RWQCB.
All projects resulting in discharges, whether to land or water, are subject to Section 13263 of the California Water
Code and are required to obtain approval of waste discharge requirements (WDRs) by the RWQCBs. WDRs related
to land and groundwater (i.e., non-NPDES WDRs) regulate discharges of privately or publicly treated domestic
wastewater and process/wash-down wastewater. WDRs for discharges to surface water also serve as NPDES
permits, which are further described in this section.
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act authorizes the SWRCB to adopt, review, and revise policies for all
waters of the state (including surface water and groundwater) and directs the RWQCBs to develop regional water
quality control plans. Section 13170 of the California Water Code authorizes the SWRCB to adopt water quality
control plans on its own initiative.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 393 of 1271
5.9 –Hydrology and Water Quality
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.9-3
Waste Discharge Requirements
All dischargers of waste to waters of the state are subject to regulation under the Porter -Cologne Water Quality
Control Act, and the requirements for WDRs are incorporated into the California Water Code. This includes point-
source and nonpoint-source dischargers. All current and proposed nonpoint-source discharges to land must be
regulated under WDRs, waivers of WDRs, a water quality control plan prohibition, or some combination of these
administrative tools. Discharges of waste directly to state waters are subject to an individual or general NPDES
permit, which also serves as WDRs. The RWQCBs have primary responsibility for issuing WDRs to cover a category
of discharges. WDRs may include effluent limitations or other requirements that are designed to implement
applicable water quality control plans, including designated beneficial uses and the water quality objectives
established to protect those uses and prevent the creation of nuisance conditions. Violations of WDRs may be
addressed by issuing Cleanup and Abatement Orders or Cease and Desist Orders, assessing administrative civil
liability, or seeking imposition of judicial civil liability or judicial injunctive relief.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permits
The NPDES permit system was established by the CWA to regulate both point-source discharges and nonpoint-
source discharges. Nonpoint pollution often enters receiving waters in the form of surface runoff and is not
conveyed by way of pipelines or discrete conveyances. Each NPDES permit contains limits on allowable
concentrations and mass emissions of pollutants contained in the discharge. Sections 401 and 402 of the CWA
contain general requirements regarding NPDES permits. Section 307 of the CWA describes the factors that the EPA
must consider in setting effluent limits for priority pollutants.
A detailed discussion of the NPDES program is provided under the discussion of state regulations in this section,
since the authority to implement the NPDES program has been delegated to the SWRCB and RWQCBs.
Construction General Permit
The SWRCB permits all regulated construction activities under Order No. 2009 -009-DWQ, as amended by 2010-
0014-DWQ and 2012-0006-DWQ. The order requires that, prior to beginning any construction activity, the permit
applicant obtain coverage under the Construction General Permit by preparing and submitting to the SWRCB a
Permit Registration Document that includes a Notice of Intent and appropriate fee. The SWRCB may issue a
Construction General Permit or an Individual Construction Permit that would contain more specific permit
provisions. Individual Construction Permits replace Construction General Permit regulations and provisions, if
issued. Additionally, coverage would not occur until an adequate stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) has
been prepared. A separate Notice of Intent is submitted to the SWRCB for each construction site.
SWRCB adopted the Construction General Permit on September 2, 2009, and it became effective on July 1, 2011.
In addition, 2010-0014-DWQ was adopted on November 16, 2010, and became effective on February 14, 2011.
The amendment provided text changes to the fact sheet, Conditions for Permit Coverage, Special Provisions,
Electronic Signature, and Certification Requirements of Order No. 2009-009-DWQ. Similarly, 2012-0006-DWQ was
adopted on July 17, 2012. The amendment provided updated text changes to the Fact Sheet, primarily with respect
to replacing numeric effluent limitations with narrative effluent limitations for Risk Level 3 and Linear
Underground/Overhead Project Type 3 construction sites (with the exception of Active Treatment Systems).
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 394 of 1271
5.9 –Hydrology and Water Quality
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.9-4
Construction activities subject to the NPDES Construction General Permit include clearing, grading, and
disturbances to the ground (e.g., stockpiling or excavating), which result in soil disturbances of at least 1 acre of
total land area. Because construction of the project would cumulatively disturb more than 1 acre, all improvements
and development activities would be subject to these permit requirements, and the project would be required to
prepare a SWPPP. The SWPPP has two main objectives: to help identify the sources of sediment and other pollutants
that affect the quality of stormwater discharges, and to describe and ensure the implementation of best
management practices (BMPs) to reduce or eliminate sediment and other pollutants in stormwater and non -
stormwater discharges.
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
On September 16, 2014, Governor Jerry Brown signed into law a three-bill legislative package—Assembly Bill 1739
(Dickinson), Senate Bill 1168 (Pavley), and Senate Bill 1319 (Pavley)—collectively known as the Sustainable
Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). SGMA requires governments and water agencies of high- and medium-priority
basins to halt overdraft and bring groundwater basins into balanced levels of pumping and recharge. Under SGMA,
these basins should reach sustainability within 20 years of implementing their sustainability plans. For critically
overdrafted basins, sustainability should be achieved by 2040. For the remaining high- and medium-priority basins,
2042 is the deadline. Through SGMA, the California Department of Water Resources provides ongoing support to local
agencies through guidance, financial assistance, and technical assistance. SGMA empowers local agencies to form
Groundwater Sustainability Agencies to manage basins sustainably and requires those Groundwater Sustainability
Agencies to adopt Groundwater Sustainability Plans for crucial groundwater basins in California.
California Water Code, Section 12924
The California Department of Water Resources, in conjunction with other public agencies, conducts investigations
of the state’s groundwater basins. The Department of Water Resources identifies the state’s groundwater basins
on the basis of geological and hydrologic conditions and with consideration of political boundary lines whenever
practical. The Department of Water Resources also investigates existing general patterns of groun dwater extraction
and groundwater recharge within those basins to the extent necessary to identify basins that are subject to critical
conditions of overdraft (DWR 2016).
Local
San Diego Basin Plan
The Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (Basin Plan) is designed to preserve and enhance water
quality and protect the beneficial uses of all regional waters. Specifically, the Basin Plan: (1) designates beneficial
uses for surface and ground waters; (2) sets narrative and numerical objectives that must be attained or maintained
to protect the designated beneficial uses and conform to the state's antidegradation policy; (3) describes
implementation programs to protect the beneficial uses of all waters in the Region; and (4) descri bes surveillance
and monitoring activities to evaluate the effectiveness of the Basin Plan (California Water Code Sections 13240–
13244 and Section 13050[j]) (SDRWQCB 2018).
Chula Vista BMP Design Manual
In May 2013, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board for the San Diego Region reissued a municipal
stormwater NPDES permit (Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems [MS4] Permit; SDRWQCB 2013) that covered
its region. The San Diego Region is composed of San Diego, Orange, and Riverside County Copermittees. The MS4
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 395 of 1271
5.9 –Hydrology and Water Quality
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.9-5
Permit reissuance to the San Diego County Copermittees went into effect in 2013 (Order No. R9 - 2013-0001 and
as amended by Order Nos. R9-2015-0001 and R9-2015-0100) (City of Chula Vista 2015).
The reissued MS4 Permit updates and expands storm water requirements for new developments and
redevelopments. In February 2015, the MS4 Permit was amended by Order R9-2015-0001, and again in November
2015 by Order R9-2015-0100. As required by the reissued MS4 Permit, the Copermittees have prepared the Model
Best Management Practices (BMP) Design Manual to replace the current Countywide Model Standard Urban
Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), dated March 25, 2011, which was based on the requirements of the 2007
MS4 Permit (City of Chula Vista 2015).
The BMP Design Manual addresses updated on-site post-construction stormwater requirements for Standard Projects
and Priority Development Projects (PDPs), and provides updated procedures for planning, preliminary design,
selection, and design of permanent storm water BMPs based on the performance standards presented in the MS4
Permit (City of Chula Vista 2015).
Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 14.20, Storm Water Management and Discharge Control
The purpose of this ordinance is to promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Chula Vista by
prohibiting non-stormwater discharges to the stormwater conveyance system, preventing discharges to the
stormwater conveyance system from disposal of materials other than stormwater, reducing pollutants in
stormwater discharges to the maximum extent practicable, and reducing pollutants in stormwater discharges to
achieve applicable water quality objectives for surface waters in San Diego County (Chula Vista Municipal Code
Section 14.20, Storm Water Management and Discharge Control). This ordinance states that it is unlawful for any
person to cause either individually or jointly, any discharge into or from the stormwater conveyance system that
results in or contributes to a violation of any NPDES permit. Any person engaged in activities that may result in
pollutants entering the stormwater conveyance system shall, to the maximum extent practical, undertake all
measures to reduce the risk of illegal discharges. The following requirements apply (CVMC Section 14.20):
• Best Management Practices Implementation. It is unlawful for any person not to comply with the BMPs and
pollution control requirements established by the city or other responsible agency to eliminate or reduce
pollutants entering the City stormwater conveyance system. BMPs shall be complied with throughout the
life of the activity.
• Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. When the enforcement official determines that a business or
business-related activity causes or may cause an illegal discharge to the stormwater conveyance system
then the enforcement official may require the business to develop and implement a SWPPP. Businesses
which may be required to prepare and implement a SWPPP include, but are not limited to, those which
perform maintenance, storage, manufacturing, assembly, equipment operations, vehicle loading and/or
cleanup activities partially or wholly out of doors.
• Coordination with Hazardous Materials Response Plans and Inventory. Any activity subject to the hazardous
materials inventory and response program, pursuant to Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety
Code, shall include provisions for compliance with this chapter in its hazardous materials response plan,
including prohibitions of unlawful non-stormwater discharges and illegal discharges and provisions
requiring the use of BMPs to reduce the discharge of pollutants in stormwater.
• Impervious Surfaces. Persons owning or operating a parking lot or an impervious surface (including, but
not limited to, service station pavements or paved private streets and roads) used for automobile-related
or similar purposes shall clean those surfaces as frequently and as thoroughly as is necessary, in
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 396 of 1271
5.9 –Hydrology and Water Quality
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.9-6
accordance with BMPs, to prevent the discharge of pollutants to the city stormwater conveyance system.
Sweepings or cleaning residue from parking lots or impervious surfaces shall not be swept or otherwise
made or allowed to go into any stormwater conveyance, gutter or roadway, but must be disposed of in
accordance with regional solid waste procedures and practices.
• Compliance with NPDES Permit for Storm Water Discharges. Each discharger subject to any NPDES permit
for stormwater discharges shall comply with all requirements of such permit.
The BMP Design Manual is incorporated into this ordinance by reference. The ordinance states that no landowner
or development project proponent in Chula Vista shall receive any City permit or approval for land development
activity or significant redevelopment activity unless the project meets or would me et the requirements of the
Development Storm Water Manual (CVMC Section 14.20).
City of Chula Vista General Plan
The Public Facilities and Services and Environmental Elements of the City of Chula Vista General Plan address
reliable drainage facilities and the protection of water quality. The Public Facilities and Services Element includes
objectives to increase efficiencies in handling stormwater runoff through use of alternative technologies (Objective
PFS 2). Objective E 2 in the Environmental Element is to protect and improve water quality within surface water
bodies and groundwater resources within and downstream of Chula Vista (City of Chula Vista 2005).
Zoning Code and Growth Management Ordinance
In accordance with Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 19.80.030, development is not permitted in the City of
Chula Vista that would degrade stormwater collection systems below acceptable standards. Similarly, Section
19.09, Growth Management, provides policies and programs that tie the pace of development to the provision of
public facilities and improvements. Section 19.09(F) specifically requires that (1) stormwater flows and volumes
shall not exceed City engineering standards as set forth in the subdivision manual and (2) the Growth Management
Oversight Commission shall annually review the performance of the City’s storm drain system to determine its ability
to meet the goals and objectives for drainage. Section 19.09 also requires a Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP)
and the demonstration that public services, such as police services, meet the Growth Management Oversight
Commission quality of life threshold standards. The analysis of storm drain systems provided in this section, along
with the PFFP to ensure funding for any needed expansion of services, would ensure that storm drain systems are
provided commensurate with development and demand.
5.9.1.2 Existing Setting
Under existing conditions, the project site is undeveloped and consists of natural grades and hills covered by native
vegetation and shrubs. The highest point of the project site is located on the southern boundary adjacent to the
Otay Landfill and makes the overall on-site surface flow pattern run from south to north. The Poggi Canyon Creek is
located downstream of the project site to the north and receives storm runoff from the surrounding area including
the project site.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 397 of 1271
5.9 –Hydrology and Water Quality
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.9-7
5.9.2 Thresholds of Significance
The significance criteria used to evaluate the project impacts to hydrology and water quality is based on the
recommendations provided in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.). A significant impact
would occur if the project would:
A. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, or otherwise substantially degrade
surface or ground water quality.
B. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that
the project may impeded sustainable groundwater management of the basin.
C. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course
of a stream or river or though the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner, which would result in
i. substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site;
ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding
on- or off-site;
iii. 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; or
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows.
D. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation.
E. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan.
5.9.3 Impacts
A. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, or otherwise substantially degrade
surface or ground water quality.
Construction activities associated with the proposed project could result in wind and water erosion of the disturbed
area leading to sediment discharges. Additionally, construction would involve the use of oil, lubricants, and other
chemicals that could be discharged from leaks or accidental spills. These potential sediment and chemical
discharges during construction would have the potential to impact water quality in receiving water bodies.
Construction of the project would result in more than 1 acre of land disturbance; therefore, the project would be
required to prepare and implement a SWPPP in accordance with the Statewide Construction General Permit. This
requires implementation of construction BMPs such as silt fences, inlet protection, and site stabilization techniques
to ensure that stormwater runoff from the construction work areas does not cause degradation of water quality in
receiving water bodies.
During operation, the project would introduce a 67.5-acre development area consisting of 44.2 acres of residential
uses, a 0.9-acre Community Purpose Facility (CPF), 5.9 acres of public streets, and 16.5 acres of manufactured
slopes and drainage basins, resulting in more impervious area to the site. The increase in impervious area would
result in reduced percolation and groundwater recharge as well as more surface runoff. An increase in surface
runoff would increase the potential for violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. As
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 398 of 1271
5.9 –Hydrology and Water Quality
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.9-8
discussed in Section 5.9.1, Existing Conditions, the project is located within the San Diego RWQCB jurisdiction that
oversees water quality in the San Diego region. The RWQCB has adopted the Water Quality Control Plan (WQCP) for
the San Diego Basin Plan that designates beneficial uses of the region’s surface water and groundwater, identifies
water quality objectives for the reasonable protection of those uses, and establishes an implementation plan to
achieve the objectives. The RWQCB also regulates discharges from municipal separate storm sewer systems in the
San Diego region under an NPDES MS4 Permit, which expired on June 27, 2018, but remains in effect under an
administrative extension until it is reissued by the RWQCB. The permit requires the development and
implementation of BMPs in planning and con struction of private and public development projects. Development
projects are also required to include BMPs to reduce pollutant discharges from the project site in the permanent
design. As discussed in the SWQMP prepared for the project, the project would incorporate source control and site
design BMPs to reduce water quality impacts (Appendix I1). Source control BMPs include prevention of illicit
discharges into the MS4; storm drain stenciling or signage; protecting trash storage areas from rainfall, run -on,
runoff, and wind dispersal; on-site storm drain inlets; interior floor drains and sump pumps; interior parking garages;
refuse area; and other miscellaneous drains. Site design BMPs include conserving natural areas, soils, and
vegetation; minimizing impervious areas; minimizing soil compaction; runoff collection; and landscaping with native
or drought-tolerant species. The structural BMPs would involve the installation of two biofiltration basins.
Biofiltration basin 1 would be located in the northeastern area of the project site and biofiltration basin 2 would be
located in the northwestern area of the project site. Both biofiltration basins would work for combined pollutant
control by collecting and treating runoff through a pre-treatment and biofiltration chamber filtering system.
Additionally, the structural BMPs would include three compact proprietary (CP) biofiltration units (i.e. Modular
Wetland Unit). These CP biofiltration units would be located along the proposed streets that would connect to
Olympic Parkway, one on the proposed street to the west and two on the proposed street to the east. These CP
biofiltration units would provide additional aide in pollutant control for the project site.
Therefore, with implementation of the SWPPP and SWQMP, impacts to water quality or waste discharge
requirements would be less than significant.
B. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the
project may impeded sustainable groundwater management of the basin.
As stated in the Geotechnical Investigation Report (Appendix G to this EIR), it is expected that groundwater is
approximately 20 feet or greater below the existing grade. While the project would introduce new impervious area
by developing approximately 67.5 acres of land on a 135.7-acre site, approximately 50% of the project would be
open space and remain undeveloped. Thus, the undeveloped portion of the project site would allow for potential
groundwater recharge and infiltration. While the development area of the project would result in more impervious
area and reduce percolation and groundwater recharge, the general drainage pattern of the site that ultimately
flows into the Poggi Canyon Creek would remain the same (Appendix I2). Further, the proposed project would not
use groundwater during construction and would not have components that would withdraw groundwater during
operation. The Otay Water District (OWD) would serve the project’s water needs. The OWD is one of 23 member
water agencies and districts that make up the San Diego County California Water Authority (CWA). The CWA generally
imports 75% to 95% of its water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. Water imported to the
region comes from two primary sources: the Colorado River, through the Colorado River Aqueduct; and the State
Water Project from Northern California, through the Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta and the California
Aqueduct. As such, the proposed project would not rely on groundwater supplies.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 399 of 1271
5.9 –Hydrology and Water Quality
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.9-9
Therefore, because the project would not withdraw groundwater during construction or operation activities, the
majority of the project site would remain undeveloped, and the general drainage pattern would remain the same,
impacts associated with depletion of groundwater supplies would be less than significant.
C. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course
of a stream or river or though the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner, which would result in
i. Substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site.
Project construction would involve earth-disturbing activities, including grading, that could expose on-site soils to
erosion and surface water runoff. Additionally, construction would involve the use of oil, lubricants, and other
chemicals that could be discharged from leaks or accidental spills. These potential sediment and chemical
discharges during construction would have the potential to impact water quality in receiving water bodies such as
the Poggi Canyon Creek. Construction of the project would result in more than 1 acre of land disturbance;
therefore, the project would be required to prepare and implement a SWPPP in accordance with the Statewide
Construction General Permit. This requires implementation of BMPs to ensure that water quality standards are
met and that stormwater runoff from the construction work areas does not cause degradation of water quality in
receiving water bodies. Specific BMPs that address erosion impacts include erosion control blankets, watering of
site, and sediment filters.
During operation, the project would introduce 67.5-acre development area composed of 44.2 acres of residential
uses, a 0.9-acre Community Purpose Facility (CPF), 5.9 acres of public streets, and 16.5 acres of manufactured
slopes and drainage basins. As such, the proposed area to be developed would be graded and paved, greatly
reducing the possibility for soil erosion and siltation compared to current conditions. However, introducing more
impervious area would result in more surface runoff, which could lead to more soil erosion and siltation. As such,
a SWQMP has been prepared for the project. The SWQMP has been prepared consistent with the requirements
of the City’s BMP Design Manual and with the requirements of San Diego RWQCB Order No. R9-2013-0001
(Regional MS4 Permit). The SWQMP specifies site design BMPs that would be implemented to minimize soil
erosion. Site design BMPs include conserving natural areas, soils, and vegetation; minimizing impervious areas;
and minimizing soil compaction (Appendix I1). Therefore, with implementation of the SWPPP and incorporation of
the BMPs described in the SWQMP, impacts associated with substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site would
be less than significant.
ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-
or off-site.
The project would introduce a 67.5-acre development area composed of 44.2 acres of residential uses, a 0.9-
acre Community Purpose Facility (CPF), 5.9 acres of public streets, and 16.5 acres of manufactured slopes and
drainage basins, resulting in more impervious area to the site, which would result in an increase of surface
runoff. The increase in surface runoff would present a potential increase to flooding on - or off-site in the event
of heavy rainfall.
To analyze whether the project would create adverse impacts related to flooding, the Drainage Report prepared for
the project (Appendix I2) evaluates the existing and proposed peak flows from the project site, assuming the
proposed project incorporates the aforementioned attenuation measures. The findings determined that the runoff
generated by the project would not exceed pre-project peak flow rates, and runoff velocities would be dissipated by
rock riprap at storm drain outfalls. Refer to Appendix I2 for further details. Additionally, the project site is located in
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 400 of 1271
5.9 –Hydrology and Water Quality
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.9-10
Zone X, an area of minimal flood hazard per FEMA FIRM panel 06073C1914G effective May 16, 2012 (FEMA 2020).
This area is higher in elevation than the 0.2% annual chance flood (i.e., 500-year flood). Furthermore, the SWQMP
prepared for the project evaluated the existing and peak flows from the project site in the event of a 100-year flow
event (Appendix I1). Because the project would increase impervious area that could generate significantly more
surface runoff, the development of the project site would include adding storm drains, curb inlets, cleanouts along
the proposed on-site private roads and parking spaces to collect stormwater runoff (refer to Appendix I2). Stormwater
would be conveyed to the two proposed detention and water quality control basins located at northeast and
northwest part of the development area (see Figure 4-15, Proposed Storm Drain System). With incorporation of the
drainage improvements, the project would not exceed pre-project flow rates and would be designed to meet
projected 100-year flows (refer to Appendix I2 for further details). After the majority of the on-site runoff is treated
and detained by the biofiltration basin, the outflow will confluence with the bypass storm drain and discharge into
the Poggi Canyon Creek. Therefore, through improvements of stormwater infrastructure on site, impacts associated
with the project substantially increasing the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site would be less than significant.
iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater
drainage system or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.
The project would introduce a 67.5-acre development area composed of 44.2 acres of residential uses, a 0.9-
acre Community Purpose Facility (CPF), 5.9 acres of public streets, and 16.5 acres of manufactured slopes and
drainage basins, resulting in more impervious area to the site, which would result in an increase of surface
runoff. An increase in surface runoff could potentially exceed the capacity of the existing or planned stormwater
drainage system or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.
The proposed storm drain system and layout (see Figure 4-11, Streets ‘A’ and ‘B’ – Typical Street Sections) would
be designed to address peak flows and to integrate water quality features needed to comply with the City’s Standard
Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan requirements for water quality. Development of the project site would include
adding storm drains, curb inlets, cleanouts along the proposed on-site private roads and parking spaces to
collect storm runoff (refer to Appendix I2). Stormwater would be conveyed to the two proposed detention and
water quality control basins located at the northeast and northwest part of the development area (see Figure
4-15). After the majority of the on-site runoff is treated and detained by the biofiltration basin, the outflow will
confluence with the bypass storm drain and discharge into the Poggi Canyon Creek. For small amount of runoff
generated from the north portion of proposed public roads which would be connecting with Olympic Parkway,
only the water quality control measurements are proposed, i.e., multiple Modular Wetland structures would be
installed to control the water quality. The outflow from Modular Wetlands then discharges into Poggi Canyon
Creek without detention. With incorporation of the drainage improvements, the project would not exceed pre-
project flow rates and would be designed to meet projected 100-year flows (refer to Appendix I2 for further
details). Therefore, impacts associated with the creation or contribution of water runoff which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage system or provide substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff would be less than significant.
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows.
As discussed previously, the project site is located in Zone X, an area of minimal flood hazard per FEMA FIRM panel
06073C1914G effective May 16, 2012 (FEMA 2020). This area is higher in elevation than the 0.2% annual chance
flood (i.e., 500-year flood). As previously discussed, the project would introduce impervious area to the project site,
which would increase surface runoff that could result in increased on- or off-site flooding. The evaluation of the
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 401 of 1271
5.9 –Hydrology and Water Quality
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.9-11
existing and proposed flow rates showed that with incorporation of drainage improvements (adding storm drains,
curb inlets, cleanouts along the proposed on-site private roads and parking spaces to collect storm runoff) the project
site would maintain adequate stormwater conveyance as to not result in significant flooding on- or off-site associated
with the 100-year, 24-hour storm event (refer to Appendix I2 for further details). Therefore, impacts associated with
impeding or redirecting flood flows would be less than significant.
D. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation.
Seiche is generally associated with oscillation of enclosed bodies of water typically caused by ground shaking
associated with a seismic event; however, the project site is not located near an enclosed body of water. The closest
body of water to the project site is the San Diego Bay, located approximately 4.4 miles west of the project site. Thus,
the probability of inundation by seiche or tsunamis is considered negligible. Additionally, flooding from tsunami
conditions is not expected because the project site is located approximately 6.3 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean.
As discussed under Threshold C(ii), the project site is located in Zone X, an area of minimal flood hazard per FEMA
FIRM panel 06073C1914G effective May 16, 2012 (FEMA 2020). This area is higher in elevation than the 0.2%
annual chance flood (i.e., 500-year flood). As previously discussed, although internal drainage patterns would be
somewhat altered as a result of project development, the project would maintain adequate stormwater conveyance
and therefore not result in an increase of surface runoff that would result in flooding on- or off-site associated with the
100-year, 24-hour storm event. Furthermore, as discussed in the SWQMP prepared for the project, the project would
incorporate source control and site design BMPs to reduce water quality impacts (Appendix I1). In the event of a flood,
appropriate source control BMPs that would reduce the risk of releasing pollutants would include protecting trash
storage areas from rainfall, run-on, runoff, and wind dispersal; on-site storm drain inlets; interior floor drains and sump
pumps; interior parking garages; refuse area; and other miscellaneous drains. The structural BMPs would involve the
installation of two biofiltration basins. Both biofiltration basins would work for combined pollutant control by collecting
and treating runoff through a pre-treatment and biofiltration chamber filtering system. Additionally, the structural
BMPs would include three CP biofiltration units (i.e., Modular Wetland Unit). These CP biofiltration units would be
located along the proposed streets that would connect to Olympic Parkway, one on Street A and two on Street B. These
CP biofiltration units would provide augment pollutant control for the project site.
Therefore, impacts associated with flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, and risk release of pollutants due to
project inundation would be less than significant.
E. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan.
The San Diego Basin underlies a small western portion of the project site; however, the majority of the project site
would not be located within the San Diego Basin (DWR 2020). As discussed in Section 5.9.1, the San Diego RWQCB
jurisdiction oversees water quality in the San Diego region. The RWQCB has adopted the WQCP for the San Diego
Basin Plan that designates beneficial uses of the region’s surface water and groundwater, identifies water quality
objectives for the reasonable protection of those uses, and establishes an implementation plan to achieve the
objectives (SDRWQCB. 2018). The project would be required to comply with applicable regulations and permit
requirements intended to support the objectives and policies of the WQCP regarding water quality and erosion and
sediment control. Implementation of measures identified in the SWQMP would include source control and site
design BMPs to reduce water quality impacts (Appendix I1). Source control BMPs include prevention of illicit
discharges into the MS4; storm drain stenciling or signage; protecting trash storage areas from rainfall, run-on, runoff,
and wind dispersal; on-site storm drain inlets; interior floor drains and sump pumps; interior parking garages; refuse
area; and other miscellaneous drains. Site design BMPs include conserving natural areas, soils, and vegetation;
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 402 of 1271
5.9 –Hydrology and Water Quality
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.9-12
minimizing impervious areas; minimizing soil compaction; runoff collection; and landscaping with native or drought
tolerant species. The structural BMPs would involve the installation of two biofiltration basins. Biofiltration basin 1
would be located in the northeastern area of the project site and biofiltration basin 2 would be located in the
northwestern area of the project site. Both biofiltration basins would work for combined pollutant control by collecting
and treating runoff through a pre-treatment and biofiltration chamber filtering system. Additionally, the structural
BMPs would include three CP biofiltration units (i.e., Modular Wetland Unit). These CP biofiltration units would be
located along the proposed streets that would connect to Olympic Parkway, one on Street A and two on Street B. These
CP biofiltration units would provide additional aide in pollutant control for the project site. Thus, the BMPs would
reduce project impacts associated with water quality and soil erosion and would allow for the project to be
consistent with objectives and policies identified in the WQCP. Projects that are consistent with the objectives and
policies of the WQCP would not conflict with the WQCP. However, while the project site partially overlies the San
Diego Basin, the area overlying the San Diego Basin is proposed for open space and would remain undeveloped.
Furthermore, the project site is not located within a Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) mandated
basin (County of San Diego 2020). SGMA requires that basins with medium and high-level priority to develop
sustainable groundwater sustainability plans and manage groundwater for long-term sustainability. The western
portion of the project site is located in the Coastal Plain of the San Diego Groundwater Basin; however, it is not
designated as medium or high priority and thus does not require a groundwater management plan (County of San
Diego 2020). Therefore, the project would not obstruct implementation of a water quality plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan; thus, impacts would be less than significant.
5.9.4 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation
The proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on hydrology and water quality.
5.9.5 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.
5.9.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation
No mitigation measures would be required. Impacts to hydrology and water quality would be less than significant.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 403 of 1271
5.10 – Land Use and Planning
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.10-1
5.10 Land Use and Planning
This section of the environmental impact report (EIR) provides an overview of the land uses within the proposed
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project (proposed project) site
and surrounding region, the regulatory framework, and an analysis of potential conflicts with existing land use plans
that would result from implementation of the proposed project.
According to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a proposed project’s land use effects fall into two
main categories: (1) conflicts with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect; and (2) physically dividing an established community. This section
of the EIR addresses potential environmental impacts associated with land use conflicts resulting from the
proposed project. Other environmental issues associated with land use decisions include aesthetics, noise, and
resource conservation. These issues are separately addressed in their respective sections of this EIR.
5.10.1 Existing Conditions
5.10.1.1 Regulatory Framework
Local
2050 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
SANDAG adopted the 2050 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) in October 2011. The 2050 RTP provides a vision
of the San Diego region’s transportation system over the next 40 years. The document contains a robust
transportation network, with a diversity of projects that will provide residents and visitors with a variety of travel
choices (SANDAG 2011). As part of the 2050 RTP, SANDAG adopted the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS),
which details how the region will reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to state-mandated levels as required by
Senate Bill 375. The goal of the SCS is to establish a development plan for the region, which, after considering
transportation measures and policies, will achieve, if feasible, the GHG reduction targets. The GHG reduction targets
to be achieved through the adoption of SANDAG’s SCS are a 7% reduction in emissions per capita by 2020 and a
13% reduction by 2035. The 2050 RTP and SCS seek to guide the San Diego region toward a more sustainable
future by integrating land use, housing, and transportation planning to create communities that are more
sustainable, walkable, transit-oriented, and compact (SANDAG 2011). On October 9, 2015, SANDAG adopted “San
Diego Forward” a Regional Plan that merged its Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) with the 2050 RTP/SCS
(Regional Plan). The RCP served as the long-term planning framework for the San Diego region prior to adoption
of the Regional Plan. It provided a broad context within which local and regional land use decisions could be
made with respect to anticipated regional growth, and its effect on housing, economics, transportation,
environmental planning, and overall quality of life needs. Now, the Regional Plan serves as the blueprint for how
the San Diego region will grow and how SANDAG will invest in transportation infrastructure to provide more choices,
strengthen the economy, promote a healthy environment, and support thriving communities. The Regional Plan sets
forth the following six general objectives: Habitat and Open Space Prese rvation, Regional Economic Prosperity,
Environmental Stewardship, Providing Mobility Choices, Partnerships/Collaboration with neighboring entities and
creating Healthy and Complete Communities (SANDAG 2015).
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 404 of 1271
5.10 – Land Use and Planning
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.10-2
At the core of the Regional Plan is an SCS that charts a course toward lowering GHG emissions and includes the
following five building blocks (SANDAG 2015):
• A land use pattern that accommodates our region’s future employment and housing needs, and protects
sensitive habitats, cultural resources, and resource areas.
• A transportation network of public transit, Managed Lanes and highways, local streets, bikeways, and
walkways built and maintained with reasonably expected funding.
• Managing demands on our transportation system (also known as Transportation Demand Management, or
TDM) in ways that reduce or eliminate traffic congestion during peak periods of demand.
• Managing our transportation system (also known as Transportation System Management, or TSM) through
measures that maximize the overall efficiency of the transportation network.
• Innovative pricing policies and other measures designed to reduce the number of miles people travel in
their vehicles, as well as traffic congestion during peak periods of demand.
The Regional Plan includes the following set of principles that will guide the development of the region’s future
transportation network (SANDAG 2015):
• The SANDAG investment plan will be built with financial resources that are reasonably expected to be
available between now and 2050.
• A more efficient transportation network will be achieved through two key strategies: effectively managing
the overall system (TSM) and effectively managing demands on the system (TDM) with innovative
technologies integrated into both. The result will be maximized efficiency in the transportation network,
which ultimately can lower greenhouse gas emissions.
• Managing parts of the network, such as adding Managed Lanes and transit only lanes on freeways, which
encourage people to carpool and use public transit to bypass bottlenecks.
• The road toward a more sustainable San Diego region should include vehicles that use cleaner, alternative
sources of energy with SANDAG playing an important role in promoting this transition.
SANDAG also prepared a 2019 Federal Regional Transportation Plan (2019 Federal RTP), which was adopted on
October 25, 2019. The 2019 Federal RTP builds on the 2015 Regional Plan with updated project costs and
revenues and a new regional growth forecast. The 2019 Federal RTP is consistent with the Final EIR approved in
conjunction with the 2015 Regional Plan on October 9, 2015. State legislation (Assembly Bill 1730), was signed
into law on October 8, 2019, which ensures the 2015 Regional Plan remains valid for state funding eligibility and
other consistency purposes until the 2021 Regional Plan is adopted in late 2021. Preparation of the 2021 Regional
Plan is currently underway. In fall 2020, key policies and programs to be considered as part of the vision will be
presented to SANDAG policymakers. The draft 2021 Regional Plan and its draft Environmental Impact Report are
expected to be released for public and policymaker review in spring 2021 (SANDAG 2020).
City of Chula Vista General Plan
The City of Chula Vista General Plan was updated by the City on December 13, 2005, and most recently amended
in 2020. The General Plan provides a long -term strategy to address planning issues for the growth and
development of the City, and is composed of the following six ele ments: land use and transportation, economic
development, public facilities and services, growth management, environmental, and housing (City of Chula Vista
2005). A large portion of the project site’s existing General Plan land use designation is Open Space Preserve
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 405 of 1271
5.10 – Land Use and Planning
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.10-3
with small sections designated as Open Space. The southeast portion of the project site is designated as Limited
Industrial in the General Plan (see Figure 3-1, Existing General Plan Land Use). The proposed project is located in
the Sunbow subarea of the General Plan. Sunbow is identified as a master planned community in the General
Plan (City of Chula Vista 2005).
Land Use and Transportation Element
The Land Use and Transportation Element establishes the land use categories, roadway classifications, and
generalized land use patterns for City development and focuses on themes that (1) support strong community
character and image, (2) support strong and safe neighborhoods, and (3) improve mobility. This element establishes
plans and policies to identify the general distribution of housing, businesses, industry, open space (including parks),
education facilities, and public buildings. Standards for population density and building intensity in each land use
classification are also provided (City of Chula Vista 2005).
Economic Development Element
The Economic Development Element establishes policies to ensure the long -term vitality of the local economy
and to help develop, guide, and encourage appropr iate employment and business ownership in the City. It
promotes a sustainable local economy to benefit present and future generations without detrimentally affecting
resources. Employment land, or land designated for commercial, industrial and other non -residential, or open
space use, is concentrated in three principal areas: the tideland area, the Montgomery area, and the Otay Ranch
area (City of Chula Vista 2005).
Public Facilities and Services Element
The Public Facilities and Services Element establishe s the plan to provide and maintain infrastructure and public
services for future growth, without diminishing services to existing development within the City. The overall goal
of this element is to provide and maintain public facilities and services within the City through abundant public
infrastructure and community services that support and enhance the well -being of the City and its residents (City
of Chula Vista 2005).
Growth Management Element
The purpose of the Growth Management Element is to guide future development in the City based on the principles
that (1) rapid population growth and development have the potential to cause a variety of problems and impact the
well-being of a city and its residents, and (2) impacts can be mitigated by balancing competing demands for growth
and development through the adoption of comprehensive objectives and policies. This element serves as the
assurance that the vision described within the General Plan is achieved without sacrificing the quality of life enjoyed
in the community, and establishes a framework for directing new development, redevelopment, and community
enhancement, and provides the guidance to realize the vision for the City (City of Chula Vista 2005).
Environmental Element
The Environmental Element establishes the policy framework for improving sustainability through the City’s
stewardship of natural and cultural resources, promotion of environmental health, and protection of persons and
property from environmental hazards and noise. Sustainable development is identified as a means of balancing
current growth and economic progress with protection of future resources (City of Chula Vista 2005).
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 406 of 1271
5.10 – Land Use and Planning
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.10-4
Housing Element
The Housing Element details a 5-year strategy for enhancement and preservation of the City character, identifies
strategies for expanding housing opportunities for the various economic segments of the City, and provides policy
guidance for local decision-making related to housing. The focus of this element is to (1) maintain and enhance the
quality of housing and residential neighborhoods in the City, (2) support housing opportunities to meet the City’s
diverse needs, and (3) fund and implement services that provide vital community resources for lower-income
residents. The City of Chula Vista adopted a Balanced Communities Policy (Policy), commonly referred to as
Inclusionary Housing, in 1981 as part of its Housing Element of the General Plan. The City Council’s purpose of the
Policy is to increase the diversity of housing prices/rents throughout the community and ensure that the range of
prices/rents continues over time. Inclusionary policies of this element require 10% affordable (inclusionary)
housing, including 5% low-income and 5% moderate-income units, for projects consisting of 50 or more dwelling
units (City of Chula Vista 2005). The Guidelines to the Balanced Communities Policy, were established to
supplement and support the Inclusionary Housing Policy of Chula Vista which are read in conjunction with the Policy.
Pursuant to the Guidelines, the City may approve alternatives to the construction of new inclusionary units where
the proposed alternative provides a more effective and feasible means of satisfying this requirement or provides a
greater public benefit. Guidelines to the Balanced Communities Policy (2015). Currently, the City is updating the
General Plan Housing Element to account for housing needs and establish clear goals and objectives to inform
future housing decisions for the 2021 to 2029 housing cycle.
City of Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan
The City’s Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) is a subregional plan under the California Natural
Community Conservation Planning Act (California Fish and Game Code Sections 2800–2835). The MSCP covers an
area encompassing 12 jurisdictions and 582,243 acres. The MSCP addresses the potential impacts of urban
growth, loss of natural habitat, and species endangerment, and creates a plan to mitigate for the potential loss of
covered species and their habitat due to the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of future development of both
public and private lands within the MSCP area. The MSCP Subregional Plan is a comprehensive, long-term habitat
conservation plan that addresses the needs of multiple sensitive plant and animal species and the preservation of
natural vegetation communities in southern San Diego County. The MSCP Subregional Plan is implemented through
local subarea plans prepared by participating jurisdictions (City of Chula Vista 2003). The City of Chula Vista MSCP
Subarea Plan was approved in 2003, and it provides for conservation of covered species and their associated
habitats by establishing a Preserve of interconnected conservation lands. The combination of the MSCP
Subregional Plan and subarea plans, including the City’s MSCP Subarea Plan, serves as a Multiple -Species
Habitat Conservation Plan pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the federal Endangered Species Act and as Natural
Community Conservation Plan and associated permit under the Natural Co mmunity Conservation Planning Act.
The MSCP Subregional Plan is being implemented in phases as participating jurisdictions and special districts
submit their subarea plans for approval to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service (USFWS) and the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). Upon approval, USFWS and CDFW authorize the take of listed species
and other species of concern, subject to the terms of the MSCP Subarea Plan and the MSCP Subregional Plan.
Conservation and management responsibilities and implementation guarantees for each subarea plan are set
forth in implementing agreements between the entity responsible for each subarea plan and USFWS and CDFW
(City of Chula Vista 2003).
The City’s MSCP Subarea Plan was approved in 2003, the City’s Implementation Agreement with USFWS and CDFW
was entered into in February 2003. The City’s MSCP Subarea Plan was prepared pursuant to a general outline
developed by USFWS and CDFW to meet the requirements of the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 407 of 1271
5.10 – Land Use and Planning
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.10-5
The City’s MSCP Subarea Plan is consistent with the MSCP Subregional Plan and contributes to its implementation.
In addition, the City’s MSCP Subarea Plan is a stand-alone document for purposes of implementing portions of the
MSCP Preserve (City of Chula Vista 2003).
The City’s MSCP Preserve was created in cooperation with USFWS and CDFW, property owners, developers, and
environmental groups. The majority of the City’s Preserve consists of hardline areas designated for 100%
conservation, and these areas are either already in public ownership or will be dedicated into the Preserve as part
of the City’s development approval process for covered projects. Preserve boundaries for covered projects were
established on a project-by-project basis after evaluation of habitat and species data and/or surveys conducted as
part of project entitlement processing, evaluation by USFWS and CDFW, and consideration of how such mitigation
could best contribute to the overall MSCP Subregional Plan (City of Chula Vista 2003).
Although the proposed project is not considered a “Covered Project” under the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, a
large portion of the project site (47%) is designated as Open Space Preserve. Land uses designated as Open Space
Preserve are areas within the City’s MSCP Subarea Plan that provide for the permanent conservation of biological
resources (City of Chula Vista 2005).
Sunbow General Development Plan
The Sunbow General Development Plan (GDP), which originally included 604.8 acres in the eastern portion of the
City, was adopted on December 5 , 1989, with the primary objective to create an efficient, self -contained village
with a mix of residential, commercial, community recreation, industrial par k, and open space/trails land uses.
The principal objective of the GDP was to develop an efficient self -contained village (City of Chula Vista 1989).
The GDP is implemented through the adoption of a more detailed SPA Plan, tentative tract maps, and potenti al
annexation and development agreements. The GDP is designed to function as a policy bridge between the
General Plan and the SPA Plan, which provides more detailed plans for development of the Sunbow Master
Planned Community . The project site is designated as Industrial Park and Open Space within the GDP (City of
Chula Vista 1989).
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan
The SPA Plan was approved by the City Council on February 20, 1990. According to the City, GDPs are
implemented through the adoption of SPA Plans, which are more detailed in its zoning, design regulations, and
development parameters. The purpose of the SPA Plan is to assure high quality development, create an
economically viable plan, provide a plan for long -range development, facilitate provisions for community facilities,
preserve open space, and establish a planning and development framework. Regulations within the SPA Plan
supersede other regulations where there is potential conflict between the GDP and the General Plan . The project
site is designated as Industrial Park and Open Space within the SPA Plan (City of Chula Vista 1990).
City of Chula Vista Municipal Code
Zoning Ordinance
Title 19 of the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC) is the City’s Zoning Code, which is intended to implement
the General Plan. The Sunbow Master Planned Community, which includes the project site, is designated as a
Planned Community (P-C) zone. Per the City’s Municipal Code Section 19.48.090, all P-C zones shall be divided into
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 408 of 1271
5.10 – Land Use and Planning
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.10-6
sectional planning areas, such is the case with the SPA Plan area. Specific land use districts are designated by the
SPA Plan. As defined in Chapter 19.48 of the CVMC, the purposes of the P-C zone are as follows:
• Provide for the orderly preplanning and long-term development of large tracts of land. These tracts may
contain a variety of land uses, but are under unified ownership or development control, so that the entire
tract will provide an environment of stable and desirable character.
• Give the developer reasonable assurance that sectional development plans in accordance with the
approved general development plan will be acceptable to the City. Sectional development plans may
include subdivision plans and/or planned unit development plans as provided in this title.
• Enable the City to adopt measures for the development of the surrounding area compatible with the
planned community zone.
According to Section 19.48.020 of the Zoning Code, P-C zoning may be established on lands that are suitable and
of sufficient size for planning and development in a manner consistent with the purpose of the zone. P -C zoning
does not include any area of less than 50 acres of contiguous land. Section 19.48.025 establishes a requirement
for Community-Purpose Facility (CPF) sites to be provided within the P-C zone at the rate of 1.39 acres per 1,000
persons. Section 19.48.090 establishes requirements for sectional planning areas.
Growth Management Ordinance
The purpose and intent of the City’s Growth Management Ordinance (GMO) (CVMC Section 19.09) is to provide
quality housing opportunities for all economic sections of the community; to balance the community with a dequate
commercial, industrial, recreational, and open space areas to support the residential areas of the City; to provide
that public facilities, services, and improvements meeting City standards exist or become available concurrent with
the need created by new development; to control the timing and location of development by tying the pace of
development to the provision of public facilities and improvements to conform to the City’s Threshold Standards;
and to meet the goals and objectives of the Growth Management Program and other programs associated with
quality of life. The GMO prohibits new development unless adequate public facilities are provided in advance of or
concurrently with the demands created by new development.
The GMO created the Growth Management Oversight Commission and established “quality of life” threshold
standards. These include police, fire, and emergency response times; anticipated demand for schools and evaluation
of school funding; establishment of a library service ratio; a service ratio for neighborhood and community park land;
water service availability; compliance with City engineering sewage flow and related standards (subdivision manual);
compliance with City engineering stormwater drainage standards (subdivision manual); maintenance of acceptable
City-wide traffic flows; and air quality and pollution overview and evaluation to foster air quality improvement pursuant
to relevant regional and local air quality improvement strategies. The GMO also requires public facilities finance plans
(PFFPs), air quality improvement plans, and water conservation plans for every SPA Plan, or, if a SPA Plan is not
required, for every tentative map (TM) application. The PFFP provides a complete description of all public facilities
included within the boundaries of the plan as defined by the development services director, including phasing and
financing of infrastructure. The plan must contain an analysis of the individual and cumulative impacts of the proposed
development on the community as it relates to the Growth Management Program, the specific facility master plans,
and the threshold standards. Proposed development must also prepare a fiscal impact report and provide funding for
periods when City expenditures for the development would exceed projected revenues.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 409 of 1271
5.10 – Land Use and Planning
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.10-7
Park Land Dedication Ordinance
Chapter 17.10 of the CVMC establishes requirements for parklands and public facilities, including regulations for
the dedication of land and development of improvements for park and recreational purposes (Section 17.10.010);
determination of park and recreational requirements (Section 17.10.020); calculation of area to be dedicated
(Section 17.10.040); specifications for park improvements (Section 17.10.050); criteria for area to be dedicated
(Section 17.10.060); procedures for in-lieu fees for land dedication and/or park development improvements
(Section 17.10.070); and other regulations regarding park development and collection and distribution of fees.
Payment of a Park Benefit Fee, as described in Section 4.4.1.1 of the EIR, addresses the project’s Park Land
Dedication Ordinance requirements.
Tentative Map
Title 18 of the CVMC requires the adoption of a TM for division and development of land into five or more parcels.
A TM is made for the purpose of showing the design of a project, including the locations and layouts of streets and
parcels. Under CVMC Section 18.04.050, provisions shall be made in a TM to assure adequate access, light, air,
and privacy on all parcels of property, regardless of the land use. CVMC Section 18.05.060 provides for necessary
land for community facilities, including schools, parks, open space, playgrounds, and other required public facilities.
The TM must be reviewed by the Director of Public Works to ensure compliance with regulations applicable to public
and private utilities, streets, and respective rights-of-way and easements. The TM also must be reviewed by the
Development Services Director with regard to the number, size, and configuration of lots to be created, and the
alignment and width of streets and easements. TMs may be adopted at the time of project approval and shall expire
in 36 months in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act, although extensions may be requested.
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
The City of Chula Vista Parks and Recreation Master Plan (PRMP) was adopted in 2002 and the most recent Draft
Update was completed in 2018. The PRMP is the blueprint for the City’s park system through the year 2030. The
PRMP identifies existing park and recreation facilities and provides guidance for future park sites, including
locations for specific types of additional recreational facilities. The PRMP envisions a comprehensive and
interrelated package of community and neighborhood parks and presents each park within the context of the whole
park system to ensure that it provides a balance of recreational opportunities. The PRMP states that the year 2030
Citywide park system will contain community, neighborhood, mini, urban, and special-purpose parks and recreation
facility and community center sites (City of Chula Vista 2018).
The PRMP includes a set of goals and policies for the City’s parks and recreation aspirations. Each goal is
accompanied by a set of specific policies, rationales, and action plans, as appropriate. The goals are as follows (City
of Chula Vista 2018):
• Create a comprehensive parks and recreation system that meets the needs of the general public of Chula
Vista by effectively distributing park types and their associated recreation facilities and programs and by
using quasi-public resources.
• Establish priorities for allocation of existing and future public parkland resources that balance public
priorities and needs with quality of parks and facilities.
• Provide a program for implementation of the City’s Goals and Policies contained herein to ensure the
continued development of a comprehensive parks and recreation system providing citywide resources for
recreation services and programs that meet the needs of its citizens.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 410 of 1271
5.10 – Land Use and Planning
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.10-8
Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan–Brown Field
The San Diego County Regional Airport Authority, designated as the Airport Land Use Commission for all public
airports in the County of San Diego, adopted the Brown Field Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) in
September 1981 (last updated in December 2010). The ALUCP assists in achieving compatible land use
development in the area surrounding Brown Field airport located in Otay Mesa on Heritage Road, east of Interstate
(I) 805. Brown Field is a general aviation airport accommodating both propeller- and jet-powered aircraft and serves
as a port of entry for private aircraft coming into the United States from Mexico. Brown Field is also heavily used by
military and law enforcement agencies and is classified as a “reliever airport” by the Federal Aviation Administration
(SDCRAA 2010). The ALUCP designates the airport influence area and contains projected noise contours, flight
activity zones, a land use compatibility matrix, and plan recommendations for areas surrounding Brown Field. The
airport influence area is delineated by using the projected 60-decibel (dB) community noise equivalency level
(CNEL) contour and is generally the area in which current and future airport-related noise, overflight, safety, and/or
airspace protection factors may affect land uses or necessitate restrictions on uses. The airport influence area is
divided into Review Area 1 and Review Area 2.
The composition of each area is determined as follows (SDCRAA 2010):
• Review Area 1 consists of locations where noise or safety concerns may necessitate limitations on the types
of land use actions. Specifically, Review Area 1 encompasses locations exposed to aircraft noise levels of
60 dB CNEL or greater together with all of the safety zones identified in the ALUCP.
• Review Area 2 consists of locations beyond Review Area 1 but within the airspace protection and/or
overflight notification areas. Limits on the heights of structures, particularly in areas of high terrain, are the
only restrictions on land uses within Review Area 2.
A portion of the project site is within Review Area 2 of the Brown Field Airport Influence Area and the entire project
site is within the FAA Height Notification Boundary (SDCRAA 2010).
5.10.1.2 On-Site Conditions
The project site is centrally located in the City, east of I-805, west of SR-125, and north of SR-905. Specifically, the
project site is located south of Olympic Parkway and adjacent to the northern boundary of the Otay Landfill. Regional
access to the project would be provided primarily by Olympic Parkway. The project site is currently accessible from
Olympic Parkway through two existing unpaved culverts crossing Poggi Canyon Creek in the northern portion of the
site. The site is currently vacant and undeveloped with no public access. Vegetation communities on the project
site primarily consist of coastal and valley freshwater marsh, Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub, Native Grassland, and
Non-native Grassland.
5.10.1.3 Surrounding Land Uses
The project site is surrounded by existing development including residential land uses to the north, west, and
southwest. Approximately 300-500 feet of open space hillsides also exists north of the project site between Olympic
Parkway and the residential land uses. South of the project site is the Otay Landfill and directly southeast of the
project site is vacant and undeveloped land planned for residential and industrial development within Otay Ranch
Village Two. Valle Lindo Elementary School is located approximately 0.25 miles west of the project site and Fire
Station 3 is located 0.2 miles northwest of the project site.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 411 of 1271
5.10 – Land Use and Planning
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.10-9
5.10.2 Thresholds of Significance
The significance criteria used to evaluate the project impacts to land use and planning is based on the
recommendations provided in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.). A significant impact
would occur if the project would:
A. Physically divide an established community.
B. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
5.10.3 Impacts
A. Physically divide an established community.
The proposed project is located on a currently vacant and undeveloped site surroun ded by existing and planned
development, as discussed in Section 5.10.1.2, On-Site Conditions. There is currently no public access to the project
site. Access to the proposed project would be provided from the existing Olympic Parkway and the project does not
propose components that would impede or present barriers to existing circulation networks within the Sunbow and
Otay Ranch communities. Rather, the proposed project would result in the development of residential uses on a site
that has historically been planned for development. Implementation of the proposed project would not physically divide
an established community. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
B. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
The proposed project would include multiple discretionary actions and/or approvals, as discussed in Section 4.5,
Discretionary Actions/Approvals, of this EIR. These would include amendments to the General Plan, GDP, and SPA
Plan as well as a Rezone, a Development Agreement, MSCP Subarea Plan Boundary Line Adjustment, MSCP Minor
Amendment, and Tentative Map approval. Currently, the southeast portion of the project site is designated as
Limited Industrial in the General Plan and Industrial Park in the GDP and SPA Plan (see Figure 3-1, Existing General
Plan Land Use; Figure 3-3, Existing General Development Plan Land Use Designation; and Figure 3-4, Existing SPA
Plan Land Use). The General Plan, GDP, and SPA Plan amendments would primarily change these land use
designations to allow for the development of residential uses and the proposed community purpose facility (see
Figure 4-2, Proposed General Plan Land Use; Figure 4-3, Proposed General Development Plan Land Use
Designation; and Figure 4-4, Proposed SPA Plan Land Use). The remainder of the project would generally remain
unchanged as Open Space Preserve or Open Space., The proposed project also includes a MSCP Boundary Line
Adjustment to correct an inadvertent error in the MSCP that placed a 100% Preserve overlay on the project site
even though the project was not identified as a Covered Project. The proposed Boundary Line Adjustment would
result in a net increase of 0.09 acres of Preserve land. The proposed project also includes a Rezone. The project
site would remain designated as SPA under the existing P-C zoning. However, the specific zoning districts identified
within the GDP and SPA Plan for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 area would be amended to allow for the proposed
residential, community purpose facility, and open space project components (see Figure 4-5, Proposed Zoning).
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 412 of 1271
5.10 – Land Use and Planning
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.10-10
Chula Vista General Plan
Land Use and Transportation Element
The Land Use and Transportation Element establishes the land use categories, roadway classifications, and
generalized land use patterns for City development, while focusing on themes that (1) support strong community
character and image, (2) support strong and safe neighborhoods, and (3) improve mobility. This element establishes
plans and policies to identify the general distribution of housing, businesses, industry, open space (including parks),
education facilities, and public buildings. Standards for population density and building intensity in each land use
classification are also provided. General Plan Land Use and Transportation Element objectives relevant to the
proposed project include the following (City of Chula Vista 2005):
• Objective LUT 1: Provide a balance of residential and non-residential development throughout the City that
achieves a vibrant development pattern, enhances the character of the City, and meets the present and
future needs of all residents and businesses.
• Objective LUT 2: Limit locations for the highest development intensities and densities, and the tallest
building forms, to key urban activity centers that are also well-served by transit.
• Objective LUT 3: Direct the urban design and form of new development and redevelopment in a manner
that blends with and enhances Chula Vista’s character and qualities, both physical and social.
• Objective LUT 6: Ensure adjacent land uses are compatible with one another.
• Objective LUT 7: Appropriate transitions should be provided between land uses.
• Objective LUT 13: Preserve scenic resources in Chula Vista, maintain the City’s open space network, and
promote beautification of the City.
• Objective LUT 29: Allow for the clustering of residential development to respond to site constraints, and
improve amenities for project residents.
• Objective LUT 71: Sustain the stable, well-maintained neighborhoods with adequate public facilities and
services that are in accordance with adopted policies and regulations intended to maintain desirable
community character.
• Objective LUT 79: Establish appropriate land uses adjacent to the Otay Landfill and Wolf Canyon that reflect
the unique land use and landform characteristics of these areas.
• Policy LUT 79.5: Limit land uses adjacent to the Otay Landfill to open space and limited industrial uses or
business park.
The proposed project would amend the General Plan to change the land use designation on the project site from
Research & Limited Industrial to Residential Medium-High and Residential High, as described above. The existing
General Plan land use designations are shown on Figure 3-1. Although residential development was not anticipated
for the project site by the General Plan, the site has historically been planned for development and the proposed
uses are currently encouraged by state law and regional planning documents due to the need for more housing within
the State. Consistent with General Plan Objective LUT 2, the proposed project would also locate higher density housing
near existing urban activity centers within the City and would be well-served by the existing transportation network
including Olympic Parkway and I-805.
The surrounding area is already substantially developed with housing to the north, west, and southwest, and the Otay
Landfill is located to the southeast. Consistent with General Plan Objective LUT 71, there is significant existing
infrastructure surrounding the project site to accommodate the proposed project including existing transportation and
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 413 of 1271
5.10 – Land Use and Planning
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.10-11
utility infrastructure (including water and sewer) adjacent to the project site within Olympic Parkway. The GMO also
requires PFFPs for every SPA Plan. A PFFP is required in conjunction with the preparation of a SPA Plan Amendment to
ensure that development of the proposed project is consistent with the overall goals and policies of the General Plan and
would not degrade public services. The Supplemental PFFP prepared for the proposed project (see Appendix B Sunbow
II, Phase 3 SPA Amendment Supplemental PFFP) provides a complete description of all public facilities included within
the boundaries of the SPA Plan area, including phasing and financing of infrastructure. The PFFP ensures that
development of project would not adversely impact the City’s quality of life standards by requiring public facilities and
services be provided concurrent with demand. Moreover, as discussed in Section 5.13, Public Services, and Section
5.16, Utilities and Service Systems, adequate public facilities and services currently exist to serve the proposed project
and the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to public facilities and services.
Consistent with General Plan Objectives LUT 1 and LUT 3, the proposed project would develop new, higher density
housing on a site in a central location within the City that is already near existing commercial and employment centers.
Additionally, consistent with General Plan Objective LUT 29, the proposed project would cluster the residential uses
in the southeast corner of the project site and maintain the open space areas throughout the remainder of the site.
The proposed project would satisfy its affordable housing obligations via a Balanced Communities Affordable Housing
Agreement between the project applicant and the City. This Balanced Communities Affordable Housing Agreement will
document satisfaction with affordable housing requirements which would help the City fulfill both deficits from past 5th
Cycle RHNA allocations and projections for current 6th Cycle RHNA allocations for low income housing, as shown in
Tables 5.12-2 and 5.12-3 and discussed in Section 5.12, Population and Housing.
The project site is currently vacant and undeveloped, which provides scenic views for motorists traveling along
Olympic Parkway. The native habitat on site is identified in the General Plan as part of the City’s open space
network. Implementation of the proposed project would preserve approximately 63.6 acres of MSCP Open
Space Preserve, 3.9 acres of Poggi Creek Conservation easements, and 16.8 acres of Manufactured
Slopes/Basins/Wetland Resources, consistent General Plan Objective LUT 13 to maintain the City’s open
space network. As discussed in more detail in Secti on 5.1, Aesthetics, the proposed project would not conflict
with General Plan policies governing scenic quality.
Finally, the proposed project would include construction of residential land uses adjacent to the Otay Landfill.
General Plan Goal LUT 79 and Policy LUT 79.5 aims to limit land uses adjacent to the Otay Landfill to open space
and limited industrial uses or business park (City of Chula Vista 2005). While the proposed project would place
residential land uses in the vicinity of Otay Landfill, the proposed project would include open space setbacks
between the Otay Landfill and the closest proposed residences ranging from approximately 50 feet to 150 feet, as
shown in Figure 4-6, Illustrative Concept Plan. The Otay Landfill is also restricted from locating composting activities
within 1000 feet of residential uses. County of San Diego Major Use Permit Minor Deviation, MUP 76 -046WM
(September 12, 2019 MUP). This would ensure the proposed project is consistent with General Plan Objective LUT
7 to provide appropriate transitions between land uses. Moreover, the site has historically been planned for
development and as discussed in the Health Risk Assessment prepared for the proposed project (see Appendix C,
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis), the landfill would cease operation in 2030, approximately 2
years after full buildout of the proposed project. As such, the proposed project would be compatible with
surrounding development and would not conflict with General Plan Objectives LUT 6, LUT 79, and Policy LUT 79.5.
The proposed project would not conflict with the Land Use and Transportation Element of the General Plan.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 414 of 1271
5.10 – Land Use and Planning
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.10-12
Housing Element
The Housing Element details the City’s seven-year strategy for the enhancement and preservation of the
community’s character, identifies strategies for expanding housing opportunities for the City’s various economic
segments and provides the official policy guidance for local decision -making related to housing. The Housing
Element of the General Plan provides the implementation mechanisms for effectively addressing housing needs in
Chula Vista throughout the 2013-2020 planning period (City of Chula Vista 2013). Currently, the City is updating
the General Plan Housing Element to account for housing needs and esta blish clear goals and objectives to inform
future housing decisions for the 2021 to 2029 housing cycle. General Plan Housing Element objectives relevant to
the proposed project include the following (City of Chula Vista 2013):
• Objective H2: Promote efficient use of water and energy through sustainable design, adopted standards,
and incentives to conserve limited resources and reduce long-term operational costs of housing, consistent
with the California Long-Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan, the most recent Energy Code including City-
specific amendments, Green Building Standards, and other related City ordinances.
• Objective H5: Encourage the provision of a wide range of housing choices and equitable distribution by
location, type of unit, and price level, in particular the establishment of permanent affordable housing for
low-and moderate-income households.
• Objective H6: Promote the development of a variety of housing choices, coupled with appropriate services,
to meet the needs of special population groups, including the homeless, those “at-risk” of becoming
homeless, persons with disabilities, and seniors.
• Objective H7: Facilitate the creation, maintenance, preservation and conservation of affordable housing for
lower and moderate-income households through comprehensive planning documents and processes, and
the provision of financial assistance and other incentives.
Consistent with the General Plan Housing Element Objective H5 and H7, and the Guidelines to the Balanced
Communities Policy the proposed project would be consistent with the City’s Inclusionary Housing Policy by entering
into a Balanced Community Affordable Housing Agreement, that will increase the diversity of housing prices and
rent in the community. Per the City’s Balanced Com munity Affordable Housing Agreement, the project’s affordable
housing obligation of 72 affordable housing units, including 36 low-income and 36 moderate-income affordable
units will be met. The project will also contribute to the City’s Regional Housing Allocation requirements, and
consistent with General Plan Objectives H5, will offer a wide range of housing choices. This Balanced Communities
Affordable Housing Agreement will document satisfaction with affordable housing requirements. Proposed
residential uses would feature four unique multi-family attached residential product types with 15 unique
floorplans, ranging in square footage from approximately 1,100 to 2,050 and in two- and three-story homes,
consistent with General Plan Objective H6. The proposed project is required to meet all State of California
accessibility requirements for people with disabilities, and fair housing practices would be employed in the sale,
rental, and advertising of all units.
Consistent with General Plan Objective H2, the proposed project would comply with the Green Building Standards,
Energy Code, and California Long-Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan. Included in the Green Building Standards
is also a mandate for 20% less water use than currently required by the state plumbing code. Finally, as discussed
in Section 5.5, Energy, the proposed project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources; and, as discussed in Section 5.16, Utilities and Service Systems, there would be
sufficient water to serve the proposed project.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 415 of 1271
5.10 – Land Use and Planning
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.10-13
As identified in the General Plan, the project site is designated Research & Limited Industrial, Open Space Preserve,
and Open Space. As such, the proposed project would conflict with the current General Plan land use designations
as described above. However, the proposed project involves an amendment to the General Plan, changing the land
use designations of the Research & Limited Industrial parcel to Residential Medium-High and High, to be processed
concurrently with the development of the proposed project. This amendment to the General Plan would allow the
proposed land uses to be developed on the project site. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with the
Housing Element of the General Plan.
Economic Development Element
The Economic Development Element establishes policies to ensure the long-term vitality of the local economy. The
purpose of the element is to help develop and guide employment and business ownership opportunities in Chula
Vista, and encourage appropriate economic and business development in the City (City of Chula Vista 2005). While
these are not adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, relevant policies of the
Economic Development Element included below are discussed:
• Policy ED 1.2: Provide sufficient tracts of land at a variety of sizes available for industrial and commercial
uses in order to provide a stable economic base.
• Policy ED 1.3: Encourage the preservation and expansion of existing industrial uses in areas
designated as industrial.
• Policy ED 1.5: Consider fiscal implications of General Plan amendments that propose changes to industrial
and commercial lands.
• Policy ED 2.3: Pursue a diverse supply of housing types and costs, as well as a diverse supply of jobs with
varying income potential, to balance local job and housing opportunities.
After marketing the project for over 30 years as an industrial park, the applicant entered into a Community Benefits
Agreement (CBA) with the City which provides an opportunity to facilitate economic growth funding for office uses within
the SR-125 corridor or the construction of facilities for academic, institutional, and innovation -related businesses within
the University Innovation District. The University Innovation District/Regional Technology Park SPA Plan provides for
development of approximately 10.1 million square feet of university and regional technologies uses, while the Eastern
Urban Center SPA Plan provides for development of approximately 3.8 million square feet of commercial/mixed use
development on 75.9 acres. This would facilitate the creation of high-quality jobs and economic growth within the City by
providing opportunities that target and attract industries and businesses that contribute to diversi fication and
stabilization of the local economy. Therefore, the project is consistent with Policies ED 1.2, 1.3, and 1.5. As discussed
above under the General Plan Housing Element, the project would include a range of housing types and opportunities.
The applicant will also enter into a Balanced Community Affordable Housing Agreement, that will increase the
diversity of housing prices and rent in the community, satisfying the project’s affordable housing obligation.
Therefore, the project is consistent with Policy ED 2.3. The project would not conflict with the Economic
Development Element of the General Plan.
Public Facilities & Services Element
The Public Facilities and Services Element establishes the City's plan to provide and maintain infrastructure and public
services for future growth, without diminishing services to existing development. Public facilities collectively refer to
utilities, such as: water; sewer; drainage; power; and telecommunications services. Public services collectively refer to
schools; libraries; law enforcement; and fire protection. This element also includes public facilities and services that
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 416 of 1271
5.10 – Land Use and Planning
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.10-14
support and enrich the community, such as: parks and recreation centers; art and cultural facilities and programs;
childcare opportunities; and health and human services. General Plan Public Facilities & Services Element objectives
relevant to the proposed project include the following (City of Chula Vista 2005):
• Objective PFS 1: Ensure adequate and reliable water, sewer, and drainage service and facilities.
• Objective PFS 2: Increase efficiencies in water use, wastewater generation and its re-use, and handling of
storm water runoff throughout the City through use of alternative technologies.
• Objective PFS 3: Ensure a long-term water supply to meet the needs of existing and future uses in Chula Vista.
• Objective PFS 4: Provide long-term wastewater treatment capacity to meet the needs of existing and new
development in Chula Vista.
• Objective PFS 5: Maintain sufficient levels of fire protection, emergency medical service and police services
to protect public safety and property.
• Objective PFS 6: Provide adequate fire and police protection services to newly developing and redeveloping
areas of the City.
• Objective PFS 24: Promote state-of-the-art telecommunication services throughout Chula Vista.
• Objective PFS 25: Efficiently handle solid waste disposal throughout the City.
Potential impacts to public facilities and services, including schools, libraries, law enforcement, and fire protection,
are discussed in Section 5.13. As discussed therein, the proposed project would pay Public Facilities Development
Impact Fees in accordance with the City’s fee schedule to ensure sufficient levels of fire protection and police
services, consistent with General Plan Objective PFS 5 and PFS 6. The proposed project is within the boundaries of
existing Community Facility Districts (CFDs) for both Chula Vista Elementary School and Sweetwater Union High
School Districts. Implementation of the CFD would ensure sufficient service by existing schools that would serve
the project site. Additionally, the proposed project would pay Park Benefit Fees, equal to the City’s Park Acquisition
and Development Fee Update, to fulfill parkland obligation requirements for population induced by the proposed
project. As such, it was determined that with payment of applicable development fees and the Park Benefit Fees,
the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts on schools, law enforcement, fire protection, and
parks and recreation. The proposed project also includes a Supplemental PFFP as required by the City’s GMO to
ensure that development of the project would not adversely impact the City’s quality of life standards by requiring
public facilities and services be provided concurrent with demand. Refer to Section 5.13 for additional information
on public services and Section 5.14, Recreation, for additional information on parks and recreation.
Potential impacts to public utilities and service systems, including water, sewer, drainage, power, and
telecommunications services are discussed in Section 5.16. As discussed therein, the proposed project would
result in less than significant impacts to water, wastewater treatment, stormwater drainage, electric power, natural
gas, and telecommunications facilities, consistent with General Plan Objectives PFS 1, 2, 4, and 24. Additionally, a
Water Supply Assessment was prepared for the proposed project, included as Appendix L2 to this EIR, and
consistent with General Plan Objective PFS 3, there would be sufficient water supply to serve the proposed project.
Finally, consistent with General Plan Objective PFS 25, there would be sufficient landfill capacity to accommodate
solid waste generated by the proposed project.
The proposed project would not conflict with the Public Facilities & Services Element of the General Plan.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 417 of 1271
5.10 – Land Use and Planning
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.10-15
Environmental Element
The Environmental Element establishes the policy framework for improving sustainability through the responsible
stewardship of Chula Vista’s natural and cultural resources, promotion of both physical and environmental health,
and protection of persons and property from environmental hazards and noise. It contains policies that reconcile
conflicting demands created when population growth and development consumes natural resources--both
renewable and non-renewable, finite resources and environmental justice policies to help achieve a healthy
sustainable community for everyone. General Plan Environment Element objectives relevant to the proposed project
include the following (City of Chula Vista 2005):
• Objective E1: Conserve Chula Vista’s sensitive biological resources.
• Objective E3: Minimize the impacts of growth and development on water supply resources through the
efficient use and conservation of water by residents, businesses, and city government.
• Objective E6: Improve local air quality and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by minimizing the release of
air pollutants and toxic air contaminants and limiting the exposure of people to such pollutants.
• Objective E7: Promote energy conservation through the efficient use of energy and through the
development of local, non-fossil fuel-based renewable sources of energy.
• Objective E8: Minimize the amount of solid waste generated within the General Plan area that requires
landfill disposal.
• Objective E9: Protect Chula Vista’s important cultural resources and support and encourage their
accessibility to the public.
• Objective E10: Protect important paleontological resources and support and encourage public education
and awareness of such resources.
• Objective E14: Minimize the risk of injury, loss of life, and property damage associated with geologic hazards.
• Objective E16: Minimize the risk of injury and property damage associated with wildland fire hazards.
• Objective E21: Protect people from excessive noise through careful land use planning and the incorporation
of appropriate mitigation techniques.
Consistent with General Plan Objective E1, the proposed project would maintain 63.6 acres as MSCP Preserve
Open Space. Additionally, impacts to biological resources are analyzed in Section 5.3, Biological Resources. As
discussed therein, all impacts to biological resources would be mitigated to a less than significant level.
Consistent with General Plan Objective E3, a Water Supply Assessment was prepared for the proposed project, included
as Appendix L2, and impacts related to water supply resources are analyzed in Section 5.16. As discussed therein, there
would be sufficient water supply to serve the proposed project, consistent with General Plan Objective E3.
Consistent with General Plan Objective E6, impacts related to air quality are analyzed in Section 5.2, Air Quality. As
discussed therein, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impacts on air quality.
Impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) are analyzed in Section 5.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. As
discussed therein, the proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts associated with
project’s efficiency metric and the state’s ability to meet future GHG emission reductions. However, the proposed
project would still implement Mitigation Measure (MM) GHG-1 (see Section 5.7.5, Mitigation Measures) to reduce
GHG emissions to the extent feasible. As such, because the proposed project would result in less-than-significant
air quality impacts and would mitigate GHG emissions to the extent feasible, the proposed project would not conflict
with General Plan Objective E6.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 418 of 1271
5.10 – Land Use and Planning
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.10-16
Consistent with General Plan Objective E7, impacts related to energy usage are analyzed in Section 5.5, Energy. As
discussed therein, the proposed project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption
of energy resources.
Consistent with General Plan Objective E8, impacts related to solid waste are analyzed in Section 5.16. As discussed
therein, there would be sufficient landfill capacity to accommodate solid waste generated by the proposed project.
Consistent with General Plan Objective E9, impacts to cultural resources are analyzed in Section 5.4, Cultural and
Tribal Cultural Resources. As discussed therein, the proposed project would have potentially significant impacts
associated with the potential disturbance of previously unrecorded archaeological resources, human remains, and
tribal cultural resources. However, the proposed project would implement MM-CUL-1 (see Section 5.4.5) to reduce
potentially significant impacts related to cultural and tribal cultural resources to less-than-significant levels.
Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with General Plan Objective E9.
Consistent with General Plan Objective E10, impacts to paleontological resources are analyzed in Section 5.6,
Geology and Soils. As discussed therein, the proposed project would have potentially significant impacts to
previously unrecorded paleontological resources. However, the proposed project would implement MM-GEO-1 (see
Section 5.6.5) to reduce potentially significant impacts to paleontological resources to a less-than-significant level.
Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with General Plan Objective E10.
Consistent with General Plan Objective E14, impacts related to geologic hazards are analyzed in Section 5.6. As
discussed therein, the proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to geologic hazards.
Consistent with General Plan Objective E16, impacts related to wildfire hazards are analyzed in Section 5.17,
Wildfire. A Fire Protection Plan (FPP) has been prepared for the proposed project and incorporated into the project
as applicable (Appendix H3). As discussed therein, the proposed project would have a potentially significant impact
associated with the project facilitating wildfire spread or exacerbating wildfire risk. However, the proposed project
would implement MM-WF-1 (see Section 5.17.5) to reduce potentially significant wildfire impacts to a less-than-
significant level. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with General Plan Objective E16.
Consistent with General Plan Objective E21, impacts related to noise are analyzed in Section 5.11, Noise. As
discussed therein, the proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to noise.
The proposed project would not conflict with the Environmental Element of the General Plan.
Growth Management Element
Growth management refers to the conscious decision to direct the pattern and rate of development through a set
of comprehensive goals, objectives, and planning policies. The purpose of this Growth Management Element is to
describe the various components that, together, create the overall Growth Management Program that guides future
development in the City. General Plan Growth Management Element objectives relevant to the proposed project
include the following (City of Chula Vista 2005):
• Objective GM 1: Concurrent public facilities and services.
As discussed above, the proposed project would not conflict with the Public Facilities and Services Element of the
General Plan. The proposed project would pay applicable development fees for, police and fire service, and the Park
Benefit Fee for park and recreation. Additionally, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 419 of 1271
5.10 – Land Use and Planning
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.10-17
to water, wastewater treatment, stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications
facilities; and there would be sufficient landfill capacity to accommodate solid waste generated by the proposed
project. As such, adequate public services and facilities would exist to serve the proposed project and the proposed
project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to public services and facilities. Therefore, the project
would be consistent with General Plan Objective GM 1.
The proposed project would not conflict with the Growth Management Element of the General Plan.
General Plan Conclusion
As discussed above, the proposed project would not result in conflicts with any element of the General Plan. Therefore, the
proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan and no significant environmental impact would occur.
Sunbow General Development Plan and Section Planning Area Plan
The GDP contains several land use goals and objectives, as listed below, followed by consistency analysis (City of
Chula Vista 1989):
• Goal 3: It is the goal of the city to accommodate a full diversity of housing types, while maintaining an
orientation to detached single-family living.
o Objective 10: Encourage the development of a diversity of housing types and prices.
o Objective 11: Assure that new development meets or exceeds a standard of high quality planning and design.
o Objective 12: Provide for the development of multiple-family housing in appropriate areas convenient
to public services, facilities and circulation.
o Objective 13: Encourage planned developments, with a coordinated mix of urban uses, open spaces,
and amenities.
• Goal 5: Open Space, Recreation, and Visual Quality
o Objective 20: Preserve to the extent feasible natural open space areas and corridors, particularly the
major canyons and valleys, as integral and functional parts of the urban pattern. Particular emphasis
is placed on the canyons, stream valleys, and other corridors that connect to the greenbelt system and
can help to extend the greenbelt and trail system into the community.
• Goal 9: Growth Management
o Objective 27: Establish a growth management system to assure that private development is
coordinated with the provision of adequate public facilities and services.
The SPA Plan contains more specific objectives that pertain to the individual land use districts identified within the
GDP and SPA Plan. With regard to the project site, these objectives specifically pertain to development of an
Industrial Use. Similar to the General Plan, the GDP and SPA Plan identify the project site as Industrial Park and
Open Space. The existing GDP and SPA Plan designations for the project site are shown on Figures 3-3 and 3-4,
respectively. As such, the proposed project would conflict with the current GDP and SPA Plan land use designations
as described above. However, the proposed project involves amendments to the GDP and SPA Plan, changing the
land use designations from Industrial Park to Residential Multi-Family and Residential Condominium, to be
processed concurrently. These amendments to the GDP and SPA Plan would allow the proposed land uses to be
developed on the project site. As such, SPA Plan objectives for the Industrial Park District are not included herein
as they would no longer apply if the proposed project proposed amendments are approved. The City conducted a
market analysis for the site relative to its existing industrial use; this analysis determined that industrial
development of the site is unlikely to be financially feasible (HR&A 2020).
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 420 of 1271
5.10 – Land Use and Planning
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.10-18
Consistent with GDP Goal 3 and Objectives 10, 11, and 13, the proposed project would provide a variety of
housing types, recreational facilities, and open space. The proposed project would satisfy its affordable housing
obligations via a Balanced Communities Affordable Housing Agreement between the project applicant and the City. This
Balanced Communities Affordable Housing Agreement will document satisfaction with affordable housing requirements.
Consistent with GDP Goal 9 and Objectives 12 and 27, the proposed project would develop multiple-family housing
that would be sufficiently served by exiting public services, facilities, and circulation, as also previously discussed
under the General Plan consistency analysis, above. Additionally, it was determined that the proposed project would
not conflict with the General Plan, including the Public Facilities and Services Element and the Growth Management
Element. Please refer to the General Plan consistency analysis above as well as Sections 5.13 and 5.16 for
additional information.
The remaining project site acreage would be composed of open space consistent with the GDP and the SPA Plan.
Specifically, approximately 63.6 acres would be MSCP Open Space Preserve, 3.9 acres of Poggi Creek Conservation
easements, and 16.8 acres of Manufactured Slopes/Basins/Wetland Resources. Development of the proposed
project would maintain the open space designation for the remainder of the project site, consistent with GDP Goal 5
and Objective 20.
The proposed project would not conflict with the goals and objectives of the GDP. Further, upon approval, the proposed
project would not conflict with the land use designations of the GDP and SPA Plan because these plans would be
amended concurrently with development of the proposed project, to allow for the proposed land uses.
Growth Management Ordinance
The purpose and intent of the City’s GMO (CVMC Section 19.09) is to provide quality housing opportunities for all
economic sections of the community; to balance the community with adequate commercial, industrial, recreational, and
open space areas to support the residential areas of the City; to provide that public facilities, services, and improvements
meeting City standards exist or become available concurrent with the need created by new development; to control the
timing and location of development by tying the pace of development to the provision of public facilities and
improvements to conform to the City’s Threshold Standards; and to meet the goals and objectives of the Growth
Management Program and other programs associated with quality of life. The GMO prohibits new development unless
adequate public facilities are provided in advance of or concurrently with the demands created by new development. The
City’s GMO requires the provision of a PFFP, air quality implementation plan, and water conservation plan for every SPA
Plan to ensure that existing public services or financing for new public facilities would be provided for new development,
that adequate water supply would be available to serve the development, and that the project would meet air quality
standards. The proposed project includes a Supplemental PFFP as required by the City’s GMO to ensure that
development of the proposed project would not adversely impact the City’s quality of life standards by requiring
public facilities and services be provided concurrent with demand (see Appendix H3, Fire Protection Plan).
Additionally, as discussed above and in Sections 5.13 and 5.16, the payment of Public Facilities Development Impact
Fees (PFDIFs) would ensure the proposed project would not significantly impact public services and facilities. As
discussed in Section 5.2, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on air quality. As discussed
in Section 5.16, there would be adequate water supply to serve the project and impacts associated with water
supply would be less than significant. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the City’s GMO.
Parkland Dedication Ordinance
Chapter 17.10 of the CVMC establishes requirements for parklands and public facilities, including regulations for
the dedication of land and development of improvements for park and recreational purposes (Section 17.10.010);
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 421 of 1271
5.10 – Land Use and Planning
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.10-19
determination of park and recreational requirements (Section 17.10.020); calculation of area to be dedicated
(Section 17.10.040); specifications for park improvements (Section 17.10.050); criteria for area to be dedicated
(Section 17.10.060); procedures for in-lieu fees for land dedication and/or park development improvements
(Section 17.10.070); and other regulations regarding park development and collection and distribution of fees. The
Parkland Dedication Ordinance requires the dedication of 3 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. The proposed
project would pay Park Benefit Fees, equal to the City’s Park Acquisition and Development Fee Update, to fulfill
parkland obligation requirements for population induced by the proposed project. As such, it was determined that
with payment of all applicable development fees, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts
on parks and recreation facilities. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the City’s Parkland
Dedication Ordinance.
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
The City’s PRMP was adopted in 2002 and a Draft Update was completed in 2018. The PRMP is the blueprint for
the City’s park system through the year 2030. The PRMP identifies existing park and recreation facilities and
provides guidance for future park sites, including locations for specific types of additional recreational facilities. The
PRMP envisions a comprehensive and interrelated package of community and neighborhood parks and presents
each park within the context of the whole park system to ensure that it provides a balance of rec reational
opportunities. The PRMP states that the year 2030 citywide park system will contain community, neighborhood,
mini, urban, and special-purpose parks and recreation facility and community center sites. The City PRMP includes
a set of goals and policies for the City’s parks and recreation aspirations. These goals and policies are as follows
(City of Chula Vista 2018):
• Goal #1: Fulfilling the Comprehensive Park System Need
Create a comprehensive parks and recreation system that meets the needs of the general public of Chula
Vista by effectively distributing park types and their associated recreation facilities and programs and by
using quasi-public resources.
o Policy 1.1: Continue to require new development to comply with the Parklands and Public Facilities
Ordinances, Chapter 17.10 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC17.10), requiring a level of service
standard of a minimum ratio of three acres of public parkland per 1,000 population so that new
development will meet the demands created by these projects.
o Policy 1.3: The City will only allow the developer to receive credit towards their public parkland
obligation for new development when the parkland they provide to the City meets the criteria
established in the Master Plan for Community, Neighborhood, Mini, Urban, and Town Square parks.
• Goal #2: Priorities for Allocation of Resources
Establish priorities for allocation of existing and future public parkland resources that balance public
priorities and needs with quality of parks and facilities.
• Goal #3: Implementation Program
Provide a program for implementation of the City’s Goals and Policies contained herein to ensure the
continued development of a comprehensive parks and recreation system providing citywide resources for
recreation services and programs that meet the needs of its citizens.
As discussed above, the proposed project would comply with the City’s Parkland Dedication Ordinance. The
proposed project would pay Park Benefit Fees, equal to the City’s Park Acquisition and Development Fee Update,
to fulfill parkland obligation requirements for population induced by the proposed project. As such, it was
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 422 of 1271
5.10 – Land Use and Planning
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.10-20
determined that with payment of Park Benefit Fee, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts
on parks and recreation facilities, consistent with the goals and policies of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan
listed above. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the Parks and Recreation Master Plan.
Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan–Brown Field
The San Diego County Regional Airport Authority, designated as the Airport Land Use Commission for all public
airports in the County of San Diego, adopted the Brown Field ALUCP in September 1981 and it was last updated in
December 2010. The ALUCP assists in achieving compatible land use development in the area surrounding Brown
Field airport located in Otay Mesa on Heritage Road, east of I -805. The airport is a general aviation airport
accommodating both propeller- and jet-powered aircraft and serves as a port of entry for private aircraft coming
into the United States from Mexico. Brown Field is also heavily used by military and law enforcement agencies and
is classified as a “reliever airport” by the Federal Aviation Administration (SDCRAA 2010). The A LUCP designates
the airport influence area and contains projected noise contours, flight activity zones, a land use compatibility matrix
and plan recommendations for areas surrounding the Brown Field airport. A portion of the project site is located in
Review Area 2 of the Brown Field Airport Influence Area, but the entire project site is located outside of safety and
noise zones for Brown Field Airport. The entire project site is also located within the FAA Height Notification
Boundary. The project applicant would be required to notify the FAA of the proposed project. However, no conflicts
with the Brown Field ALUCP would occur.
City’s Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan
The proposed project includes an MSCP Boundary Line Adjustment to correct an inadvertent error in the MSCP
that placed a 100% Preserve overlay on the project site even though the project was not identified as a Covered
Project. As a part of the proposed MSCP Boundary Line Adjustment, the proposed project is required to propose
a potentially suitable area currently located outside of the MSCP Preserve to incorporate into the MSCP Preserve
at a 1:1 acreage ratio. The proposed MSCP Boundary Line Adjustment would be required to result in equal or
higher biological value as compared to the existing MSCP Preserve. The determination of biological value of the
proposed MSCP Preserve Boundary Line Adjustment shall be made by the City, as the local jurisdiction, in
concurrence with USFWS and CDFW. A functional equivalency and Boundary Line Adjustment analysis has been
prepared for the project and is included in Appendix D. The proposed MSCP Boundary Adjustment would meet
the MSCP Boundary Line Adjustment functional equivalency criteria and would result in a 0.09-acre increase to
the MSCP Preserve Area. As discussed in Section 5.3, the proposed project would not result in conflicts with the
City’s MSCP Subarea Plan through compliance with the MSCP Boundary Line Adjustment functional equivalency
criteria. Moreover, all impacts to biological resources would be mitigated to a less than significant level. As such,
no conflicts with the City’s MSCP Subarea Plan would occur.
Conclusion
As demonstrated throughout the analysis for Threshold B, the proposed project would not result in a significant
environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Impacts would be less than significant.
5.10.4 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation
Impacts related to land use and planning would be less than significant
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 423 of 1271
5.10 – Land Use and Planning
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.10-21
5.10.5 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.
5.10.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation
No mitigation measures would be required. Impacts related to land use and planning would be less than significant.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 424 of 1271
5.10 – Land Use and Planning
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.10-22
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 425 of 1271
5.11– Noise
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.11-1
5.11 Noise
This section of the environmental impact report (EIR) addresses the potential noise impacts resulting from the
implementation of the proposed Sunbow Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase
3 Project (project or proposed project). The discussion found in this section is based on the Noise Assessment
Technical Report for the proposed project that was prepared by Dudek. The complete report is contained in
Appendix J of this EIR.
5.11.1 Existing Conditions
5.11.1.1 Regulatory Framework
Federal
Federal Transit Administration
In its Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment guidance manual, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
recommends a daytime construction noise level threshold of 80 dBA Leq over an 8-hour period (FTA 2018) when
detailed construction noise assessments are performed to evaluate potential impacts to community residences
surrounding a project. Although this FTA guidance is not a regulation, it can serve as a quantified standard in the
absence of such noise limits at the state and local jurisdictional levels.
State
California Code of Regulations, Title 24
Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations sets standards that new development in California must meet.
According to Title 24, interior noise levels are not to exceed 45 A-weighted decibel Community Noise Equivalent Level
(dBA CNEL) in any habitable room (ICC 2019).
California Department of Health Services Guidelines
The California Department of Health Services has developed guidelines of community noise acceptability for use by
local agencies (OPR 2017). Selected relevant levels are listed here:
• Below 60 dBA CNEL: normally acceptable for low-density residential use
• 50 to 70 dBA: conditionally acceptable for low-density residential use
• Below 65 dBA CNEL: normally acceptable for high-density residential use and transient lodging
• 60 to 70 dBA CNEL: conditionally acceptable for high-density residential, transient lodging, churches,
educational, and medical facilities
The normally acceptable exterior noise level for high-density residential use is up to 65 dBA CNEL. Additionally, this
exterior noise level limit is consistent with the City of Chula Vista (City) General Plan Noise Element (City of Chula Vista
2005), which considers multi- family units noise-sensitive land uses.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 426 of 1271
5.11– Noise
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.11-2
California Department of Transportation
In its Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual (Caltrans 2013 a), the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) recommends 0.5 inches per second (ips) peak particle velocity (PPV) as a threshold for
the avoidance of structural damage to typical newer residential buildings exposed to continuous or frequent
intermittent sources of groundborne vibration. For transient vibration events, such as blasting, the damage risk
threshold would be 1.0 ips PPV (Caltrans 2013a) at the same type of newer residential structures. For older
structures, these guidance thresholds would be more stringent: 0.3 ips PPV for continuous/intermittent vibration
sources, and 0.5 ips PPV for transient vibration events. With respect to human annoyance, Caltrans guidance
indicates that building occupants exposed to continuous groundborne vibration in the range of 0.2 -0.6 ips PPV
would find it “unpleasant or “annoying” and therefore a likely significant impact. Although these Caltrans guidance
thresholds are not regulations, they can serve as quantified standards in the absence of such limits at the local
jurisdictional level.
Local
City of Chula Vista Municipal Code 19.68 (Noise Ordinance)
The City of Chula Vista Noise Ordinance (Chula Vista Municipal Code [CVMC] Section 19.68) (City of Chula Vista
2020) contains regulations restricting land use related noise-generating activities and operations, so as to avoid
noise nuisance in the community. Section 19.68.030 of the CVMC establishes the maximum allowable exterior
noise limits, based upon the classification of the receiving land use. These standards typically apply to stationary
sources such as noise from mechanical equipment (including mechanical ventilation and air condition noise, pool
pump noise, etc.) or event noise, as opposed to traffic noise. For instance, a school, commercial enterprise, or
industrial operation must not generate noise that exceeds a certain specified noise level at a ny property boundary
where an adjacent residential use exists. The property-line noise standards are presented in Table 5.11-1.
Table 5.11-1. City of Chula Vista Exterior Property-Line Noise Limits
Receiving Land Use Category
Noise Level (dBA)
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
Source: Appendix J.
Note: dBA = A-weighted decibels
Title 17 of the CVMC (Environmental Quality), Chapter 24, addresses managing noisy and disorderly conduct. Section
17.24.040.C.8 specifically addresses restrictions against generation of construction noise in overnight periods. The
use of any tools, power machinery, or equipment, or the conduct of construction and building work in residential zones
so as to cause noises disturbing to the peace, comfort, and quiet enjoyment of property of any person residing or
working in the vicinity, shall be 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, except when the work is necessary for
emergency repairs required for the health and safety of any member of the community (City of Chula Vista 2020).
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 427 of 1271
5.11– Noise
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.11-3
Although the City does not set specific numerical limits for noise associated with temporary construction
activities, it can be perceived as a nuisance; therefore, the City restricts the times of day when construction may
occur (7:00 a.m.–10:00 p.m., Monday–Friday, and 8:00 a.m.–10:00 p.m., Saturday and Sunday).
5.11.1.2 Existing Setting
The project site is located within the East Planning Area of the City, as identified in the General Plan (City of Chula
Vista 2005). More specifically, the approximately 135.7-acre project site is located south of Olympic Parkway, and
generally between Brandywine Avenue and Heritage Road. The Otay Landfill is located to the south and southeast of
the site and undeveloped land approved for industrial and residential land uses is located to the east. Existing
Olympic Parkway, a six-lane prime arterial roadway, forms the northern boundary of the project site. The project site
currently consists of vacant and undeveloped land.
5.11.1.3 Noise Characteristics
Sound is mechanical energy transmitted by pressure waves in a compressible medium, such as air. Noise is defined
as sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or undesired. The sound pressure level (SPL) has become the most
common descriptor used to characterize the loudness of an ambient sound level. The unit of measurement of sound
pressure is a decibel (dB). Under controlled conditions in an acoustics laboratory, the trained, healthy human ear
is able to discern changes in sound levels of 1 dB when exposed to steady, single-frequency signals in the mid-
frequency range. Outside such controlled conditions, the trained ear can detect changes of 2 dB in normal
environmental noise. However, it is widely accepted that the average healthy ear can barely perceive noise level
changes of 3 dB. A change of 5 dB is readily perceptible, and a change of 10 dB is perceived as twice or half as loud
(Caltrans 2013b). A doubling of sound energy results in a 3 dB increase in sound, which means that a doubling of
sound energy (e.g., doubling the number of daily trips along a given road) would result in a barely perceptible change
in sound level.
Sound may be described in terms of level or amplitude (measured in dB), frequency or pitch (measured in hertz or
cycles per second), and duration (measured in seconds or minutes). Because the human ear is not equally sensitive
to sound at all frequencies, a special frequency-dependent rating scale is used to relate noise to human sensitivity.
The A-weighted decibel (dBA) scale performs this compensation by discriminating against low and very high
frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear.
Several descriptors of noise (a.k.a., noise metrics) exist to help predict average community reactions to the adverse
effects of environmental noise, including traffic-generated noise. These descriptors include the equivalent noise
level over a given period (Leq), the day–night average noise level (Ldn), and the community noise equivalent level
(CNEL). Each of these descriptors uses units of dBA.
Leq is a decibel quantity that represents the constant or energy-averaged value equivalent to the amount of variable
sound energy received by a receptor during a time interval. For example, a 1-hour Leq measurement of 60 dBA would
represent the average amount of energy contained in all the noise that occurred in that hour. L eq is an effective
noise descriptor because of its ability to assess the total time-varying effects of noise on sensitive receptors, which
can then be compared to an established Leq standard or threshold of the same duration. Another descriptor is
maximum sound level (Lmax), which is the greatest sound level measured during a designated time interval or event.
The minimum sound level (Lmin) is often called the floor of a measurement period.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 428 of 1271
5.11– Noise
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.11-4
Unlike the Leq, Lmax, and Lmin metrics, Ldn and CNEL descriptors always represent 24-hour periods and differ from a
24-hour Leq value because they apply a time-weighted factor designed to emphasize noise events that occur during
the non-daytime hours (when speech and sleep disturbance is of more concern). Time weighted refers to the fact
that Ldn and CNEL penalize noise that occurs during certain sensitive periods. In the case of CNEL, noise occurring
during the daytime (7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.) receives no penalty. Noise during the evening (7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.)
is penalized by adding 5 dB to the actual levels, and nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) noise is penalized by
adding 10 dB to the actual levels. Ldn differs from CNEL in that the daytime period is longer (defined instead as 7:00
a.m. to 10:00 p.m.), thus eliminating the dB adjustment for the evening period. L dn and CNEL are the predominant
criteria used to measure roadway noise affecting residential receptors. These two metrics generally differ from one
another by no more than 0.5–1 dB and are often considered or actually defined as being essentially equivalent by
many jurisdictions.
5.11.1.4 Vibration Fundamentals
Vibration is oscillatory movement of mass (typically a solid) over time. It is described in terms of frequency and
amplitude and, unlike sound, can be expressed as displacement, velocity, or acceleration. For environmental
studies, vibration is often studied as a velocity that, akin to the discussion of sound pressure levels, can also be
expressed in dB as a way to cast a large range of quantities into a more convenient scale and with respect to a
reference quantity. Vibration impacts to buildings are generally discussed in terms of in ips PPV, which will be used
herein to discuss vibration levels for ease of reading and comparison with relevant standards. Vibration can also be
annoying and thereby impact occupants of structures, and vibration of sufficient amplitude can disrupt sensitive
equipment and processes (Caltrans 2013a), such as those involving the use of electron microscopes and
lithography equipment. Common sources of vibration within communities include construction activities and
railroads. Groundborne vibration generated by construction projects is usually highest during pile driving, rock
blasting, soil compacting, jack hammering, and demolition-related activities where sudden releases of subterranean
energy or powerful impacts of tools on hard materials occur. Depending on their distances to a sensitive receptor,
operation of large bulldozers, graders, loaded dump trucks, or other heavy construction equipment and vehicles on
a construction site also have the potential to cause high vibration amplitudes.
5.11.1.5 Ambient Noise Monitoring
SPL measurements were conducted near the proposed project site on April 2, 2020, to quantify and characterize
the existing outdoor ambient sound levels. Table 5.11-2 provides the location, date, and time period at which these
baseline noise level measurements were performed by a Dudek field investigator using a Rion-branded Model NL-
52 sound level meter (SLM) equipped with a 0.5-inch, pre-polarized condenser microphone with pre- amplifier. The
SLM meets the current American National Standards Institute standard for a Type 1 (Precision Grade) sound level
meter. The accuracy of the SLM was verified using a field calibrator before and after the measurements, and the
measurements were conducted with the microphone positioned approximately 5 feet above the ground.
Four short-term (ST) noise level measurement locations (ST1–ST4) that represent existing noise-sensitive receivers
were selected on and near the proposed project site. ST1 and S2 two are associated with existing residences
located to the north and southwest of the site, respectively. ST3 was used as traffic calibration along Olympic
Parkway. ST 4 was chosen as an acoustically equivalent site to represent where the future buildings would be
located, as access to the development site was not granted at the time. These locations are depicted as receivers
ST1–ST4 on Figure 5.11-1, Noise Measurement and Modeling Locations. The measured Leq and Lmax noise levels
are provided in Table 5.11-2. The primary noise sources at the sites identified in Table 5.11-2 consisted of traffic
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 429 of 1271
5.11– Noise
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.11-5
along adjacent roadways, the sounds of leaves rustling, and birdsong. As shown in Table 5.11-2, the measured SPL
ranged from approximately 67.2 dBA Leq at ST3 to 45.6 dBA Leq at ST2. Beyond the summarized information
presented in Table 5.11-2, detailed noise measurement data is included in Appendix A, Baseline Noise
Measurement Field Data of Appendix J.
Table 5.11-2. Measured Baseline Outdoor Ambient Noise Levels
Site Location/Address Date/Time Leq (dBA) Lmax (dBA)
ST1 East of 760 De La Toba Rd
Chula Vista, California 91911
2020-04-02, 11:50 AM
to 12:00 PM
55.1 59.8
ST2 East of 651 Point Buchon Court,
Chula Vista, California 91911
2020-04-02, 10:50 AM
to 11:00 AM
45.6 52.9
ST3 East 1501 Brandywine Ave
Chula Vista, California 91911
2020-04-02, 11:05 AM
to 11:15 AM
67.2 81.2
ST4 Western boundary of proposed project 2020-04-02, 11:20 AM
to 11:30 AM
56.3 68.5
Source: Appendix A of Appendix J.
Notes: Leq = equivalent continuous sound level (time-averaged sound level); Lmax = maximum sound level during the measurement
interval; dBA = A-weighted decibels; ST = short-term noise measurement locations.
Generally, the measured samples of daytime Leq agree with expectations: ST3 is above 67 dBA due largely to its
proximity to Olympic Parkway, a major roadway; ST4 is farther up the bluff at the western boundary of the proposed
project; and ST1 and ST2 are well within the residential neighborhoods and much more distant from these sources
of roadway traffic noise.
5.11.2 Thresholds of Significance
The significance criteria used to evaluate the project impacts to noise is based on the recommendations provided
in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.). A significant impact would occur if the project would:
A. Generate of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the
project in excess standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies.
B. Generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels.
C. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or 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.
In light of these above significance criteria, this analysis uses the following standards to evaluate potential noise
and vibration impacts.
• Construction noise – The City regulates construction noise by restricting the allowable hours of construction.
Section 9.40.110 of the CVMC 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 CVMC,
the construction-related noise levels would not exceed any standards. The existing residential receptors to the
southwest of the proposed project site suggest that source-to-receiver distances are greater than 900 feet.
Additionally, most construction equipment and vehicles on a project site do not operate continuously. To verify
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 430 of 1271
5.11– Noise
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.11-6
noise levels during construction would not be significant, consistent with the FTA guidance mentioned in Section
5.11.1.1, Regulatory Setting, this analysis will use 80 dBA Leq over an 8-hour period as the construction noise
impact criterion during daytime hours 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.
• Off-site project-attributed transportation noise – For purposes for this analysis, a direct roadway noise
impact would be considered significant if increases in roadway traffic noise levels attributed to the
proposed project were greater than 3 dBA CNEL at an existing noise-sensitive land use.
• Off-site project-attributed stationary noise – For purposes for this analysis, a noise impact would be
considered significant if noise from typical operation of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning and other
electro-mechanical systems associated with the proposed project exceeded 50 dBA hourly Leq at the
property line from 7:00 a.m. to 9:59 p.m., and 45 dBA hourly Leq from 10:00 p.m. to 6:59 a.m.
• Construction vibration – Guidance from Caltrans indicates that a vibration velocity level of 0.2 ips PPV
received at a structure would be considered annoying by occupants within (Caltrans 2013a). As for the
receiving structure itself, aforementioned Caltrans guidance from Section 2 recommends that a vibration
level of 0.3 ips PPV would represent the threshold for building damage risk.
For purposes of disclosure, since current CEQA noise criteria listed above do not consider it, this analysis also
evaluates compatibility of on-site noise levels with the City’s exterior and interior noise standards of 65 dBA CNEL
and 45 dBA CNEL, respectively.
5.11.3 Impacts
A. Generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the
project in excess standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies.
Construction
Construction noise and vibration are temporary phenomena. Construction noise and vibration levels vary from
hour to hour and day to day, depending on the equipment in use, the operations performed, and the distance
between the source and receptor.
Equipment that would be in use during construction would include, in part, graders, backhoes, excavators, dump
trucks, loaders, cranes, dozers, gradalls, scrapers, cement mixers, pavers, rollers, welders, and air compressors.
The typical maximum noise levels for various pieces of construction equipment at a distance of 50 feet are
presented in Table 5.11-3. Usually, construction equipment operates in alternating cycles of full power and low
power, producing average noise levels over time that are less than the listed maximum noise level. The average
sound level of construction activity also depends on the amount of time that the equipment operates and the
intensity of construction activities during that time.
Table 5.11-3. Typical Construction Equipment Maximum Noise Levels
Equipment Type Typical Equipment (Lmax, dBA at 50 Feet)
Air compressor 78
Backhoe 78
Concrete pump truck 81
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 431 of 1271
5.11– Noise
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.11-7
Table 5.11-3. Typical Construction Equipment Maximum Noise Levels
Equipment Type Typical Equipment (Lmax, dBA at 50 Feet)
Dozer 85
Grader 85
Crane 81
Gradall 85
Scraper 85
Dump truck 76
Roller 80
Generator 72
Front-end loader 79
Paver 77
Welder 74
Source: Appendix J.
Note: dBA = A-weighted decibels
Aggregate noise emission from proposed project construction activities, broken down by sequential phase, was
predicted at three distances to the nearest existing noise-sensitive receptor: (1) from the nearest position of the
construction site boundary to the closest northern receptor, (2) from the nearest position of the construction site
boundary to the closest western receptor, and (3) from the nearest position of the proposed new road boundary
to the closest northern receptor. The intent of these distances is to help evaluate anticipated construction noise
from a limited quantity of typical equipment or vehicle activity expected to be at the boundary for some period of
time, which would be most appropriate for phases such as site preparation, grading, and paving. Table 5.11 -
4 summarizes these three distances to the apparent closest noise-sensitive receptor for each of the five
sequential construction phases. This analysis conservatively assumes a “worst-case” condition that places all
pieces of construction equipment of each listed type per phase at the site boundary for the entire 8-hour period.
In reality, at any given time some equipment may be further away from the site boundary.
Table 5.11-4. Estimated Distances between Construction Activities and the Nearest Noise-
Sensitive Receptors
Construction Phase
(and Equipment Types Involved)
Distance from Nearest
Noise Sensitive
Receptor to North of
Construction Site
Boundary (Feet)
Distance from
Nearest Noise
Sensitive Receptor
to West of
Construction Site
Boundary (Feet)
Distance from
Nearest Noise
Sensitive Receptor to
North of Proposed
New Road Boundary
(Feet)
Architectural Coating (air compressor) 895 940 N/A
Site Preparation (dozer, front-end loader) 895 940 580
Grading (excavator, grader, dozer,
scraper, backhoe)
895 940 580
Building Construction (crane, gradall,
generator, backhoe, welder)
895 940 N/A
Paving (paver, dump truck, roller) 895 940 580
Source: Appendix J.
Note: N/A = not applicable.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 432 of 1271
5.11– Noise
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.11-8
A Microsoft Excel–based noise prediction model emulating and using reference data from the Federal Highway
Administration Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) (FHWA 2008) was used to estimate construction noise
levels at the nearest occupied noise-sensitive land use.1 Input variables for the predictive modeling consist of the
equipment type and number of each (e.g., two graders, a loader, a tractor), the duty cycle for each piece of equipment
(e.g., percentage of time within a specific time period, such as an hour, when the equipment is expected to operate at
full power or capacity and therefore make noise at a level comparable to what is presented in Table 5.11-3, and the
distance from the noise-sensitive receiver. The predictive model also considers how many hours that equipment may
be on site and operating (or idling) within an established work shift. Conservatively, no intervening topographical or
structural shielding was assumed in the modeling. The RCNM has default duty-cycle values for the various pieces of
equipment, which were derived from an extensive study of typical construction activity patterns. Those default duty-
cycle values were used for this noise analysis, which is detailed in Appendix B, Construction Noise Modeling Input and
Output, of Appendix J, and produce the predicted results displayed in Table 5.11-5.
Table 5.11-5. Predicted Construction Noise Levels per Activity Phase
Construction Phase
(and Equipment Types Involved)
8-Hour Leq at Nearest
Noise Sensitive
Receptor to North of
Construction Site
Boundary (dBA)
8-Hour Leq at Nearest
Noise Sensitive
Receptor to West of
Construction Site
Boundary (dBA)
8-Hour Leq at Nearest
Noise Sensitive
Receptor to North of
Proposed New Road
Boundary (dBA)
Architectural Coating (air compressor) 48.6 48.2 N/A
Site Preparation (dozer, front-end loader) 59.8 59.4 63.6
Grading (excavator, grader, dozer,
scraper, backhoe)
62.0 61.6 65.8
Building Construction (crane, gradall,
generator, backhoe, welder)
61.1 60.7 N/A
Paving (paver, dump truck, roller) 56.0 55.6 59.8
Source: Appendix J.
As presented in Table 5.11-5, the estimated construction noise levels are predicted to be less than 66 dBA Leq over
an 8- hour period at the nearest existing residences (as close as 580 feet away) when site preparation activities take
place near the northern project boundaries. Note that these estimated noise levels at a source-to-receiver distance of
580 feet would occur when noted pieces of heavy equipment would each operate for a cumulative period for 8 hours
a day. The predicted operation of construction equipment and processes do not exceed noise levels of 80 dBA Leq,
which the FTA recommends as a daytime threshold for construction noise exposure over an 8-hour period at a
residential receptor. Consistent with Section 9.40.110 of the CVMC, construction activities associated with the
proposed project would only take place within the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and
8 a.m. to 10 p.m., Saturday and Sunday. In summary, typical construction noise during allowable daytime
hours would not exceed the FTA guidance -based standard. Thus, temporary construction -related noise
impacts would be less than significant.
1 Although the RCNM was funded and promulgated by the Federal Highway Administration, it is often used for non-roadway projects,
because the same types of construction equipment used for roadway projects are often used for other types of construction.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 433 of 1271
5.11– Noise
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.11-9
Operational
Roadway Traffic Noise
The proposed project would result in the creation of additional vehicle trips on local roadways (i.e., Olympic
Parkway), which could result in increased traffic noise levels at adjacent noise -sensitive land uses. Appendix C,
Traffic Noise Modeling Input and Output, of Appendix J, contains a spreadsheet with average daily traffic converted
to peak hour traffic for Olympic Parkway and surrounding arterial roadways. These peak hour volumes were
calculated by taking 10% of the average daily traffic and using a vehicle distribution of 97% autos, 2% medium
trucks, and 1% heavy trucks. Consistent with the worked example in the Caltrans Technical Noise Supplement
(“TeNS”) that is considered “fairly typical,” peak hour volume is assumed to be 10% of average daily traffic (Caltrans
2013b). In particular, the proposed project would create additional traffic along Olympic Parkway, which according
to the Traffic Impact Assessment prepared for the proposed project (Appendix K) would add 5,760 average daily
trips to the segment of Olympic Parkway and adjacent roadways surrounding the project site.
Potential noise effects from vehicular traffic were assessed using the Federal Highway Administration’s Traffic
Noise Model version 2.5 (FHWA 2004). Information used in the model included the roadway geometry, posted
traffic speeds, and traffic volumes for the following scenarios: existing (year 2019), existing plus project, near -
term (2024), and near-term plus project. Noise levels were modeled at representative noise-sensitive receivers
ST1 through ST4, as shown in Figure 5.11-1.
The General Plan Noise Element establishes a policy for exterior sensitive areas to be protected from high noise
levels. The Noise Element sets 65 dBA CNEL for the outdoor areas and 45 dBA CNEL for interior areas as the
normally acceptable levels. However, existing levels from traffic already exceed this threshold in the vicinity of
ST3. For the purposes of this noise analysis, such impacts are considered significant when they cause an increase
of 3 dB from existing noise levels. An increase or decrease in noise level of at least 3 dB is required before any
noticeable change in community response would be expected (Caltrans 2013 b). The receivers were modeled to
be 5 feet above the local ground elevation. The noise model results are summarized in Table 5.11-6.
Table 5.11-6. Roadway Traffic Noise Modeling Results
Modeled
Receiver Tag
(Location
Description)
Existing (2019)
Noise Level
(dBA CNEL)
Existing (2019)
Plus Project
Noise Level
(dBA CNEL)
Near-term
(2024) Noise
Level (dBA
CNEL)
Near-term
(2024) Plus
Project Noise
Level (dBA
CNEL)
Maximum
Project-Related
Noise Level
Increase (dB)
ST1 59.1 61.1 61.8 62.1 2.0
ST2 48.9 48.5 49.2 49.2 0.0
ST3 71.1 70.8 71.4 72.1 0.7
ST4 63.9 62.9 63.5 63.8 0.3
Source: Appendix J.
Notes: dBA = A-weighted decibel; CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level; dB = decibel.
Table 5.11-6 shows that at all four listed representative receivers, the addition of proposed project traffic to the
roadway network would result in a CNEL increase of less than 3 dB, which is below the discernible level of change
for the average healthy human ear. At some modeled locations, expected traffic noise levels are predicted to
decrease due to introduction of the proposed new buildings as sound path occlusion between them and the
roadway noise source. Thus, a project–related impact to off-site traffic noise increases affecting existing
residences in the vicinity would be less than significant.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 434 of 1271
5.11– Noise
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.11-10
Traffic Noise Exposure to Future Project Occupants
Aside from exposure to aviation traffic noise, current CEQA noise-related guidelines do not require an assessment
of exterior-to-interior noise intrusion, environmental noise exposure to occupants of newly-created project
residences, or environmental noise exposure to exterior non-residential uses attributed to the development of
the proposed project. Nevertheless, the California Building Code requires that interior background noise levels
not exceed a CNEL of 45 dB within habitable rooms. Hence, the following predictive analysis of traffic noise
exposure at the exteriors of occupied residences and outdoor living areas is provided for informational purposes.
In addition to the prediction results presented in Table 5.11-6, the Federal Highway Administration Traffic Noise
Model software was also used to predict the Near-Term Plus Project scenario traffic noise levels at multiple on-
site exterior areas, as listed in Table 5.11-7. Modeled receptor locations, which appear in Figure 5.11-1, include
representative positions for the exteriors of the northern facades.
Table 5.11-7. On-Site Roadway Traffic Noise Modeling Results
Location Modeled Receiver Description
Predicted Traffic Noise Exposure at Modeled
Receiver (dBA CNEL)
Product B M1-1 Patio 59.2
M1-2 2nd floor 64.1
M2-1 Patio 59.2
M2-2 2nd floor 64.2
M3-1 Patio 57.6
M3-2 2nd floor 63.1
M4-1 Patio 58.1
M4-2 2nd floor 63.4
Product C M5-1 Patio 58.6
M5-2 2nd floor 64.0
M5-3 3rd floor 64.9
M6-1 Patio 58.6
M6-2 2nd floor 64.1
M6-3 3rd floor 64.9
Source: Appendix J.
Notes: dBA = A-weighted decibel; CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level.
Table 5.11-7 shows that at the modeled northern facade positions representing exterior walls of occupied living
rooms or bedrooms that are closest to and face Olympic Parkway, predicted on -site CNEL values are all less than
65 dBA and all other modeled locations are consistent with the City’s guidance for exterior noise levels.
Typically, when they feature open windows, building shells provide an average of 12 –18 dB (OPR 2017) of exterior-
to-interior noise reduction. Such building facades typical of residential construction with windows closed generally
provide a minimum of 25 dB exterior-to-interior noise attenuation (FHWA 2011). An analysis of composite sound
transmission class (STC) of sample project exterior wall assemblies, including fenestration, supports these general
assertions as shown in Table 5.11-8 and are based on the following parameters:
• The exterior wall assembly includes (or is acoustically comparable to): one layer of 5/8” gypsum wallboard
on the interior-facing side, 2”×4” wood studs, glass fiber batt insulation in the stud cavities, and a thin
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 435 of 1271
5.11– Noise
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.11-11
stucco/plaster coating on one layer of 5/8” gypsum wallboard (or what may instead be underlying wooden
structural panels or sheeting having comparable mass).
• Windows are assumed to be single hung operable windows, featuring dual pane assembly composed of
two 1/8”-thick glass panes separated by a 3/8” wide air-gap.
• For purposes of this analysis, doors are sliding-type and assumed to feature a dual-pane glazing system
similar to the window assembly (i.e., two 1/8”-thick glass panes separated by a 3/8” wide air-gap) in narrow-
perimeter frames. The analysis also assumes that these door products—akin to the windows—feature good
seals and related hardware, so that when closed, the effective sound insulating performance is represented
by the gap-separated glass panes.
Table 5.11-8. Predicted Net Sound Transmission Class of Sample Occupied Room Facade
Building &
Sample
Occupied
Unit
Occupied
Room Facade
Predicted Net STC for Scenario
Closed
Window(s)
and Door(s)
Open
Window
Open
Window,
Closed Door
Open Door,
Closed
Window
Open Door,
Open
Window
B 2nd-floor
bedroom
36 11 11 11 11
C 2nd-floor living
room
35 N/A N/A N/A N/A
C 3rd-floor
bedroom
36 12 12 12 12
Source: Appendix J.
Notes: STC = sound transmission class; N/A = not applicable.
Table 5.11-8 illustrates that an open window or an open sliding door to an adjoining patio or balcony greatly
compromises the sound insulation performance of the studied wall assemblies. However, when such windows
and doors are closed, all studied sample facades are anticipated to exhibit a predicted STC rating of at least 35
and therefore would provide sufficient exterior-to-interior sound insulation from outdoor traffic noise to yield
interior background sound levels that are less than 45 dBA CNEL and thus compliant with the City and state
standards. Recall that none of the predicted exterior traffic noise levels at the studied receptor locations
exceeded 65 dBA CNEL; therefore, the STC rating value (for closed windows and doors) subtracted from these
exterior noise values must result in interior noise levels of less than 45 dBA CNEL (e.g., 65 – 35 = 30 dBA CNEL,
which is less than 45). The apparent requirement for closed windows and doors means that the design of these
habitable rooms should feature mechanical ventilation or an air-conditioning system to provide interior comfort
of the occupants. Thus, implementation of Project Design Feature (PDF) NOI-1, Exterior-to-Interior Noise Analysis
(see Section 4.4.8, Project Design Features, for details) would help demonstrate that the expected resultant
interior background noise level for inhabited rooms in the proposed project would meet the state and City interior
noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL.
Stationary Operations Noise
The incorporation of new multifamily homes and a mix of open space uses attributed to development of the
proposed project will add a variety of noise-producing mechanical equipment that include those presented and
discussed in the following paragraphs. Most of these noise-producing equipment or sound sources would be
considered stationary or limited in mobility to a defined area. Using a Microsoft Excel-based outdoor sound
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 436 of 1271
5.11– Noise
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.11-12
propagation prediction model, project- attributed operational noise at nearby community receptors was predicted
using several assumptions:
• Treatment of exposed patio air-cooled condensing units as point-type sound emission sources; and,
• Point-source sound propagation (i.e., 6 dB per doubling of distance) that conservatively ignores acoustical
absorption from atmospheric and ground surface effects.
• These condenser units would generally be installed near building exterior walls in private area “backyards”
or external areas.
• While the condenser units are expected to be at-grade, the prediction model conservatively ignores
potential noise path occlusion due to intervening building locations. Hence, should the proposed project
design develop further and position these condenser units above grade level (e.g., on rooftops or balconies),
the predictive analysis would still be considered accurate.
Please see Appendix D of Appendix J for quantitative details of the below predictions.
Residential Unit Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning Noise
For purposes of this analysis, each of the new occupied residential units would be expected to feature a split-
system type air-conditioning unit, with an air-cooled refrigeration (2-ton capacity) condenser unit at grade level.
Assuming each condenser unit has an SPL of 68 dBA at 3 feet based on available data from a likely manufacturer
(Carrier 2012), the closest existing noise-sensitive residential receptor to the south of the proposed project’s
southernmost unit would be over 900 horizontal feet to the nearest of these condenser units. The predicted
sound emission level from the combination of all 718 operating condenser units at off-site single-family receptors
would be lower than 45 dBA Leq and therefore be compliant with the City’s nighttime threshold of 50 dBA hourly
Leq. Therefore, under such conditions, the project’s noise impacts associated with operation of residential air-
conditioning units would be less than significant.
B. Generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels.
Construction
Construction activities may expose persons to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise. Caltrans has
collected groundborne vibration information related to construction activities (Caltrans 2013a). Information from
Caltrans indicates that continuous vibrations with a PPV of approximately 0.2 ips is considered annoying. For
context, heavier pieces of construction equipment, such as a bulldozer that may be expected on the project site,
have peak particle velocities of approximately 0.089 ips or less at a reference distance of 25 feet (DOT 2006).
Groundborne vibration attenuates rapidly, even over short distances. The attenuation of groundborne vibration as
it propagates from source to receptor through intervening soils and rock strata can be estimated with expressions
found in FTA and Caltrans guidance. By way of example, for a bulldozer operating on site and as close as the northern
project boundary (i.e., 580 feet from the nearest receiving sensitive land use) the estimated vibration velocity level
would be 0.001 ips per the equation as follows (FTA 2006):
PPVrcvr = PPVref * (25/D)^1.5 = 0.19 = 0.089 * (25/580)^1.5;
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 437 of 1271
5.11– Noise
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.11-13
where PPVrcvr is the predicted vibration velocity at the receiver position, PPVref is the reference value at 25 feet
from the vibration source (the bulldozer), and D is the actual horizontal distance to the receiver. Therefore, at
this predicted PPV, the impact of vibration-induced annoyance to occupants of nearby existing homes would be
less than significant.
Construction vibration, at sufficiently high levels, can also present a building damage risk. However, the predicted
0.001 ips PPV at the nearest residential receiver 580 feet away from on-site operation of the bulldozer during grading
would not surpass the guidance limit of 0.3 to 0.5 ips PPV for preventing damage to residential structures (Caltrans
2013a). Because the predicted vibration level at 580 feet is less than both the annoyance and building damage risk
thresholds, vibration from project conventional construction activities is considered less than significant.
Operation
Once operational, the proposed project would not be expected to feature major on-site producers of groundborne
vibration. Anticipated mechanical systems like pumps are designed and manufactured to feature rotating components
(e.g., impellers) that are well-balanced with isolated vibration within or external to the equipment casings. On this
basis, potential vibration impacts due to proposed project operation would be less than significant.
C. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or 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.
There are no private airstrips within the vicinity of the project site. The closest airport to the project site is the
Brown Field Municipal Airport approximately 2.5 miles southeast of the site. However, the project site is located
approximately 1.3 miles north of the closest nois e exposure boundary (60 to 65 dB CNEL), as outlined in the
Brown Field Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (San Diego County Airport Land Use Commission
2010). Airport-generated noise attenuates with distance beyond this boundary and therefore wo uld
substantially less than 60 to 65 dB CNEL at the project site. Therefore, people within the project site would
not be exposed to substantial noise from operations at Brown Field Municipal Airport. Impacts from aviation
overflight noise exposure would be considered less than significant.
5.11.4 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation
As discussed in Section 5.11.3, the proposed project’s noise impacts would be less than significant.
5.11.5 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.
5.11.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation
As no mitigation measures are required, impacts to noise associated with the proposed project would remain less
than significant.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 438 of 1271
5.11– Noise
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.11-14
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 439 of 1271
OLYMPICBRANDYWINE
M1 M2 M3
M4
M5
M6
ST1
ST2
ST3 ST4
Noise Measurement and Modeling Locations
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR
SOURCE: SanGIS 2017Date: 10/20/2020 - Last saved by: ckubacki - Path: Z:\Projects\j1261201\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\Noise\Figure5.11-1_Noise Measurement and Modeling Locations.mxdProject Boundary
Measurement Location
Modelling Location
FIGURE 5.11-1
0500250
Feet 2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 440 of 1271
5.11– Noise
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.11-16
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 441 of 1271
5.12 – Population and Housing
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.12-1
5.12 Population and Housing
This section of the environmental impact report (EIR) discusses the existing population and housing conditions in
the City of Chula Vista (City), and addresses the proposed Sunbow Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Amendment
for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project (project or proposed project) impacts on housing and population growth. Changes
in population, employment, and housing demand are social and economic effects, not environmental effects.
According to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), these effects should be considered in an EIR only to
the extent that they would create adverse impacts on the physical environment. According to Section 15382 of the
CEQA Guidelines, “[a]n economic or social change by itself shall not be considered a significant effect on the
environment” (14 CCR 15000 et seq.).
5.12.1 Existing Conditions
5.12.1.1 Regulatory Framework
Federal
No federal regulations or guidelines relating to population and housing apply to the proposed project.
State
No state regulations or guidelines relating to population and housing apply to the proposed project.
Local
San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan
The San Diego Forward: Regional Plan, combines the region’s two most important existing planning documents: the
Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP), and the Regional Transportation Plan (SANDAG 2011a) and its Sustainable
Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). The RCP, adopted in 2004, laid out key principles for managing the region ’s
growth while preserving natural resources and limiting urban sprawl. The plan covers policy areas including urban
form, transportation, housing, healthy environment, economic prosperity, public facilities, our borders, and social
equity (SANDAG 2004). These policy areas were addressed in the 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and its
Sustainable Communities Strategy (2050 RTP/SCS) and are now fully integrated into San Diego Forward: The
Regional Plan (SANDAG 2015a).
The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) estimates future population, housing, land use, and economic
growth throughout San Diego County and in individual cities, including the City. On October 15, 2013, the Series
13: 2050 Regional Growth Forecast was accepted by the SANDAG Board of Directors for planning purposes. This
forecast serves as the foundation for San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan and other planning documents across
the region. SANDAG projects the region’s population will grow by nearly 1 million people by 2050. This forecast is
consistent with previous expectations although future growth rates have been reduced due to increased domestic
migration out of the region. The growth in population will drive job growth and housing demand within the region ,
adding nearly 500,000 jobs and more than 330,000 housing units by 2050 (SANDAG 2013).
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 442 of 1271
5.12 – Population and Housing
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.12-2
SANDAG prepared a 2019 Federal Regional Transportation Plan (2019 Federal RTP), which was adopted on October
25, 2019. The 2019 Federal RTP builds on the 2015 Regional Plan with updated project costs and revenues and
a new regional growth forecast. The 2019 Federal RTP is consistent with the Final EIR approved in conjunction with
the 2015 Regional Plan on October 9, 2015. State legislation (Assembly Bill 1730), was signed into law on October
8, 2019, which ensures the 2015 Regional Plan remains valid for state funding eligibility and other consistency
purposes until the 2021 Regional Plan is adopted in late 2021. Preparation of the 2021 Regional Plan is currently
underway. In fall 2020, key policies and programs to be considered as part of the vision will be presented to SANDAG
policymakers. The draft 2021 Regional Plan and its draft Environmental Impact Report are expected to be released
for public and policymaker review in spring 2021 (SANDAG 2020).
As shown in Table 5.12-1, the SANDAG Series 13 Regional Growth Forecast for 2050 predicts population, housing,
and employment for the San Diego Region, as well as for the City of Chula Vista, for 2012 through 2050.
Table 5.12-1. San Diego Region vs. City of Chula Vista Population, Housing,
and Employment Forecast
Planning Area Year 2012 Year 2020 Year 2035 Year 2050 Increase Percent Change
Population
City of Chula
Vista
249,382 287,173 326,625 345,586 96,204 38.6%
San Diego
Region*
3,143,429 3,435,713 3,853,698 4,068,759 973,446 31.4%
Housing
City of Chula
Vista
79,225 89,176 101,188 108,273 29,048 36.7%
San Diego
Region
1,165,818 1,249,684 1,394,783 1,491,935 326,117 28%
Employment
City of Chula
Vista
65,340 82,953 93,552 114,550 49,210 75.3%
San Diego
Region
1,450,913 1,624,124 1,769,938 1,911,405 287,281 19.8%
Sources: SANDAG 2013, 2015b.
* The San Diego Region includes both incorporated and unincorporated areas of the region.
Regional Housing Needs Assessment
According to SANDAG’s 2050 Cities/Counties Forecast, the City is expected to gain 92,454 new residents and
28,755 new households (SANDAG 2015b). Furthermore, SANDAG, through its Regional Housing Needs Allocation,
estimated that , the City would experience a demand for 12,125 new housing units from January 1, 2010 through
December 31, 2020, of which 6,303 new housing units for affordable to low and very low income households and
2,220 new housing units for moderate income households. The City of Chula Vista an ticipates that much of the new
construction will result from building out the master-planned communities in the East Planning Area, such as Otay
Ranch, infill development, and mixed-use development (SANDAG 2011b).
To encourage the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of low and moderate-income households
and to further geographic and community balance, the City’s adopted Housing Element provides for a Balanced
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 443 of 1271
5.12 – Population and Housing
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.12-3
Communities Policy, requiring 10% affordable housing for low- and moderate-income households1,2 within
developments of 50 or more residential units. This inclusionary housing program will serve as only one component
of the City’s overall housing strategy and will complement other affordable housing efforts, including preservation
of existing assisted housing, development of new assisted housing with public subsidies, first-time homebuyer
assistance, and rehabilitation loans for low income homeowners. The City does find that such an inclusionary
housing policy is beneficial to increasing the supply of housing affordable to households of lower and moderate
incomes and to meet the City’s regional share of housing needs given the demographics of the community and its
needs, past housing production performance, and the existing opportunities and constraints as detailed in its
Housing Element (SANDAG 2011b).
Currently, the City is updating the General Plan Housing Element to account for housing needs and establish clear
goals and objectives to inform future housing decisions for the 2021 to 2029 housing cycle. As part of the Housing
Element update, the City must demonstrate there is sufficient capacity to accommodate the number of housing
units identified in the RHNA. As such, the RHNA allocation was released by SANDAG in November 2019 and is
helping inform preparation of the 2021 Housing Element (City of Chula Vista 2020a). Tables 5.12-2 and 5.12.3
show the past performance RHNA from the 5th Cycle (2013–2020) and the current RHNA allocation for the 6th
Cycle (2021–2029), respectively (City of Chula Vista 2020a, 2020b).
Table 5.12-2. Past Performance RHNA 5th Cycle (2013–2020)
Income Level RHNA Allocation by Level
Total Units to Date
(all years)
Total Remaining RHNA
(2019–2021)
Very Low 3,209 91 3,118
Low 2,439 557 1,882
Moderate 2,257 328 1,929
Above Moderate 4,956 7,614 2,658
Total 12,861 8,590 4,271
Source: City of Chula Vista 2020b.
Table 5.12-3. RHNA Allocation for the 6th Cycle (2021–2029)
Income Category RHNA Allocation by Level Percentage of Total Units
Extremely Low and Very Low 1,777 16%
Other Lower 2,750 25%
Moderate 1,911 17%
Above Moderate 4,667 42%
Total 11,105 100%
Source: City of Chula Vista 2020a.
1 Low-income households are households of persons who claim primary residency at the same unit with combined incomes that
are greater than 50%, but not more than 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI) for the San Diego area based on household size
as determined annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Household size is calculated by the
number of persons residing at the same unit as their primary residency.
2 Moderate-income households are households of persons who claim primary residency at the same unit with combined incomes
between 80% to 120% of the AMI for the San Diego area based on household size as determined annually by HUD. Household
size is calculated by the number of persons residing at the same unit as their primary residency.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 444 of 1271
5.12 – Population and Housing
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.12-4
Chula Vista General Plan
The City of Chula Vista General Plan (General Plan) divides the City into four planning areas: (1) the Southwest
Planning Area, (2) the Northwest Planning Area, (3) the East Planning Area, and (4) the Bayfront Planning Area (City
of Chula Vista 2005).
Under the General Plan’s Land Use and Transportation Element, population for the City is projected to increase by
101,600 persons, from 222,300 in 2004 to 323,900 in 2030 (City of Chula Vista 2005). Projected growth in the
City is summarized in Table 5.12-4. The General Plan’s projected population exceeds the SANDAG 2050 Regional
Forecast for 2030 by 34,922 persons. As shown in Table 5.12-4, the General Plan anticipates the population in the
incorporated portion of the East Planning Area to increase by 58,990 persons, from 98,710 in 2004 to 157,700 in
2030. The project site is within the East (incorporated area) planning area.
Table 5.12-4. Chula Vista Projected Population in 2030
Planning Area Year 2004 Year 2030 Increase
Bayfront 0 4,860 4,860
Southwest 53,560 72,401 18,841
Northwest 56,930 89,090 32,160
East (incorporated area) 98,710 209,256 110,546
East (unincorporated area) 13,100 25,937 12,837
Total 222,300 401,544 179,244
Source: City of Chula Vista 2005.
The General Plan incorporates a Housing Element (adopted April 23, 2013) that identifies strategies to expand
housing opportunities for the City’s various economic segments. Under the Housing Element, the provision of
new housing opportunities within mixed use areas and at higher density levels, particularly transit focus areas,
is encouraged. A primary issue of the Housing Element is the shortfall of housing, particularly affordable housing,
in the City and the region. Of the City’s previous 5 th Cycle RHNA allocation, the City has only met 8,590 out of
12,861 units; only 648 very -low and low units have been developed out of the 5,648 allocated . To address this
issue, the Housing Element requires residential developments with 50 or more dwelling units provid e 10% of
total units for low- and moderate-income households, with at least half of those (5%) designated for low -income
households (City of Chula Vista 2013). As discussed above, preparation of the 2021 Housing Element is currently
underway. The City Planning and the Housing Divisions are working together on the 2021–2029 Housing Element,
a multi-year update that will help address the growing housing challenges faced by the City. The State Department
of Housing and Community Development (HCD) deadline for adoption of local government housing elements is April
15, 2021 (City of Chula Vista 2020b).
Goals and policies listed in the General Plan encourage the provision of a wide range of housing choices by location,
type of unit, and price level, in particular the establishment of permanent affordable housing for low and m oderate-
income households. General Plan goals and polices ensure the availability of housing opportunities to persons
regardless of race, color, ancestry, national origin, religion, sex, disability, marital status, and familial status, source
of income or sexual orientation and support efforts to increase homeownership rates to build individual wealth (City
of Chula Vista 2013).
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 445 of 1271
5.12 – Population and Housing
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.12-5
Sunbow General Development Plan
The Sunbow General Development Plan (GDP), which originally included 604.8 acres in eastern Chula Vista, was
adopted on December 5, 1989, with the primary objective to create an efficient, self -contained village (City of
Chula Vista 1989).
The GDP is implemented through the adoption of the more detailed SPA Plan, tentative tract maps, and
potential ann exation and development agreements. The GDP is designed to function as a policy bridge between
the General Plan and the SPA Plan, which provides more detailed plans for development of the Sunbow Master
Planned Community (City of Chula Vista 1989).
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan
The SPA Plan was approved by the City Council in 1990. According to the City, GDPs are implemented through
the adoption of SPA Plans, which are more detailed in its zoning, design regulations, and development
parameters. The purpose of the SPA Plan is to assure high quality development, create an economically viable
plan, provide a plan for long-range development, facilitate provisions for community facilities, preserve open
space, and establish a planning and development framework. Regulations within the SPA Plan supersede other
regulations where there is potential conflict between the GDP and the General Plan (City of Chula Vista 1990).
City of Chula Vista Municipal Code
Growth Management Ordinance
The purpose and intent of the City’s Growth Management Ordinance (GMO) (CVMC Section 19.09) is to provide
quality housing opportunities for all economic sections of the community; to balance the community with adequate
commercial, industrial, recreational, and open space areas to support the residential areas of the City; to provide
that public facilities, services, and improvements meeting City standards exist or become available concurrent with
the need created by new development; to control the timing and location of development by tying the pace of
development to the provision of public facilities and improvements to conform to the City’s Threshold Standards;
and to meet the goals and objectives of the Growth Management Program and other programs associated with
quality of life. The GMO prohibits new development unless adequate public facilities are provided in advance of or
concurrently with the demands created by new development.
The GMO created the Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) and established “quality of life” threshold
standards. These include police, fire, and emergency response times; anticipated demand for schools and evaluation
of school funding; establishment of a library service ratio; a service ratio for neighborhood and community park land;
water service availability; compliance with City engineering sewage flow and related standards (subdivision manual);
compliance with City engineering stormwater drainage standards (subdivision manual); maintenance of acceptable
City-wide traffic flows; and air quality and pollution overview and evaluation to foster air quality improvement pursuant
to relevant regional and local air quality improvement strategies. The GMO also requires public facilities finance plans
(PFFPs), air quality improvement plans, and water conservation plans for every SPA Plan, or, if a SPA Plan is not
required, for every tentative map (TM) application. The PFFP provides a complete description of all public facilities
included within the boundaries of the plan as defined by the development services director, including phasing and
financing of infrastructure. The plan must contain an analysis of the individual and cumulative impacts of the proposed
development on the community as it relates to the Growth Management Program, the specific facility master plans,
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 446 of 1271
5.12 – Population and Housing
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.12-6
and the threshold standards. Proposed development must also prepare a fiscal impact report and provide funding for
periods when City expenditures for the development would exceed projected revenues.
5.12.1.2 Existing Setting
The project site lies within the East Planning Area of the City, as identified in the General Plan (City of Chula
Vista 2005). The East Planning Area is divided into six su bareas: East Main Street subarea, unincorporated
Sweetwater Subarea, Otay Ranch Subarea, Master Plan Community Subarea, unincorporated East Otay Ranch
Subarea, and other miscellaneous areas subareas (City of Chula Vista 2005). The project is located within the
Master Planned Communities Subarea, which is further broken down into six subareas: Sunbow, Rancho del Rey,
Eastlake, Rolling Hills Ranch, San Miguel Ranch, and portions of Otay Ranch. The proposed project is a component
of the GDP, which is implemented through the SPA Plan .
The eastern portion of the project site (formerly referred to as Planning Area 23 in the GDP and SPA Plan) was
originally identified to be developed as Industrial Park, while the rest of the project site was designated as
Open Space in the GDP and SPA Plan. The Industrial Park is currently designated to include an approximately
54.7-acre research/development and light industrial uses, with approximately 700,000 square feet of leasable
area generating approximately 2,800 employment o pportunities.
The approximately 135.7-acre project site currently consists of vacant and undeveloped land. There is currently no
public access; however, a number of dirt roads traverse the site. No former or current residential uses are located
within the project site.
5.12.2 Thresholds of Significance
The significance criteria used to evaluate the project impacts to Population and Housing is based on the
recommendations provided in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.). A significant impact
would occur if the project would:
A. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (i.e., by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (i.e., through extension of roads or other infrastructure).
B. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere.
5.12.3 Impacts
A. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (i.e., by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (i.e., through extension of roads or other infrastructure).
As described above, the General Plan has planned for the population of the entire City to grow by 101,600 persons
from 2004 to 2030, growing from 222,300 people in 2004 to 323,900 people in 2030. A majority of this growth
(58,990 persons) is planned in the East Planning Area, where the project site is located (City of Chula Vista 2005).
Alternatively, SANDAG Series 13 estimates the population in the City would grow from 287,173 in 2020 to 326,625
in 2035 and that housing would increase from 89,176 units in 2020 to 101,188 units in 2035 (Appendix F). According
to the General Plan Housing Element, projected population exceeds the SANDAG 2050 Regional Forecast for the year
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 447 of 1271
5.12 – Population and Housing
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.12-7
2030 by 34,922 persons (City of Chula Vista 2013). As such, SANDAG Series 13 forecasts are used herein to provide
a conservative analysis of the proposed project’s population inducement.
The proposed residential development area was originally identified to be developed as Industrial Park in the
GDP and SPA Plan . As such, the change in land use from Industrial Park to Medium-High and High Residential
would be considered unplanned population growth in excess of the original estimates in the GDP and SPA Plan.
The project proposes the development of 718 multi-family residential units in phases with partial occupancy
beginning in 2024 and full occupancy anticipated in 2028. Based on SANDAG’s Series 13 forecast, the interpolated
persons per household ratio in 2028 is 3.224. Thus, the proposed project would result in approximately 2,314.83
persons (rounded to 2,315) (Appendix F).
Although this population growth would be considered unplanned, the proposed project would only represent 5.9% of
forecasted population growth and 6% of forecasted housing growth between 2020 and 2035, based on SANDAG’s
Series 13 forecast. Additionally, development of an Industrial Park would directly result in some amount of population
growth within the City due to new employment in the area. Based on the SANDAG Series 13 growth forecast,
employment density3 in the City in 2035 is anticipated to be 17.5 jobs per developed employment acre (SANDAG 2013).
At this rate, a project consistent with the existing Industrial Park land use would result in approximately 957 employees
in 2035, some percentage of which would move to the area resulting in population growth. Although the proposed
project would result in greater population inducement, development under the existing Industrial Park land use was
already anticipated to generate some population under the City’s growth projections, associated with employees that
would move to the area as a result of development of the Industrial Park.
Furthermore, as shown in Table 5.12-2, the City was 4,271 units under the RHNA allocation for the 5th Cycle (2013–
2020) and specifically for Very Low to Moderate income levels. As shown in Table 5.12-3, the City also has a current
RHNA allocation of 11,105 units for the 6th Cycle (2021–2029), including 6,438 units for Extremely Low to
Moderate income levels. The proposed project’s entitlements would include execution of an Affordable Housing
Agreement with the City to satisfy the requirement that the project foster the provision of 72 (10% of project units)
affordable housing units. Therefore, the generation of 2,315 persons through the addition of 718 units between 2024
and 2028 would provide balanced and diverse housing to the City and would provide housing to accommodate the
City’s future growth projections.
Improvements to transportation, utilities, and public service infrastructure as part of the proposed project would
accommodate the direct growth induced by the proposed project. These improvements would not open up new
areas to development because they would connect the project site to existing transportation and utility
infrastructure (including water and sewer) adjacent to the project site on and within Olympic Parkway. The project
site has been planned for development for decades and the surrounding area is already substantially developed
with housing to the north, west, and southwest and the Otay Landfill to the southeast. Consequently, there is already
significant existing infrastructure surrounding the project and these improvements would provide access and utility
service solely to the proposed project.
Furthermore, the City of Chula Vista Growth Management Program, outlined in the Chula Vista Municipal Code Chapter
19.09, Growth Management, calls for directing growth in and around the City in an orderly fashion, to avoid “leapfrog”
development, to protect and preserve the City’s amenities, and to guide growth in a general west to east direction. The
proposed project fosters a development pattern that promotes orderly growth and prevents urban sprawl by developing
on a site surrounded by existing development and planned for development for several decades. The proposed project
3 Civilian jobs per developed employment acre (industrial, retail, office, schools, and half of mixed-use acres).
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 448 of 1271
5.12 – Population and Housing
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.12-8
will comply with the City’s GMO and established “quality of life” threshold standards (Chula Vista Municipal Code
Section 19.09, Growth Management ).
While the proposed project would directly contribute to population growth in the area as compared to existing
conditions, the population inducement resulting from the proposed project would not be considered substantial.
Impacts would be less than significant.
B. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere.
No existing or former residential uses occupy the project site as the site is currently vacant and undeveloped land.
As such, the proposed project would not displace any existing households or people, or necessitate the construction
of replacement housing elsewhere. No impact would occur.
5.12.4 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation
Impacts to housing and population would be less than significant; therefore, no mitigation is required.
5.12.5 Mitigation Measures
Impacts to housing and population would be less than significant; therefore, no mitigation is required.
5.12.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impacts to housing and population would be less than significant; therefore, no mitigation is required.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 449 of 1271
5.13 – Public Services
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.13-1
5.13 Public Services
This section of the environmental impact report (EIR) describes the existing setting related to public services and
facilities that would serve the proposed Sunbow Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II,
Phase 3 Project (project or proposed project) and evaluates potential impacts to public services due to the
implementation of the proposed project.
5.13.1 Existing Conditions
5.13.1.1 Regulatory Framework
Federal
Fire Protection Services
National Fire Protection Association
The National Fire Protection Association recommends that fire departments respond to fire calls within six minutes
of receiving the request for assistance 90% of the time. These time recommendations are based on the demands
created by a structural fire. It is crucial to attempt to arrive and intervene at a fire scene prior to the fire spreading
beyond the room of origin. Total structural destruction typically starts within eight to ten minutes after ignition.
Response time is generally defined as one minute to receive and dispatch the call, one minute to prepare to respond
to the fire station or field and four minutes (or less) travel time.
State
Fire Protection
2019 California Fire Code
The California Fire Code (Title 24, Part 9 of the California Code of Regulations) was published on July 1, 2019, and
effective January 1, 2020. The California Fire Code establishes regulations to safeguard life and property against
hazards of fire, explosion, or dangerous conditions in new and existing buildings, structures, and premises. The Fire
Code also establishes requirements intended to provide safety and assistance to firefighters and emergency
responders during emergency operations. The provisions of the Fire Code apply to the construction, alteration,
movement, enlargement, replacement, repair, equipment, use and occupancy, location, maintenance, removal,
and demolition of every building or structure throughout the State of California. The Fire Code includes regulations
regarding fire-resistance-rate construction, fire protection systems such as alarm and sprinkler systems, fire service
features such as fire apparatus access roads, means of egress fire safety during construction and demolition, and
wildland–urban interface areas.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 450 of 1271
5.13 – Public Services
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.13-2
Schools
Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982
The Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 permits the establishment of Community Facilities Districts
(CFDs), commonly referred to as “Mello-Roos.” CFDs are special districts established by local governments as a
means of financing public facilities, including schools, through a special tax imposed on the property within the
CFD. The project site is located within existing CFDs for both Chula Vista Elementary School and Sweetwater Union
High School Districts.
California Senate Bill 50
Two public school districts provide primary and secondary school facilities and services within the City of Chula
Vista: The Chula Vista Elementary School District (CVESD) (kindergarten through sixth grade) and the Sweetwater
Union High School District (SUHSD) (seventh through 12th gra de). Senate Bill 50, enacted in 1998, allows school
districts to levy a fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement against any development project within its
boundaries for the purpose of funding the construction or reconstruction of school facilities. Pursuant to
Government Code Section 65996, the payment of these fees by a developer serves to fully mitigate all potential
project impacts on school facilities to less than significant levels.
Proposition 1A
On November 3, 1998, California voters approved Proposition 1A, the Class Size Reduction Kindergarten-University
Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 1998. Prior to the passage of Proposition 1A, school districts relied on statutory
school fees established by Assembly Bill 2926 (“School Fee Legislation”), which was adopted in 1986, as well as judicial
authority (i.e., Mira-Hart-Murrieta court decisions) to mitigate the impacts of new residential development. In a post
Proposition 1A environment, the statutory fees provided for in the School Fee Legislation remains in effect and any
mitigation requirements or conditions of approval not memorialized in a mitigation agreement, after January 1, 2000
have been replaced by Alternative Fees – sometimes referred to as Level II and Level III Fees.
Leroy F. Green School Facilities Act
California Government Code Section 65995 (The Leroy F. Green School Facilities Act of 1998) set base limits and
additional provisions for school districts to levy development impact fees and to help fund expanded facilities to
house new pupils that may be generated by the development project. Sections 65996(a) and (b) state that such
fees collected by school districts provide full and complete school facilities mitigation under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). These fees may be adjusted by the District over time as conditions change
Parks and Open Space
Quimby Act
The Quimby Act, enacted in 1975, creates a framework that allows cities and counties to provide parks for growing
communities. The Quimby Act authorizes jurisdictions to adopt ordinances that require parkland dedication or
payment of in-lieu fees as a condition of approval of residential subdivisions, The Quimby Act also specifies
acceptable uses and expenditures of such funds, such as allowing developers to set aside land, donate
conservation easements, or pay direct fees for park improvements.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 451 of 1271
5.13 – Public Services
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.13-3
Proposition 40 Park Bond Act
Proposition 40, also known as the Park Bond Act allows for the maintenance for preservation of parks of the state’s
growing population by borrowing money through general obligation bonds for the development, restoration, and
acquisition of state and local parks, recreation areas and historical resources, and for land, air, and water
conservation programs.
Local
City of Chula Vista General Plan
The City of Chula Vista (City) General Plan (General Plan) was adopted on December 13, 2005 and amended on
March 17, 2020. The Public Facilities and Services Element establishes the City’s plan to provide and maintain
infrastructure and public services for future growth (City of Chula Vista 2005a).
Fire Protection Services
The General Plan (amended in 2020) recognizes that fire protection and emergency services will need to expand
as the population in the City of Chula Vista grows. The Public Facilities and Services Element includes objectives to
maintain sufficient levels of fire protection and emergency medical service to protect public safety and property
(Objective PFS 5) and provide adequate fire protection services to newly developing and redeveloping areas of the
City (Objective PFS 6). Additionally, GM 1 and Policy GM 1.11 provide for withholding discretionary approvals and
subsequent building permits from projects demonstrated to be out of compliance with applicable threshold
standards for fire and emergency medical services (City of Chula Vista 2005a).
Police Protection Services
The Public Facilities and Services Element of the General Plan includes objectives to maintain sufficient levels of
police service to protect public safety and property (Objective PFS 5) and to provide adequate police protection
services to newly developing and redeveloping areas of the City (Objective PFS 6). Additionally, Growth Management
Objective GM 1 and Policy GM 1.11 provide for withholding discretionary approvals and subsequent building
permits from projects demonstrated to be out of compliance with applicable threshold standards for police services
(City of Chula Vista 2005a).
Libraries
The General Plan recognizes that demand for library facilities will continue to increase as the City’s population grows
in the eastern areas of the City through new development, and that location is the most important reason residents
choose to utilize a particular public library. The General Plan Public Facilities and Services Element includes
objectives for the City to provide a library system of facilities and programs that meets the needs of Chula Vista
residents of all ages (Objective PFS 11) and to efficiently locate and design library facilities (Objective PFS 12).
Additionally, Growth Management Objective GM 1 and Policy GM 1.11 provide for withholding discretionary
approvals and subsequent building permits from projects demonstrated to be out of compliance with applicable
threshold standards for library services (City of Chula Vista 2005a).
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 452 of 1271
5.13 – Public Services
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.13-4
Schools
The General Plan recognizes that demand for school facilities will continue to increase as the City’s population grows and
states that it is the intent of the City to facilitate the efforts of the districts to provide school services. The Public Facilities
and Services Element includes objectives to efficiently locate and design school facilities (Objective PFS 10) (City of Chula
Vista 2005a).
Parks
The City’s open space and trail network abuts other regional open space areas and trails, including: the Bayshore
Bikeway; California Riding and Hiking Trail; Sweetwater Valley trail system; the future Otay Valley Regional Park trail
system; and the open space preserve in the eastern portion of Otay Ranch. The aforementioned open spaces and trail
networks are regional facilities that enter the City of Chula Vista jurisdiction. The goals of the General Plan to provide and
maintain infrastructure and public services and improve sustainability of the City’s natural resources are established in
the Public Facilities and Services and Environmental Elements of the General Plan. The Public Facilities and Services
Element contains objectives to provide new park and recreation facilities for residents of new development (Objective
PFS 15 and PFS 16) (City of Chula Vista 2020a). The Environmental Element of the General Plan establishes the policy
framework for improving sustainability through the responsible stewardship of the City’s natural and cultural resources
(Objective E.11), including the preservation of open space and development of connecting trails (City of Chula Vista
2005a). The City is committed to providing an integrated network of open space areas throughout the City to serve
residents, as well as to serve as a regional asset and attractor of visitors. The City of Chula Vista has significant open
space areas with a variety of natural resources. The City has taken a multi-track approach to the conservation and
management of its open space resources. Additionally, Growth Management Objective GM 1 and Policy GM 1.11
provides for withholding discretionary approvals and subsequent building permits from projects demonstrated to be out
of compliance with applicable park threshold standards (City of Chula Vista 2005a).
Chula Vista Public Facilities Development Impact Fee
In August 1989, the Chula Vista City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2320 establishing a Public Facilities
Development Impact Fee (PFDIF), which helps cover the cost of new or expanding public facilities within the City
(City of Chula Vista 2005b). The facilities are required to support future development within the City, and the fee
schedule has been adopted in accordance with California Government Code Section 66000. The proposed project
would be subject to the payment of the fee at the rate in effect at the time building permits are issued. The PFDIF
amount is determined through evaluation of the need for new facilities as it relates to the level of service demanded
by new development, which varies in proportion to the equivalent dwelling unit generated by a specific land use.
The PFDIF addresses the project’s proportional impact on capital facilities, such as structures and equipment. It
does not address the impact associated with operations and maintenance for those facilities. Public funds such as
property taxes, sales taxes, and fees generated by the project would be used to cover the incremental costs
associated with providing services. The project would be required to pay the PFDIF, which would be used exclusively
for future facility improvements necessary to ensure that the development contributes its fair share of the cost of
facilities and equipment determined to be necessary to adequately accomm odate new development in the City.
Chula Vista Municipal Code
CVMC Section 19.80.030, Controlled Residential Growth, is intended to ensure that new development would not
degrade existing public services and facilities below acceptable standards. Similarly, Section 19.09, Growth
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 453 of 1271
5.13 – Public Services
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.13-5
Management, of the CVMC provides policies and programs that tie the pace of development to the provision of
public facilities and improvements. Section 19.09 requires that a Public Finance Plan (PFFP) be implemented and
demonstrate that public services meet the Growth Management Ordinance’s quality of life standard. Other relevant
CVMC sections are discussed below.
Fire Protection Services
Ch. 15.36 Fire Code. Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC) Section 15.36.010, California Fire Code, 2019 Edition, adopted
by reference, sets the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 9, as the fire code of the City of Chula Vista.
CVMC Section 18.40.080. CVMC Section 18.40.080, Access for fire protection, dictates that in any areas where
there are fire hazards would require unobstructed easements not less than 15 feet wide from the public street to
the subdivision boundary.
Police Protection
CVMC Section 3.50.030 and 3.50.060. CVMC Section 3.50.030, Public facilities to be financed by the Fee,
indicates that a PFDIF would fund six public facilities, including police department facilities and equipment. The
service demand generated for police department facilities and equipment would be 0.747 for multi-family dwelling
units and 0.031 per industrial acre (CVMC Section 3.50.060, Determination of Fees by land use category).
Libraries
CVMC Section 3.50.030 and 3.50.060. CVMC Section 3.50.030, Public facilities to be financed by the Fee,
indicates that a PFDIF would fund six public facilities, including the library system expansion. The service demand
generated for the library system expansion by a multi-family dwelling unit would be 0.822 (CVMC Section 3.50.060,
Determination of Fees by land use category).
Section 19.09.040D specifically requires “500 square feet (gross) of adequately equipped and staffed library
facility per 1,000 population. The City of Chula Vista shall construct 60,000 gross square feet of additional library
space, over the June 30, 2000 gross square feet total, in the area east of I-805 by buildout.” The analysis of library
services provided in this section, along with the PFFPs are intended to ensure funding for any needed expansion of
services, while also ensuring that library services will be provided commensurate with development and demand.
Schools
CVMC Section 17.11.020 and 17.11.130. CVMC Section 17.11.020 states that any property to be developed shall
dedicate a portion of the land or, in lieu thereof, pay a fee for each dwelling unit in the subdivision or development.
CVMC Section 17.11.130, School district schedule, dictates that the governing body of the school district shall
submit a schedule specifying how it will use the land or fees, or both.
Parks
CVMC Section 17.10, Park Lands Dedication Ordinance, establishes requirements for parklands and public
facilities, including regulations for the dedication of land and development improvements for park and recreation
purposes (CVMC Section 17.10.010); determination of park and recreation requirements (CVMC Section
17.10.020); area to be dedicated (CVMC Section 17.10.040); specifications for park improvements (CVMC Section
17.10,050); criteria for area to be dedicated (CVMC Section 17.10.060); procedures for in lieu fees for land
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 454 of 1271
5.13 – Public Services
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.13-6
dedication and/or park development improvements (CVMC Section 17.10.070); and other regulations regarding
park development and collection and distribution of fees. The Park Lands Dedication Ordinance requires the
dedication of three acres of parkland per 1,000 people or a combination of land dedication, in -lieu fees, or park
development improvements to be offered at the time of Final Map or in the case of a residential development that
is not required to submit a Final Map, at the time of the first building permit application. As previously discussed,
CVMC Section 19.09, Growth Management, requires a PFFP and demonstration that public services, such as parks,
meet the Growth Management Ordinance’s quality of life threshold standard for parks and recreation. Furthermore,
CVMC Section 19.09.040E requires “three acres of neighborhood and community park land with appropriate
facilities per 1,000 residents east of I-805.”
City of Chula Vista Public Library Strategic Facilities Plan
The Chula Vista Public Library (CVPL) Strategic Facilities Plan is intended as a foundation for the City and the library
in planning the future of library facilities in Chula Vista. The CVPL Strategic Facilities Plan includes goals and
objectives for implementing the library’s vision and mission. These goals include maintaining an excellent and
responsive materials collection, ensuring high quality of public library services through appropriate planning
processes, ensuring that library programs and services are accessible to the broadest range of potential users, and
increasing the visibility and community awareness of the library, its services, programs, and funding needs (City of
Chula Vista 2011).
City of Chula Vista Public Library Strategic Vision Plan
The CVPL Strategic Vision Plan is a companion volume to the CVPL’s 2011 Strategic Facilities Plan (City of Chula
Vista 2014). The 2014 CVPL Strategic Vision Plan would guide the CVPL’s service directions for the next decade,
and summarizes the community’s vision for the CVPL, strategic discussions for library services and facilities, and
associated updates to the Strategic Facilities Plan.
City of Chula Vista Greenbelt Master Plan
The City of Chula Vista Greenbelt Master Plan provides guidance and continuity for planning open space and
constructing and maintaining the Greenbelt Trail (City of Chula Vista 2003). The Greenbelt Master Plan addresses
existing and potential trail locations, trail and staging area development standards, maintenance responsibilities
and a system of trails and open space that serve as a unifying element in linking other trails within the central areas
of the City. The future Otay Valley Regional Park trail, running parallel to the Otay River, is located approximately
1 mile south of the proposed project site (City of Chula Vista 2003).
City of Chula Parks and Recreation Master Plan
The City of Chula Vista Parks and Recreation Master Plan, updated and adopted by City Council on August 7, 2018,
describes a comprehensive parks and recreation system that serves the community at large through the delivery of
a variety of park sites containing a variety of recreational experiences. The Master Plan contains goals and policies
that serve as a blueprint for creating a quality park system. The document establishes goals for the creation of a
comprehensive parks and recreation system that meet the needs of the public by effectively distributing park types
and associated recreation facilities and programs throughout the City (City of Chula Vista 2018).
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 455 of 1271
5.13 – Public Services
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.13-7
City of Chula Vista Active Transportation Plan
The Chula Vista Active Transportation Plan is an update to the 2010 Pedestrian Master Plan and the 2011 Bikeway
Master Plan. The Active Transportation Plan combines the two aforementioned documents and focuses mainly on
non-motorized users (City of Chula Vista 2020b). The plan supports the integration of land use planning with
transportation planning to take into account future land use and population projections and as a means to provide
bicycle facilities to help decrease auto dependence. The plan also supports integrated planning efforts as a means
of promoting opportunities for exercise and recreation, highlighting the interconnection of bikeways with area parks.
5.13.1.2 Existing Conditions
The existing fire stations, police stations, parks, schools, and libraries surrounding the project site are discussed
below and shown on Figure 5.13-1, Facility Locations.
Fire Protection Services
Fire protection for the City of Chula Vista is provided by the Chula Vista Fire Department (CVFD). The CVFD offers
the following services: fire operations and suppression, emergency medical services (EMS), hazardous materials
response, community emergency response team, rescue services, fire protection, fire inspections, public education,
plan checking, and disaster preparedness (City of Chula Vista 2020c). The CVFD serves a population of 287,173
over a 52-square-mile service area (City of Chula Vista 2020d). Each day, there are 49 firefighters on duty with an
additional two firefighters per Strategic Quick Unit Apparatus Delivery (SQUAD) unit (City of Chula Vista 2020d).
As seen in Table 5.13-1, CVFD’s total fire department staff, as of 2019, is 161 people, including firefighters and
administrative staff (CVFD 2019a). Of the 161 CVFD employees, 150 are sworn staff, and 11 are civilian staff. As
described in the 2019 CVFD Annual Report and shown on Table 5.13-1, the CVFD’s sworn staff includes 1 fire chief, 2
deputy fire chiefs, 2 division chiefs, 6 suppression battalion chiefs, 1 administrative battalion chief, 35 suppression fire
captains, 4 administrative fire captains, 33 suppression fire engineers, 1 administrative fire engineer, 35
firefighters/paramedics, 21 firefighters/EMTs, 2 senior fire inspectors/investigators, 4 fire inspectors/investigators II,
and 3 fire inspectors/investigators I. The CVFD’s civilian staff includes 1 administrative secretary, 1 emergency services
coordinator, 1 public safety analyst, 1 training program specialist, 1 senior office specialist, 1 facility supply specialist, 1
multimedia production specialist, 1 fire prevention aid, 0.5 fire inspector II/investigator I, 0.5 intern, 1 medical director,
and 1 senior fiscal office specialist. Additionally, CVFD has 105 volunteers.
Table 5.13-1. Chula Vista Fire Department Staffing
Position Number of Employees
Sworn Staff
Fire Chief 1
Deputy Fire Chief 2
Division Chief 2
Battalion Chief – Suppression 6
Fire Captain – Suppression 35
Fire Captain – Administrative 4
Fire Engineer – Suppression 33
Fire Engineer – Administrative 1
Firefighter/Paramedic 35
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 456 of 1271
5.13 – Public Services
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.13-8
Table 5.13-1. Chula Vista Fire Department Staffing
Position Number of Employees
Firefighter/EMT 21
Senior Fire Inspector/Investigator 2
Fire Inspector/Investigator II 4
Fire Inspector/Investigator I 3
Total Sworn Staff 150
Civilian Staff
Administrative Secretary 1
Emergency Services Coordinator 1
Public Safety Analyst 1
Training Program Specialist 1
Senior Office Specialist 1
Facility Supply Specialist 1
Multimedia Production Specialist 1
Fire Prevention Aide 1
Fire Inspector II/Investigator 1 0.5
Intern 0.5
Medical Director 1
Senior Fiscal Office Specialist 1
Total Civilian Staff 11
Total 161
Source: CVFD 2019.
There are currently 10 fire stations in the City of Chula Vista, serving a population of approximately 287,173 people
and an area covering over 52 square miles. During a typical 24-hour shift, there are 34 line firefighters and two
battalion chiefs on constant duty spread among the City’s 10 fire stations. Each station has a captain, engineer and
one firefighter. Table 5.13-2 lists the locations and service areas of the 10 fire stations serving the City of Chula Vista.
Fire Station 3, located at 1401 Brandywine Avenue, Chula Vista, California 91911, is the closest existing station to
the proposed project site. This fire station is located approximately 1,000 feet north of the proposed project site. Fire
Station No. 3‘s service area includes Interstate 805, East Main Street, and South/East Chula Vista. Every day the Fire
Department has two Battalion Chiefs on-duty, each covering one half of the City. These Chiefs serve as supervisors for
a number of fire stations and their respective crews and take command of major emergency incidents. Fire Station
No. 3 is equipped with one tender/trailer and Urban Search and Rescue 53 (Type I Heavy Rescue).
Table 5.13-2. City of Chula Vista Fire Station Facilities
Location Service Area Apparatus
Fire Station 1
447 F Street
Chula Vista, California 91910
Downtown, Bayfront, Northwest City, Interstates 5,
54 & 805/North
Truck 51
Engine 51
Battalion 51
Fire Station 2
80 East J Street
Chula Vista, California 91910
Central City, Interstate 805/Central, Hilltop, Country
Club
Engine 52
OES 420
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 457 of 1271
5.13 – Public Services
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.13-9
Table 5.13-2. City of Chula Vista Fire Station Facilities
Location Service Area Apparatus
Fire Station 3
1410 Brandywine Avenue
Chula Vista, California 91911
Interstate 805, East Main Street,
South/East Chula Vista
US&R 53
Tender/Trailer
Fire Station 4
850 Paseo Ranchero
Chula Vista, California 91910
Rancho Del Rey, Bonita Long Canyon, Southwestern
College
Engine 54
Fire Station 51
391 Oxford Street
Chula Vista, California 91911
Montgomery, Harborside, Otay, Interstate 5/South
Southwest City, West/Main Street
Engine 55
Fire Station 6
605 Mt. Miguel Road
Chula Vista, California 91914
Eastlake, Rolling Hills Ranch, San Miguel Ranch Engine 56
Brush 56
Fire Station 7
1640 Santa Venetia
Chula Vista, California 91913
Otay Ranch, Village of Heritage, Heritage Hills, Village
of Countryside
Engine 57
Truck 57
Battalion 52
Fire Station 8
1180 Woods Drive
Chula Vista, California 91914
Eastlake Greens, Rolling Hills Ranch, The Woods Engine 58
Fire Station 91
266 E Oneida
Chula Vista, California 91911
Sunbow, Woodlawn Park Engine 59
Fire Station 10
1715 Millenia Avenue
Chula Vista, California 91915
Southeast Otay Ranch, Winding Walk, Millenia Engine 60
Source: City of Chula Vista 2020b.
1 It should be noted that CVFD Fire Station 5 and Fire Station 9 are being newly constructed and are anticipated to be completed by the
middle of 2021; CVFD Fire Station 5 and 9 are being newly constructed at 341 Orange Avenue (adjacent to the South Branch Chula Vista
Library) and 100 Moss Street (the southeast corner of Naples Street and Alpine Avenue), respectively.
The proposed project would be required to pay the PFDIF which would fund the City’s Fire Suppression System
expansion. Payment of the PFDIF would aid in maintaining the following City Growth Management Oversight
Commission (GMOC) Threshold Standard for the Fire Suppression System Expansion: “property equipped and
staffed fire and medical units shall respond to 80 percent of calls throughout the City within seven (7) minutes”
(City of Chula Vista 2005b). The purpose of the GMOC’s threshold and related PFDIF is to maintain the pre -
development level of fire protection and EMS in the City.
According to the 2019 GMOC Annual Report, the CVFD received approximately 20,367 calls for service in Fiscal
Year (FY) 2019 (City of Chula Vista 2020a). Of these calls, 82%, were responded to within a response time of 7
minutes during FY 2019. The current GMOC threshold standard for emergency fire response is 7 minutes or less in
80% of calls. The CVFD meets the GMOC threshold standard in FY 2019.
Emergency Medical Services
In March of 2008, CVFD contracted fire and emergency medical dispatch services with the City of San Diego Fire Rescue
Department. With this contract came upgraded response capabilities including Automatic Vehicle Location and
enhanced mutual aid capabilities. CVFD has completed its transition to a new level of EMS which provides a Paramedic
or Advanced Life Support (ALS) on all responses from the department (City of Chula Vista 2020d). The CVFD’s paramedics
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 458 of 1271
5.13 – Public Services
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.13-10
provide ALS services to those who need assistance including the capacity to start an intravenous drip (IV), defibrillation
of the heart, decompression of a collapsed lung and various other advanced aid procedures.
The CVFD’s EMS system is a combination of 911 dispatchers, CVFD first responders, and contracted American
Medical Response (AMR) transport units (CVFD 2019a). In July 2013, CVFD began providing this level of care via
five engines located at Fire Stations 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. By June of 2015, the CVFD began providing ALS level of care
via the remaining engines located at Fire Stations 1, 2, 3, and 4. Recently, Truck 51 and 57 have been added as
ALS providers making CVFD fully ALS capable – years ahead of schedule (City of Chula Vista 2020d). In the event
of any large-scale emergency in the City, the CVFD would activate their Emergency Operations Center. The
Emergency Operations Center is staffed by emergency personnel and trained City staff members with the purpose
of supporting residents during disaster by focusing on life safety, evacuation needs, as well as public utilities and
infrastructure maintenance (CVFD 2019a).
According to the CVFD’s 2019 Annual Report, the average response time for CVFD EMS’s first unit is 5 minutes and
8 seconds, and 9 minutes and 32 seconds for AMR’s EMS first unit. The average response time for CVFD’s EMS all
units is 5 minutes and 47 seconds, and 9 minutes and 44 seconds for AMR’s EMS all units (CVFD 2019b).
Police Protection Services
Police protection services for the proposed project would be provided by the Chula Vista Police Department (CVPD)
from its existing police facility located at 315 Fourth Avenue in downtown Chula Vista (City of Chula Vista 2005a). As
of August 28, 2020, the CVPD had 270 sworn employees and 108.5 civilian employees, totaling 355.5 employees. Of
the 270 sworn employees, there is 1 Police Chief, 3 Captains, 10 Lieutenants, 31 Sergeants, 54 Agents, and 171
Officers (CVPD 2020a). At least one patrol car serves each beat in the City 24 hours a day. As the City continues to
grow and the demand for police services increases, the CVPD regularly evaluates beat structure. Patrol officers
respond to calls Citywide, and the beat strength does not include traffic units, school resource officers, roving patrol
officers, and patrol sergeants who would service the project as needed. In addition, the CVPD participates in regional
mutual aid agreements which allows supporting agencies to aid in emergency situations. The CVPD opened a
community storefront facility located at 2015 Birch Road of the Otay Ranch Town Center in Chula Vista in early 2011,
which provides limited police services to the community (CVPD 2020a).
The GMOC’s Threshold Standards for the CVPD for FY 2021 includes Priority 1 Goals (Goal 1: maintain an average
response time of 6 minutes or less, and Goal 2) respond to at least 81% of calls within 7 minutes and 30 seconds)
and a Priority 2 Goal (maintain an average response time of 12 minutes or less) (CVPD 2020b). Priority One calls are
defined as emergency calls, which include: life threatening calls, felony in progress, probability of injury (crime or
accident), robbery or panic alarms, and/or urgent cover calls from officers (City of Chula Vista 2020a). Priority One
calls may require a response such as an immediate response by 2 officers from any source or assignment and/or
immediate response by paramedics/fire if injuries are believed to have occurred. Priority Two calls are defined as
urgent calls, which include: misdemeanor in progress, possibility of severe injury, serious non-routine calls (domestic
violence or other disturbances with potential for violence), and/or burglar alarms (City of Chula Vista 2020a). Priority
Two calls may require a response such as an immediate response by one or two officers, from clear units or those on
interruptible activities (traffic, field interviews, etc.).
According to the CVPD’s GMOC report, for Priority One calls, the CVPD has an average actual response time of 6
minutes and 1 second and responds to 73.23% calls within 7 minutes and 30 sections (CVPD 2020b). For Priority
Two calls, the average actual response time is 13 minute and 14 seconds. As of October 1, 2020, the CVPD does not
meet the threshold standards for Priority One threshold standards (for both Goal 1 and Goal 2) or the Priority Two
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 459 of 1271
5.13 – Public Services
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.13-11
threshold standards as stipulated by the GMOC (CVPD 2020b). However, beginning on October 22, 2018, the CVPD
began deploying drones from the rooftop of the Police Department Headquarters to 911 calls and other reports of
emergency incidents such as crimes in progress, fires, traffic accidents, and reports of dangerous subjects. This
unique concept of operations is called Drone as First Responder (DFR) and it is a transformational metho d of
policing that has demonstrated the ability to increase officer and community safety and reduce overall police
response times (City of Chula Vista 2021).
The proposed project would be required to pay the PFDIF which would fund the City’s Police Facilities and Equipment
projects (City of Chula Vista 2005b). Payment of the PFDIF would aide in enhancing the City’s GMOC Threshold
Standard for police facilities responses to emergency calls (Priority One) and urgent calls (Priority Two), which
currently do not meet the GMOC’s threshold standards.
Libraries
The City of Chula Vista operates three library facilities: the South Chula Vista Branch Library, Otay Ranch Branch
Library, and the Civic Center Branch Library (City of Chula Vista 2005a). The South Chula Vista Branch Library is the
closest library to the project site, located at 389 Orange Avenue, approximately 2.5 miles west of the proposed
project site and consists of approximately 38,000 square feet. This branch has two conference rooms seating
approximately 25 and 50 each, three small study rooms for groups of two or more that may be reserved on site and
the Rosemary Lane Galleria which acts as an exhibition space for local artists. This library is already a community
destination for social and recreational activities, particularly for teens, as well as for literacy and learning. It provides
a variety of spaces for library and community programs, cultural events, and recreational activities, as well as gallery
space for display of community art and exhibits (City of Chula Vista 2011; CVMC Section 19.09, Growth
Management). The Otay Ranch Branch Library is located at 2015 Birch Road in the Otay Ranch Town Center,
approximately 3.5 miles northeast of the proposed project site and consists of approximately 3,500 square feet
and provides a bit of everything: collection materials, computers, seating, and even a group study room.
The Civic Center Branch Library is located at 365 F Street, approximately 5 miles northwest of the proposed project
site and is the largest library facility within the City, consisting of a two -story, 55,000-square-foot building (City of
Chula Vista 2011). It also has a 152-seat auditorium and a 26-seat conference room and serves as a multi-use
facility including storage for the Heritage Museum and limited exhibition space. The Civic Center Branch site also
offers opportunities for expansion. The Strategic Facilities Plan recommends an additional 60,000 square fee t of
library space to serve Chula Vista’s buildout population.
In addition to the existing libraries described above, the current Library Facilities Master Plan (City of Chula Vista 2011)
calls for construction of the approximately 30,000 square foot Rancho del Rey library located at the intersection of East
H Street and Paseo Ranchero, approximately 2.5 miles northeast of the proposed project site. However, the Rancho del
Rey Library has been delayed indefinitely due to budget constraints (City of Chula Vista 2014).
The GMOC threshold standard for libraries is 500 gross square feet of library space, adequately equipped and
staffed, per 1,000 residents (City of Chula Vista 2020a). According to the 2019 GMOC Annual Report, the current
service ratio for FY 2019 was 350 square feet for every 1,000 residents. Therefore, the City does not current meet
the GMOC threshold for libraries.
The proposed project would be required to pay the PFDIF which would fund the City’s Library System Expansion
(City of Chula Vista 2005b). Payment of PFDIFs would aide in enhancing the City’s GMOC Threshold Standard for
the library square footage per resident ratio, which currently do not meet the GMOC’s threshold standards, and by
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 460 of 1271
5.13 – Public Services
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.13-12
funding potential future library projects. According to the Chula Vista Public Library Strategic Vision Plan (2014), an
additional approximately 60,000 square feet of library space in the City would meet the needs of the buildout
population (City of Chula Vista 2014).
Schools
Existing and Planned Educational Facilities
The CVESD (elementary schools) and the Sweetwater Union High School District (SUHSD) (middle and high schools)
would serve the proposed project site. Specifically, the project site is served by Valle Lindo Elementary School
(CVESD), Rancho Del Rey Middle School (SUHSD), Castle Park Middle School (SUHSD), Otay Ranch High School
(SUHSD), and Castle Park High School (SUHSD) (CVESD 2020a; SUHSD 2020a).
According to the CVESD webpage, the CVESD was established in 1892, is located over 103 square miles in southern
San Diego County and has 49 schools (CVESD 2020b). The CVESD serves approximately 29,600 students, primarily
grade K-6. The CVESD employs 1,703 certified employees and 1,648 classified employees. SUHSD was founded in
1920 and is located in the Cities of Chula Vista, Imperial Beach, National City, and San Diego (including the
communities of Bonita, Eastlake, Otay Mesa, San Ysidro, and South San Diego) (SUHSD 2020b). The SUHSD has
approximately 40,000 students in grades 7-12, and 22,000 adult learners.
As stated earlier, the proposed project site would be served by Valle Lindo Elementary School. Valle Lindo
Elementary School is located within the CVESD and is located at 1515 Oleander Avenue, Chula Vista, California
91911, approximately 0.25 miles west of the proposed project site. Valle Lindo Elementary School serves pre -
kindergarten to 6th grade and, as of 2019, enrolls approximately 440 students (SARC 2019a).
The Sweetwater Union High School District (SUHSD) serves the project site. Founded in 1920, SUHSD has grown to
more than 42,000 students in grades 7 through 12 and more than 32,000 adult learners. The district’s 32
campuses are located in the cities of Chula Vista, Imperial Beach, National City and San Diego, includin g the
communities of Bonita, Eastlake, Otay Mesa, San Ysidro and South San Diego. Several middle and high schools are
planned or have been recently opened in the area. The majority of the project site is within the attendance boundary
of Rancho Del Rey Middle School, while the southwestern portion of the project site is served by Castle Park Middle
School. Similarly, the majority of the project site is served by Otay Ranch High School, while the southwestern portion
of the site is served by Castle Park High School (SUHSD 2020b). All middle schools (grades 7-12) and high schools
(grades 9-12) are located approximately 1 mile from the project site.
The following schools are located within the SUHSD. Rancho Del Rey Middle School is located at 1174 East J Street,
Chula Vista, CA 91910, approximately 2 miles northeast of the proposed project site. The school serves 897
students in 7th grade and 860 students in 8th grade, totaling 1,757 students (SARC 2019b). Castle Park Middle
School is located at 160 Quintard Street, Chula Vista, California 91911, approximately 2 miles west of the proposed
project site. The school serves 408 students in 7th grade and 395 students in 8th grade, totaling 803 students
(SARC 2019c). Otay Ranch High School is located at 1250 Olympic Parkway, Chula Vista, California 91913,
approximately 2.5 miles northeast of the proposed project site. The school serves 576 students in 9th grade, 592
students in 10th grade, 578 students in 11th grade, and 626 students in 12th grade, totaling 2,372 students
(SARC 2019d). Castle Park High School is located at 1395 Hilltop Drive, Chula Vista, CA 91911, approximately 1.5
miles west of the proposed project site. The school serves 399 students in 9th grade, 424 students in 10th grade,
405 students in 11th grade, and 447 students in 12th grade, totaling 1,675 students (SARC 2019e).
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 461 of 1271
5.13 – Public Services
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.13-13
Parks
Per CVMC 17.10.040, the City’s parkland standard or parkland threshold is currently three park acres per 1,000
people (City of Chula Vista 2018). More specifically, the area to be dedicated for multiple-family dwelling units
require one acre per 128 units.
According to San Diego Association of Governments Series 13, the City’s population as of 2020 is 287,173 (see Section
5.12, Population and Housing, of this EIR). The total developed park acreage available to the public within the City is 718
acres (City of Chula Vista 2018). Currently, the ratio of parkland to population is approximately 2.64 acres of parkland
per 1,000 residents in Chula Vista, which does not currently meet the City’s parkland ratio standards as defined by CVMC
17.10.040 (City of Chula Vista 2020a). However, eastern Chula Vista, where the project is located, currently exceeds the
threshold standard for parks (City of Chula Vista 2020a). The City’s Parks and Recreation Master Plan indicates that the
City would develop an additional 363 acres of parkland by 2030, for a total of 1,081 parkland acres.
Table 5.14-3, in Section 5.14, outlines existing parks within the vicinity of the project site. As shown on this figure,
there are 8 existing parks located within 2 miles to the proposed project site, which future tenants of the proposed
project would potentially use (City of Chula Vista 2005a). These parks include Valle Lindo Park, Veteran’s Park,
Horizon Park, Greg Rogers Park, Sunbow Park, Sunridge Park, Paseo Del Rey Park, and Palomar Park. Table 5-14-3
provides detailed park information such as the street address, distance from the proposed project site, park
resource type, and total acres. As discussed earlier, public parks in the City are open to all area citizens.
Neighborhood parks generally serve a local adjacent or nearby residential neighborhood, while community parks
serve the broader community and provide a greater range of services.
Regional and County Parks
Regional and County of San Diego parks are located within or adjacent to the City of Chula Vista in eastern Chula
Vista and adjacent San Diego County. This includes the Otay Valley Regional Park and the Otay Lakes County Park
(see Section 5.14.2, Existing Conditions, for details).
5.13.2 Thresholds of Significance
The significance criteria used to evaluate the project impacts to public services is based on the recommendations
provided in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.). A significant impact would occur if the
project would:
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 of the public services:
i. Fire protection
ii. Police protection
iii. Schools
iv. Parks
v. Other public facilities
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 462 of 1271
5.13 – Public Services
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.13-14
5.13.3 Impact Analysis
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 of the public services:
i. Fire protection.
Based on current Fire Station distribution, Fire Stations 3, 7, and 9 are most likely to provide initial response.
However, all stations within the CVFD are available to service the project site, if necessary. As depicted in Table
5.13-2, CVFD Fire Station No. 3, located at 1410 Brandywine Avenue is the closest station that services the
project site. Station 3 is located 1.2 miles from the most remote portion of the development. This Station is
staffed with 4 firefighters on a Type 1 Heavy Rescue apparatus, which responds to fires, technical rescues, and
medical emergencies. Fire Stations 7 and 9, which are located at 1640 Santa Venetia and 266 East Oneida,
respectively, are the next two closest stations that could respond to the site. Station 7 is located 2.9 miles away
and is staffed with 8 firefighters on a Type 1 Fire Engine, a Ladder Truck, and a Battalion Chief vehicle. Station
91 is currently located 2.7 miles from the most southern boundary of the site but is being relocated to a point
that is 4 miles from the site. The station is equipped with a Type 1 Fire Engine and 3 firefighters.
Emergency travel time for first arriving engines from each station to the project site are derived from Google
road data while travel times are calculated using response speeds of 35 mph, consistent with nationally
recognized National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1710 and Insurance Services Office (ISO) Public
Protection Classification Program’s Response Time Standard formula (Time=0.65 + 1.7(Distance). The ISO
response travel time formula discounts speed for intersections, vehicle deceleration and acceleration, and does
not include turnout time. Automatic and/or Mutual Aid agreements with surrounding fire departments are in
place and would potentially result in additional resources that were not analyzed within this section or the
project’s FPP (Appendix H3). The first arriving engine from Station 3 with four firefighters onboard achieves an
approximately 2-minute 05-second travel time to the southeastern portion of the project site. This first arriving
response substantially conforms with the approved response goal of 5 minutes 90% of the time, and it satisfies the
OSHA two-in and two-out standard. As mentioned above, CVFD Station 9 is being newly constructed at the southeast
corner of Naples Street and Alpine Avenue and is proposed to be completed by the middle of 2021. With that said,
once construction of the new CVFD Station 9 is completed, the current second arriving engine from Station 9 would
instead be from Station 7, which archives an approximately 4-minute 58- second travel time to the southeastern
portion of the project site.
The Effective Fighting Force (EFF) or first 3 engines, 1 truck and battalion chief for a total of 14 firefighters could be
on-scene within roughly 7 minutes travel time from three fire stations (including travel time from the new CVFD
Station 9). In this case, the emergency responses from Stations 3, 7, and 9 are substantially within 5 minutes and
under the 8-minute travel time goal for EFF. Table 5.13-3 summarizes these response times.
1 It should be noted that CVFD Fire Station 9 is being newly constructed at the southeast corner of Naples Street and Alpine Avenue
and is proposed to be completed by the middle of 2021. The new CVFD Fire Station 9 when constructed, will be approximately 4
miles from the most remote portion of the development.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 463 of 1271
5.13 – Public Services
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.13-15
Table 5.13-3. CVFD Emergency Response Analysis for the Proposed Project Site
Chula Vista Fire
Department Station No.
Total Mileage to Furthest Extent
on Proposed Project Site
Estimated Response
Travel Time2 Firefighting Resources3
3 1.2 miles 2 min. 05 sec. USAR 53
(4 personnel/shift)
7 2.9 miles 4 min. 58 sec. Engine 57; Truck 57;
Battalion 52
8 personnel/shift)
9 2.7 miles 4 min. 40 sec. Engine 59
(3 personnel/shift)
9 (relocated site) 4.0 miles1 6 min. 50 secs. N/A
Notes:
1 It should be noted that CVFD Fire Station 9 is being newly constructed at the southeast corner of Naples Street and Alpine Avenue
and is proposed to be completed by the middle of 2021.
2 Presents results of response travel time utilized travel distances derived from Google road data while travel times are calculated
using response speeds at an average of 35 mph, consistent with nationally recognized National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)
1710 and does not include turnout times. Response times are to the furthest extent of the project site.
3 The Effective Firefighting Force could include responses from all three stations with a best-case assembly travel time of just under
6 minutes to the furthest extent of the project site.
Based on CVFD call volume estimates, the proposed project is conservative calculated to generate
approximately 191 calls per year, or about 0.52 calls per day, with roughly 69% of which (131 calls per year)
expected to be medical emergencies (Appendix H3).
For purposes of this analysis, Fire Stations 3 (USAR 53), 7 (Engine 57 and Truck 57), and 9 (Engine 59) were
evaluated as it provides perspective for the potential impacts from build out of the proposed project. Heavy
Rescue (USAR) 53 responded to 2,195 calls; Engine 57 responded to 1,793 calls; Truck 57 responded to 548
calls; and Engine 59 responded to 2,638 during 2018 (City of Chula Vista 2020a). This calculates as 6 calls
per day for USAR 53; 5 calls per day for Engine 57 (E57); 7 calls per day for Engine 59; and 1.5 calls per day
for Truck 57 (T57). See Appendix H3 for additional details.
As previously mentioned, the proposed project is estimated to generate approximately 191 calls per year. The
addition of less than 1 call per day to Fire Station 7 that currently has fire apparatus that responds to
approximately 1.5 (T57) and 4.9 (E57), calls per day, respectively is considered average for typical urban fire
stations. Six or seven calls per day for Stations 3 and 9, respectively, would be considered already busy stations.
For perspective, a typical station averages five calls per day and a busy station responds to about ten calls per
day. With the additional 1 call per day, as described herein, and the currently low call volume at Station 7 and
slightly above average calls at other stations, the additional calls associated with build out can be absorbed
and still result in acceptable emergency response coverage. Table 5.13-4 presents estimated call volume
increases based on the demand from the proposed project
Table 5.13-4. Fire Station Call Volumes
Chula Vista
Fire Station
Current Daily Call
Volume
Estimated Daily Call
Volume Increase
Estimated Total Daily Call Volumes
with Proposed Project1
3 6.0 (USAR 53) Less than 1.0 Approx. 6.5
7 4.9 (Engine 57) + 1.5
(Truck 57)
Less than 1.0 Less than 6.9
9 7.2 (Engine 59) Less than 1.0 Less than 7.7
Source: Appendix H3.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 464 of 1271
5.13 – Public Services
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.13-16
Notes:
1 Estimated total daily call volume is based on existing volume in addition to the conservatively calculated 0.52 calls per day from
the Proposed Project.
The available firefighting and emergency medical resources in the vicinity of the project site include an
assortment of fire apparatus and equipment considered capable of responding to the type of fires and
emergency medical services potentially occurring within the proposed project. The proposed project is projected
to slightly increase the nearest station’s (Fire Station 3) current call volume, but not at significant levels,
because the current call volume is considered slightly above average compared to other urban fire stations and
the capacity would not be considered impacted to the point of resulting in a busy or stressed condition.
Furthermore, the proposed project does not include the construction of any fire stations. However, in the event
that the new fire stations are constructed after implementation of the proposed project, the new fire stations
would be supported on a fair share basis by future development (including the proposed project), through
payment of the City’s PFDIF. The PFDIF addresses a project’s proportional impact on capital facilities, such as
structures and equipment, associated with fire protection. It does not address the impacts associated with
operations and maintenance for those facilities, and it is the City’s policy to use public funds such as property
taxes, sales taxes, and fees generated by the proposed project to cover the incremental costs associated with
providing fire services. This impact would be potentially significant if these mechanisms are not enforced.
Therefore, impacts would be potentially significant and mitigation is required (Mitigation Measure [MM] PS-1;
see Section 5.13.5, Mitigation Measures).
ii. Police protection.
The Chula Vista Police Department (CVPD) would provide law enforcement services to the project site. The CVPD
currently provides police service to the project site from its existing police facility in downtown Chula Vista. The
current ratio of police officers required to adequately serve the residents of the City is 1.16 sworn police officers
per 1,000 residents. The project would generate approximately 2,315 residents. Thus, rounding the number of
residents to 2,500 for adequate police coverage would result in approximately 3 sworn police officers (2.5
multiplied by 1.16) required to support the population generated from the project. The City’s PFDIF, described
previously, would help cover the cost of new or expanding public facilities within the City, incl uding police
facilities. The proposed project would be subject to the payment of the PFDIF at the rate in effect at the
time building permits are issued. Although additional law enforcement staff may be required to adequately
support the proposed project at buildout, the project would be required to pay the PFDIF, which would be used
exclusively for future facility improvements necessary to ensure that the development contributes its fair share
of the cost of police facilities and equipment determined to be necessary to adequately accommodate new
development in the City. This impact would be potentially significant if these PFDIF mechanisms are not
enforced. Therefore, impacts would be potentially significant and mitigation is required (MM-PS-1).
iii. Schools.
The proposed project would increase the number of dwelling units and population within the City, thereby generating
a number of students (see Section 5.12). Students from the proposed project would be served by CVESD’s Valle
Lindo Elementary School and SUHSD’s Rancho Del Rey Middle School, Castle Park Middle School, Otay Ranch High
School, and/or Castle Park High School (CVESD 2020b; SUHSD 2020b).
The additional population generated by the proposed project could potentially overcrowd schools and result in
the need for additional schools. Schools are funded through the payment of Development Impact Fees (DIFs)
pursuant to SB 50/Government Code Section 65995. CVESD collects Level I Schedule fees for new residential
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 465 of 1271
5.13 – Public Services
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.13-17
and commercial/industrial developments (CVESD 2010). SUHSD currently collects Level I Schedule fees for
residential and commercial developments based on the square footage of the new developments (SUHSD
2020c). Fees paid by the developer would be used to offset the impact of the number of new students
generated by the development of the proposed project. These fees are required to be paid by future
development prior to issuance of building permits.
As stated previously, the project site is located within existing CFDs for CVESD and SUHSD, which impose a
special tax on property owners to finance both school districts. Any development of new school facilities
resulting from these CFDs would be undertaken by the school district and an environmental document would
be prepared at such time. Pursuant to Education Code Section 17620(a)(1), the governing board can authorize
the levy of a fee, charge, dedication, or other requirements against any construction within school district
boundaries, and with the school district’s collection of Statutory and Alternative fees developers could fully
mitigate their impact. However, in the event that these taxes are not implemented, impacts to schools would
be potentially significant. Therefore, impacts would be potentially significant and mitigation is required (MM-
PS-2; see Section 5.13.5).
iv. Parks.
As discussed above, the City’s existing parkland to resident ratio conditions do not meet the standards defined
in CVMC 17.10.040. However, according to the City’s Parks and Recreation Master Plan, in 2030, the City’s
forecasted population would be 340,215 and 1,237 acres of developed parkland would be within the City. With
the projected population and the anticipated additional 363 acres of parkland development, the City would have a
parkland ratio of 3.64 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. The proposed project is aligned with the City’s
forecasted population growth for 2030 (see Section 5.12). The proposed project would not disrupt the City’s existing
conditions and existing plans that would create an adequate parkland per resident ratio.
The Applicant would comply with CVMC Section 19.80, Controlled Residential Development, which would
ensure that development would not degrade existing public services and facilities below acceptable standards
for parks and other public services. Payment of appropriate fees (further discussed below) would allow existing
public services and facilities to remain at acceptable standards while the usage potentially increases due to
the population increase resulting from the proposed project. The applicant would comply with CVMC Section
19.09, Growth Management, which provides policies and programs that tie the pace of development to the
provision of public facilities and improvements. CVMC Section 19.09.040E, specifically, requires three acres of
neighborhood and community park land with appropriate facilities per 1,000 residents east of I-805.
Additionally, the proposed project would pay the appropriate land acquisition and park development fees to
offset potential impacts to recreational facilities and parkland. A Community Benefit Agreement between the
City and the Applicant stipulates that the Applicant shall pay the City a Park Benefit Fee, equal to the Park
Acquisition and Development (PAD) fee that would have been due pursuant to CVMC Section 17.10, of
approximately $11.03 million based on 2019 PAD fees, which may be revised by the City from time to time.
The Public Benefit Fee would be used by the City to acquire or develop parkland, pursuant to the City’s Parks
and Recreation Master Plan. Without payment of the Park Benefit Fees, impacts associated with parks would
be potentially significant. Therefore, impacts would be potentially significant and mitigation is required (MM-PS-
3; see Section 5.13.5).
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 466 of 1271
5.13 – Public Services
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.13-18
v. Libraries.
The proposed project would result in increased demand for libraries and may have the potential to require the
construction of new or expanded library facilities. The Chula Vista Library Strategic Vision Plan establishes a
standard of 500 square feet of adequately equipped and staffed library facilities per 1,000 residents (City of
Chula Vista 2014). The proposed project development would result in approximately 2,315 persons (see
Section 5.12 of this EIR). Thus, the proposed project would generate demand for approximately 1,158 square
feet of additional library facilities within the City. Although the proposed project does not specifically include the
development of a library, this demand would be satisfied through payment of PFDIF as stated in CVMC Section
3.50.030 and 3.50.060, which would go toward the City’s library system expansion program. Thus, impacts
would be potentially significant if these PFDIF mechanisms are not enforced. Therefore, impacts would be
potentially significant and mitigation is required (MM-PS-1).
5.13.4 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation
Prior to mitigation, the proposed project would have potentially significant impacts associated with fire protection,
police protection, libraries, and schools.
5.13.5 Mitigation Measures
Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce identified potentially significant impacts
associated with fire protection, police protection, libraries, and schools to a less-than-significant level:
MM-PS-1 Prior to the issuance of each building permit for any residential dwelling units, the applicant shall
pay a Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFDIF) in accordance with the fees in effect at the
time of building permit issuance and phasing approved in the Supplemental Public Facilities
Finance Plan, unless stated otherwise in a separate development agreement.
MM-PS-2 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide evidence or certification by
the Chula Vista Elementary School District (CVESD) and the Sweetwater Union High School District
(SUHSD) that any fee charge, dedication or other requirement levied by the school district (s) has
been complied with or that the district(s) has determined the fee, charge, dedication or other
requirements do not apply to the construction or that the applicant has entered into a school
mitigation agreement. School facility mitigation fees shall be in accordance with the fees in effect
at the time of building permit issuance.
MM-PS-3 No earlier than issuance of certificate of occupancyPrior to the issuance of each building permit for
any residential dwelling units, the applicant shall pay the Park Benefit Fee, as outlined in the
project’s Development Agreement, equal to the City’s Park Acquisition and Development (PAD) Fee
Update pursuant to Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 17.10. The final Park Benefit Fee amount
shall be determined based on the number and type of residential units constructed and the PAD
fee rates in effect as of the effective date of paymentthe project’s Development Agreement. To
create this Park Benefit Fee, the City will waive the parkland dedication and development
requirements set in Chapter 17.10 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, including the Parkland
Acquisition and Public Facilities Development fees, and Quimby Act fees. The Park Benefit Fee shall
satisfy the project’s park obligations and may be utilized by the City to acquire or develop parkland,
as the City determines appropriate and in the best interest of the City.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 467 of 1271
5.13 – Public Services
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.13-19
5.13.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of MM-PS-1 through MM-PS-3 would reduce potentially significant impacts associated with fire
protection, police protection, libraries, and schools to a less-than-significant level.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 468 of 1271
5.13 – Public Services
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.13-20
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 469 of 1271
Date: 1/26/2021 - Last saved by: ckubacki - Path: Z:\Projects\j1261201\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\EIR\Figure5.13_FacilityLocations.mxd7575
54
125BroadwayHigh
land
Ave
E 3 0 th S tLaMedi
a
RdE L St
O ta y L a k e s Rd
EastlakePkwyE H S tBonitaRdMain StHi
l
l
t
opDrReoDr Sw e e t w a t e r R d
F StNat
i
onal
Ci
t
yBl
vdPalomar
S
t
E Plaza Blvd
L S tEucl
i
dAveBeyer
BlvdJ S tE St
4th AveOt
ayVal
l
ey
RdValley R d
H St
Mari
naPk w y
P a l m Av eBeyerWay H
u
n
t
e
Pk
wy
He
rit
a
g
e
R
d
O ly m p ic P k w yOran g e Ave
E P a l o m arStTelegraph Canyon R d
Lake
Cr
estDr5
805
LOWER OTAY
RESERVOIR
UPPER OTAY
RESERVOIR
Facility Locations
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR
SOURCE: SanGIS 2017; Open Street Map 2019
010.5 Miles
Project Boundary
City of Chula Vista
Facility
Fire Station
Police Station
Library
Park
School
FIGURE 5.13
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 470 of 1271
5.13 – Public Services
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.13-22
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 471 of 1271
5.15 – Transportation
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.15-1
5.15 Transportation
This section of the environmental impact report (EIR) addresses potential impacts to transportation resulting from
the proposed Sunbow Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project (project
or proposed project). The discussion in this section is based on the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared
for the project by Linscott, Law, and Greenspan (LLG). The complete report is provided in Appendix K of this EIR.
5.15.1 Existing Conditions
5.15.1.1 Regulatory Framework
Federal
No federal regulations or guidelines relating to transportation apply to the proposed project.
State
Senate Bill 743
In September 2013, the Governor’s Office signed SB 743 into law, starting a process that fundamentally changes
the way transportation impact analysis is conducted under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Within
the State’s CEQA Guidelines, these changes include the elimination of auto delay, level of service (LOS), and similar
measurements of vehicular roadway capacity and tra ffic congestion as the basis for determining significant
impacts. The guidance identifies vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as the most appropriate CEQA transportation metric,
along with the elimination of auto delay/LOS for CEQA purposes statewide. The justification for this paradigm shift
is that auto delay/level of service (LOS) impacts lead to improvements that increase roadway capacity and therefore
induce more traffic and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The legislation was also intended to incentivize
development in and around Transit Priority Areas (TPAs) and High-Quality Transit Corridors (HQTCs), and to
encourage high density infill and mixed-use projects. In January 2016, the Governor’s Office of Planning and
Research (OPR) issued Draft Guidance, which provided recommendations for updating the State’s CEQA Guidelines
in response to SB 743 and recommended practice for VMT analysis in an accompanying Technical Advisory on
Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (Technical Advisory). OPR’s most recent Technical Advisory is dated
December 2018.
Statewide Transportation Improvement Program
The Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), run by the California Transportation Commission, is a
multi-year, statewide, intermodal program of transportation projects that is consistent with the statewide
transportation plan and planning processes, metropolitan plans, and Title 23 of the CFR. The latest version of the
STIP was adopted on March 25, 2020 (California Transportation Commission 2020). The STIP is prepared in
cooperation with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the metropolitan planning organizations,
and the regional transportation planning agencies. In the County of San Diego, the regional transportation planning
agency is the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). The STIP contains all capital and non -capital
transportation projects or identified phases of transportation projects for funding under the Federal Transit Act and
Title 23 of the CFR, including federally funded projects.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 472 of 1271
5.15 – Transportation
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.15-2
Interregional Transportation Improvement Program
The 2015 Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP) was approved by Caltrans in December 2015.
California Government Code Section 14526 specifies that the purpose of the ITIP is to fund projects that improve
interregional movement for people and goods across California on the State Highway System and develop Intercity
Passenger Rail corridors of strategic importance. The ITIP is one of many state funding programs that collectively
invest in transportation infrastructure, maintenance and operations and is prepared by Caltrans for submittal to the
California Transportation Commission to assist with recommendations for projects in the STIP.
Congestion Management Program
The Congestion Management Program was enacted by the state legislature in 1989 to improve traffic congestion in
urbanized areas. The program became effective with the passage of state Proposition 111 in June 1990, which increased
the state gas tax. The funds generated by the gas tax increase are advanced to cities and counties for constructing road
improvements, provided that a Congestion Management Program is in place. If a city does not comply with the Congestion
Management Program, it could lose funding under Proposition 111. Under the program, regional agencies within each
county are designated to prepare and administer the Congestion Management Program.
Local
San Diego Association of Governments
SANDAG serves as the forum for decision making on regional issues such as growth, transportation, land use,
economy, environment, and criminal justice. SANDAG builds consensus, prepares strategic plans, obtains, and
allocates resources, and provides information on a broad range of topics pertinent to the region’s quality of life.
SANDAG is governed by a Board of Directors composed of mayors, council members, and supervisors from each of
the San Diego region’s 19 local governments. As the metropolitan planning organization and regional transportation
planning agency for the San Diego region, SANDAG has produced the following documents that identify
transportation plans and policies in the San Diego area.
San Diego Forward – The Regional Plan
San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan (The Regional Plan) was adopted by SANDAG on October 9, 2015. The
Regional Plan combines and updates two regional planning documents, the 2004 Regional Comprehensive Plan
and the 2011 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), into a unified document
to guide regional growth between 2015 and 2050. The Regional Plan unites land use and transportation planning
by incorporating local planning efforts with regional transportation planning and also identifies investments in public
transportation, bike paths, and pedestrian improvements in the region. The Regional Plan includes a number of
elements, one of which is the SCS. Required by state law (SB 375), the primary purpose of the SCS is to show how
development patterns and our transportation system will work together to reduce GHG emissions for cars and light
trucks, providing a more sustainable future for our region.
2014 Regional Transportation Improvement Plan
The Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) is a multi-year program of proposed major highway,
arterial, transit, and bikeway projects. The 2014 RTIP is a prioritized program designed to implement the region’s
overall strategy for providing mobility and improving the efficiency and safety of efforts to attain federal and state
air quality standards for the region. The 2014 RTIP also incrementally implements the 2011 Regional
Transportation Plan. The 2014 RTIP covers fiscal years 2014/2015 to 2018/2019. The 2014 RTIP was adopted
on September 26, 2014.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 473 of 1271
5.15 – Transportation
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.15-3
City of Chula Vista General Plan
The City of Chula Vista General Plan (General Plan), known as Vision 2020, was adopted by the City on December
13, 2005 (Chula Vista 2005). The General Plan contains objectives and policies in the Land Use and Transportation
Element that support transit (Objective LUT 17), encourage alternative transportation measures (Objectives LUT 18
and LUT 23), encourage regional transportation coordination (Objective LUT 19), develop transit-friendly roads
(Objective LUT 20), support parking management policies (Objectives LUT 30 through LUT 33), and ensure
pedestrian-oriented environments (Objective LUT 63).
Chula Vista Municipal Code
Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC) Chapter 3.54 establishes a Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF) to
fund transportation improvements and facilities within the Eastern Territories of the City and requires payment prior
to the issuance of building permits for development. Section 3.54.030 lists the transportation facilities to be
financed by the fees collected and includes a total of 72 roadways within the City. In addition, CVMC Chapter 12.24,
Dedications, imposes reasonable requirements upon developers of traffic-generating developments within the City
to mitigate potential dangers associated with the (1) lack of sidewalks; (2) moving, high, and stagnant waters during
the rainy season; (3) streets of inadequate widths; (4) poor drainage due to the lack of curbs, storm drain facilities
and improved alleys; and (5) inadequate street lighting, to the extent reasonably possible.
City of Chula Vista Transportation Study Guidelines
The City of Chula Vista adopted their Traffic Study Guidelines (TSG) in June of 2020 to comply with SB 743. The
TSG provides criteria to evaluate projects for consistency related to the City’s transportation goals, policies, and
plans, and through procedures established under CEQA. The TSG establishes the content requirements and
procedures for preparing a Transportation Study in Chula Vista. At the time the project’s VMT analysis was prepared,
the City was still in the process of developing their guidelines for VMT evaluation. Therefore, LLG coordinated with
City Staff to develop an interim approach and methodology, and to obtain the latest draft screening map which
identifies residential VMT per capita for locations regionwide. The interim approach and methodology are consistent
with the approved TSG for the purposes of evaluating the project’s potential vehicular impacts.
Sunbow General Development Plan
The Sunbow General Development Plan (GDP; City of Chula Vista 1989) proposes development of a 604.8-acre
planned community in eastern Chula Vista. The principal objective of the GDP is the creation of an efficient, self-
contained village. One of the primary objectives of the GDP is to provide a safe, convenient, and efficient local
circulation system which maximizes access between residential areas and community facilities while minimizing
travel distance and reliance on the automobile.
5.15.1.2 Existing Setting
Existing Transportation Network
The following is a description of the major roadways, bicycle network, pedestrian facilities, and transit located within
the immediate vicinity of the project site.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 474 of 1271
5.15 – Transportation
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.15-4
Roadways
Olympic Parkway
Olympic Parkway is classified as a Prime Arterial in the City of Chula Vista Circulation Plan (Circulation Plan). It is built as
a 6-lane divided road with three lanes westbound and three lanes eastbound and a raised median. The posted speed
limit is 45 mph from I-805 to Brandywine Avenue. and 50 mph east of Brandywine Avenue.
Oleander Avenue
Oleander Avenue is classified as a two-lane collector street in the Circulation Plan. It is built as a 2-lane undivided
road with one lane northbound and one lane southbound. The posted speed limit is 25 mph.
Brandywine Avenue
Brandywine Avenue is classified as a Class I collector in the Circulation Plan. It is built as a 4-lane undivided road
with two lanes northbound and 2 lanes southbound, north of Olympic Parkway and a 2-lane undivided road with
one lane northbound and 1 lane southbound, south of Olympic Parkway. The posted speed limit is 40 mph north of
Olympic Parkway and 35 mph south of Olympic Parkway.
Heritage Road
Heritage Road is classified as a Prime Arterial in the Circulation Plan. It is built as a 6-lane divided road with 3 lanes
northbound and 3 lanes southbound. The posted speed limit is 40 mph.
Santa Venetia Street
Santa Venetia Street is classified as a two-lane collector in the Circulation Plan. It is built as a 2-lane undivided road with
one lane northbound and one lane southbound, south of Olympic Parkway. The assumed speed limit is 25 mph.
La Media Road
La Media Road is classified as a Prime Arterial in the Circulation Plan. It is built as a 6-lane divided road with 3
lanes northbound and 3 lanes southbound. The posted speed limit is 45 mph.
Bicycle Network
There is a Class 2 bike lane on Olympic Parkway between Oleander Avenue and Lake Crest Drive. There is a Class
2 bike lane on Brandywine Avenue beginning at Telegraph Canyon Road and ending at Main Street. There is a Class
2 bike lane on Heritage Road beginning at Telegraph Canyon Road and ending at Main Street. Class 2 bike lanes
are provided on both sides of La Media Road beginning at Telegraph Canyon Road and ending at Santa Luna Street.
Pedestrian Facilities
Sidewalks are provided along both sides of Olympic Parkway, Oleander Avenue, Brandywine Avenue, Santa Venetia
Street, and La Media Road. Sidewalks are also provided on both sides of Heritage Road, north of Olympic Parkway,
and on the east side of Heritage Road, south of Olympic Parkway. The Chula Vista Regional Trail is located along
the west side of Heritage Road south of Olympic Parkway. Four signalized crosswalks with ramps on each corner
are located adjacent to the project site at the intersection of Olympic Parkway and Brandywine Avenue.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 475 of 1271
5.15 – Transportation
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.15-5
Transit
The project area is served by transit provided by the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System (MTS). There are no
bus routes that travel directly along Olympic Parkway adjacent to the project site.
The five MTS bus routes summarized in the following paragraphs serve the general study area.
Route 225. Route 225 runs from the Otay Mesa Transit Center to the Santa Fe Depot Transit Center via Broadway,
I-805, and SR-125, as well as other streets that are not near the project study area. There are 11 stops along this
route with destinations to the East Palomar Transit Station, City College Transit Center, and the Santa Fe Depot.
Route 225 currently operates Monday through Friday from 4:49 AM through 10:13 PM departing from the Otay
Mesa Transit Center and from 6:08 AM through 11:39 PM departing from the Santa Fe Depot Transit Center.
Saturday and Sunday route schedule begins at 4:49 AM through 10:11 AM departing from the Otay Mesa Transit
Center and begins at 6:08 AM to 11:37 PM departing from the Santa Fe Depot Transit Center. Route 225 operates
on observed holidays with a Saturday or Sunday schedule. Weekday schedules include 30-minute headways.
Weekend schedules include 30-minute headways.
Route 704. Route 704 runs from the East Street Transit Center to the Palomar Street Transit Center via East Orange
Avenue, Brandywine Avenue, and East Palomar Street, as well as other streets that are not near the project study
area. There are 48 stops along this route with destinations to the Chula Vista Public Library, Civic Center, Memorial
Park, Sharp CV Medical Center, South County Regional Center, and the Veterans Home. Route 704 currently
operates Monday through Friday from 6:03 AM through 8:20 PM departing from the E Street Transit Center and
from 5:28 AM through 9:00 PM departing from The Palomar Street Transit Center. Saturday route schedule begins
at 6:26 AM through 8:25 AM departing from the E Street Transit Center and begins at 6:28 AM to 8:29 PM departing
from the Palomar Street Transit Center. Sunday schedule begins at 7:22 AM through 6:22 PM departing from Sharp
Medical Center and begins at 7:30 AM through 6:30 PM departing from the Palomar Street Transit Center. Route
704 operates on observed holidays with a Saturday or Sunday schedule. Weekday schedules include 30 -minute
headways. Weekend schedules include 1-hour headways.
Route 707. Route 707 runs from Eastlake Parkway and Olympic Parkway to Southwestern College via East H Street
and Eastlake Parkway. There are 26 stops along this route with destinations to Bonita Vista High School, Eastlake
High School, Eastlake Village Center, Otay Ranch Town Center, and Southwestern College. Route 707 currently
operates Monday through Friday from 5:02 AM through 7:14 PM departing from Eastlake Parkway & Olympic
Parkway and from 6:31 AM through 7:23 PM departing from Southwestern College. Weekday schedules include
30-minute headways. Route 707 does not operate on weekends or observed holidays.
Route 709. Route 709 runs from the H Street Transit Center to Eastlake Parkway & Olympic Parkway via East H
Street, East Palomar Street, and La Media Road, as well as other streets that are not near the project study area.
There are 22 stops along this route with destinations to Bonita Vista High School, Hilltop High School, Otay Ranch
Town Center, Scripps Hospital and Southwestern College. Route 709 currently operates Monday through Friday
from 5:49 AM through 10:22 PM departing from the H Street Transit Center and f rom 4:52 AM through 10:06 PM
departing from Eastlake Parkway & Olympic Parkway. Saturday route schedule begins at 6:22 AM through 9:55 AM
departing from the H Street Transit Center and begins at 5:37 AM to 9:37 PM departing from Eastlake Parkway &
Olympic Parkway. Sunday schedule begins at 6:51 AM through 8:07 PM departing from the H Street Transit Center
and begins at 6:37 AM through 7:50 PM departing from Eastlake Parkway & Olympic Parkway. Route 709 operates
on observed holidays with a Saturday or Sunday schedule. Weekday schedules include 30-minute headways.
Weekend schedules include 1-hour headways.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 476 of 1271
5.15 – Transportation
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.15-6
Route 712. Route 712 runs from the Palomar Street Transit Center to Southwestern College via Palomar Street and
East Palomar Street. There are 26 stops along this route with destinations to Castle Park Middle School, Castle
Park High School, Heritage Park, Palomar High School, Sharp Medical Center, and Veterans Park. Route 712
currently operates Monday through Friday from 5:45 AM through 9:26 PM departing fro m the Palomar Street Transit
Center and from 6:19 AM through 10:09 PM departing from Southwestern College. Saturday route schedule begins
at 6:30 AM through 8:30 PM departing from the Palomar Street Transit Center and begins at 6:19 AM to 8:19 PM
departing from Southwestern College. Sunday schedule begins at 8:00 AM through 7:00 PM departing from the
Palomar Street Transit Center and begins at 6:49 AM through 6:48 PM departing from Southwestern College. Route
712 operates on observed holidays with a Saturday or Sunday schedule. Weekday schedules include 30-minute
headways. Weekend schedules include 1-hour headways.
5.15.1.3 Methodology
In compliance with SB 743, the TIA evaluates the project’s potential vehicular impacts using a vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) metric, pursuant to direction from the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) in December 2018
and specifically addresses Threshold B of the Transportation thresholds of significance per the CEQA guidelines
(see Section 5.15.2 and 5.15.3 below).
Vehicle Miles Traveled
The City of Chula Vista adopted their TSG in June of 2020. However, at the time the project’s VMT analysis was
prepared, the City was still in the process of developing their guidelines for VMT evaluation. Therefore, LLG
coordinated with City Staff to develop an interim approach and methodology, and to obtain the latest draft screening
map which identifies residential VMT per capita for locations regionwide. The interim approach and methodology
are consistent with the approved TSG for the purposes of evaluating the project’s potential vehicular impacts.
VMT is defined as a measurement of miles traveled by vehicles within a specified region and for a specified time period.
VMT is a measure of the use and efficiency of the transportation network. VMTs are calculated based on individual vehicle
trips generated and their associated trip lengths. VMT accounts for two-way (round trip) travel and is estimated for a
typical weekday for the purposes of measuring transportation impacts. For residential projects, “VMT per capita” is the
efficiency metric used for evaluation. In general, the analysis presents the project VMT per capita, and compares it to a
regional VMT per capita to determine if the former is higher, equal to, or lower than the latter.
Proposed Technical Guidance
The following information is sourced from OPR’s latest Technical Advisory (2018). This represents a non-regulatory
advisory document on the evaluation of transportation impacts using VMT.
General Recommendations Regarding Methodology
The following is a discussion of the general methodology recommendations to evaluate VMT for various technical
areas and project types. The project would fall within the “Residential Projects” category, and the SANDAG Series
13 Year 2020 Travel Demand Model (TDM) was used in the analysis presented in this report. The Series 13 Year
2020 TDM generated a land use-specific average trip length (residential) as well as an average daily volume to
calculate the total residential VMT per capita.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 477 of 1271
5.15 – Transportation
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.15-7
Using Models to Estimate VMT
Travel demand models, sketch models, spreadsheet models, research, and data can all be used to calculate and
estimate VMT. To the extent possible, lead agencies should choose models that have sensitivity to features of the
project that affect VMT. Those tools and resources can also assist in establishing thresholds of significance and
estimating VMT reduction attributable to mitigation measures and project alternatives.
Vehicle Types
Vehicle Miles Traveled refers to on-road passenger vehicles, specifically cars and light trucks. Heavy-duty truck VMT
could be included for modeling convenience and ease of calculation.
Residential Projects
Residential project VMT is evaluated in terms of VMT per capita, with project results compared to established VMT
thresholds to determine significance of project impacts.
Transit Priority Areas
Any project that includes in its geographic bounds a portion of an existing or planned Transit Priority Area (TPA) (i.e.,
the project is within 0.5 miles of an existing or planned major transit stop or an existing stop along a high -quality
transit corridor) may employ VMT as its primary metric of transportation impact for the entire project. A high-quality
transit corridor is defined as a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes
during peak commute hours.
Recommendations Regarding Significance Thresholds
Lead agencies have the discretion to set or apply their own thresholds of significance. However, the cr iteria for
determining the significance of transportation impacts should promote:
• Reduction of GHG emissions
• Development of multimodal transportation networks
• A diversity of land uses
Given that the City had not yet adopted VMT thresholds at the time the project’s VMT analysis was prepared, the
OPR Technical Advisory was used for the project’s VMT analysis:
• Residential Projects: A project exceeding a level of 15% below existing VMT per capita may indicate a
significant transportation impact. Existing VMT per capita may be measured as Regional VMT per capita or
as City VMT per capita.
Thus, for this analysis, the minimum threshold of significance for determination of the project’s transportation
impact is 15% or less of the Regional VMT per capita. Any project whose VMT per capita is 15% or more below the
Regional mean is presumed to be less than significant. This approach is consistent with the approved TSG.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 478 of 1271
5.15 – Transportation
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.15-8
VMT Analysis
Local Agency Transition to SB743
In June 2020, the City of Chula Vista adopted their TSG to comply with Senate Bill 743, which replaced LOS with
VMT as the metric for determining the significance of a project’s transportation impacts under CEQA.
Since the VMT analysis for the project was prepared prior to formal adoption of the City’s TSG, LLG consulted with
City staff and was instructed to utilize OPR guidance from the Technical Advisory and San Diego ITE Regional
Guidelines to develop significance thresholds and technical methodologies for the project.
Significance Criteria
Guidance from OPR’s Technical Advisory is used to establish a significance threshold of a minimum 15% reduction
or more from the Regional average VMT per capita for this residential evaluation. That means that if the project’s
VMT per capita is more than 15% below the regional average, no significant transportation impact would result.
This approach is consistent with the approved TSG.
Map-Based Screening
Prior to any detailed project-specific VMT analysis, OPR allows for the use of a “map-based screening” (screening
map) to identify if a project would result in a less-than-significant impact. The City’s screening map which has been
developed for their VMT guidelines was utilized for the project. This map provides VMT per capita evaluation for
locations throughout the City, and accounts for surrounding land uses, populat ion density, and transportation
infrastructure in accordance with OPR guidelines. These elements collectively shape mobility behavior and provide
a strong indication of expected project VMT. In general, higher density and mix of land uses with access to mobility
options are expected to generate lower VMT.
Screening Map Results
The City’s VMT Screening Tool allows for a search by address of properties within the City. The data presented in
the screening map include the following:
• Census tract
• VMT per capita
• Percent of regional mean
• Residents
• Description of VMT results
The VMT Screening Tool shows the project location, the City boundaries, and the TPAs and HQTCs identified within
the City. The data represented on the VMT Screening Tool follows the OPR guidance and displays VMT efficient
areas that are 85% or less of the SANDAG regional average. The da ta shown is based on the SANDAG Series 13
Activity Based Model #1 (ABM1) for the base year of the model 2012. As shown in the results of the VMT Screening
Tool provided in the TIA, the project site is not fully located within a HQTC or TPA. A small portion of the project site
is within 0.5 miles of a High-Quality Transit Corridor. The City has determined the project not to be eligible for map-
based screening given that the site is only partially enclosed by a transit buffer.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 479 of 1271
5.15 – Transportation
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.15-9
5.15.2 Thresholds of Significance
The significance criteria used to evaluate the project impacts to transportation is based on the recommendations
provided in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.). A significant impact would occur if the
project would:
A. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
B. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b).
C. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).
D. Result in inadequate emergency access.
5.15.3 Impacts
A. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway,
bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
The General Plan Land Use and Transportation Element contains objectives and policies that support transit
(Objective LUT 17), encourage alternative transportation measures (Objectives LUT 18 and LUT 23), encourage
regional transportation coordination (Objective LUT 19), develop transit-friendly roads (Objective LUT 20), support
parking management policies (Objectives LUT 30 through LUT 33), and ensure pedestrian -oriented environments
(Objective LUT 63).
The project would propose a high density residential use located in close proximity to major streets such as Olympic
Parkway, Brandywine Avenue, Heritage Road and the I-805 freeway. Future residents of the project would have
access to a Class 2 bike lane and sidewalks and the Chula Vista Regional Trail adjacent to the project site along
Olympic Parkway. As discussed in Section 5.15.1, Existing Conditions, there are also nearby Class 2 bike lanes
along Brandywine Avenue (beginning at Telegraph Canyon Road and ending at Main Street) and Heritage Road
(beginning at Telegraph Canyon Road and ending at Main Street). Residents would have access to sidewalks/Chula
Vista Regional Trails along Olympic Parkway as well as Heritage Road. Located adjacent to the project site at the
intersection of Olympic Parkway and Brandywine Avenue are four signalized crosswalks with ramps on each corner.
The surrounding area is served by transit provided by the San Diego MTS. While there are no bus routes that travel
directly along Olympic Parkway adjacent to the project site, transit connection for route 704 is provided at the transit
stop on Brandywine Avenue located approximately 250-feet east of the project site. Thus, the future residents of
the project would have access to major roadways, freeways, transit, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. As such,
the project would be consistent with the City’s Land Use and Transportation Element.
Additionally, the project would be consistent with the GDP, which has a principle objective to create an efficient,
self-contained village. One of the primary objectives of the GDP is to provide a safe, convenient, and efficient local
circulation system which maximizes access between residential areas and community facilities while minimizing
travel distance and reliance on the automobile.
As part of the TIA, a project -specific Local Mobility Analysis (LMA) was prepared that focuses on automobile
delay/LOS. The LOS analysis was conducted to identify roadway deficiencies in the project study area (refer to
Appendix K for further details) and recommend project improvements to address such deficiency. The LMA was
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 480 of 1271
5.15 – Transportation
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.15-10
prepared for existing plus project conditions, near -term without project conditions, near -term with project
conditions, and year 2035 conditions. The City’s goal for acceptable levels of service is generall y LOS D or better
at signalized and unsignalized intersections and LOS C along roadway segments (City of Chula Vista 2005). The
LMA is a City requirement for transportation analysis that is not tied to CEQA; therefore implementation of
measures to address LOS-related effects does not constitute CEQA mitigation.
The TIA determined that the project would result in effects associated with unacceptable LOS under the General Plan
LOS standards. While Olympic Parkway is built-out and the provision of additional lanes is considered physically
infeasible, it is recommended that payment of the City’s Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF) should be
applied towards other planned network enhancements included in the Eastern TDIF program that would reduce traffic
on Olympic Parkway and be implemented as a condition of approval for the project outside of this EIR. In addition, it is
recommended that the project provide a fair share contribution toward the provision of Adaptive Traffic Signal Control
(ATSC) modules to each signalized intersection along the Olympic Parkway corridor between the I-805 Ramps and La
Media Road (refer to Appendix K for further details). These TDIF and other requirements associated with LOS deficiencies
would be included as part of the project’s conditions of approval, outside of this EIR.
Therefore, impacts associated with the project conflicting with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the
circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, would be less than significant.
B. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b).
As discussed in Section 5.15.1 the City was still in the process of developing their guidelines for VMT evaluation at
the time the project’s VMT analysis was prepared. Therefore, an interim approach and methodology was developed
in coordination with City staff. Thus, for this analysis, the minimum threshold of significance for determination of
the project’s transportation impact is 15% or less of the City VMT per capita. Any project whose VMT per capita is
15% or more below the regional mean is presumed to be less than significant. As shown in Table 5.15-1, the results
of the project VMT comparison indicate that the project would exceed the significance threshold by 1.4%. This would
require a reduction of 1.4% or more to reduce the VMT impact to less than significant. This approach is consistent
with the City’s TSG, which is now approved.
To calculate the VMT per capita for the baseline and the project, the SANDAG Series 13 Year 2020 TDM was used.
The model generates a land use-specific average trip length (residential) as well as an average daily volume, which
ultimately calculates the total residential VMT per capita, region-wide and for the project. The SANDAG Series 13
Year 2020 TDM results are included in Appendix K. Table 5.15-1 summarizes the Regional average baseline VMT
results provided by SANDAG using the Series 13 model. As seen in Table 5.15-1, the Regional average baseline
VMT per capita is 16.4 miles per resident. For the purpose of determining the significance of VMT impacts, the
project VMT per capita would need to be 85% below the Regional average, which equates to 13.9 VMT pe r capita.
Similar to the Regional average baseline calculations, the project VMT per capita was determined. However, since
the project site is currently zoned for industrial use, is coded as such in the SANDAG model, and it is difficult to
accurately override the zoned land uses, a proxy site located just a few hundred feet north of the project site with
similar residential land use characteristics (i.e. single family residential dwelling units) was used to determine the
expected VMT per resident. The proxy site contains single family residential units and does not have direct access
to Olympic Parkway. In addition, per the SANDAG Trip Generation Brief Guide, single-family and multi-family
residential units have the same trip lengths, therefore, the difference in unit type between the proxy site and the
project site is not relevant to the VMT analysis. The proxy site does not have direct access to Olympic Parkway ,
which results in longer trip lengths (and therefore greater VMT) as compared to the project site. Lastly, the Office of
Planning and Research (OPR) and SANDAG do not differentiate VMT between multi-family and single-family land
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 481 of 1271
5.15 – Transportation
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.15-11
uses. Therefore, the VMT analysis using this proxy site is a conservative approach. The proxy site is Traffic Analysis
Zone (TAZ) 4728, which is located immediately north of the project site on Olympic Parkway. As shown in Table
5.15-1, the project average VMT per capita for TAZ 4728 is calculated at 14.1 VMT per resident.
Table 5.15-1. Project VMT Analysis
VMT per Resident
Geography Residents Total Trips
Person Miles of
Travel
Vehicle Miles
of Travel
VMT per
Resident
San Diego Region 3,435,715 12,302,411 77,559,665 56,353,219 16.4
Significance threshold (85% of regional average VMT) 13.9
Proxy for Project Site a 2,053 7,173 41,393 28,780 14.1
Exceeds Threshold? Yes
Source: SANDAG 2020.
Note: VMT = vehicle miles traveled.
a Since the project site is currently zoned for industrial use, and is coded as such in the SANDAG model, a proxy site in the vicinity
with similar characteristics was used to determine the expected VMT per resident. The proxy site is Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ)
4728), and is located immediately north of the project site on Olympic Parkway.
The results of the project VMT comparison indicate that the project (i.e. proxy site) would exceed the significance
threshold by 1.4%. This would require a reduction of 1.4% or more to reduce the VMT to below the significance
threshold. Several quantifiable transportation demand management strategies can be used to reduce a project’s
VMT impacts. Transportation demand management strategies can be quantified using methodologies described in
Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures published by the California Air Pollution Control Officers’
Association (CAPCOA) (2010). The transportation demand management measures identified in the CAPCOA
document that would potentially lessen residential project impacts are grouped into five categories:
• Land Use and Location
• Neighborhood and Site Enhancement
• Parking Policy and Pricing
• Commute Trip Reduction Programs
• Transit System Improvements
While many of the CAPCOA measures were considered applicable to the project, the following Land Use and
Location series measure, was selected to reduce the project’s VMT impact:
LUT-1: Increase Density. Designing the project with increased densities, where allowed by the General Plan and/or
Zoning Ordinance reduce GHG emissions associated with traffic in several ways. Density is usually measured in
terms of persons, jobs, or dwelling units per unit area. Increased densities affect the distance people travel and
provide greater options for the mode of travel they choose.
This measure is applicable to the project because the project proposes development of 718 multi-family residential
dwelling units with a density of 16.3 units per acre, whereas the calculated VMT per resident of 14.1 as shown in
Table 5.15-1, is based on a proxy site where the residential dwelling units are exclusively single family. Thus, the
project proposes a high-density residential use which in turn provides greater options for mode of travel and could
reduce VMT. Table 5.15-2 summarizes the results of the project’s VMT generation within the incorporation of the
LUT-1: Increase Density measure.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 482 of 1271
5.15 – Transportation
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.15-12
Table 5.15-2. Project VMT Results with Implementation of Series Measures
Series Measure
Range of
Effectiveness DU/Acre Trip
Resulting VMT
Reduction
Project VMT to
be Reduced
Impact
Avoided?
LUT-1 0.8 – 30.0 % 16.3 8.0% 1.4% Yes
Source: Appendix K
Notes: Results are based on methodology from Quantifying Green House Gas Mitigation Measures (CAPCOA 2010)
PDF = project design feature; DU = dwelling unit; VMT = vehicle miles traveled
As shown in Table 5.15-2, based on the project’s density of 16.3 units per acre, the VMT reduction would be 8%,
when compared to the proxy site. Therefore, implementation of series measure LUT-1, as part of project design,
would avoid the project’s 1.4% VMT impact.
In addition, the following trip strategies identified within the TIA would be implemented as Project Design Features
(PDF) TRA-1 (see Section 4.4.8, Project Design Features, for full text of this PDF) and as conditions of approval, with
implementation required once the project is at 50% occupancy.
These strategies, outlined below, would further reduce the number of automobile trips generated by residents of
the project and the distance that the residents drive.
• Provide ride share coordination services through the project’s homeowner’s association to match residents
interested in carpooling.
• Coordinate with nearby schools and/or the project’s homeowner’s association to match residents
interested in carpooling to/from schools.
• Provide on-site transit opportunities information.
• Encourage bicycling by providing on-site bicycle infrastructure such as bike racks.
Therefore, with implementation of the aforementioned CAPCOA measure and PDF-TRA-1, impacts would be less
than significant.
C. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).
As discussed in the TIA (Appendix K), two signalized points of access to the site are planned from Olympic
Parkway , in the locations designated in the SPA Plan . Peak Hour signal warrant analy ses based on the warrants
contained in Chapter 4C, “Traffi c Control Signal Needs Studies,” of the 2014 California Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices, Revision 5 , were conducted for the project’s proposed driveways to ensure
signalization is warranted (Caltrans 2014). The TIA determined that both driveways meet the Peak Hour signal
warrant and are calculated to operate acceptably at LOS C or better . The TIA includes recommended and the
proposed design includes lane configurations that ensure intersections operate efficiently . Additionally, the
project includes a circulation network that would serve the project site and surrounding uses. Direct access to the
project site would be provided by two proposed public streets, Street “A” and Street “B” (Streets A and B).
Street A would extend south from Olympic Parkway, through the project site, and curve to the east to connect
with Street B. Street B would also extend south from the eastern portion of Olympic Parkway, adjacent to the
project site (see Figure 4 -6, Illustrative Concept Plan , and Figure 4-9, Vehicular Circulation Plan). In addition to
the proposed Streets A and B, various private streets and drives are proposed throughout the proposed
development area of the project site. Two types of private streets are proposed throughout the project site and
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 483 of 1271
5.15 – Transportation
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.15-13
would be composed of two 12-foot-wide travel lanes, 5-foot-wide sidewalks, and 5.5-foot-wide landscaped parkways
on both sides. Private residential streets with parking would also be planned throughout the project site and would
be designed to include two 12-foot-wide travel lanes, 8-foot-wide parallel or 18-foot-wide perpendicular parking
lanes, a contiguous sidewalk on one side, and a 5-foot-wide landscaped parkway on the opposite side. The design
of both these street sections, shown on Figure 4-12, Private Residential Street Sections, will be implemented on
the site plan, may be refined during final engineering and shall be subject to City approval.
Therefore, the project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment) and impacts would be less than significant.
D. Result in inadequate emergency access.
The project may result in a temporary increase in traffic on roadways surrounding the project site due to increased
truck loads or the transport of construction equipment to and from the project site during the constru ction period.
All construction activities including staging would occur in accordance with City requirements (such as CVMC
Chapter 12.12, which prohibits street obstructions), which would ensure that adequate emergency access be
provided during construction of the project (CVMC 2020). Additionally, because the project site is included in the
GDP as a planned community, it is incorporated into the City’s existing emergency disaster programs, including all
fire and emergency services and mutual aid agreements. Emergency response to the project site would be serviced
by the City of Chula Vista Fire Department, Police Department, and other responsible agencies. Furthermore, the
City is part of the San Diego County Emergency Operations Plan (SDCEOP; County of San Diego 2018), which
includes a detailed evacuation response plan in the event of an emergency. As stated in the SDCEOP, major ground
transportation corridors shall be used as primary evacuation routes in the event of an emergency. As such, Olympic
Parkway would be the closest evacuation route to the project site. As previously stated, all construction activities
including staging would occur in accordance with City requirements, which would ensure that adequate emergency
access would be provided during construction of the project. Thus, construction of the project is not anticipated to
interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan, nor would it substantially impede public
access or roadway circulation.
Upon completion of construction, direct access to the project site would be provided by two proposed public streets,
Street A and Street B. Street A would extend south from Olympic Parkway, through the project site, and curve to the
east to connect with Street B. Street B would also extend south from the eastern portion of Olympic Parkway,
adjacent to the project site (see Figures 4-6 and 4-9). As previously mentioned, Olympic Parkway, located adjacent
to the project site, would be the closest evacuation route to the project site in the event of an emergency.
Additionally, the proposed driveways and roadways providing access to the project site would comply with the
requirements of the Chula Vista Fire Code (including 2019 Fire Code and 2018 Urban–Wildland Interface Code),
and would be reviewed and approved by the Chula Vista Fire Department. Furthermore, all on-site roads would be
constructed to current Fire Codes and City of Chula Vista or County of San Diego Standards for public and private
roads, including minimum 24-foot-wide, unobstructed road widths.
Therefore, the project would not result in inadequate emergency access; impacts would be less than significant.
5.15.4 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation
Impacts related to transportation would be less than significant.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 484 of 1271
5.15 – Transportation
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.15-14
5.15.5 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.
5.15.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation
No mitigation measures would be required. Impacts related to transportation would be less than significant.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 485 of 1271
5.15 – Transportation
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.15-7
Using Models to Estimate VMT
Travel demand models, sketch models, spreadsheet models, research, and data can all be used to calculate and
estimate VMT. To the extent possible, lead agencies should choose models that have sensitivity to features of the
project that affect VMT. Those tools and resources can also assist in establishing thresholds of significance and
estimating VMT reduction attributable to mitigation measures and project alternatives.
Vehicle Types
Vehicle Miles Traveled refers to on-road passenger vehicles, specifically cars and light trucks. Heavy-duty truck VMT
could be included for modeling convenience and ease of calculation.
Residential Projects
Residential project VMT is evaluated in terms of VMT per capita, with project results compared to established VMT
thresholds to determine significance of project impacts.
Transit Priority Areas
Any project that includes in its geographic bounds a portion of an existing or planned Transit Priority Area (TPA) (i.e.,
the project is within 0.5 miles of an existing or planned major transit stop or an existing stop along a high -quality
transit corridor) may employ VMT as its primary metric of transportation impact for the entire project. A high-quality
transit corridor is defined as a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes
during peak commute hours.
Recommendations Regarding Significance Thresholds
Lead agencies have the discretion to set or apply their own thresholds of significance. However, the cr iteria for
determining the significance of transportation impacts should promote:
• Reduction of GHG emissions
• Development of multimodal transportation networks
• A diversity of land uses
Given that the City had not yet adopted VMT thresholds at the time the project’s VMT analysis was prepared, the
OPR Technical Advisory was used for the project’s VMT analysis:
• Residential Projects: A project exceeding a level of 15% below existing VMT per capita may indicate a
significant transportation impact. Existing VMT per capita may be measured as Regional VMT per capita or
as City VMT per capita.
Thus, for this analysis, the minimum threshold of significance for determination of the project’s transportation
impact is 15% or less of the Regional VMT per capita. Any project whose VMT per capita is 15% or more below the
Regional mean is presumed to be less than significant. This approach is consistent with the approved TSG.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 486 of 1271
5.15 – Transportation
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.15-8
VMT Analysis
Local Agency Transition to SB743
In June 2020, the City of Chula Vista adopted their TSG to comply with Senate Bill 743, which replaced LOS with
VMT as the metric for determining the significance of a project’s transportation impacts under CEQA.
Since the VMT analysis for the project was prepared prior to formal adoption of the City’s TSG, LLG consulted with
City staff and was instructed to utilize OPR guidance from the Technical Advisory and San Diego ITE Regional
Guidelines to develop significance thresholds and technical methodologies for the project.
Significance Criteria
Guidance from OPR’s Technical Advisory is used to establish a significance threshold of a minimum 15% reduction
or more from the Regional average VMT per capita for this residential evaluation. That means that if the project’s
VMT per capita is more than 15% below the regional average, no significant transportation impact would result.
This approach is consistent with the approved TSG.
Map-Based Screening
Prior to any detailed project-specific VMT analysis, OPR allows for the use of a “map-based screening” (screening
map) to identify if a project would result in a less-than-significant impact. The City’s screening map which has been
developed for their VMT guidelines was utilized for the project. This map provides VMT per capita evaluation for
locations throughout the City, and accounts for surrounding land uses, populat ion density, and transportation
infrastructure in accordance with OPR guidelines. These elements collectively shape mobility behavior and provide
a strong indication of expected project VMT. In general, higher density and mix of land uses with access to mobility
options are expected to generate lower VMT.
Screening Map Results
The City’s VMT Screening Tool allows for a search by address of properties within the City. The data presented in
the screening map include the following:
• Census tract
• VMT per capita
• Percent of regional mean
• Residents
• Description of VMT results
The VMT Screening Tool shows the project location, the City boundaries, and the TPAs and HQTCs identified within
the City. The data represented on the VMT Screening Tool follows the OPR guidance and displays VMT efficient
areas that are 85% or less of the SANDAG regional average. The da ta shown is based on the SANDAG Series 13
Activity Based Model #1 (ABM1) for the base year of the model 2012. As shown in the results of the VMT Screening
Tool provided in the TIA, the project site is not fully located within a HQTC or TPA. A small portion of the project site
is within 0.5 miles of a High-Quality Transit Corridor. The City has determined the project not to be eligible for map-
based screening given that the site is only partially enclosed by a transit buffer.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 487 of 1271
5.15 – Transportation
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.15-9
5.15.2 Thresholds of Significance
The significance criteria used to evaluate the project impacts to transportation is based on the recommendations
provided in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.). A significant impact would occur if the
project would:
A. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
B. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b).
C. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).
D. Result in inadequate emergency access.
5.15.3 Impacts
A. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway,
bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
The General Plan Land Use and Transportation Element contains objectives and policies that support transit
(Objective LUT 17), encourage alternative transportation measures (Objectives LUT 18 and LUT 23), encourage
regional transportation coordination (Objective LUT 19), develop transit-friendly roads (Objective LUT 20), support
parking management policies (Objectives LUT 30 through LUT 33), and ensure pedestrian -oriented environments
(Objective LUT 63).
The project would propose a high density residential use located in close proximity to major streets such as Olympic
Parkway, Brandywine Avenue, Heritage Road and the I-805 freeway. Future residents of the project would have
access to a Class 2 bike lane and sidewalks and the Chula Vista Regional Trail adjacent to the project site along
Olympic Parkway. As discussed in Section 5.15.1, Existing Conditions, there are also nearby Class 2 bike lanes
along Brandywine Avenue (beginning at Telegraph Canyon Road and ending at Main Street) and Heritage Road
(beginning at Telegraph Canyon Road and ending at Main Street). Residents would have access to sidewalks/Chula
Vista Regional Trails along Olympic Parkway as well as Heritage Road. Located adjacent to the project site at the
intersection of Olympic Parkway and Brandywine Avenue are four signalized crosswalks with ramps on each corner.
The surrounding area is served by transit provided by the San Diego MTS. While there are no bus routes that travel
directly along Olympic Parkway adjacent to the project site, transit connection for route 704 is provided at the transit
stop on Brandywine Avenue located approximately 250-feet east of the project site. Thus, the future residents of
the project would have access to major roadways, freeways, transit, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. As such,
the project would be consistent with the City’s Land Use and Transportation Element.
Additionally, the project would be consistent with the GDP, which has a principle objective to create an efficient,
self-contained village. One of the primary objectives of the GDP is to provide a safe, convenient, and efficient local
circulation system which maximizes access between residential areas and community facilities while minimizing
travel distance and reliance on the automobile.
As part of the TIA, a project -specific Local Mobility Analysis (LMA) was prepared that focuses on automobile
delay/LOS. The LOS analysis was conducted to identify roadway deficiencies in the project study area (refer to
Appendix K for further details) and recommend project improvements to address such deficiency. The LMA was
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 488 of 1271
5.15 – Transportation
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.15-10
prepared for existing plus project conditions, near -term without project conditions, near -term with project
conditions, and year 2035 conditions. The City’s goal for acceptable levels of service is generall y LOS D or better
at signalized and unsignalized intersections and LOS C along roadway segments (City of Chula Vista 2005). The
LMA is a City requirement for transportation analysis that is not tied to CEQA; therefore implementation of
measures to address LOS-related effects does not constitute CEQA mitigation.
The TIA determined that the project would result in effects associated with unacceptable LOS under the General Plan
LOS standards. While Olympic Parkway is built-out and the provision of additional lanes is considered physically
infeasible, it is recommended that payment of the City’s Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF) should be
applied towards other planned network enhancements included in the Eastern TDIF program that would reduce traffic
on Olympic Parkway and be implemented as a condition of approval for the project outside of this EIR. In addition, it is
recommended that the project provide a fair share contribution toward the provision of Adaptive Traffic Signal Control
(ATSC) modules to each signalized intersection along the Olympic Parkway corridor between the I-805 Ramps and La
Media Road (refer to Appendix K for further details). These TDIF and other requirements associated with LOS deficiencies
would be included as part of the project’s conditions of approval, outside of this EIR.
Therefore, impacts associated with the project conflicting with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the
circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, would be less than significant.
B. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b).
As discussed in Section 5.15.1 the City was still in the process of developing their guidelines for VMT evaluation at
the time the project’s VMT analysis was prepared. Therefore, an interim approach and methodology was developed
in coordination with City staff. Thus, for this analysis, the minimum threshold of significance for determination of
the project’s transportation impact is 15% or less of the City VMT per capita. Any project whose VMT per capita is
15% or more below the regional mean is presumed to be less than significant. As shown in Table 5.15-1, the results
of the project VMT comparison indicate that the project would exceed the significance threshold by 1.4%. This would
require a reduction of 1.4% or more to reduce the VMT impact to less than significant. This approach is consistent
with the City’s TSG, which is now approved.
To calculate the VMT per capita for the baseline and the project, the SANDAG Series 13 Year 2020 TDM was used.
The model generates a land use-specific average trip length (residential) as well as an average daily volume, which
ultimately calculates the total residential VMT per capita, region-wide and for the project. The SANDAG Series 13
Year 2020 TDM results are included in Appendix K. Table 5.15-1 summarizes the Regional average baseline VMT
results provided by SANDAG using the Series 13 model. As seen in Table 5.15-1, the Regional average baseline
VMT per capita is 16.4 miles per resident. For the purpose of determining the significance of VMT impacts, the
project VMT per capita would need to be 85% below the Regional average, which equates to 13.9 VMT pe r capita.
Similar to the Regional average baseline calculations, the project VMT per capita was determined. However, since
the project site is currently zoned for industrial use, is coded as such in the SANDAG model, and it is difficult to
accurately override the zoned land uses, a proxy site located just a few hundred feet north of the project site with
similar residential land use characteristics (i.e. single family residential dwelling units) was used to determine the
expected VMT per resident. The proxy site contains single family residential units and does not have direct access
to Olympic Parkway. In addition, per the SANDAG Trip Generation Brief Guide, single-family and multi-family
residential units have the same trip lengths, therefore, the difference in unit type between the proxy site and the
project site is not relevant to the VMT analysis. The proxy site does not have direct access to Olympic Parkway ,
which results in longer trip lengths (and therefore greater VMT) as compared to the project site. Lastly, the Office of
Planning and Research (OPR) and SANDAG do not differentiate VMT between multi-family and single-family land
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 489 of 1271
5.15 – Transportation
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.15-11
uses. Therefore, the VMT analysis using this proxy site is a conservative approach. The proxy site is Traffic Analysis
Zone (TAZ) 4728, which is located immediately north of the project site on Olympic Parkway. As shown in Table
5.15-1, the project average VMT per capita for TAZ 4728 is calculated at 14.1 VMT per resident.
Table 5.15-1. Project VMT Analysis
VMT per Resident
Geography Residents Total Trips
Person Miles of
Travel
Vehicle Miles
of Travel
VMT per
Resident
San Diego Region 3,435,715 12,302,411 77,559,665 56,353,219 16.4
Significance threshold (85% of regional average VMT) 13.9
Proxy for Project Site a 2,053 7,173 41,393 28,780 14.1
Exceeds Threshold? Yes
Source: SANDAG 2020.
Note: VMT = vehicle miles traveled.
a Since the project site is currently zoned for industrial use, and is coded as such in the SANDAG model, a proxy site in the vicinity
with similar characteristics was used to determine the expected VMT per resident. The proxy site is Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ)
4728), and is located immediately north of the project site on Olympic Parkway.
The results of the project VMT comparison indicate that the project (i.e. proxy site) would exceed the significance
threshold by 1.4%. This would require a reduction of 1.4% or more to reduce the VMT to below the significance
threshold. Several quantifiable transportation demand management strategies can be used to reduce a project’s
VMT impacts. Transportation demand management strategies can be quantified using methodologies described in
Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures published by the California Air Pollution Control Officers’
Association (CAPCOA) (2010). The transportation demand management measures identified in the CAPCOA
document that would potentially lessen residential project impacts are grouped into five categories:
• Land Use and Location
• Neighborhood and Site Enhancement
• Parking Policy and Pricing
• Commute Trip Reduction Programs
• Transit System Improvements
While many of the CAPCOA measures were considered applicable to the project, the following Land Use and
Location series measure, was selected to reduce the project’s VMT impact:
LUT-1: Increase Density. Designing the project with increased densities, where allowed by the General Plan and/or
Zoning Ordinance reduce GHG emissions associated with traffic in several ways. Density is usually measured in
terms of persons, jobs, or dwelling units per unit area. Increased densities affect the distance people travel and
provide greater options for the mode of travel they choose.
This measure is applicable to the project because the project proposes development of 718 multi-family residential
dwelling units with a density of 16.3 units per acre, whereas the calculated VMT per resident of 14.1 as shown in
Table 5.15-1, is based on a proxy site where the residential dwelling units are exclusively single family. Thus, the
project proposes a high-density residential use which in turn provides greater options for mode of travel and could
reduce VMT. Table 5.15-2 summarizes the results of the project’s VMT generation within the incorporation of the
LUT-1: Increase Density measure.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 490 of 1271
5.15 – Transportation
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.15-12
Table 5.15-2. Project VMT Results with Implementation of Series Measures
Series Measure
Range of
Effectiveness DU/Acre Trip
Resulting VMT
Reduction
Project VMT to
be Reduced
Impact
Avoided?
LUT-1 0.8 – 30.0 % 16.3 8.0% 1.4% Yes
Source: Appendix K
Notes: Results are based on methodology from Quantifying Green House Gas Mitigation Measures (CAPCOA 2010)
PDF = project design feature; DU = dwelling unit; VMT = vehicle miles traveled
As shown in Table 5.15-2, based on the project’s density of 16.3 units per acre, the VMT reduction would be 8%,
when compared to the proxy site. Therefore, implementation of series measure LUT-1, as part of project design,
would avoid the project’s 1.4% VMT impact.
In addition, the following trip strategies identified within the TIA would be implemented as Project Design Features
(PDF) TRA-1 (see Section 4.4.8, Project Design Features, for full text of this PDF) and as conditions of approval, with
implementation required once the project is at 50% occupancy.
These strategies, outlined below, would further reduce the number of automobile trips generated by residents of
the project and the distance that the residents drive.
• Provide ride share coordination services through the project’s homeowner’s association to match residents
interested in carpooling.
• Coordinate with nearby schools and/or the project’s homeowner’s association to match residents
interested in carpooling to/from schools.
• Provide on-site transit opportunities information.
• Encourage bicycling by providing on-site bicycle infrastructure such as bike racks.
Therefore, with implementation of the aforementioned CAPCOA measure and PDF-TRA-1, impacts would be less
than significant.
C. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).
As discussed in the TIA (Appendix K), two signalized points of access to the site are planned from Olympic
Parkway , in the locations designated in the SPA Plan . Peak Hour signal warrant analy ses based on the warrants
contained in Chapter 4C, “Traffi c Control Signal Needs Studies,” of the 2014 California Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices, Revision 5 , were conducted for the project’s proposed driveways to ensure
signalization is warranted (Caltrans 2014). The TIA determined that both driveways meet the Peak Hour signal
warrant and are calculated to operate acceptably at LOS C or better . The TIA includes recommended and the
proposed design includes lane configurations that ensure intersections operate efficiently . Additionally, the
project includes a circulation network that would serve the project site and surrounding uses. Direct access to the
project site would be provided by two proposed public streets, Street “A” and Street “B” (Streets A and B).
Street A would extend south from Olympic Parkway, through the project site, and curve to the east to connect
with Street B. Street B would also extend south from the eastern portion of Olympic Parkway, adjacent to the
project site (see Figure 4 -6, Illustrative Concept Plan , and Figure 4-9, Vehicular Circulation Plan). In addition to
the proposed Streets A and B, various private streets and drives are proposed throughout the proposed
development area of the project site. Two types of private streets are proposed throughout the project site and
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 491 of 1271
5.15 – Transportation
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.15-13
would be composed of two 12-foot-wide travel lanes, 5-foot-wide sidewalks, and 5.5-foot-wide landscaped parkways
on both sides. Private residential streets with parking would also be planned throughout the project site and would
be designed to include two 12-foot-wide travel lanes, 8-foot-wide parallel or 18-foot-wide perpendicular parking
lanes, a contiguous sidewalk on one side, and a 5-foot-wide landscaped parkway on the opposite side. The design
of both these street sections, shown on Figure 4-12, Private Residential Street Sections, will be implemented on
the site plan, may be refined during final engineering and shall be subject to City approval.
Therefore, the project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment) and impacts would be less than significant.
D. Result in inadequate emergency access.
The project may result in a temporary increase in traffic on roadways surrounding the project site due to increased
truck loads or the transport of construction equipment to and from the project site during the constru ction period.
All construction activities including staging would occur in accordance with City requirements (such as CVMC
Chapter 12.12, which prohibits street obstructions), which would ensure that adequate emergency access be
provided during construction of the project (CVMC 2020). Additionally, because the project site is included in the
GDP as a planned community, it is incorporated into the City’s existing emergency disaster programs, including all
fire and emergency services and mutual aid agreements. Emergency response to the project site would be serviced
by the City of Chula Vista Fire Department, Police Department, and other responsible agencies. Furthermore, the
City is part of the San Diego County Emergency Operations Plan (SDCEOP; County of San Diego 2018), which
includes a detailed evacuation response plan in the event of an emergency. As stated in the SDCEOP, major ground
transportation corridors shall be used as primary evacuation routes in the event of an emergency. As such, Olympic
Parkway would be the closest evacuation route to the project site. As previously stated, all construction activities
including staging would occur in accordance with City requirements, which would ensure that adequate emergency
access would be provided during construction of the project. Thus, construction of the project is not anticipated to
interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan, nor would it substantially impede public
access or roadway circulation.
Upon completion of construction, direct access to the project site would be provided by two proposed public streets,
Street A and Street B. Street A would extend south from Olympic Parkway, through the project site, and curve to the
east to connect with Street B. Street B would also extend south from the eastern portion of Olympic Parkway,
adjacent to the project site (see Figures 4-6 and 4-9). As previously mentioned, Olympic Parkway, located adjacent
to the project site, would be the closest evacuation route to the project site in the event of an emergency.
Additionally, the proposed driveways and roadways providing access to the project site would comply with the
requirements of the Chula Vista Fire Code (including 2019 Fire Code and 2018 Urban–Wildland Interface Code),
and would be reviewed and approved by the Chula Vista Fire Department. Furthermore, all on-site roads would be
constructed to current Fire Codes and City of Chula Vista or County of San Diego Standards for public and private
roads, including minimum 24-foot-wide, unobstructed road widths.
Therefore, the project would not result in inadequate emergency access; impacts would be less than significant.
5.15.4 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation
Impacts related to transportation would be less than significant.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 492 of 1271
5.15 – Transportation
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.15-14
5.15.5 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.
5.15.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation
No mitigation measures would be required. Impacts related to transportation would be less than significant.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 493 of 1271
5.16 – Utilities and Service Systems
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.16-1
5.16 Utilities and Service Systems
This section of the environmental impact report (EIR) describes the existing setting related to utilities and service
systems that would serve the proposed Sunbow Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Amendment for the Sunbow
II, Phase 3 Project (project or proposed project) and evaluates potential impacts to utilities and service systems
due to the implementation of the proposed project.
The discussion is below is based on the following studies:
• Appendix I1 - Priority Development Project (PDP) Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SWQMP),
prepared by Hunsaker & Associates.
• Appendix I2 - Drainage Study for Sunbow II, Phase 3 (TM), prepared by Hunsaker & Associates.
• Appendix L1 - Overview of Water Service for Sunbow II, Phase 3, prepared by Dexter Wilson Engineering.
• Appendix L2 – Water Supply Assessment, prepared by Otay Water District.
• Appendix L3 – Water Conservation Plan, prepared by Dexter Wilson.
• Appendix L4 Sewer System Evaluation for Sunbow II, Phase 3, prepared by Dexter Wilson Engineering.
5.16.1 Existing Conditions
5.16.1.1 Regulatory Framework
Federal
Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 341)
The Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 requires each city, county, and regional agency to develop a source
reduction and recycling element of an integrated waste management plan that includes source reduction, recycling,
and composting components. A minimum of a 50% diversion rate of all s olid waste from landfill disposal or
transformation by January 1, 2000 was required and met. The current policy goal of the state is no less than 75%
of solid waste generated be source reduced, recycled, or composted by the year 2020.
State
Urban Water Management Planning Act
In 1983, the Legislature enacted the Urban Water Management Planning Act (UWMP Act; California Water Code,
Sections 10610–10656), which requires specified urban water suppliers within the state to prepare an Urban Water
Management Plan (UWMP) and update it every 5 years. State and local agencies and the public frequently use UWMPs
to determine if agencies are planning adequately to reliably meet water demands in various service areas. As such,
UWMPs serve as an important element in documenting water supply availability and reliability for purposes of
compliance with state laws, Senate Bills 610 and 221, which link water supply sufficiency to large land-use
development project approvals. Urban water suppliers also must prepare UWMPs, pursuant to the UWMP Act, to be
eligible for state funding and drought assistance.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 494 of 1271
5.16 – Utilities and Service Systems
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.16-2
The UWMP provides information on water usage, water supply sources, and water reliability planning within a specified
water agency service area. It also may provide implementation schedules to meet projected demands over the planning
horizon; a description of opportunities for new development of desalinated water; groundwater information (where
groundwater is identified as an existing or planned water source); description of water quality over the planning horizon; and
identification of water management tools that maximize local resources and minimize imported water supplies. Additionally,
the UWMP evaluates the reliability of water supplies within the specified service area. This includes a water supply reliability
assessment, water shortage contingency plan, and development of a plan in case of an interruption of water supplies.
The Metropolitan Water District (MWD), San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA), and the Otay Water District
(OWD) all play a role in supplying water to the proposed project. All of these agencies have prepared and updated
UWMPs in accordance with the UWMP Act.
Senate Bills 610 and 221
On January 1, 2002, Senate Bill 610 took effect. Senate Bill 610, which was codified in the Water Code beginning
with Section 10910, requires the preparation of a water supply assessment for projects within cities and counties
that propose to construct 500 or more residential units or the equivalent. Senate Bill 610 stipulates that when
environmental review of certain development projects is required, the water agency that is to serve the development
must complete the water supply assessment to evaluate water supplies that are or will be available during normal,
single-dry, and multiple-dry years during a 20-year projection to meet existing and planned future demands,
including the demand associated with a proposed project.
Senate Bill 221, enacted in 2001 and codified in the Water Code, requires a city, county, or local agency to include
a condition to any tentative subdivision map that a sufficient water supply shall be available to serve the subdivision.
The term “sufficient water supply” is defined as the total water supplies available during normal, single -dry, and
multiple-dry years within a 20-year projection that would meet the proposed subdivision project’s projected water
demand, in addition to existing and planned future water uses, including agricultural and industrial uses, within the
specified service area. Senate Bill 221 further requires any verification of “projected” water supplies to be based
on entitlement contracts, capital outlay programs and regulatory permits and approvals.
Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Urban Water Conservation in California
The OWD is signatory to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Regarding Urban Water Conservation in
California, which created the California Urban Water Conservation Council in 1991 in an effort to reduce California’s
long-term water demands. Water conservation programs are developed and implemented to reduce the demand
on available supply, which is vital to the optimal utilization of a region’s water supply resources.
As one of the first signatories to the MOU, OWD has made implementation of best management p ractices (BMPs)
for water conservation the cornerstone of its conservation programs and a key element in its water resource
management strategy. As a member of the SDCWA, OWD also benefits from regional programs performed on behalf
of its member agencies. The BMPs implemented by OWD and the regional BMPs implemented by SDCWA are
addressed in the OWD 2015 UWMP (OWD 2016).
As a signatory to the MOU, OWD is required to submit biannual reports that detail the implementation of current
water conservation practices. The OWD voluntarily agreed to implement the fourteen water conservation BMPs
beginning in 1992. The OWD submits its report to the California Urban Water Conservation Council every 2 years,
and the OWD BMP reports are included in the OWD 2015 UWMP (OWD 2016).
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 495 of 1271
5.16 – Utilities and Service Systems
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.16-3
Title 14: Natural Resources – Division 7
Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations regarding Natural Resources sets minimum standards for solid waste
handling and disposal, including specific regulations regarding waste tire storage and disposal, hazardous waste
disposal facilities, construction and demolition and inert debris transfer/processing, construction and demolition
waste and inert debris disposal, transfer/processing operations and facilities, siting and design, operation
standards, record keeping, and additional operating requirements for facilities. Additional guidance and
requirements for compostable materials handling operations and facilities, asbestos handling and disposal,
resource conservation programs, farm and ranch solid waste cleanup and abatement, used oil recycling program,
electronic waste recovery and recycling, solid waste cleanup among others are also addressed in Title 14.
Title 27: Environmental Protection – Division 2, Solid Waste
Title 27 of the California Code of Regulations regarding Environmental Protection and Solid Waste set the criteria
for all waste management units, facilities, and disposal sites including regulations of the California Integrated Waste
Management Board (CIWMB) and State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Waste classification, siting,
construction standards, water quality monitoring and response programs , operating criteria, daily and immediate
cover, handling and equipment, controls, gas monitoring and control, closure and post -closure standards, and
financial assurances are all aspects covered in Title 27.
Assembly Bill 939 and Assembly Bill 341
In 1989, AB 939, known as the Integrated Waste Management Act (California Public Resources Code, Sections
40000 et seq.), was passed because of the increase in waste stream and the decrease in landfill capacity. The
statute established the California Integrated Waste Management Board, which oversees a disposal reporting
system. AB 939 mandated a reduction of waste being disposed where jurisdictions were required to meet diversion
goals of all solid waste through source reduction, recycling, and composting activities of 25% by 1995 and 50% by
the year 2000.
AB 341 (2011) amended the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 to include a provision declaring
that it is the policy goal of the state that not less than 75% of solid waste generated be source-reduced, recycled,
or composted by the year 2020 and annually thereafter. In addition, AB 341 required the California Department of
Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) to develop strategies to achieve the state’s policy goal. CalRecycle
has conducted multiple workshops and published documents that identify priority strategies that CalRecycle
believes would assist the state in reaching the 75% goal by 2020.
Executive Order B-29-15
In response to the ongoing drought in California, EO B-29-15 (April 2015) set a goal of achieving a statewide
reduction in potable urban water usage of 25% relative to water use in 2013. The term of the EO extended through
February 28, 2016, although many of the directives have since become permanent water-efficiency standards and
requirements. The EO includes specific directives that set strict limits on water usage in the state. In response to
EO B-29-15, the California Department of Water Resources has modified and adopted a revised version of the
Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance that, among other changes, significantly increases the requirements
for landscape water use efficiency and broadens its applicability to include new development projects with smaller
landscape areas.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 496 of 1271
5.16 – Utilities and Service Systems
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.16-4
Local
Urban Water Management Plans
The UWMP Act requires that each urban water supplier providing water for municipal purposes, either to more than
3,000 customers, or more than 3,000 AF of water annually, must prepare, adopt, and update a UWMP at least once
every 5 years on or before December 31, in years ending in five and zero. This applies to MWD, SDCWA, and its
member agencies, including OWD, that serve unincorporated San Diego County. The intent of an UWMP is to present
information on water supply, water usage/demand, recycled water, and water use efficiency programs in a
respective water district’s service area. The UWMP also serves as a valuable resource for planners and policy
makers over a 25-year time frame.
The UWMP process ensures that water supplies are being planned to meet future growth. UWMPs are developed
to manage the uncertainties and variability of multiple supply sources and demands over the long term. Water
agencies and districts update their demand and supply estimates based on the most recent San Diego Association
of Governments (SANDAG) forecast approximately every 5 years to coincide with preparation of their UWMPs. The
most current supply and demand projections are contained in the 2015 UWMPs of MWD, SDCWA, and OWD (MWD
2016a; OWD 2016; SDCWA 2016). SDCWA member districts rely on the UWMPs and Integrated Resources Plans
(IRPs) of MWD (MWD 2016b) and the Regional Water Facilities Master Plan of SDCWA to document sup plies
available to meet projected demands.
Normal year, single-dry year, and multiple-dry year 2015 UWMP supply and demand assessments for MWD, SDCWA,
and OWD are intended to describe the water supply reliability and vulnerability to seasonal or climatic c onditions.
Normal water years are considered to be years that experience average rainfall for the respective district. Single -
dry water years are considered 1-year drought events. Multiple-dry water years refer to a series of below average
rainfall for particular areas (i.e., multiple drought year conditions). Projections for multiple-dry years are made in 5-
year increments.
In the 2015 UWMPs, MWD, SDCWA, and all SDCWA member agencies, including OWD, that serve unincorporated
San Diego County have determined that adequate water supplies would be available to serve existing service areas
under normal year, single dry year, and multiple dry year conditions through the year 2040.
City of Chula Vista General Plan
The Chula Vista General Plan recognizes that, in order to ensure adequate water service, water supplies and
facilities need to be maintained and expanded in response to the City’s projected population growth. The General
Plan includes objectives and policies in the Public Facilities and Services Elemen t that require development to plan
for careful use of natural and man-made resources and services, and maximize opportunities for conservation while
minimizing waste (Objective LUT 62); and increase efficiencies in water use through use of alternative technologies
(Objective PFS 2). Additionally, the Housing Element includes Objective H 2 to promote efficient use of water through
adopted standards and incentive-based policies to conserve limited resources and reduce long-term operational
costs of housing. Growth Management Objective GM 1 and Policy GM 1.11 provide for withholding discretionary
approvals and subsequent building permits from projects demonstrated to be out of compliance with applicable
threshold standards for water service (City of Chula Vista 2005).
In addition, the City of Chula Vista General Plan recognizes that to ensure adequate and reliable sewer service and
facilities, services need to be maintained and expanded to accommodate growth in the City’s population. The Chula
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 497 of 1271
5.16 – Utilities and Service Systems
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.16-5
Vista General Plan includes objectives and policies in the Public Facilities and Services Element that increase
efficiencies in wastewater generation and its reuse through use of alternative technologies (Objective PFS 2).
Additionally, Growth Management Objective GM 1 and Policy GM 1.11 provide for withholding discretionary
approvals and subsequent building permits from projects that are not in compliance with applicable threshold
standards for wastewater service (City of Chula Vista 2005).
In 2005, the City of Chula Vista updated its General Plan and certified the related EIR for the General Plan Update
(GPU). In 2013, the City certified a Supplemental EIR (City of Chula Vista 2012a), and approved a General Plan
Amendment/General Development Plan Amendment (GPA/GDPA). The GPA/GDPA Supplemental EIR (City of Chula
Vista 2012a) assessed, at the General Plan level, water demands and long-term water supply availability and
reliability. The City concluded that a long-term water supply could not be guaranteed; and, therefore, increases in
water demand projected in the General Plan and later Amendment would result in a significant unavoidable impact.
The result of the City’s findings is that large-scale proposed development projects within the City must conduct a
project-level water supply/demand analysis, accompanied by the required SB 610/SB 221 water supply
assessment/verification. Based on this project-level water supply/demand analysis and associated project EIR, the
City will then reassess its General Plan-level water supply findings and determinations based on the record before it.
The 2005 Chula Vista General Plan recognizes that the Otay Landfill is anticipated to reach capacity within the next
15 years (2020), requiring closure of the facility (refer to the analysis below regarding specific landfill capacity
information). The General Plan forecasts that the future solid waste disposal needs of the City may require the
creation of a regional transfer station, where solid waste from individual collection routes would be transferred into
large trucks for disposal (City of Chula Vista 2005). As such, the policies are regional in nature and do not specifically
address individual developments.
Chula Vista Landscape Water Conservation Ordinance
In response to the new State Water Conservation in Landscaping Act (Assembly Bill 1881), which required cities and
counties to adopt landscape water conservation ordinances by January 1, 2010, the City of Chula adopted the Landscape
Water Conservation Ordinance (CVMC, Section 20.12) in 2009 and was updated in 2015. This ordinance requires that
the majority of new or rehabilitated landscapes be designed using a water budget, to help encourage outdoor water
conservation. As a part of the City’s permitting process, some projects will be required to complete either a Landscape
Documentation Package or a WaterSmart Checklist. In general, the Landscape Documentation Package will be prepared
for larger projects that involve installing or changing an existing landscape, while the WaterSmart Checklist is designed
for smaller projects. The size of the “landscape area” will determine which of these documents will be required. The
landscape area is measured in square feet, and it is an area with outdoor plants, turf and other vegetation that uses
water, including any water features either in an area with vegetation or that stand alone (CVMC, Section 20.12).
Otay Water District Growth Management Oversight Commission
Both the Otay Water District and Sweetwater Authority reported that, despite the State of California’s water conservation
mandates between June 1, 2015 and February 13, 2016, Chula Vista’s water supply is in good shape because
customers have been exceeding water conservation goals for several years, in preparation for the drought. (Note: Water
Conservation Plans required by Chula Vista’s “Growth Management” ordinance for all SPA Plans, Tentative Maps, and
major development projects have also had a positive effect on water conservation in the City.)
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 498 of 1271
5.16 – Utilities and Service Systems
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.16-6
The OWD’s supply and storage capacity for both potable water and non-potable water exceeds current demands and the
demand projected by December 2020 and June 2024 (City of Chula Vista 2020). Similarly, the Sweetwater Authority
supply and storage capacity for potable water would exceed the current demand and the demand projected by December
2020 and June 2024 (City of Chula Vista 2020).
City of Chula Vista Growth Management Program
The Chula Vista Growth Management Program goal for water supply is to ensure that adequate supplies of quality
water (appropriate for intended uses) are available to Chula Vista. The Growth Management Program has two
objectives regarding water supply and distribution (City of Chula Vista 2020).
1. Adequate water supply must be available to serve new development. Therefore, developers shall provide
the City with a service availability letter form the appropriate water district for each project.
2. The City shall annually provide the San Diego County Water Authority, the Sweetwater Authority and the Otay
Municipal Water District with the City’s annual 5-year residential growth forecast and request that they provide
an evaluation of their ability to accommodate forecasted growth. Replies should address the following:
a. Water availability to the City, considering both short- and long-term perspectives.
b. Identify current and projected demand, and the amount of current capacity, including storage capacity,
now used or committed.
c. Ability of current and projected facilities to absorb forecasted growth.
d. Evaluation of funding and site availability for projected new facilities.
City of Chula Vista Wastewater Master Plan
The City of Chula Vista Wastewater Collection System Master Plan (City of Chula Vista 2014) provides a
comprehensive review and evaluation of the City of Chula Vista’s wastewater collection, conveyance, and treatment
capacity requirements under the existing (2012) and ultimate (2050) conditions. Based on findings of the
evaluation, the City’s Wastewater Collection System Master Plan recommends facility improvements and financing
alternatives to ensure that aging infrastructure remains serviceable and to allow for the continued build out of the
General Plan. Currently, wastewater generation within the City of Chula Vista is collected by City -owned facilities
and conveyed to connections to the City of San Diego’s Metropolitan Wastewater Department (METRO) conveyance
and treatment facilities for treatment and disposal. As of 2014, the City’s capacity at METRO is 20.864 mgd. Future
City flow projections based on current growth projections indicate that this capacity may be exceeded within the
next 10-15 years. As such, the wastewater generation analysis presented in the Wastewater Master Plan is intended
to be used by the City to establish a basis for acquiring future METRO treatment capacity to allow for implementation
of the Chula Vista General Plan, as adopted in 2005 and amended in 2012. The City’s sewage capacity was not
exceeded in 2015 and the 2019 GMOC Annual Report concluded the City would not exceed its sewage capacity
until 2027 (City of Chula Vista 2020).
Chula Vista Municipal Code
Chula Vista Municipal Code, Section 19.09.040G, requires “that sewage flows and volumes shall not exceed City
engineering standards as set forth in the subdivision manual.” In addition, the City must annually provide Metro
with a 12- to 18-month development forecast and request confirmation that the projection is within the City’s
purchased capacity rights and an evaluation of Metro’s ability to accommodate the forecast and continuing growth.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 499 of 1271
5.16 – Utilities and Service Systems
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.16-7
Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance
Effective July 1, 2008, construction and demolition projects are required to divert their debris from landfill disposal in the
City of Chula Vista; 100% of inert materials (i.e., concrete, rock, landscape debris) and a minimum of 50% of all other
materials (i.e., Cabinets, carpet, drywall, etc.) shall be recycled and or reused from certain ‘covered’ projects. Covered
projects are those with an approved Waste Management Report and submitted performance deposit. The Construction
and Demolition Debris (C&DD) Recycling Ordinance (CVMC Section 8.25.095) is designed as a means of achieving
compliance with California Green Building Standards Code (Title 24, Part II, Sections 4.408 and 5.408).
5.16.1.2 Existing Conditions
Water
Water service to the proposed project would be provided by Otay Water District (OWD) (City of Chula Vista 2005). OWD
purchases water from San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA), which in turn imports water from the Metropolitan
Water District (MWD). According to Appendix L1, the OWD has existing and planned facilities in the vicinity of the project
site and water service can be provided by expanding the existing system. The proposed project water service would be
provided by the 624 Pressure Zone (624 Zone) within the Central Area System of the OWD. The 624 Zone is fed from
the SDCWA aqueduct connections that supply 624 Zone Reservoirs. The existing and projected water supply and demand
for each agency are described below and are based on approved planning documents.
Regional and Local Water Supply
Metropolitan Water District (MWD)
The MWD supplies water to approximately 18.7 million people to a 5,200 square mil eservice area that includes
portions of Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, and San Diego countries. SDCWA is one of the
MWD’s 26 member agencies.
To supply the more than 300 cities and unincorporated areas in Southern California with reliable and safe water,
Metropolitan owns and operates an extensive water system, including the Colorado River Aqueduct, 16
hydroelectric facilities, nine reservoirs, 819 miles of large-scale pipes and five water treatment plants. It also helps
its member agencies develop water recycling, storage and other local resource programs to provide additio nal
supplies and conservation programs to reduce regional demands. Metropolitan currently delivers an average of 1.5
billion gallons of water per day to a 5,200-square-mile service area (MWD 2016a).
MWD gets its water from two sources. The first source is the Colorado River, which is connected to MWD’s six-
county service area through a 242 -mile aqueduct. The aqueduct system is known as the Central Valley Project
(CVP). The CVP is operated by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. The second source is water from northern California,
which supplies water through a series of dams, aqueducts, pipelines, and other facilities known as the State Water
Project (SWP). The SWP is operated by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR). From the Colorado
River Agreement (CRA), MWD is apportioned 550,000 acre-feet of water per year (AFY) from the Colorado River.
Despite this low apportionment, MWD was able to transport up to 1.2 million acre-feet (MAF) through the CRA in
past years by relying on unused apportionments from Arizona, Nevada, and California agricultural agencies.
However, because MWD’s firm water supply from CRA is only 550,00 AF that is the number planning agencies must
rely on for development. To supplement this supply, MWD also has several existing programs and additional
programs are being developed in cooperation with other agencies.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 500 of 1271
5.16 – Utilities and Service Systems
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.16-8
From SWP, MWD is contractually entitled to receive 1,911,000 AF of water; however, the level of SWP supply
development, state and federal environmental regulations, and other factors have restricted and, in some cases, reduced
the actual amount of available SWP water. As a result of these and other limitations, MWD estimated that actual SWP
supplies will be 701,000 AF in a dry year and 566,000 AF during multiple dry years, with Delta improvements.
In May 2016, the MWD adopted its 2015 Regional UWMP, which is an update to its prior 2010 Regional UWMP. In
its 2015 UWMP, MWD evaluated water supply reliability, over a 20-year period, for average, single-dry, and multiple-
dry years. To complete its most recent water supply reliability assessment, MWD developed estimates of total retail
demands for the region factoring in the impacts of conservation. After estimating demands, the water reliability
analysis identified current supplies and supplies under development to meet projected demands. MWD’s reliability
assessment showed that MWD can maintain reliable water supplies to meet projected demands through the year
2040. MWD also identified buffer supplies, including other SWP groundwater storage and transfers, which could
serve to supply additional water needs.
Imported Supplies
Colorado River: The Colorado River was MWD’s original source of water after MWD’s establishment in 1928. MWD
has a legal entitlement to receive water from the Colorado River under a permanent service contract with the
Secretary of the Interior. The CRA, which has a capacity of 1.2 MAF a year, is owned and operated by MWD. It
transports water from Lake Havasu, at the border of the state of California and Arizona, approximately 242 miles
to its terminus at Lake Mathews in Riverside County. Over the years, Metropolitan increased reliable supply from
the CRA through programs that it helped fund and implement including: farm and irrigation district c onservation
programs, improved reservoir system operations, land management programs, and water transfers and exchanges
through arrangements with agricultural water districts in southern California, San Diego County Water Authority,
and entities in Arizona and Nevada that use Colorado River water, and the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau
of Reclamation (USBR) (MWD 2016a).
State Water Project (SWP): MWD imports water from the SWP, owned by the state of California and operated by the
California DWR. The SWP transports Feather River water stored in and released from Oroville Dam and conveyed
through the Bay-Delta, as well as unregulated flows diverted directly from the Bay-Delta south via the California
Aqueduct to four delivery points near the northern and eastern boundaries of MWD’s service area (MWD 2016a).
In 1960, MWD signed a contract with the California DWR for SWP water supplies. MWD is one of 29 agencies that
have long-term contracts for water service from the California DWR, and is the largest agency in terms of the number
of people it serves (nearly 19 million), the share of SWP water that it has contracted to receive (approximately 46%),
and the percentage of total annual payments made to DWR by agencies with State water contracts (approximately
53% in 2015) (MWD 2016a).
Local Supplies
Approximately 50% of the region’s water supplies come from resources controlled or operated by local water
agencies. These resources include water extracted from local groundwater basins, catchment of local surface water,
non-MWD imported water supplied through the Los Angeles Aqueduct, and Colorado River water exchanged for
MWD supplies (MWD 2016a).
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 501 of 1271
5.16 – Utilities and Service Systems
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.16-9
Groundwater
The groundwater basins that underlie the region provide nearly 35% of the water supply in Southern California. The
major groundwater basins provide an annual average supply of approximately 1.35 MAF. Natural recharge of the
groundwater basins is supplemented by active recharge of captured stormwater, recycled water, and imported
water to support this level of annual production (MWD 2016a).
Estimates indicate that available storage space in the region’s groundwater basins in mid-2015 is approximately 4.8
MAF. Successive dry years have resulted in groundwater depletions that will need to be replaced with natural recharge
during wet years and active spreading of captured stormwater, recycled water, and imported water. Groundwater basin
managers and water suppliers have taken steps to store water in advance of dry years to soften the potential impact
on groundwater aquifers and to maintain reliable local water supplies during dry years (MWD 2016a).
Recycling, Groundwater Recovery, and Seawater Desalination
Recycling and groundwater recovery are local resources that add balance to Southern California’s diverse water
portfolio. In addition to replenishing groundwater basins described above, water recycling provides extensive
treated wastewater for applicable municipal and industrial uses. Common uses of recycled water include landscape
irrigation, agricultural irrigation, and commercial and industrial applications. Groundwater recovery employs
additional treatment techniques to effectively use degraded groundwater supplies that were previously not
considered viable due to high salinity or other contamination (MWD 2016a).
While water recycling and groundwater recovery projects in the Southern California region are primarily developed
by local water agencies, many newer projects have been developed with financial incentives provided through
Metropolitan’s Local Resources Program (LRP). The LRP is a performance-based program that provides incentives
to expand water recycling and support recovery of degraded groundwater. In 2015, the regional water production
from water recycling and groundwater recovery totaled approximately 530 trillion acre feet (TAF), of which 244 TAF
was developed with MWD funding assistance (MWD 2016a).
Seawater desalination represents a significant opportunity to diversify the region’s water resource mix with a new, locally
controlled, reliable potable supply. MWD supports seawater desalination to its member agencies by providing technical
assistance, regional facilitation of research and information exchanges, and financial incentives through the LRP.
San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA)
The SDCWA service area covers approximately 951,000 acres and encompasses the western third of San Diego
County. SDCWA has 24 member agencies, 15 of which provide water to unincorporated areas of San Diego County.
SDCWA is responsible for ensuring a safe and reliable water supply to support the region’s economy and quality of
life for over 3 million residents. SDCWA’s 24 member agencies purchase water from the SDCWA for retail
distribution within their service territories. A 36-member Board of Directors consisting of member agency
representatives governs the Water Authority. The member agencies’ 6 cities, 5 water districts, 8 municipal water
districts, 3 irrigation districts, a public utility district, and a federal military reservation have diverse and varying
water needs. In terms of land area, the City of San Diego is the largest member agency with 210,726 acres. The
smallest is the City of Del Mar, with 1,159 acres. Some member agencies, such as the cities of National City and
Del Mar, use water almost entirely for municipal and industrial purposes. Others, including Valley Center, Rainbow,
and Yuima Municipal Water Districts, deliver water that is used mostly for agricultural production (SDCWA 2016).
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 502 of 1271
5.16 – Utilities and Service Systems
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.16-10
The SDCWA is one of 26 member agencies of Metropolitan. The SDCWA is MWD’s largest member agency in terms
of purchases. Because of the County’s semi-arid climate and limited local water supplies, SDCWA has historically
imported between 70 and 95 % of the water used in the San Diego region from MWD. In 2008, MWD provided 71
% of the San Diego region’s water supply. Most of this water is obtained from the Colorado River and the SWP
through a system of pipes, aqueducts, and associated facilities. Through development of new local water supply
sources such as the Carlsbad Desalination Plant, SDCWA has become increasingly less reliant on MWD water
supplies in recent years. To reduce its dependency on MWD and diversify its supplies, the SDCWA in recent years
has undertaken several initiatives, including the following (SDCWA 2016):
• Carlsbad Seawater Desalination Water Purchase Agreement: To further help diversify regional supplies, the
SDCWA has entered into a Water Purchase Agreement under which it agrees to purchase up to 56,000
acre-feet/year (AFY) of desalinated water from the plant in the City of Carlsbad, operated by an affiliate of
Poseidon Resources Inc. The plant began operation in December 2015.
• Imperial Irrigation District Transfer: The SDCWA signed a Water Conservation and Transfer Agreement with the
Imperial Irrigation District in 1998. Through the transfer agreement, the SDCWA is purchasing water from the
Imperial Irrigation District at volumes that will gradually increase year to year, reaching 200,000 acre-feet/year
in 2021. The water is physically delivered to San Diego via Metropolitan’s Colorado River Aqueduct.
• All-American and Coachella Canal Lining Conserved Water: In 2003, as part of the execution of the
Quantification Settlement Agreement on the Colorado River, the SDCWA was assigned rights to 77,700 acre-
feet/year of conserved water from the All-American and Coachella Canals. As with the Imperial Irrigation
District transfer water, the water is physically delivered to San Diego via MWD’s Colorado River Aqueduct.
• Water Transfer and Banking Programs: The SDCWA has entered into water transfer and water banking
arrangements with Central Valley area agricultural agencies and groundwater storage interests. These projects
are designed to make additional water available to the SDCWA during dry-year supply shortages from MWD.
In June 2016, the SDCWA adopted its 2015 UWMP, updating the previously adopted 2010 UWMP. Sections 4, 5,
and 6 of SDCWA’s 2015 UMWP contain documentation of SDCWA’s existing and planned water supplies, including
MWD supplies (imported Colorado River water and SWP water), SDCWA supplies, and local member agency supplies
(surface water reservoirs, water recycling, groundwater, and groundwater recovery). SDCWA supplies include (1) IID
water transfer supplies, (2) Supplies from conservation projects to line the All-American Canal and the Coachella
Canal, located in Imperial and Coachella Valleys, and (3) development of a seawater desalination facility at Encina
Power Plant in Carlsbad, which is anticipated to produce 56,000 AFY of additional water supplies (see Table 5.16-1).
Table 5.16-1. Projected Normal Year Water Supplies (AFY)
Water Source 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Water Authority Supplies
IID Water Transfer 190,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000
Supply from MWD 136,002 181,840 207,413 224,863 248,565
Coachella Canal and All American Canal Lining
Projects
80,200 80,200 80,200 80,200 80,200
Regional Seawater Desalination 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000
Member Agency Supplies
Surface Water 51,580 51,480 51,380 51,280 51,180
Water Recycling 40,459 43,674 45,758 46,118 46,858
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 503 of 1271
5.16 – Utilities and Service Systems
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.16-11
Table 5.16-1. Projected Normal Year Water Supplies (AFY)
Water Source 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Groundwater 17,940 19,130 20,170 20,170 20,170
Seawater Desalination 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000
Brackish Groundwater Recovery 12,100 12,500 12,500 12,500 12,500
Total Projected Supplies 587,581 648,124 676,721 676,721 718,778
Source: Appendix L1.
Section 9 of the SDCWA’s 2015 UMWP evaluates water supply reliability in average, single-dry and multiple-dry
years. Based on SDCWA’s water supply reliability assessment, SDCWA concluded that water supplies would be
sufficient through 2040 (see Table 5.16-2 and Table 5.16-3).
Based on the imported and member agency local water sources discussed above, SDCWA estimated that it, along
with member agency local sources will be able to supply 587,581 AF of water in 2020, as demonstrated in Table
5.16-2, Table 5.16-3, and Table 5.16-4. The reason that supplies exactly met demands in Table 5.16-2 is that
SDCWA only imports that amount of water necessary to meet demand. In Tables 5.16 -3 and Table 5.16-4, years
that show a deficit would require the use of water storage offsets and management actions to balance demand and
supplies. These tables indicate that SDCWA has adequate supply to meet projected demands.
Table 5.16-2. Average/Normal Water Year Supply and Demand Assessment (AFY)
Water Source 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Member Agency Supplies
Surface Water 51,580 51,480 51,380 51,280 51,180
Water Recycling 40,459 43,674 45,758 46,188 46,858
Groundwater 17,940 19,130 20,170 20,170 20,170
Brackish Groundwater Recovery 12,100 12,500 12,500 12,500 12,500
Seawater Desalination 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000
Potable Reuse 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,300
Water Authority Supplies
IID Water Transfer 190,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000
Supply from MWD 136,002 181,840 207,413 224,863 248,565
Coachella Canal and All American Canal Lining
Projects
80,200 80,200 80,200 80,200 80,200
Carlsbad Desalination Plant 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000
Total Projected Supplies 587,581 648,124 676,721 694,431 718,773
Total Estimated Demands 587,581 648,124 676,721 694,431 718,773
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Source: Appendix L4.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 504 of 1271
5.16 – Utilities and Service Systems
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.16-12
Table 5.16-3. Single Dry Water Year Supply and Demand Assessment (AFY)
Water Source 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Member Agency Supplies
Surface Water 6,004 6,004 6,004 6,004 6,004
Water Recycling 40,459 43,674 45,758 46,188 46,858
Groundwater 15,281 15,281 15,281 15,281 15,281
Brackish Groundwater Recovery 12,100 12,500 12,500 12,500 12,500
Seawater Desalination 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000
Potable Reuse 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,300
Water Authority Supplies
IID Water Transfer 190,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000
Supply from MWD 263,340 264,740 263,340 260,680 258,720
Coachella Canal and All American Canal Lining Projects 80,200 80,200 80,200 80,200 80,200
Carlsbad Desalination Plant 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000
Total Projected Supplies 666,684 681,699 682,383 680,083 678,863
Total Estimated Demands 629,198 694,147 725,006 743,990 770,765
Difference 37,486 (12,448) (42,623) (63,907) (91,902)
Source: Appendix L1.
Table 5.16-4. Multiple Dry Water Year Supply and Demand Assessment (AFY)
Scenario
Near Term Long Term
2017 2018 2019 2036 2037 2038
Multiple Dry Years
Demands 491,000 495,910 500,869 749,030 756,521 764,086
Supply 525,710 558,634 586,587 720,579 678,564 642,327
Potential Surplus or
(Shortage)1
34,710 62,724 85,718 (28,454) (77,957) (121,759)
Source: Appendix L1.
1 Potential shortages would be offset through carryover storage and management actions.
Otay Water District (OWD)
Otay Water District is located in the southern half of San Diego County and was created in 1956. The OWD joined
the SDCWA as a member agency in the same year. The SDCWA is the agency responsible for the supply of imported
water into the San Diego County through its membership in MWD (OWD 2016).
The OWD is a California special district authorized under the provisions of the Municipal Water District Law of 1911 and
is revenue neutral, i.e., each end user pays their fair share of costs for capital improvements, water acquisition, and the
operation and maintenance of facilities. Its elected Board of Directors sets the OWD ordinances, policies, taxes, and rates
for providing wastewater, potable water, and recycled water services. The OWD’s water service area is generally located
within the south central portion of San Diego County and includes approximately 126 square miles. The topography of
the service area is diverse, consisting of a variety of valleys, hills, mountains, mesas, lakes and rivers. The service area
includes both urban and rural development. The major transportation arteries serving the area include State Highway 94
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 505 of 1271
5.16 – Utilities and Service Systems
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.16-13
in the north, Interstate 805 in the southwest and the newly constructed State Route 125 to the east. Interstate 905 and
State Highway 11 are in the process of being constructed in the Otay Mesa area (OWD 2016).
Once water is made available by SDCWA, it is transferred across San Diego County in two aqueducts containing five
large-diameter pipelines. The first Aqueduct includes Pipelines 1 and 2, and the second Aqueduct includes Pipelines
3, 4 and 5. The OWD maintains several connections to Pipeline 4, which delivers filtered water from the MWD
filtration plant at Lake Skinner in Riverside County.
In San Diego County, OWD provides water services to southern El Cajon, La Mesa, Rancho San Diego, Jamul, Spring
Valley, Bonita, eastern Chula Vista, and Otay Mesa along the international border with Mexico. OWD covers approximately
80,000 acres and has approximately 47,000 connections. OWD has approximately 709 miles of pipelines, 24 pump
stations, and 40 reservoirs with a total storage capacity of 226 million gallons (MG). OWD provides approximately 90 %
of its water service to residential land uses, and 10 % to commercial and industrial land uses. Average annual
consumption for OWD is approximately 30,000 AF. OWD maintains five major systems to supply and deliver water, which
include Hillsdale, Regulatory, La Presa, Central, and Otay Mesa.
In addition, OWD’s Flow Control Facility No. 14 and the Jamacha Road Pipeline delivers filtered water from the R.M. Levy
Water Treatment Plant which is owned and operated by the Helix Water District. However, this connection currently
supplies water to the north portion of OWD only. Furthermore, OWD maintains a connection to the City of San Diego’s
water system in Telegraph Canyon Road and has an agreement which allows the District to receive water from the Lower
Otay Filtration Plant.
In June 2016, OWD’s Board of Directors adopted the updated OWD 2015 UWMP. Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the 2015 UWMP
provides an overview of OWD’s service area, its current water supply sources, supply reliability, water demands,
measures to reduce water demand, and planned water supply projects and programs. Section 5 of the 2015 UWMP
contains OWD’s water service reliability assessment. This section states that the level of reliability is based on the
documentation in the UWMP’s prepared by MWD and SDCWA and that these agencies have determined they will be able
to meet potable water demands through 2040, during normal and dry year conditions. According to the 2015 UMWP,
OWD currently relies on MWD and SDCWA for its potable supply, and OWD has worked with these agencies to prepare
consistent demand projections for OWD’s service area.
The OWD’s service area has experienced growth in the past five years, and the service area population is expected
to be approximately 285,340 people by 2040. The OWD serves a wide spectrum of communities including southern
El Cajon, La Mesa, Rancho San Diego, Jamul, Spring Valley, Bonita, eastern City of Chula Vista, East Lake, Otay
Ranch and Otay Mesa areas. The water purveyors that border the District include Padre Dam Municipal Water
District (Padre Dam MWD) on the north, Helix WD on the northwest, and the Sweetwater Authority, and the City of
San Diego on the west. The southern boundary of the OWD is the international border with Mexico (OWD 2016).
The projected supply and demand comparison for normal year, single dry year, and multiple dry year scenarios are
summarized in Table 5.16-5. OWD’s potable water supply is expected to be adequately supplied by SDCWA during
normal year scenarios and single dry year scenarios. Water demand is anticipated to increase in dry years. In the
multiple dry year scenario where shortages may take place, the SDCWA would utilize its carryover storage supply
capacity during dry years. In years where shortages may still occur, after utilization of the carryover storage,
additional regional shortage management measures, consistent with the SDCWA’s Water Storage and Drought
Response Plan, would be taken to fill the supply shortfall (OWD 2016). Additionally, implementation of conservation
measures, anticipated increase in potable water supplies, and anticipated increased recycled water supply would
help to alleviate potential shortages.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 506 of 1271
5.16 – Utilities and Service Systems
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.16-14
Table 5.16-5. Otay Water District Projected Water Supply and Demand
Year-Type 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Water Supply1
Normal Year 45,748 51,883 54,540 55,455 62,792
Single Dry Year 45,748 56,213 61,125 63,932 75,087
Multiple Dry Year: 1st Year 46,346 52,239 54,832 56,138 n/a
Multiple Dry Year: 2nd Year 48,769 54,469 57,290 58,714 n/a
Multiple Dry Year
3rd Year
51,823 57,467 58,024 57,153 n/a
Water Demand3
Normal Year 45,748 51,883 54,540 55,455 62,792
Single Dry Year 45,748 56,213 61,125 63,932 75,087
Multiple Dry Year: 1st Year 46,346 52,239 54,832 56,138 n/a
Multiple Dry Year: 2nd Year 48,769 54,469 57,290 58,714 n/a
Multiple Dry Year
3rd Year
51,823 57,467 60,142 62,086 n/a
Difference
Normal Year 0 0 0 0 0
Single Dry Year 0 0 0 0 0
Multiple Dry Year: 1st Year 0 0 0 0 0
Multiple Dry Year: 2nd Year 0 0 0 0 0
Multiple Dry Year
3rd Year
0 0 (2,118) (4,933) n/a
Source: OWD 2016.
Notes: Units in acre-feet per year (AFY).
1 SDCWA UWMP analysis shows 100% supply reliability for these conditions so total supplies are set equal to OWD projected demands.
2 OWD demand totals with additional conservation and proportional adjustment for dry year per SDCWA CWA-MAIN model during
period of record.
3 Third dry year supply shortages will be addressed through drought management actions.
Additionally, 20 maintenance, replacement, and/or upgrade projects needed to serve the City of Chula Vista are included
in the Fiscal Year 2020 through 2015 OWD Capital Improvement Program document (City of Chula Vista 2020). The
OWD maintains a per capita demand of 118 gallons per capita per day (gpcd), or approximately 0.13 AFY (OWD 2016).
The OWD would supply water to Sunbow II, Phase 3 project from the 624 Zone of the District’s Central Area System.
The 624 Zone accesses water from the SDCWA aqueduct by Otay Flow Control Facilities Number 10 and 12, which
fill 624 Pressure Zone reservoirs. Water is then distributed within the 624 Zone and pumped to the 711 and 980
Zone storage and distribution systems.
To receive potable water service, the Sunbow II, Phase 3 project will need to expand the existing 624 Zone to include
the project’s water facilities, as discussed in Section 5.16.3 below. The following details the existing potable water
facilities located in the vicinity of the project.
There are three existing reservoirs in the 624 Zone, located along the SDCWA aqueduct east of the project. The
624-1 Zone reservoir is located near the SDCWA Otay No. 12 aqueduct connection and has capacity of 12.4 million
gallons (MG). The 624-2 Zone reservoir is located north of Otay Lakes Road near the SDCWA Otay No. 10 connection
and has a capacity of 8.1 MG. The 624-3 Zone reservoir is located just south of the 624-1 Zone reservoir and has
a capacity of 30 MG.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 507 of 1271
5.16 – Utilities and Service Systems
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.16-15
There are major transmission lines from these reservoirs to convey water to the various 624 Zone use areas and
to supply 711 Zone and 980 Zone pump stations. In the vicinity of the Sunbow II, Phase 3 project, there are 16 -
inch transmission lines in Medical Center Drive, Paseo Ladera, and Olympic Parkway.
Recycled Water
The OWD operates and maintains over 93 miles of recycled water transmission and distribution pipelines, pump
stations and reservoirs, making it one of the largest recycled water systems in San Diego County. The District’s
mandatory reuse ordinance, land development conditions, and public outreach has resulted in a OWD’s acceptance
of recycled water as a viable local water supply for irrigation, especially during recent drought conditions. The OWD
continues to successfully serve recycled water to customers within its central service area, south of the Sweetwater
Reservoir and west of the Otay Lakes Reservoirs. The majority of the area represents the Otay Ranch GPD area
within the City of Chula Vista (OWD 2016).
In order to serve the OWD’s existing demand for recycled water, the OWD entered into an agreement to purchase
recycled water from the City of San Diego’s South Bay Water Reclamation Plant (SBWRP). The SBWRP has a rated
capacity of 15 mgd and is located at Monument and Dairy Mart Roads near the international border, adjacent to
the Tijuana River. The SBWRP receives wastewater flow from the Grove Avenue Pump Station that scalps flow from
the existing interceptor system that conveys flow northward to the Point Loma Treatment Plant for treatment and
ocean outfall disposal. The existing interceptor system flows are thereby reduced, freeing up additional capacity for
future growth in the South Bay region. The SBWRP in essence is a scalping plant and is designed for a relatively
constant flow rate depending upon recycled water demands and interceptor capacity limitations.
The OWD has two sources of recycled water supply: Recycled water produced locally at the OWD’s Ralph W. Chapman
Water Recycling Facility (RWCWRF) and a recycled water supply produced at the City of San Diego’s SBWRP. The
RWCWRF is located near the intersection of Campo Road/Highway 94 and Singer Lane within the Middle Sweetwater
River basin. The agencies that participate in recycled water planning for the OWD’s service area are as follows:
• Otay Water District (OWD) – Owns and operates RWCWRF and the recycled water distribution network.
• City of San Diego Metropolitan Wastewater Department (MWWD) – Owns and operates regional
interceptors, SBWRP, and Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP).
The RWCWRF has the ability to produce approximately 1.3 mgd of recycled water meeting Title 22 requirements.
The RWCWRF is a scalping treatment facility: wastewater that is not treated by the facility for beneficial reuse
continues to flow in the Rancho San Diego Outfall Facilities to the City of San Diego Metropolitan Wastewater
System. Some of this wastewater is treated by MWWD at its SBWRP at the secondary level, and the remainder is
sent to the Point Loma WWTP for treatment at the advanced primary level and disposed through an ocean outfall.
At RWCWRF, tertiary treatment of the 1.3 mgd has the ability to reliably produce approximately 1,100 AFY of
recycled water. The RWCWRF provides tertiary treatment that meets the State of California’s Title 22 requirements
for reuse. Effluent from the plant is pumped to lined and covered reservoirs in the District’s property located north
of Proctor Valley Road adjacent to the Rolling Hills Ranch Development project.
Table 5.16-6 shows the projected recycled water demand up to 2040.
Table 5.16-6. Projected Recycled Water Demand
2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Total (Acre-Feet) 5,670 5,900 6,000 6,200 6,500
Source: OWD 2016.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 508 of 1271
5.16 – Utilities and Service Systems
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.16-16
Sewer/Wastewater
The City maintains and operates sewer facilities that feed into a larger regional system for treatment and disposal.
Chula Vista relies on the City of San Diego Metropolitan (Metro) Sewage System for treatment and disposal of the
wastewater generated within the project site (City of Chula Vista 2005). The Metro sewer system treats wastewater
from the City of San Diego and 15 other cities and districts, including Chula Vista. Flows are conveyed to the Point Loma
Wastewater Treatment plant, which has a maximum daily treatment capacity of 240 mgd and currently treats
approximately 175 mgd (Metro Wastewater n.d.a.).
The project proposes the development of 718 multi-family residential units and 0.9 acres of Community Purpose
Facility (Appendix L4). The sewer generation factor, based on analysis done within the Sewer System Evaluation for
Sunbow II, Phase (Appendix L4), was estimated to be 182 gpd/unit for multi-family residential units and 1,313
gpd/ac for Community Purpose Facilities (summarized in Table 5.16-7).
Table 5.16-7. Sewer Generation Factor
Land Use Generation Factor
Multi-Family Residential Units 182 gpd/unit
Community Purpose Facility 1,313 gpd/ac
Source: Appendix L4.
The City of Chula Vista operates and maintains its own sanitary collection system that connects to the Metro
sewerage system for treatment and disposal. The Metro sewerage system treats wastewater from the City of San
Diego and 15 other cities and districts, including Chula Vista. The San Diego Metropolitan Sewer Authority regulates
the three wastewater treatment plants: (1) Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plan; (2) Southbay Water
Reclamation Plant; and (3) North City Water Reclamation Plant. Currently, the three combined treatment plants
have a maximum permitted treatment capacity of 285 mgd of wastewater for the City of San Diego and 15 other
participating agencies. All sewer flows from the project will be conveyed to the Poggi Canyon Interceptor Sewer
located in Olympic Parkway adjacent to the project site (Appendix L4).
The available capacity in the Poggi Canyon Interceptor was evaluated in the April 2009 Poggi Canyon Basin Gravity
Sewer Development Impact Fee (DIF) Update prepared by PMC (Appendix L4). Available capacity in the interceptor
has been updated several times in recent years by proposed developments within the Poggi Canyon Basin. All
previous studies have been based on industrial land use for the project site.
Since there are planned improvements to the proposed Poggi Canyon Interceptor prior to the full buildout of
development, it is necessary to establish the development thresholds at which these improvements will be required.
The improvements to critical sections of the Poggi Canyon Interceptor will be funded from the DIF that has been
collected from all units that convey flow to the Poggi Canyon Interceptor. The City shall perform flow metering of
critical reaches of the Poggi Canyon Interceptor to assist in determining the timing of the work to upsize these
critical pipe segments.
Solid Waste
The City of Chula Vista’s Public Works Department and Environmental Services Division oversees waste
management in the City for residences and businesses in accordance with the goals and polici es of the adopted
General Plan and State Statues (AB 341). Republic Services (formerly known as Allied Waste Management)
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 509 of 1271
5.16 – Utilities and Service Systems
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.16-17
currently serves the City of Chula Vista as the sole solid waste and recycling service provider for residential,
commercial and industrial customers. The City disposes of solid waste, yard waste, and C&DD at the Otay Landfill,
which is anticipated to close in 2028. The City is currently working on further waste diversion plans, in addition to
the C&DD Ordinance to help extend the lifespan of the Otay Landfill; the Sycamore Canyon Landfill will be utilized
as the City’s primary landfill once the Otay Landfill closes. The mixed debris that are required to be recycled per the
C&DD Ordinance are processed at one of two C&D facilities in San Diego: the Otay Landfill run by Republic Services
and EDCO’s C&D facility in Lemon Grove. Both of these C&D facilities are open to the public, as neighboring cities
have similar ordinances and solid waste requirements (City of Chula Vista 2014). In September 12, 2019, the
County of San Diego issued a Major Use Permit Minor Deviation, MUP 76 -046WM ("2019 MUP") that allowed for
the construction and operation of a composting operation, however, restricted such composting activities from
being located within 1,000 feet from residential development. The Otay Landfill has requested a CMHF Permit for
the composting operation within the active Otay landfill disposal area (230 acres) for processing up to 200 TPD of
green waste, food waste, and organic/agriculture waste using a mobile covered aerated composting system
(GORE® Covers technology).
In addition, the Environmental Services Division offers bulky item collection, composting, construction and
demolition debris, electronic waste, hazardous waste, reuse, sharps waste disposal, special services, universal
waste and yard waste programs and services. The City of Chula Vista runs its own household hazardous waste
(HHW) program and collection facility to help manage the hazardous waste disposal throughout the City. The
hazardous waste disposal facility is part of the City’s effort to divert household toxics and hazardous waste from
their landfill facilities. Residential composting is encouraged by the City through the availability of composting
education and subsidized compost bins. The City is currently working on a food waste pilot program, in efforts to
divert up to approximately 25% of the solid waste stream (organics) from their landfills (City of Chula Vista 2014).
Chula Vista’s CLEAN business program promotes businesses which implement solid waste reduction measures and
practices, as well as energy conservation, water conservation and pollution prevention measures. The City of Chula
Vista’s Environmental Services Division also manages special events solid waste disposal with the implementation
of the Special Events Recycling and Solid Waste Management Plan (City of Chula Vista 2014).
Stormwater Drainage
Existing site drainage patterns includes a 117.3-acre hydrologic catchment primarily consisting of natural grades
and hills all covered by native vegetations and shrubs. The site is accessible from Olympic Parkway through two
separate bridges crossing Poggi Canyon creek on the north side. The Poggi Canyon creek flows from northeast to
southwest and accepts a large amount of storm runoff from surrounding area. It is also downstream of the on-site
runoff from both the project site existing and proposed conditions. The local high points are in the southern
boundary of the site adjacent to the Otay landfill and make the overall on-site surface flow pattern south to north
(Appendix I1).
A small portion of the site in the southwest corner was occupied by a water tank that is serving the nearby residential areas.
Based on the site topography, the existing condition catchment was divided into seven sub catchments. All on-site
runoff from the project sub-catchment under design event will flow from south via natural valley to north into Poggi
Canyon creek and eventually confluence at the northwest corner of the projects catchment.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 510 of 1271
5.16 – Utilities and Service Systems
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.16-18
Electric Power, Natural Gas. and Telecommunication Facilities
As discussed in Section 4.4.3.4, telephone, cable television, and internet service would be provided by companies
such as Cox Communications, Time Warner, and AT&T. Gas and electric services would be provided by San Diego
Gas & Electric Company.
5.16.2 Thresholds of Significance
The significance criteria used to evaluate the project impacts to utilities and service systems is based on the
recommendations provided in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.). A significant impact
would occur if the project would:
A. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or
storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.
B. Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and multiple dry years.
C. 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.
D. Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals.
E. Not comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to
solid waste.
5.16.3 Impacts
A. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or storm
water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities or expansion of existing facilities,
the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.
Proposed utility improvements are described in Section 4.4.3, Public Service and Utilities, of this EIR. These utility
improvements are included as a part of the project, and the associated impacts are addressed in this EIR.
Water
Water service will be provided by the Otay Water District (OWD). Water supply requirements specified in the
California Fire Code (Section 404 of the Wildland-Urban Interface Code and Appendix B – Fire Flow Requirements
for Buildings, Appendix C – Fire Hydrant Locations and Distribution {Chula Vista revisions – Sections 15.36.050
and 15.36.055}) including for hydrants and interior sprinklers will be provided for the proposed project. A water
system would be installed in accordance with the standards of the OWD and would be maintained and operated by
OWD. One existing OWD waterline and one existing OWD recycled water line are present along Olympic Parkway.
The proposed project would receive water by expanding the existing 624 Pressure Zone, located within the Central
Area System of OWD, through creating two domestic service connections and two fire service connections
transmission lines within Olympic Parkway, directly to the north of Streets A and Bpublic streets. In addition, an on-
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 511 of 1271
5.16 – Utilities and Service Systems
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.16-19
site loop would be constructed for domestic and fire protection systems and would include a proposed public 12-
inch OWD waterline , an 8-inch-diameter private domestic waterline, an 8-inch-diameter private fire protection
waterline, and an 8-inch-diameter public OWD recycled water line, to be constructed within Streets A and B, and an
8-inch-diameter private domestic waterline, an 8-inch-diameter private fire protection waterline, and a 6-inch
private recycled waterline, to be constructed outside of the public streets. The proposed water and recycled water
systems are shown on Figure 4-13. Details regarding the overview of the water service and supply are provided in
Appendix L. The final fire flow and duration will be determined during a future review of the water service overview
would occur before final approval by the Chula Vista Fire Department.
The development pads on the project will range in elevation from approximately 370 feet to 420 feet. With service
provided from the 624 Zone, this will result in maximum static pressure ranging from 88 to 110 psi. The proposed
water and recycled water systems are shown on Figure 4-13.
Table 5.16-8 provides the duty factors used in projecting the total average demand for the proposed project.
Table 5.16-8. Water Duty Factors
Land Use Designation Unit Domestic Demand Required Fire Flow (gpm)
Required Fire Flow
Duration (hours)
Multi-Family (>10 DU/AC) 170 gpd/unit 2,500 2
Park/CPF 1,900 gpd/ac --- ---
Source: Appendix L1.
Table 5.16-9 provides the projected potable water demand for Sunbow II, Phase 3 project. The total estimated
average potable water use is 0.12 mgd, or approximately 136.72 AFY. This demand would be supplied from the
OWD’s 624 Zone. As discussed above, there are three existing reservoirs in the 624 Zone, located along the SDCWA
aqueduct east of the project. The 624-1 Zone reservoir is located near the SDCWA Otay No. 12 aqueduct connection
and has capacity of 12.4 million gallons (MG). The 624-2 Zone reservoir is located north of Otay Lakes Road near
the SDCWA Otay No. 10 connection and has a capacity of 8.1 MG. The 624-3 Zone reservoir is located just south
of the 624-1 Zone reservoir and has a capacity of 30 MG. There are major transmission lines from these reservoirs
to convey water to the various 624 Zone use areas and to supply 711 Zone and 980 Zone pump stations. In the
vicinity of the project, there are 16-inch transmission lines in Medical Center Drive, Paseo Ladera, and Olympic
Parkway. This existing OWD water infrastructure has capacity to serve the project.
Table 5.16-9. Sunbow II, Phase 3 Projected Potable Water Demands
Neighborhood
Land Use
Designation Gross Acres Quantity, Units
Water Duty
Factor
Total Average
Water Demand,
GPD
R-1 MF Residential 8.5 131 170 gpd/unit 22,270
R-2 MF Residential 4.6 73 170 gpd/unit 12,410
R-3 MF Residential 8.1 108 170 gpd/unit 18,360
R-4 MF Residential 8.2 118 170 gpd/unit 20,060
R-5 MF Residential 7.1 104 170 gpd/unit 17,680
R-6 MF Residential 7.6 184 170 gpd/unit 31,280
Total 718 N/A 122,060
Source: Appendix L1.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 512 of 1271
5.16 – Utilities and Service Systems
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.16-20
The proposed water infrastructure improvements shown on Figure 4-13 and existing OWD infrastructure would
serve the project needs and no additional water improvements that would result in environmental impacts would
be necessary to serve the project. OWD has a potable water storage capacity of 218.9 million gallons (OWD 2020).
As shown in Table 5.16-9, the project would have a potable water demand of 122,060 GPD. Additionally, while the
project would provide potable water to residents, recycled water is proposed to be used at all common landscaped
areas within the project as well as the irrigated areas of the private open space/CPF. Therefore, impacts would be
less than significant.
Recycled Water
Recycled water would be used for irrigation of manufactured slopes and common areas. Table 5.16-10 provides
the projected recycled water demands for the project. The project’s total average demand is 0.024 mgd, or
approximately 27.45 AFY. In Table 5.16-6, the City’s project recycled water demand increases by 230 AFY from
2020 to 2025, 100 AFY from 2025 to 2030, 200 AFY from 2030 to 2040. The 27.45 AFY projected recycled water
demand from the project would be adequately considered within the OWD’s projected recycled water demands.
Table 5.16-10. Sunbow II, Phase 3 Projected Recycled Water Demands
Land Use Designation Quantity Irrigation Factor Total Average Demand, GPD
Irrigated Slopes 12 ac 1,900 gpd/ac 22,800
Private Open Space/CPF 0.9 ac 1,900 gpd/ac 1,710
Total 24,510
Source: Appendix L1.
Recycled water is proposed to be used at all common landscaped areas within the project as well as the irrigated
areas of the private open space/CPF. There is a 680 Zone recycled water line in Olympic Parkway adjacent to the
project site. The project would connect to this line and set a meter(s) such that all on-site irrigation piping will be
private outside of public streets. Service from the 680 Zone will result in static pressures of 113 psi and 134 psi in
the development areas. Pressures at irrigated slopes will vary from this and the landscape architect will verify the
ability to serve all irrigated areas of the project from the 680 Zone.
These improvements would serve the project needs and no additional water improvements that would result in
environmental impacts would be necessary to serve the project. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Sewer/Wastewater
The proposed on-site sewer system for the project consists of gravity sewer lines that will convey flow to the Poggi
Canyon Interceptor in Olympic Parkway. Based on the average flow presented in Table 5.16 -11 and a peak factor
of 2.33 from the City Subdivision Manual, the projected peak flow for the project is 0.31 mgd. An 8-inch gravity
sewer line with a minimum slope of 1.0 % is adequate to convey this total project flow. It is anticipated that an 8-
inch public sewer line will be constructed on site to convey flows to the point of connection with the Poggi Canyon
Interceptor. Private sewer lines will be connected to this 8-inch public sewer line and extended to the proposed
building sewer laterals. The proposed sewer plan is shown on Figure 4-14.
The proposed project would receive sewer service by construction of on-site 8-inch gravity sewer line(s) connecting
to the Poggi Canyon Interceptor in Olympic Parkway. The projected flows from the proposed project are slightly lower
than were projected in previous Poggi Canyon Basin Studies and, therefore, the proposed project does not require
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 513 of 1271
5.16 – Utilities and Service Systems
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.16-21
any new improvements to the Poggi Canyon Interceptor or accelerate any previously identified improvements.
Based on flow monitoring by the City, the timing for replacement of the critical reaches would be determined and
implemented by the City. The project would fund their fair share of Poggi Canyon Interceptor improvements through
the payment of the Poggi DIF (Appendix L4).
Table 5.16-11 provides a comparison between projected sewer flower from the Poggi Development Impact Fee
(DIF) study based on the current land use plan with updated sewer generation factors, as analyzed in Appendix L4.
The increased sewer flows would be 4,642 gpd, or approximately 5.2 AFY.
Table 5.16-11. Sunbow II, Phase 3 Sewer Flow Summary
Land Use Acres Building Units Generation Factor Average Flow (gpd)
2009 Poggi Canyon Basin DIF Sewer Flow
Industrial 54.61 --- 2,500 gpd/ac 136,500
Current Proposed Sewer Flow
Multi-family
Residential Units
--- 718 182 gpd/unit 130,676
Community Purpose 0.9 --- 1,313 gpd/ac 1,182
Subtotal 131,858
Increased Sewer Flow (4,642)
Increased Sewer EDUs2 (20)
Source: Appendix L4.
Notes:
1 From 2009 Poggi Basin DIF Study.
2 Based on 230 gpd/Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs).
As discussed earlier, wastewater flows are conveyed to the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment plant, which has a
maximum daily treatment capacity of 240 mgd and currently treats approximately 175 mgd (Metro Wastewater
n.d.a). The proposed project would result in an increased sewer flow of 4,642 gpd, or 0.0046 mgd, which can be
adequately accommodated by the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment plant.
These improvements would serve the project needs and no additional water improvements that would result in
environmental impacts would be necessary to serve the project. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Stormwater Drainage
Hydrology is also discussed in detail in Section 5.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this EIR. The storm drain and
storm water quality control facilities are proposed to meet the city requirements. According to Appendix I1, the
proposed project would create 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surfaces. Specifically, the total impervious
area would be 1,599,328.2 square feet (Appendix I1).
The development of the site will include adding the storm drains, curb inlets, cleanouts along the proposed on -site
private roads and parking spaces to collect and convey the storm runoff to the two proposed detention and water
quality control basins located at the northeast and northwest part of the development area.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 514 of 1271
5.16 – Utilities and Service Systems
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.16-22
The on-site runoff from the site will be collected by proposed curb inlets and storm drain systems which will convey
the stormwater through the on-site Biofiltration and Modular Wetland BMPs for water quality control. The outflow
of these BMPs discharges into Poggi Canyon Creek whose ultimate downstream destination is San Diego Bay.
Since the proposed development will increase runoff generated by the project site, the project will use on-site
detention facilities to mitigate for the increase in peak flow. As a result, the mitigated Q100 of proposed condition
demonstrates 25.07 cfs flow rate reduction compare to that of the existing condition (Appendix I2). Runoff
generated by the project will not exceed pre-project peak flow rates, and runoff velocities will be dissipated by rock
riprap at storm drain outfalls. Riprap design (per SDRSD D-40) will be provided with hydraulics during the final
engineering stage.
Due to the grading of the site, drainage pathways would be altered slightly such that some of the independent small
sub-catchments in the center portion of the project site were combined into bigger sub-catchments. However, the
designated flow would still be within the capacity of water quality facilities (Appendix I1). Therefore, impacts would
be less than significant.
Electric Power, Natural Gas and Telecommunication Facilities
Proposed power, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities improvements would include connections to
existing service lines located in the adjacent roadways. The project would connect to existing dry utilities. Refer also
to Section 5.5, Energy, for a discussion of energy consumption. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
B. Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development
during normal, dry and multiple dry years.
A Water Supply Assessment (WSA) was prepared for the project by OWD at the request of the City and was approved
by the OWD Board of Directors on January 6, 2021. The WSA is included with this EIR as Appendix L2. The following
analysis is based on the WSA as well as the Otay Water District’s (OWD) Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP)
(OWD 2016).
The project would construct 718 dwelling units and have an anticipated water usage of 122,060 gallons per day, or
approximately 136.72 AFY (Table 5.16-9). This is 84.7 AFY higher than the projected demands in the OWD’s 2015
Facilities Master Plan which estimated 52 AFY for 54.7 acres of industrial use. However, the projected 84.7 AFY
increase in demand is accounted for through the Accelerated Forecasted Growth demand increment of the SDCWA’s
2015 UWMP. Additionally, the project would use recycled water for irrigation of manufactured slopes and common
areas. The projected recycled water demand for the project is 24,510 gpd, or about 27.5 AFY (Appendix L2).
As documented in the SDCWA’s 2015 UWMP, the SDCWA is planning to meet future and existing water demands
which include the demand increment associated with the accelerated forecasted growth. The SDCWA will assist its
member agencies in tracking the environmental documents provided by the agencies that include water supply
assessments and verifications reports that utilize the accelerated forecasted growth demand increment to
demonstrate supplies for the development. In addition, the next update of the demand forecast for the SDCWA’s 2020
UWMP will be based on SANDAG’s most recently updated forecast, which will include the project. Therefore, based on
the findings presented in the WSA, the project would result in no unanticipated water demands (Appendix L2).
As discussed in the WSA, the SDCWA and MWD have an established process that ensures water supplies are planned to
meet future growth. The SDCWA and MWD update their demand forecasts and supply needs based on the most recent
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 515 of 1271
5.16 – Utilities and Service Systems
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.16-23
SANDAG forecast approximately every five years to coincide with preparation of their urban water management plans. Prior
to the next forecast update, local jurisdictions may require water supply assessment for proposed land developments that
are not within the OWD, SDCWA, or MWD jurisdictions or that have revised land use plans with lower or higher land use
intensities than reflected in the existing growth forecasts. The OWD, SDCWA, and MWD next demand forecast and supply
requirements and associated planning documents would then capture any increase or decrease in demands and required
supplies as a result of annexations or revised land use planning decisions. This process would be utilized by the SDCWA
and MWD to document the water supplies necessary to serve the demands of the project, along with existing and other
projected future users, as well as the actions necessary to develop any required water supplies (Appendix L2).
Additionally, the OWD 2015 UWMP includes a water conservation component to comply with Senate Bill 7 of the
Seventh Extraordinary Session (SBX 7-7), which became effective February 3, 2010. This new law was the water
conservation component to the Delta legislation package and seeks to achieve a 20 percent statewide reduction
in urban per capita water use in California by December 31, 2020. Specifically, SBX 7-7 requires each urban retail
water supplier to develop urban water use targets to help meet the 20 percent reduction goal by 2020 (20x2020),
and an interim water reduction target by 2015. OWD adopted Method 1 to set its 2015 interim and 2020 water
use targets. Method 1 requires setting the 2020 water use target to 80 percent of baseline per capita water use
target as provided in the State’s 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan. The OWD 2015 target was 172 gallons per
capita per day (gpcd) which it met (2015 actual was 124 gpcd) and the 2020 gpcd target (80 percent of baseline)
is 153 gpcd. The OWD recent per capita water use has been declining and current water use meets the 2020 target
as calculated using Method 1. The decline in per capita water use was due to drought water use restrictions,
increased water costs, and economic conditions. OWD’s effective water use awareness campaign and enhanced
conservation mentality of its customers has resulted in long-term carryover of these reduced rates (Appendix L2).
The WSA findings show that based on a normal water supply year, the projected potable and recycled water supply
is being planned for and is intended to be acquired to meet the estimated water demand targets of the OWD per
the OWD 2015 UWMP. Table 5.16-12 presents the forecast balance of water demands and required supplies for
the OWD service area under average or normal year conditions.
Table 5.16-12. Projected Balance of Water Demands and Supplies Normal Year Conditions
(Acre Feet)
Description FY 2025 FY 2030 FY 2035 FY 2040
Demands
OWD Demands 54,771 57,965 59,279 65,913
Active Conservation Savings (1,844) (1,585) (1,538) (1,587)
Accelerated Forecast Growth (AFG) –
Planning Area 12
46 46 46 46
AFG – Otay Sunroad EOM SPA 836 836 836 836
AFG – University Innovation District 11.7 11.7 11.7 11.7
AFG – Sunbow II, Phase 3 84.7 84.7 84.7 84.7
Passive Conservation Savings (4,497) (5,489) (6,040) (6,744)
Total Demand 49,408.4 51,869.4 52,679.4 58,560.4
Supplies
Water Authority Supply 43,508.4 45,869.4 46,479.4 52,060.4
Recycled Water Supply 5,900 6,000 6,200 6,500
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 516 of 1271
5.16 – Utilities and Service Systems
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.16-24
Table 5.16-12. Projected Balance of Water Demands and Supplies Normal Year Conditions
(Acre Feet)
Description FY 2025 FY 2030 FY 2035 FY 2040
Total Supply 49,408.4 51,869.4 52,679.4 58,560.4
Supply Surplus 0 0 0 0
Source: Appendix L2
Further, based on dry year forecasts, the estimated water supply is also being planned for and is intended to be
acquired to meet the projected water demand, during single dry and multiple dry year scenarios. On average, the
dry-year demands are about 6.64 percent higher than the normal year demands. However, as shown in Table 5.16-
13, the OWD recycled water supply is assumed to be drought-proof and not subject to reduction during dry periods.
These findings from the WSA assess, demonstrate, and document that sufficient water supplies are planned for
and are intended to be acquired for the project’s proposed water demands. In addition, the actions necessary to
develop these supplies are and will be further documented, to serve the project and the existing and other
reasonably foreseeable planned development projects within the OWD in both normal and single and multiple dry
year forecasts for a 20-year horizon. Refer to Appendix L2 for further details.
Table 5.16-13. Projected Balance of Water Demands and Supplies Single Dry and Multiple Dry
Year Conditions (Acre Feet)
Normal Year Single Dry Year Multiple Dry Years
FY 2011 First Dry Year
First Dry
Year
Second
Dry Year
Third Dry
Year
Demands
OWD Demands 37,176 38,749 38,844 40,378 42,430
Total Demand 37,176 38,749 38,844 40,378 42,430
Supplies
Water Authority Supply 33,268 33,877 33,972 35,240 37,026
Recycled Water Supply 3,908 4,872 4,872 5,138 5,404
Total Supply 37,176 34,639 38,844 40,378 42,430
Supply Surplus 0 0 0 0 0
Source: Appendix L2
The findings above show that sufficient water supplies are planned for and are intended to be acquired for the
project. Additionally, the actions necessary to develop these supplies are and will be further documented, to serve
the project and the existing and other reasonably foreseeable planned development projects within the OWD in
both normal and single and multiple dry year forecasts for a 20-year planning horizon. Furthermore, in evaluating
the availability of sufficient water supplies, the project development proponents would be required to participate in
the development of alternative water supply project(s). This can be achieved through payment of the New Water
Supply Fee adopted by the OWD Board in May 2010. These water supply projects are in addition to those identified
as sustainable supplies in the current SDCWA and MWD UWMP, Integrated Resource Plans, Master Plans, and
other planning documents. Refer to Appendix L2 for further details. Thus, regional water suppliers along with OWD
fully intend to maintain sufficient reliable supplies through the 20-year planning horizon under normal, single, and
multiple dry year conditions to meet projected demand of the project, along with existing and other planned
development projects within the OWD service area. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 517 of 1271
5.16 – Utilities and Service Systems
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.16-25
C. 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.
See discussion of Sewer/Wastewater under Threshold A. Impacts would be less than significant.
D. Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure,
or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals.
Solid waste management services for the City of Chula Vista are provided by Republic Services. Solid waste is
collected curbside once a week and transported to the Otay Landfill in the City of Chula Vista. The Otay Landfill
currently has a projected life span of 15-years, and a maximum permitted throughput of 5,830 tons per day
(CalRecycle 2016a). However, the Otay Landfill is projected to close in 2030. Construction of the proposed project
would result in a temporary increase in solid waste generation, while operation would result in a long term,
permanent, incremental increase in solid waste generation.
Additionally, under the current franchise agreement between the City of Chula Vista and Republic Services, solid
waste would be disposed of at the Sycamore Landfill once the Otay Landfill meets its permitted capacity and
terminates solid waste services (City of Chula Vista 2012a). The Sycamore Landfill has a remaining capacity of
47,388,428 cubic yards and projected cease operation date of December 2031 (CalRecycle 2016b). As such, solid
waste service would continue following closure of the Otay Landfill and permitted capacity would be available to
accommodate the proposed project. Impacts would be less than significant.
E. Not comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
The State of California has mandated the at least 50% of the solid waste generated by a City or County be diverted
from landfills. Additionally, the State has set per capita disposal rates of 5.3-pounds per person per day for the City
of Chula Vista (Atlantis Group 2017). To maintain these targets, the following programs must be implemented per
Chula Vista Municipal Code Sections 8.23, Solid Waste and Recycling Contract or Franchise; 8.24, Solid Waste and
Litter; 8.25, Recycling; and 19.58.340, Trash Enclosures:
1. All new construction and demolition projects in the City are required to divert from landfill disposal 100 -
percent of inert waste, to include asphalt, concrete, bricks, tile, trees, stumps, rocks, and associated
vegetation and soils resulting from land clearing, and not less than 50 -percent of the remaining waste
generated, via reuse or recycling, unless a partial or full diversion exemption has been granted pursuant to
CVMC 8.25.095, in which case the diversion requirement shall be the maximum feasible diversion rate
established by the Waste Management Report Compliance Official for the project (CVMC 8.25.020(O6)).
Contractors will be required to put up a performance deposit and prepare a Waste Management Report
Form to ensure that all materials are responsibly handled. Upon verification that the diversion goals have
been met the performance deposit will be refunded (CVMC 8.25.095).
2. The City of Chula Vista’s Recycling and Solid Waste Planning Manual, adopted by City Council, provides
information for adequate space allocated to recycling and solid waste within individual projects, based
upon the type of project and collection service needed. Republic Services is the City of Chula Vista
contracted service provider for all commercial, industrial, and residential services within the city limits.
3. Plans are subject to approval by the City Manager or designee, who is the Environmental Services Program
Manager in the Public Works Department.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 518 of 1271
5.16 – Utilities and Service Systems
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.16-26
4. Additionally, the City of Chula Vista encourages the use of compost materials to be incorporated into the
soil of all new construction projects to improve soil health, water retention, less water run-off, and filtration
of water run-off prior to entering storm drains and creeks on the way to San Diego Bay. The yard trimmings
collected in Chula Vista are composted at the Otay Landfill and may be available for purchase.
The proposed project would be constructed and operated in compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local
statues and regulations relating to solid waste. Thus, impacts would be less than significant.
5.16.4 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation
No significant impacts would occur as a result of the proposed project related to public utilities. Impacts would be
less than significant.
5.16.5 Mitigation Measures
Impacts were found to be less than significant.
5.16.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation
No significant impacts would occur as a result of the proposed project related to public utilities. Impacts would be
less than significant.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 519 of 1271
Existing Water Facilities
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR
FIGURE 5.16-1SOURCE: Dexter Wilson Engineering 2020Path: Z:\Projects\j1261201\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\EIR2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 520 of 1271
5.16 – Utilities and Service Systems
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.16-28
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 521 of 1271
5.17 – Wildfire
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.17-1
5.17 Wildfire
This section of the environmental impact report (EIR) describes the existing wildfire conditions within the vicinity of
the project site, identifies associated regulatory requirements, evaluates potential impacts associated with wildfire
and contribution to regional wildfire conditions, and identifies mitigation measures related to implementation of the
proposed Sunbow Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project (project or
proposed project). Potential wildfire impacts resulting from construction and operation of the proposed project
were evaluated based on a review of existing resources and applicable laws, regulations, guidelines, and standards.
This section focuses on the effect of the proposed project on wildfire risk. Fire protection services for the proposed
project are addressed in Section 5.13, Public Services, of this EIR. A Fire Protection Plan (FPP), which evaluated
and identified potential fire risks associated with the project, was prepared for the project by Dudek and has been
included as Appendix H3 of this EIR.
5.17.1 Existing Conditions
5.17.1.1 Regulatory Framework
Federal
National Fire Protection Association Codes, Standards, Practices, and Guides
National Fire Protection Association codes, standards, recommended practices, and guides are developed through
a consensus standards development process approved by the American National Standards Institute. This process
brings together professionals representing varied viewpoints and interests to achieve consensus on fire and other
safety issues. National Fire Protection Association standards are recommended guidelines and nationally accepted
good practices in fire protection, but are not laws or codes unless adopted as such or referenced as such by the
California Fire Code (CFC) or the local fire agency.
Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy
The Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy was developed in 1995, updated in 2001, and again in 2009, by the
National Wildfire Coordinating Group, a federal multiagency group that establishes consistent and coordinated fire
management policy across multiple federal jurisdictions. An important component of the Federal Wildland Fire
Management Policy is the acknowledgement of the essential role of fire in maintaining natural ecosystems. The
Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy and its implementation are founded on the foll owing guiding principles,
found in the Guidance for Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy (National Wildfire
Coordinating Group 2009):
• Firefighter and public safety is the first priority in every fire management activity.
• The role of wildland fire as an essential ecological process and natural change agent will be incorporated
into the planning process.
• Fire management plans, programs, and activities support land and resource management plans and
their implementation.
• Sound risk management is a foundation for all fire management activities.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 522 of 1271
5.17 – Wildfire
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.17-2
• Fire management programs and activities are economically viable, based upon values to be protected,
costs, and land and resource management objectives.
• Fire management plans and activities are based upon the best available science.
• Fire management plans and activities incorporate public health and environmental quality considerations.
• Federal, state, tribal, local, interagency, and international coordination and cooperation are essential.
• Standardization of policies and procedures among federal agencies is an ongoing objective.
National Fire Plan
The National Fire Plan, officially titled Managing the Impacts of Wildfire on Communities and the Environment: A
Report to the President In Response to the Wildfires of 2000, was a presidential directive in 2000 as a response
to severe wildland fires that had burned throughout the United States. The National Fire Plan focuses on reducing
fire impacts on rural communities and providing assurance for sufficient firefighting capacity in the future. The plan
addresses the following five key points: firefighting, rehabilitation, hazardous fuels reduction, community
assistance, and accountability. The plan provides technical, financial, and resource guidance an d support for
wildland fire management across the United States. The U.S. Forest Service and the Department of the Interior are
working to successfully implement the key points outlined in the plan (DOI and USDA 2000).
International Fire Code
Created by the International Code Council, the International Fire Code addresses a wide array of conditions
hazardous to life and property, including fire, explosions, and hazardous materials handling or usage (although not
a federal regulation, but rather the product of the International Code Council). The International Fire Code places
an emphasis on prescriptive and performance-based approaches to fire prevention and fire protection systems.
Updated every 3 years, the International Fire Code uses a hazards classific ation system to determine the
appropriate measures to be incorporated to protect life and property (often times these measures include
construction standards and specialized equipment). The International Fire Code uses a permit system (based on
hazard classification) to ensure that required measures are instituted (ICC 2017).
International Wildland–Urban Interface Code
The International Wildland–Urban Interface Code is published by the International Code Council and is a model
code addressing wildfire issues (ICC 2014).
State
California Government Code
Sections 51175–51189 of the California Government Code provide guidance for classifying lands in California as
fire hazard areas and requirements for management of property within those lands. The California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) is responsible for classifying Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZs) based on
statewide criteria, and makes the information available for public review. Further, local agencies must designate,
by ordinance, Very High FHSZs within their jurisdiction based on the recommendations of CAL FIRE.
Section 51182 of the California Government Code sets forth requirements for maintaining property within fire
hazard areas, such as defensible space, vegetative fuels ma nagement, and building materials and standards.
Defensible space around structures in fire hazard areas must consist of 100 feet of fuel modification on each side
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 523 of 1271
5.17 – Wildfire
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.17-3
of a structure, but not beyond the property line unless findings conclude that the clearing is necessary to
significantly reduce the risk of structure ignition in the event of a wildfire. Clearance on adjacent property shall only
be conducted following written consent by the adjacent owner. Further, trees must be trimmed from within 10 feet
of the outlet of a chimney or stovepipe, vegetation near buildings must be maintained, and roofs of structures must
be cleared of vegetative materials. Exemptions may apply for buildings with an exterior constructed entirely of
nonflammable materials.
California Code of Regulations
Title 14 Natural Resources
Title 14, Division 1.5, Chapter 7, Subchapter 3, Fire Hazard, also sets forth requirements for defensible space if the
distances specified in Section 51182 of the California Government Code (outlined above) cannot be met. For
example, options that have similar practical effects include noncombustible block walls or fences, 5 feet of
noncombustible material horizontally around the structure, installing hardscape landscaping or reducing exposed
windows on the side of the structure with a less-than-30-foot setback, or additional structure hardening such as
those required in the California Building Code, California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 7A.
Title 24 California Building Standards Code
California Building Code
Part 2 of Title 24 of the California Building Standards Code contains the California Building Code (CBC). Chapter 7A
of the California Building Code regulates building materials, systems, and/or assemblies used in the exterior design
and construction of new buildings located within a fire hazard area. Fire hazard areas as defined by the California
Building Code include areas identified as a FHSZ within a State Responsibility Area or a wildland–urban interface
fire area. The purpose of Chapter 7A is to establish minimum standards for the protection of life and property by
increasing the ability of structures located in a fire hazard area to resist the intrusion of flames or burning embers
projected by a wildfire, and to contribute to a systematic reduction in structural losses from a wildfire. New buildings
located in such areas must comply with the ignition-resistant construction standards outlined in Chapter 7A.
California Fire Code
Part 9 of Title 24 of the California Building Standards Code contains the CFC, which incorporates by adoption the
International Fire Code with necessary California amendments. The purpose of the CFC is to establish the minimum
requirements to safeguard the public health, safety, and general welfare from the hazards of fire, explosion, or
dangerous conditions in new and existing buildings, structures, and premises, and to provide safety and assistance
to firefighters and emergency responders during emergency operations. Chapter 49 of the CFC contains minimum
standards for development in the wildland–urban interface and fire hazard areas.
The CFC and Office of the State Fire Marshal provide regulations and guidance for local agencies in the development
and enforcement of fire safety standards. The CFC is updated and published every 3 years by the California Building
Standards Commission. The 2016 CFC took effect on January 1, 2017, and the 2019 CFC took effect on January
1, 2020. The City adopted the 2016 CFC with local amendments in August 2018.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 524 of 1271
5.17 – Wildfire
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.17-4
California Public Resources Code
California Public Resources Code Section 4290 requires minimum fire safety standards related to defensible space
that are applicable to residential, commercial, and industrial building construction in State Responsibility Area lands
and lands classified and designated as Very High FHSZs. These regulations include road standards for fire
apparatus access, standards for signs identifying roads and buildings, fuel breaks and green belts, and minimum
water supply requirements. It should be noted that these regulations do not supersede local regulations, which are
equal to or exceed minimum regulations required by the state.
California Public Resources Code Section 4291 requires a reduction of fire hazards around buildings located
adjacent to a mountainous area, forest-covered lands, brush-covered lands, grass-covered lands, or land that is
covered in flammable material. It is required to maintain 100 feet of defensible space around all sides of a
structure, but not beyond the property line unless required by state law, local ordinance, rule, or regulations. Further,
California Public Resources Code Section 4291 requires the removal of dead or dying vegetative materials from the
roof of a structure, and trees and shrubs must be trimmed from within 10 feet of the outlet of a chimney or
stovepipe. Exemptions may apply for buildings with an exterior constructed entirely of nonflammable materials.
Fire Hazard Severity Zones
CAL FIRE maps FHSZs based on fuel loading, slope, fire history, weather, and other relevant factors as directed by
California Public Resources Code, Sections 4201–4204, and California Government Code, Sections 51175–
51189. FHSZs are ranked from Moderate to Very High, and are categorized for fire protection within a Federal
Responsibility Area, State Responsibility Area, or Local Responsibility Area under the jurisdiction of a federal agency,
CAL FIRE, or local agency, respectively. The project site is within a wildland-urban interface (WUI) location that is in
an area statutorily designated a Local Responsibility Area (LRA) Non-Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) by the City
and CAL FIRE (CAL FIRE 2009).
California Strategic Fire Plan
The 2018 Strategic Fire Plan for California reflects CAL FIRE’s focus on fire prevention and suppression activities
to protect lives, property, and ecosystem services, as well as natural resource management to maintain the state’s
forests as a resilient carbon sink to meet California’s climate change goals and to serve as important habitat for
adaptation and mitigation. The Strategic Fire Plan for California provides a vision for a natural environment that is
more fire resilient, buildings and infrastructure that are more fire resistant, and a society that is more aware of and
responsive to the benefits and threats of wildland fire, all achieved through local, state, federal, tribal, and private
partnerships (CAL FIRE 2018). Plan goals include the following:
• Identify and evaluate wildland fire hazards and recognize life, property, and natural resource assets at risk,
including watershed, habitat, social, and other values of functioning ecosystems. Facilitate the collaborative
development and sharing of all analyses and data collection across all ownerships for consistency in type and kind.
• Promote and support local land use planning processes as they relate to (a) protection of life, property, and natural
resources from risks associated with wildland fire; and (b) individual landowner objectives and responsibilities.
• Support and participate in the collaborative development and implementation of local, cou nty, and regional
plans that address fire protection and landowner objectives.
• Increase fire prevention awareness, knowledge, and actions implemented by individuals and communities
to reduce human loss, property damage, and impacts to natural resources from wildland fires.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 525 of 1271
5.17 – Wildfire
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.17-5
• Integrate fire and fuels management practices with landowner/land manager priorities across jurisdictions.
• Determine the level of resources necessary to effectively identify, plan, and implement fire prevention using
adaptive management strategies.
• Determine the level of fire suppression resources necessary to protect the values and assets at risk
identified during planning processes.
• Implement post-fire assessments and programs for the protection of life, property, and natural resource recovery.
Mutual Aid Agreements
The California Disaster and Civil Defense Master Mutual Aid Agreement, as provided by the California Emergency
Services Act, provides statewide mutual aid between and among local jurisdictions and the state. The statewide
mutual aid system exists to ensure that adequate resources, facilities, and other supports are provided to
jurisdictions whenever resources prove to be inadequate for a given situation. Each jurisdiction controls its own
personnel and facilities, but can give and receive help whenever needed.
Local
San Diego County Emergency Operations Plan
The San Diego County Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) is a comprehensive emergency management system that
provides for a planned response to disaster situations associated with natural disasters, technological incidents,
and nuclear defense operations. The EOP is for use by the County and all cities, including the City of Chula Vista,
within the county to respond to major emergencies. The EOP includes operational concepts relating to various
emergency situations, identifies components of the Emergency Management Organization and describes the overall
responsibilities for protecting life and property and assuring the overall well-being of the population. The plan also
identifies the sources of outside support that might be provided (through mutual aid and specific statutory
authorities) by other jurisdictions, state and federal agencies, and the private sector (County of San Diego 2018).
San Diego County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
The San Diego County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan was originally prepared in July 2010 and updated
in October 2017 to meet federal and state requirements for disaster preparedness to make the county eligible for
funding and technical assistance from state and federal hazard mitigation programs. The plan includes a risk
assessment to enable local jurisdictions to identify and prioritize appropriate mitigation actions to reduce losses
from potential hazards, including flooding, earthquakes, fires, and man-made hazards. To address potential
hazards, the plan then incorporates mitigation goals and objectives, mitigation actions and priorities, an
implementation plan, and documentation of the mitigation planning process for each of the 22 participating
jurisdictions, including Chula Vista (County of San Diego 2017).
City of Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan
The Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) is a comprehensive, long-term habitat conservation plan which
addresses the needs of multiple species and the preservation of natural vegetation communities in San Diego
County. Because fire is a natural feature of the Chula Vista Subarea, under normal circumstances natural re -growth
of habitat is expected. However, the Wildlife Agencies have indicated that certain Repetitive Fires within the same
location of the Chula Vista MSCP Preserve may adversely affect the Covered Species conserved by the Subarea
Plan as a result of habitat type conversion from existing habitat(s) to invasive or non-native weeds. In order to
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 526 of 1271
5.17 – Wildfire
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.17-6
further reduce the risk of fire, the City has instituted a special weed abatement and brush management program
focused particularly on the edges between urban areas and open space Preserv e lands. Brush management is
required to be undertaken in the City in areas where urban development interfaces with open space, in order to
reduce fire fuel loads and reduce potential fire hazard (City of Chula Vista 2003).
Chula Vista General Plan
The following objectives and policies from the City of Chula Vista General Plan (General Plan) are relevant to the
proposed project (City of Chula Vista 2005):
• Objective E 16: Minimize the risk of injury and property damage associated with wildland fire hazards.
• Policy E 16-1: Implement brush management programs which are consistent with the Chula Vista MSCP
Subarea Plan and the City’s Urban-Wildland Interface Code, within urban development and open space
interface areas in order to reduce potential wildland fire hazards. Brush management guidelines within the
MSCP Subarea Plan and the Urban-Wildland Interface Code shall include limits and measures to prevent
increased risk of erosion.
City of Chula Vista Municipal Code
Title 15, Chapter 15.36 of the City of Chula Vista’s Municipal Code (CVMC) (City of Chula Vista 2020) contains the
California Fire Code, 2019 Edition, with local amendments. A city, county, or city and county may establish more
restrictive building standards reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical
conditions. The code contains provisions for fire prevention and safety, reflecting regulations set forth by the CFC,
such as requirements for emergency planning and preparedness (Section 15.36.045), fire protection systems
(Section 15.36.055 and 15.36.060), and vegetation management and clearance (Section 15.36.065).
Chapter 15.34, Section 15.34.010 of the CVMC (City of Chula Vista 2020) defines that the City Council of the City
of Chula Vista (City) designates very high fire hazard severity zones as recommended by the Director of CAL FIRE
and as designated on a map titled “Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ) – Local Responsibility Areas
(LRA),” dated April 3, 2008, and filed with the office of the City Clerk. (Ord. 3113 § 1, 2008).
Fire Protection Plan
A Fire Protection Plan (FPP) was prepared for the proposed project in September 2020. The FPP evaluates and
identifies the potential fire risk associated with the project’s land uses and identifies requirements for water supply,
fuel modification and defensible space, emergency access, building ignition and fire resistance, fire protection
systems, and wildfire emergency pre-planning, among other pertinent fire protection criteria. The purpose of the
FPP is to generate and memorialize the fire safety requirements of the City along with project-specific measures
based on the site, its intended use, and its fire environment.
5.17.1.2 Existing Setting
Wildfire is a continuous threat in Southern California, and is particularly concerning in the WUI, the geographic area
where urban development either abuts or intermingles with wildland or vegetative fuels. Since the City receives
limited precipitation, the potential for wildland fires represents a significant hazard within areas of the City (City of
Chula Vista 2005). As discussed in Section 5.17.1.1, Regulatory Framework, the project site is within a WUI location
that is in an area statutorily designated an LRA Non-FHSZ by the City and CAL FIRE (CALFIRE 2009). While the
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 527 of 1271
5.17 – Wildfire
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.17-7
project site is not designated as a FHSV by CALFIRE, the General Plan has determined its own fire hazard zones
(FHZ) to acknowledge areas that are potentially susceptible to wildfire. As such, the General Plan designates the
project site as a High Hazard area which suggests the area may contain substantial forest fire risk and hazards (City
of Chula Vista 2005). Fire Station 3 is located 0.2 miles northwest of the project site.
Surrounding Area
The project site is located in a predominantly residential area of the City. It is bounded to the north by an open
space preserve, which runs along the southern side of Olympic Parkway. Further north of Olympic Parkway is a
single-family residential community. The future Otay Ranch Village 2 development is immediately to the east of the
project site; however, the land is currently undeveloped and will be developed in the future. The Otay Landfill and
City open space/future community park are located to the south-southeast. Both the City and the County of San
Diego own undeveloped land to the south of the project site. Brandywine Avenue and existing residential
communities border the western and southwestern edges, respectively, of the project site.
Topography
Approximately 19.2 acres of open space, located in the northern portion of the project site , would consist of the
Poggi Canyon Creek, parallel to Olympic Parkway (see Figure 4-8, Proposed Poggi Creek Conservation Easement
and MSCP Boundary). The general topography of the project site is moderately hilly and slopes downward to the
north toward Poggi Canyon Creek and the south side of Olympic Parkway. Elevations range from approximately 455
feet above mean sea level (amsl) at the southeast property boundary to 228 feet amsl in the northwestern end of
the project site. Topographic features that may present a fire spread facilitator are the narrow sub -drainages that
trend south to north which may serve to funnel winds. From a regional perspective, the northeast to southwest
alignment of Poggi Canyon is conducive to channeling and funneling wind towards the project site.
Climate
Throughout Southern California, including at the project site, climate has a large influence on fire risk. Local climate is
typical of a Mediterranean area, with warm, dry summers and wetter winters. Precipitation typically occurs between
December and March. The prevailing wind is an on-shore flow from the Pacific Ocean, which is approximately 6.6 miles
to the west, Santa Ana winds, which typically occur in the fall, from the northeast can gust to 50 miles per hour (mph) or
higher. Drying vegetation (fuel moisture of less than 5% for 1-hour fuels is possible) during the summer months becomes
fuel available to advancing flames should an ignition occur. Extreme conditions, used in fire modeling for this site, include
92°F temperatures in summer and winds of up to 50 mph during the fall. Relative humidity of 12% or less is possible
during fire season. The site is within the coastal influence area and would be expected to, on average, include higher
humidity and resulting plant moisture, than more inland areas.
Vegetation Communities
The project site is currently undeveloped land with four native or naturalized vegetation communities and one land
cover type that were mapped on the site. The acreage of each on-site vegetation community or land cover type is
provided in Table 5.17-1. There are three pre-dominant vegetation types mapped on the project site, including
Diegan coastal sage scrub, native grasslands, and non-native grasslands which encompass approximately 22%,
25%, and 46% of the property, respectively. Smaller areas of wetlands/non-wetlands waters, disturbed habitat, and
the Poggi Creek Maintenance area are also present on the project site.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 528 of 1271
5.17 – Wildfire
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.17-8
Table 5.17-1. Proposed Project Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types
Vegetation Community or Land Cover Type Total Acres Inside Preserve (Acres) Outside Preserve (Acres)
Diegan coastal sage scrub 29.8 22.6 7.2
Native grassland 33.6 27.4 6.2
Non-native grassland 62.2 4.4 57.8
Non-native vegetation 0.4 0.3 0.1
Southern willow scrub (including seep) 1.3 0.4 0.9
Mulefat scrub <0.1 <0.1 0.0
Coastal and valley freshwater marsh 8.4 7.0 1.4
Total 135.7 62.1 73.6
Source: Appendix H3.
Vegetation Dynamics
Variations in vegetative cover type and species composition have a direct effect on fire behavior. Some plant
communities and their associated plant species have increased flammability based on plant physiology (resin
content), biological function (flowering, retention of dead plant material), physical structure (bark thickness, leaf
size, branching patterns), and overall fuel loading. For example, the native shrub species that compose the
chaparral plant communities on site are considered to exhibit higher potential hazard (higher intensity heat and
flame length) than grass dominated plant communities (fast moving, but lower intensity) if ignition occurred . The
corresponding fuel models for each of these vegetation types are designed to capture these differ ences.
Additionally, vegetative cover influences fire suppression efforts through its effect on fire behavior. For example,
while fires burning in grasslands may exhibit lower flame lengths and heat outputs than those burning in native
shrub habitats, fire spread rates in grasslands are often more rapid.
A critical factor to consider is the dynamic nature of vegetation communities. Fire presence and absence at varying
cycles or regimes disrupts plant succession, setting plant communities to an earlier state where less fuel is present
for a period of time as the plant community begins its succession again. In summary, high -frequency fires tend to
convert shrublands to grasslands or maintain grasslands, and fire exclusion tends to convert grasslands to
shrublands over time as shrubs sprout back or establish and are not disturbed by repeated fires.
In general, biomass and associated fuel loading will increase over time, assuming that disturbance (e.g., fire,
grazing, or farming) or fuel reduction efforts are not diligently implemented, which would not occur on this site due
to the funded maintenance entity. It is possible to alter successional pathways for varying plant communities
through manual alteration. This concept is a key component in the overall estab lishment and maintenance of the
proposed FMZs for the project site. The FMZs will consist of irrigated and maintained landscapes that will be subject
to regular “disturbance” in the form of maintenance and will not be allowed to accumulate excessive biomass over
time, which results in reduced fire ignition, spread rates, and intensity. In contrast, conditions outside the FMZs,
where the wildfire threat will exist post-development, are classified as medium to heavy fuel loads due to the
maturity of the vegetation, which haven’t burned for many decades.
Fire History
The project site has been subject to one wildfire during the recorded fire history period. The Maxwell Fire in 1984
burned along the southern portion of the project site. In addition to the one fire burning on the project site, the
majority of other large wildfires historically start east of the proposed project site area and are typically contained
east of Lower Otay Lake.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 529 of 1271
5.17 – Wildfire
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.17-9
The lack of recent fire history does not indicate that a fire cannot occur in the vegetation that would be adjacent to
the proposed site. It is expected that fires have not consistently spread into the proposed project site area due to
three factors: the position of the surrounding urban developments which are newer, ignition resistant construction;
the position of lower Otay Lake to the east, which presents a very wide firebreak; and the effective wildland fire
fighting capabilities of Chula Vista Fire Department (CVFD).
5.17.2 Thresholds of Significance
The significance criteria used to evaluate the project impacts to wildfire is based on the recommendations provided
in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.). As mentioned previously, the project site is within a
WUI location that is in an area statutorily designated an LRA Non-FHSZ by the City and CAL FIRE (CALFIRE 2009).
However, the project site is within a City designated FHZ and is considered a High Hazard area (City of Chula Vista
2005). Thus, a significant impact associated with wildfire would occur if the project would:
A. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
B. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire.
C. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency
water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary
or ongoing impacts to the environment.
D. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides,
as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes.
5.17.3 Impacts
A. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
The project site is located within a City designated FHZ. As seen in Figure 9-9, Wildland Fire Hazards Map, of the
General Plan, the project site is designated as a High Hazard area (City of Chula Vista 2005). In the event of an
emergency, response to the project site would be serviced by the City of Chula Vista Fire Department, Police
Department, and other responsible agencies. Additionally, the City is part of the San Diego County Emergency
Operations Plan (SDCEOP) which includes a detailed evacuation response plan in the event that evacuation is
required. As stated in the SDCEOP, major ground transportation corridors shall be used as primary evacuation
routes in the event of an emergency. As such, Olympic Parkway, which provides access to the project site, would be
the closest evacuation route. During construction of the project, a temporary increase in traffic on roadways
surrounding the project site may occur due to increased truck loads or the transport of construction equipment to
and from the project site during the construction period. However, all construction activities including staging would
occur in accordance with City requirements (such as CVMC Chapter 12.12, which prohibits street obstructions),
which would ensure that adequate emergency access to the project site in the event of an emergency or evacuation
order would be provided during construction of the project (City of Chula Vista 2020). Furthermore, because the
project site is included in the General Development Plan as a planned community (City of Chula Vista 1989), it is
incorporated into the City’s existing emergency disaster programs, including all fire and emergency services and
mutual aid agreements.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 530 of 1271
5.17 – Wildfire
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.17-10
Upon completion of construction, direct access to the project site would be provided by two proposed public streets,
Street “A” and Street “B” (Streets A and B). Street A would extend south from Olympic Parkway, through the project
site, and curve to the east to connect with Street B. Street B would also extend south from the eastern portion of
Olympic Parkway, adjacent to the project site (see Figure 4.6, Illustrative Concept Plan, and Figure 4.9, Vehicular
Circulation Plan). The proposed driveways and roadways providing access to the project site would comply with the
requirements of the Chula Vista Fire Code (including 2019 Fire Code and 2018 Urban–Wildland Interface Code),
and would be reviewed and approved by Chula Vista Fire Department (CVFD). Additionally, all on-site roads would
be constructed to current Fire Codes and City of Chula Vista or County of San Diego Standards for public and private
roads, including minimum 24-foot-wide, unobstructed road widths.
As discussed in the FPP, early evacuation for any type of wildfire emergency near the project site is the preferred method of
providing for resident safety, consistent with the City’s current approach. As such, each property owner would be individually
responsible to adopt, practice, and implement a “Ready, Set, Go!” (International Fire Chiefs Association 2013) approach to
site evacuation. The “Ready, Set, Go!” concept is widely known and encouraged by the state of California and most fire
agencies. Pre-planning for emergencies, including wildfire emergencies, focuses on being prepared, having a well-defined
plan, minimizing potential for errors, maintaining the site’s fire protection systems, and implementing a conservative
(evacuate as early as possible) approach to evacuation and site uses during periods of fire weather extremes.
Therefore, through compliance with existing regulations and recommendations of the FPP, the proposed project would not
interfere with an adopted emergency response or emergency evacuation plan; impacts would be less than significant.
B. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire.
As stated in Section 5.17.1, Existing Conditions, the project site is within a WUI location that is in an area statutorily
designated an LRA Non-FHSZ by the City and CAL FIRE (CALFIRE 2009). However, the project site is within a City
designated FHZ and is considered a High Hazard area (City of Chula Vista 2005). As such, the project could result in an
impact related to exacerbating wildfire risk that exposes project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or
the uncontrollable spread of a wildfire if it would increase the risk of a wildfire occurring and the climatic, topographic,
vegetation, weather conditions, and other factors that aid in increasing the severity of such an occurrence.
Construction
Construction of the project would introduce potential ignition sources to the project site, including the use of heavy
machinery and the potential for sparks during welding activities or other hot work. However, the project would be
required to comply with City and state requirements for activities in hazardous fire areas, including fire safety
practices, to reduce the possibility of fires during construction activities. As discussed in the FPP prepared for the
project, pre-construction requirements would be adhered to in order to reduce the potential of fire caused by
construction-related activities. These requirements include establishing perimeter fuel modification areas that are
approved by the CVFD prior to combustible materials being brought on site; reducing existing flammable vegetation
by 50% on vacant lots upon commencement of construction; removing dead fuel, ladder fuel (fuel which can spread
fire from ground to trees), and downed fuel; and ensuring that on-site trees/shrubs shall be properly limbed, pruned,
and spaced. While vegetation management would not be required on vacant lots until constriction begins, perimeter
Fuel Management Zones (FMZ) must be implemented prior to commencement of construction utilizing combustible
materials. In addition, vacant lots adjacent to active construction areas/lots would be required to implement
vegetation management if they are within 50 feet of the active construction area. Prior to issuance of a permit for
any construction, grading, digging, installation of fences, etc., on a vacant lot, the 50 feet at the perimeter of the lot
shall be maintained as a vegetation management zone.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 531 of 1271
5.17 – Wildfire
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.17-11
In the event of a fire, existing vegetation located on the project site (areas proposed for open space) and in the
surrounding area would be susceptible to burning and releasing pollutant concentrations. However, with adherence
of the aforementioned pre-construction establishing fuel modification areas, risk associated with exposure of
pollutant concentrations would be reduced greatly. Additionally, construction activities that would potentially
introduce potential ignition sources would be temporary. Therefore, impacts to pollutant concentrations from a
wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire would be less than significant during construction.
Operational
As mentioned previously, the project site is located in an area statutorily designated as an LRA Non-FHSZ (CAlFIRE
2009). However, the project site is located within a City designated FHZ and is considered a High Hazard area (City
of Chula Vista 2005). Thus, the project includes fire resistance-related measures that shall lessen the potential
impact of the project exacerbating wildfire risk.
All new structures within the project site would be constructed to at least the California Fire Code standard. Each
of the proposed buildings would comply with the enhanced ignition-resistant construction standards of the 2019
CBC (Chapter 7A) and Chapter 5 of the Urban–Wildland Interface code, except where buildings require enhanced
ignition resistance as part of an alternative material and method proposal. These requirements address roofs,
eaves, exterior walls, vents, appendages, windows, and doors and result in hardened structures that have been
proven to perform at high levels (resist ignition) during the typically short duration of exposure to burning vegetation
from wildfires. Buildings that include higher occupancies shall meet all California Fire and Building requirements
for higher occupancy structures. Included in the high occupancy category are multi -family residences over three
units, attached condominiums, and attached townhomes up to three stories, but less than 30 feet overall height.
In addition, the project would include fire protection systems including fire hydrants, automatic fire sprinkler system,
and fire alarm systems and residential hazard detectors (See Appendix H3 for further details).
Per Chapter 15.36 of the CVMC, the City shall incorporate vegetation management and clearance standards set by
the California Fire Code (City of Chula Vista 2020). As such, all non-maintained combustible vegetation, and or other
such accumulations of combustible vegetation materials in open space areas, as determined by the Fire Code
Official, shall not be located within one hundred feet of any building or structure designated or intended for
occupancy by humans or animals. As described in the FPP, FMZs shall be implemented to provide vegetation buffers
that gradually reduce fire intensity and flame lengths from advancing fire by strategically placing thinning zones,
restricted vegetation zones, and irrigated zones adjacent to each other. Thus, with implementation of FMZs, the
spread of wildfire as well as exposure of pollutant concentrations resulting from vegetation and other materials
burning would be reduced. FMZs would be located on the perimeter of all structures and along both ingress/egress
roadways to and from Olympic Parkway. Roadway-adjacent fuel modification does not preclude the planting of street
trees in these fuel modification zones, as long as they are not found on the Prohibited Plant List (Appendix D of the
FPP) and are included in the Approved Plant Palette (Appendix C of the FPP). Typical fuel modification includes
establishment of a minimum 50-foot wide irrigated zone (Zone 1) and a 50-foot wide thinned zone (Zone 2) on the
periphery of the project site, beginning from the rear or side yard lot line (For further details regarding Zone 1 and
Zone 2 criteria refer to Appendix H3). As discussed in the FPP, FMZ areas experience a significant reduction in
flame length and intensity. Reduction of flame lengths and intensities are assumed to occur within the full 100 feet
of fuel modification (a combination of Zones 1 and 2). However, due to site constraints, it is not feasible to achieve
a 100-foot FMZ width on the south side of the project site. As such, it is possible that the project would exacerbate
wildfire risk and impacts would be potentially significant. Thus, implementation of Mitigation Measure (MM) WF-1
is required (see Section 5.17.5, Mitigation Measures).
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 532 of 1271
5.17 – Wildfire
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.17-12
C. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency
water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or
ongoing impacts to the environment.
The proposed project is primarily a residential project, with associated infrastructure and open space areas. As such,
the project would include installation and maintenance of associated infrastructure including driveways and
roadways, connections to service utilities (e.g., water, wastewater, electric power, natural gas, and
telecommunications services), water drainage and water quality improvements (e.g., biofiltration basins), and fuel
breaks (e.g., fuel modification).
Vegetation Management
As previously discussed, the General Plan designates the project site and surrounding area as a High Fire Hazard
area, and implementation of FMZs and defensible space is required. FMZs are designed to provide vegetation
buffers that gradually reduce fire intensity and flame lengths from advancing fire, and would reduce, rather than
exacerbate, wildfire risk. Refer to the discussion in threshold b of this section for further details.
Roads
The proposed project would include construction of two on-site public streets, Street “A” and Street “B.” Street “A”
would extend south from Olympic Parkway, through the project site, and curve to the east to connect with Street
“B.” Street “B” would also extend south from the eastern portion of Olympic Parkway, adjacent to the project site
(see Figures 4.6 and 4.9). The presence of increased human activity and vehicles along newly installed roads would
introduce new potential ignition sources to the project area. However, vegetation management would be required
along roadways within the High Fire Hazard area for roads internal and external to the project site. As stated in the
FPP, combustible vegetation would be modified within 30 feet from each side of Streets “A” and “B.” Roadway-
adjacent fuel modification does not preclude the planting of street trees in these fuel modification zones, as long
as they are not found on the Prohibited Plant List (Appendix D of the FPP) and are included in the Approved Plant
Palette (Appendix C of the FPP). Additionally, construction of project roadways and connections to existing roadways
would provide increased accessibility for the Chula Vista Fire Department to the project area. Therefore, vegetation
management would reduce the risk of fire ignition along roadways and ensure ease of accessibility for ingress and
egress of fire apparatus and would not be anticipated to exacerbate wildfire risk.
Utilities
As discussed in Section 5.13, existing utility service lines are located within the vicinity of the project site, and
connection to utility service lines would be implemented as part of the project. Connections to utility service lines,
including those for water, wastewater, electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications services, would be
extended underground from their current locations nearby the project site to the proposed residential structures,
which would decrease fire risks. However, given that the activity of connecting utilities from their current locations
(i.e., within Olympic Parkway) to the project site would require ground disturbance and the use of heavy machinery
associated with trenching, the installation of these utility service lines would introduce new potential sources of
ignition to the site, such as the use of heavy machinery, welding, or other hot work. However, as previously
discussed, vegetation management activities would occur prior to the start of construction, which would reduce the
likelihood of fire ignition during installation and connection of utilities.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 533 of 1271
5.17 – Wildfire
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.17-13
Further, other than lateral connections to nearby utility mains, the project would not require or result in the
relocation or construction of new or expanded service utilities facilities, the construction or relocation of which could
exacerbate wildfire risk or cause significant environmental effects.
Summary
Installation and maintenance of project roads, service utilities, fuel modification, drainage and water quality
improvements, and other associated infrastructure would not exacerbate wildfire risks provided that the
appropriate fire prevention and vegetation management activities are implemented as required by the CVMC.
Given that the activities involved with installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure would require ground
disturbance and the use of heavy machinery associated with trenching, grading, site work, and other construction
and maintenance activities, the installation of related infrastructure could potentially result in temporary or ongoing
impacts to the environment. However, the proposed project would be required to comply with all regulatory
requirements such as the CVMC and the requirements of the FPP.
Therefore, the installation and maintenance of associated infrastructure would not exacerbate wildfire risk or result in
impacts to the environment beyond those already disclosed in this EIR, and impacts would be less than significant.
D. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as
a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes.
The project would introduce a new residential use with associated infrastructure and open space, resulting in more
impervious area to the site, which would result in more surface runoff. However, the development of the project site would
include adding storm drains, curb inlets, cleanouts along the proposed on-site public and private streets and parking areas
to collect and convey the storm runoff to the two proposed detention/water quality control basins located at northeast and
northwest part of the development area. After the majority of the on-site runoff is treated and detained by the biofiltration
basin, the outflow will confluence with the bypass storm drain and discharge into the Poggi Canyon Creek.
To analyze whether the project would create adverse impacts related to flooding, the Drainage Report prepared for
the project (Appendix H2) evaluates the existing and proposed peak flows from the project site, assuming the
proposed project incorporates the aforementioned attenuation measures. The findings determined that the runoff
generated by the project would not exceed pre-project peak flow rates, and runoff velocities would be dissipated by
rock riprap at storm drain outfalls. Refer to Appendix H2 for further details. Additionally, the project site is located
in Zone X, an area of minimal flood hazard per the FEMA FIRM panel 06073C1914G effective May 16, 2012 (FEMA
2020). This area is higher in elevation than the 0.2% annual chance flood (i.e., 500-year flood). Although internal
drainage patterns would be somewhat altered as a result of project development, the project would maintain
adequate stormwater conveyance as to not result in an increase of surface runoff that wo uld result in flooding on
or off site. Furthermore, there is low potential for landslides to occur on the project site. With compliance to the
City’s Grading Ordinance, current seismic design specifications, current CBC standards, and other regulatory
requirements, the potential for impacts associated with landslides would be further minimalized. In the event of a
fire, the project site would potentially experience physical changes to the landscape which could result in increased
risk of flooding or landslides. However, as previously discussed, under existing conditions the project has low risk
for landslides and flooding. Additionally, proposed drainage improvements and adherence to the aforementioned
CBC standards and regulatory requirements would further reduce potential impacts. Therefore, impacts associated
with downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage
changes would be less than significant.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 534 of 1271
5.17 – Wildfire
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 5.17-14
5.17.4 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation
Prior to mitigation, the proposed project would have potentially significant impacts associated with the project
facilitating wildfire spread or exacerbating wildfire risk. The remaining issues addressed in this section would be
less than significant.
5.17.5 Mitigation Measures
Implementation of the mitigation measure MM-WF-1 (see Section 5.8 of this EIR) would reduce identified significant
impacts associated with wildfire to a less-than-significant level.
5.17.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of MM-WF-1 would reduce potential impacts associated with wildfire to a less-than-significant level.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 535 of 1271
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 6-1
6 Cumulative Impacts
6.1 Introduction
Although the environmental effects of an individual project may not be significant when that project is considered
independently, the combined effects of several projects may be significant when considered collectively. Such
impacts are referred to as “cumulative impacts.” Section 15355 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines defines cumulative impacts as “two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are
considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.” Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines
provides guidance for analyzing significant cumulative impacts in an environmental impact report (EIR). According
to this section of the CEQA Guidelines, the discussion of cumulative impacts “need not provide as great detail as is
provided for the effects attributable to the project alone. The discussion should be guided by standards of
practicality and reasonableness.” The discussion should also focus only on significant effects resulting from a
project’s incremental effects and the effects of other projects. According to Section 15130(a)(1), “an EIR should
not discuss impacts which do not result in part from the project evaluated in the EIR.”
Cumulative impacts can occur from the interactive effects of a single project. For example, the combination of noise and
dust generated during construction activities can be additive and can have a greater impact than either noise or dust
alone. However, substantial cumulative impacts more often result from the combined effect of past, present, and future
projects located in proximity to the project under review. Therefore, it is important for a cumulative impacts analysis to
be viewed over time and in conjunction with other related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future developments
whose impacts might compound or interrelate with those of the project under review.
6.2 Methodology
According to Section 15130(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, cumulative impact analysis may be conducted and
presented by either of two methods: (1) a list of past, present, and probable activities producing related or
cumulative impacts, or (2) a summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning
document, or in a prior environmental document that has been adopted or certified that described or evaluated
regional or area-wide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact. Other than for air quality, greenhouse gas
emissions, noise, and transportation/traffic, the cumulative list approach has been used in the cumu lative analysis
presented in this chapter, as discussed below. Air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and
transportation/traffic cumulative impacts were evaluated using the summary of projections method because
impacts can only be analyzed on a broa d, area-wide scope, and in a cumulative context. Table 6-1 describes the
geographic scope of the cumulative impact analyses.
Table 6-1. Geographic Scope of Cumulative Impact Analyses
Topic Geographic Scope of Cumulative Impact Analyses
Aesthetics The cumulative study area associated with aesthetics and lighting and glare impacts is the
viewshed of the project, which is a geographic area from which a proposed project is likely to be
seen, based on topography and land use patterns.
Air Quality The geographic scope of cumulative impact analysis for criteria air pollutants, sensitive receptors,
and air quality plans is the San Diego Air Basin. Impacts relative to objectionable odors are
limited to the area immediately surrounding the odor source and are not cumulative in nature
because the air emissions that cause odors disperse beyond the sources of the odor.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 536 of 1271
6 - Cumulative Impacts
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 6-2
Table 6-1. Geographic Scope of Cumulative Impact Analyses
Topic Geographic Scope of Cumulative Impact Analyses
Biological
Resources
The geographic scope of cumulative impact analysis for biological resources includes the Chula
Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan area.
Cultural
Resources and
Tribal Cultural
Resources
The geographic context for the analysis of cumulative impacts to archaeological resources,
historic resources, human remains, and tribal cultural resources includes the San Diego region,
which has a similar archaeological, ethnohistoric, historic, and prehistoric setting as the project
site.
Energy The City of Chula Vista is the geographic scope of cumulative impacts to energy.
Geology and
Soils
Impacts relative to seismic hazards and other geologic/soil conditions (i.e., fault rupture,
groundshaking, ground failure, liquefaction/collapse, landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence,
and expansive soils) and septic systems are generally site specific. Similarly, impacts to
paleontological resources are generally site specific.
Greenhouse
Gas Emissions
Due to the nature of assessment of greenhouse gas emissions and the effects of climate change,
impacts can currently only be analyzed from a cumulative context; therefore, the geographic
scope for the cumulative analysis of greenhouse gas emissions and their effect on climate
change is the global atmosphere.
Hazards and
Hazardous
Materials
The geographic context for the analysis of cumulative impacts relative to the transport, use and
disposal of hazardous materials, and associated accidental releases, encompasses the
roadways and freeways used by vehicles transporting hazardous materials to and from the
project sites. The geographic context for the analysis of cumulative impacts relative to wildland
fires and emergency response and evacuation plans is the City of Chula Vista. Impacts relative to
listed hazardous materials sites and airport hazards are generally specific to the project site.
Hydrology/
Water Quality
The geographic context for the analysis of cumulative impacts relative to water quality standards,
alteration of drainage patterns, mudflows, dam inundation, tsunamis, seiches, and flood hazard
areas are generally site-specific.
Land Use/
Planning
Incompatibilities with adjacent land uses are generally site specific; therefore, the geographic
context for the analysis of cumulative impacts relative to adjacent land use incompatibilities
includes the area surrounding the project site. The geographic context for the analysis of
cumulative impacts relative to physical division of an established community is generally site
specific.
Noise The area of cumulative impact that would be considered for the noise and vibration cumulative
analysis would be only those cumulative projects within the immediate vicinity of the project.
Exposure to aircraft noise is also a localized impact and the area of cumulative impact that would
be considered for aircraft impacts would be only those projects located within 2 miles of Brown
Field.
Population and
Housing
The City of Chula Vista is the geographic scope of cumulative impacts to housing and population.
Public Services The City of Chula Vista is the geographic scope of cumulative impacts for public services.
Recreation The City of Chula Vista is the geographic scope of cumulative impacts for recreation.
Transportation The cumulative study area associated with traffic hazards, alternative transportation, and
emergency access is the study area for the project-specific transportation impact analysis
(Appendix K). Impacts related to aircraft traffic are generally specific and limited to the area
within 2 miles of a specific airport. The cumulative study area associated with impacts related to
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) include the City.
Utilities and
Service
Systems
The City of Chula Vista is the geographic scope of cumulative impacts to utilities and service
systems.
Wildfire The geographic context for the analysis of cumulative impacts relative to wildland fires and
emergency response and evacuation plans is the City of Chula Vista.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 537 of 1271
6 - Cumulative Impacts
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 6-3
6.3 Cumulative Projects
6.3.1 Land Development
Other than air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and transportation/traffic, cumulative impacts for all other
environmental issue areas are based on a list of projects within the proposed Sunbow Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan
Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project’s (project) study area that either have applications submitted or approved,
are under construction, or have recently been completed. The cumulative projects identified in the study area are listed in
Table 6-2 and shown on Figure 6-1.
Table 6-2. Cumulative Projects
Project
No. Name Location Description Status
1 University
Villages
Otay Ranch The project encompasses Village Three, Village Eight
East, and Village Ten. The development program for
the project is based on the Chula Vista General Plan
and the approved Otay Ranch planning documents
(Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP),
Overall Design Plan, and other SPA plans for Otay
Ranch.
Village Three: 1,638 residential units (813 single
family, 457 multi-family, and 327 unallocated units);
20,000 square feet of retail (7.4 acres); 29.3 acres
of industrial; 15.3 acres of parks; 4.3 acres of CPF;
and 8.3 acres of school.
Village Eight East: 3,276 residential units (943
single family and 2,333 multi-family); 20,000
square feet of retail; 4.2 acres of CPF; 30.4 required
acres of parks; and 10.8 acres of school.
Village Ten: 1,740 residential units (695 single
family and 1,045 multi-family); 7.6 acres of parks;
4.3 acres of CPF; and 9.2 acres of school.
Approved
2 Eastern Urban
Center
(Millenia)
East of SR
125 and
west of
Eastlake
Parkway,
south of
Birch Street
Designated uses and density at buildout of the
project include 2,983 multi-family residential units
and 3.324 million square feet of non-residential use
including regional and specialty shopping, multi-use
cultural arts facilities, local parks, business parks,
visitor commercial, a transit station, an elementary
school, and other civic facilities.
Approved
3 Village Four
South
Residential
Otay Ranch 275 multi-family and 75 single family homes. Approved
4 Planning Area
12 Freeway
Commercial
East of SR
125 and
west of
Eastlake
Parkway,
south of
Olympic
Parkway
The project includes development of 900 multi-
family homes, commercial, mixed use, hotel, and
park uses.
Approved
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 538 of 1271
6 - Cumulative Impacts
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 6-4
Table 6-2. Cumulative Projects
Project
No. Name Location Description Status
5 Village Two West of La
Media
Road, south
of Olympic
Parkway
The project includes development of 4,538
residential units (614 single-family and 3,924 multi-
family units), 87.9 acres of industrial uses, along
with commercial, parks, and open space.
Approved
6 Village Eight
West
Southwest
portion of
Otay Ranch
The project will be built in several phases. The
following components of the project were included
in the project’ near-term cumulative analysis: 561
single family homes, 1,773 multi-family homes, up
to 50,000 SF of office uses and 250,000 SF of
commercial retail, an elementary school, and 23.4
acres of parks
Approved
7 Village Nine Southwest
portion of
Otay Ranch
3,959 residential units (266 single family and 3,693
multi-family); 1,200,000 square feet of
commercial/office; 300,000 square feet of retail; 5
acres of CPF; 27.5 acres of parks; and 19.8 acres of
school.
Approved
8 Eastlake
Behavioral
Health
Hospital
North of
Otay Lake
Road, west
of Hunte
Parkway
The proposed project would include construction of
a new single-story behavioral health acute
psychiatric hospital, which would accommodate 120
beds within an approximately 97,050-square-foot
single-story structure.
Project Submitted
– Pending Review
6.3.2 Adopted Plans
From a regional approach, the cumulative analysis relies on the R egional Comprehensive Plan; General
Development Plan (GDP); the Chula Vista General Plan; and other regional planning documents, including the
Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan and Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS) in
accordance with CEQA Section 15130(b)(1)(B).
6.4 Cumulative Impact Analysis
The discussion below evaluates the potential for the proposed project to contribute to an adverse cumulative impact
on the environment. For issues addressed in this Draft EIR, the thresholds used to determine significance are those
presented in each of the sections of Chapter 5, Environmental Analysis. For issues in which project impacts were
determined to be less than significant during the preliminary environmental review process, the thresholds consist of
the questions posed for that respective issue in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. For each resource area, an
introductory statement is made regarding what would amount to a significant cumulative impact in that resource area.
Discussion is then presented regarding the potential for the identified cumulative projects to result in such a
cumulative impact, followed by discussion of whether the project’s contribution to any cumulative impact would be
cumulatively considerable.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 539 of 1271
6 - Cumulative Impacts
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 6-5
6.4.1 Aesthetics
As described in Section 5.1, Aesthetics, development of the proposed project would result in less than significant
impacts to scenic vistas, and no impacts to scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings,
and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. In addition, the proposed project would not conflict with the
applicable zoning as the GDP and SPA Plan amendments and Rezone would be approved concurrently with the proposed
project to allow for the changes in land use and zoning. Lastly, with compliance with the CVMC and County Light
Pollution Ordinance, new sources of light and glare would not result in adverse day or nighttime views in the area,
and impacts would be less than significant.
The list of cumulative projects in Table 6-2 consists of primarily new residential projects, as well as industrial and
commercial projects and a behavioral health hospital, which overall are similar in size, scale, and scope to the proposed
project. Although the existing visual quality or character of the site and its surroundings would be impacted as a result of
the proposed project and cumulative projects, none of the projects would substantially degrade a scenic resource or
unique topographic feature or result in a substantial impediment to scenic views because the developments would be
required to be planned land uses and include applicable development and design guidelines. Some cumulative projects
would be located within already developed areas, as opposed to others which would result in the conversion of large
areas of undeveloped land to developed uses (see Figure 6-1). The proposed project, in combination with the cumulative
projects, would contribute to a cumulative loss of views of natural open space in the increasingly developed eastern area
of Chula Vista. The project site is surrounded by existing development and would not impact scenic vistas. However,
similar to the proposed project, all cumulative projects would be required to comply with the zoning of their respective
sites and applicable regulations governing scenic quality, including preservation of planned open space areas. Therefore,
in combination with planning future development, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution
to a cumulative impact to aesthetics.
Development in the vicinity of the project site include sources of nighttime lighting in the form of interior and exterior
security lighting and parking, architectural highlighting, and landscape lighting. In addition, automobile headlights
streetlights and stoplights along the roadway network contribute to ambient nighttime lighting levels on the project
site. Development of the proposed project would contribute new sources of light to the surrounding area. The project
includes lighting performance standards to minimize the proposed projects contribution to nighttime lighting and
light sources. Lighting would be consistent with lighting standards prevalent in urbanized areas would adhere to all
applicable City ordinances and standards. Also, compliance with the City and state energy conservation measures
currently in place would limit the amount of unnecessary interior illumination during evening and nighttime hours.
Therefore, in combination with all other cumulative projects, the proposed project would not considerably contribute
to lighting and glare.
6.4.2 Air Quality
See Threshold B in Section 5.2.3, for a discussion of the cumulative air quality impacts of the proposed project. As
described in this section, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. The San Diego Air Pollution Control District
(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 ozone (O3) under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and
California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). The poor air quality in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB) is the result
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 540 of 1271
6 - Cumulative Impacts
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 6-6
of cumulative emissions from motor vehicles, off-road equipment, commercial and industrial facilities, and other
emission sources. Projects that emit these pollutants or their precursors (i.e., volatile organic compounds [VOCs]
and NOx for O3) potentially contribute to poor air quality. In analyzing cumulative impacts from a project, the analysis
must specifically evaluate the project’s contribution to the cumulative increase in pollutants for which the SDAB
is designated as nonattainment for the CAAQS and NAAQS. However, a project would only be considered to have
a significant cumulative impact if the project’s contribution accounts for a significant proportion of the cumulative
total emissions (i.e., it represents a “cumulatively considerable contribution” to the cumulative air quality impact).
Additionally, for the SDAB, the RAQS serves as the long-term regional air quality planning document for the purpose
of assessing cumulative operational emissions in the SDAB to ensure that the SDAB continues to make progress
toward NAAQS and CAAQS attainment status. As such, cumulative projects located in the San Diego region would
have the potential to result in a cumulative impact to air quality if, in combination, they would conflict with or
obstruct implementation of the RAQS. Similarly, individual projects that are inconsistent with the regional planning
documents on which the RAQS is based would have the potential to result in cumulative operational impacts if they
represent development and population increases beyond regional projections.
The SDAB has been designated as a federal nonattainment area for O3 and a state nonattainment area for O3,
PM10, and PM2.5. The nonattainment status is the result of cumulative emissions from all sources of these air
pollutants and their precursors within the SDAB. As discussed in more detail in Section 5.2.1, the project would not
exceed significance thresholds during construction or operation. As such, the project would result in less-than-
significant impacts to air quality relative to emissions. In addition, the proposed project would implement Project
Design Feature (PDF)-AQ-1, Fugitive Dust Control, and PDF-AQ-2, Architectural Coating, to ensure impacts to air
quality are less than significant (see Section 4.4.8 for details). As a result, the project would not result in a
cumulatively considerable contribution to criteria pollutant emissions. Cumulative impacts associated with project -
generated construction and operational criteria air pollutant emissions would be less than significant.
6.4.3 Biological Resources
Cumulative impacts consider the potential regional effects of a project and how a project may affect an ecosystem
or one of its members beyond the project limits and on a regional scale. As discussed in Section 5.3, with
implementation of Mitigation Measure (MM) BIO-1 through MM-BIO-16, impacts to biological resources anticipated
under the proposed project would be less than significant. In addition, the proposed project would require a Multiple
Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Preserve Boundary Line Adjustment (BLA) to resolve a conflict between the
proposed project and mapped MSCP Preserve. In addition to the BLA, the project would be required to comply with
Subarea Plan conditions for coverage. Implementation of the proposed project, in combination with cumulative
projects, would contribute to the cumulative loss of biological resources within the City. However, cumulative
projects would be required to implement similar mitigation as the proposed project to ensure impacts to biological
resources would be less than significant. In addition, cumulative projects would be required to comply with the
Subarea Plan conditions for coverage, which provides consideration for and mitigation of cumulative impacts to
biological resources, and all existing regulations related to biological resources. Therefore, the proposed project, in
combination with development of cumulative projects, would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution
to biological impacts.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 541 of 1271
6 - Cumulative Impacts
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 6-7
6.4.4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
A cumulative impact to cultural resources, refers to the mounting aggregate effect upon cultural resources due to
modern or recent historic land use, such as residential development, and natural processes, such as erosion, that
result from human acts. The issue that must be explored in a cumulative impact analysis is the aggregate loss of
information and the loss of recognized cultural landmarks and vestiges of a community’s cultural history.
As discussed in Section 5.4, no historic sites were identified within the project site in previous cultural investigations,
records search, or the 2020 pedestrian survey. Therefore, construction and operation of the proposed project would
not cause a substantial change in the significance of an historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.5, and no impact to historic resources would occur. In addition, although no cultural resources have been
identified or recorded within the proposed project’s area of potential effect (APE), the proximity of known sites beyond
the southern boundary indicates a high sensitivity of encountering intact subsurface cultural resources. As there is
potential to encounter previously unidentified subsurface cultural deposits, impacts to archaeological resources would
be potentially significant and MM-CUL-1 would be required to reduce impacts to less than significant. In addition, in
the event that human remains are discovered during project grading and construction, impacts would be potentially
significant and MM-CUL-1 would reduce potentially significant impacts to a level below significance. Lastly, as
discussed in Section 5.4, impacts to tribal cultural resources would be potentially significant and MM-CUL-1 would be
implemented to reduce impacts to less than significant.
The majority of cumulative projects in the area have centered on residential development, although commercial
and industrial project and a behavioral health hospital project are also included in the cumulative projects list (see
Table 6-2). Collectively, these projects reflect the eastward expansion of planned residential communities in the
City and the need for improved and additional infrastructure. In addition to modern development, much of the area
has been previously disturbed by agriculture activities, including plowing, disking, and grazing, including the project
site. Nearly all of the land in the vicinity of the project site has been surveyed for cultural resources, and several
archaeological sites located within this survey area have been identified, tested, and evaluated for significance.
Some past projects in the area, including especially habitation sites and temporary camps in the general vicinity and on
the Otay Mesa, have contributed to a cumulative impact on prehistoric cultural resources, since it represents the
continued destruction of cultural resources. However, as discussed in Section 5.4, the proposed project would not result
in impacts to any known cultural resources. In addition, MM-CUL-1 would be implemented to reduce potential impacts
to cultural resources, if any unknown resources are discovered during project implementation.
There is the potential for nearby cumulative projects, especially those that would result in ground -disturbing
activities that would impact intact native soils, to inadvertently discover and adversely affect historical and
archaeological resources. Cumulative projects would implement appropriate mitigation measures to reduce
historical resources impacts to less than significant. Important information about prehistory would not be lost through
a well-planned and executed mitigation program that documents and gathers all data from these non-replaceable and
non-renewable resources. When considered with other cumulative projects, cumulative impacts to historical
resources would not be cumulatively considerable.
6.4.5 Energy
Implementation of the proposed project and cumulative projects in the surrounding area would result in an
increased energy demand at full buildout. A significant cumulative impact to energy resources would result if a
project results in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources or conflicts with or obstructs
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 542 of 1271
6 - Cumulative Impacts
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 6-8
a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. As discussed in Section 5.5, the proposed project
would be required to comply with existing regulations such as Part 11 of Title 24 of the California Green Building
Standards Code as well as the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP). Additionally, the proposed project includes a non-
renewable energy conservation plan that incorporates project design measures to minimize energy use. The project
would also implement energy reducing measures through implementation of MM-GHG-1, the effects of which would
be increased through implementation of green building standards, impacts to energy would be less than significant.
San Diego Gas & Electric has indicated that without an increased import capacity, including a new substation within
the Otay Ranch area, future energy needs for the eastward expansion of planned residential communities in the
City could not be ensured. Construction of a new substation located south of the east end of Hunte Parkway began
in 2016 and was completed in June 2018 (CPUC 2018). Therefore, infrastructure for the continued long-term
delivery of energy to the area is in place and to serve the proposed and cumulative projects. Because the project
would not result in the wasteful or inefficient use of energy , and because there is adequate energy infrastructure
to serve the proposed and cumulative projects, the project’s contribution to a significant cumulative energy impact
would not be cumulatively considerable.
6.4.6 Geology and Soils
Potential cumulative impacts on geology and soils would result from projects that combine to create g eologic
hazards, including unstable geologic conditions, or substantially contribute to coastal erosion. Most geology and
soil hazards associated with development on surrounding projects would be site -specific and can be mitigated
on a project-by-project basis. Such hazards include direct or indirect substantial adverse effects to cause rupture
of an earthquake fault, liquefaction, landslides, unstable geologic units, and expansive soils. Individual project
mitigation for these hazards would ensure that the re are no residual cumulative impacts. Proper engineering
design, utilization of standard construction practices, adherence to the erosion control standards established by
the City’s Grading Ordinance, implementation of best management practices (BMPs) req uired by the Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and implementation of the recommendations found in the Geotechnical
Investigation Report (Appendix G) would ensure that the potential for geological impacts resulting from the project
would be less than significant. Since geologic hazards are site-specific and not cumulative in nature, the
proposed project would not have a cumulatively considerable impact to geologic hazards.
In addition, the potential for impacting paleontological resources vary from site to site and are dependent on
specific excavation requirements for each project. As discussed in Section 5.6, the proposed project has a high
potential to produce paleontological resources during planned construction activities. Thus, the project shall
implement MM-GEO-1 to reduce potential impacts in the event paleontological resources are uncovered during
construction activities. Incorporation of mitigation would ensure proper handling and recordation of any
paleontological resources encountered, and all cumulative projects with potential to encounter paleontological
resources would be subject to similar requirements. Therefore, the project would not result in a cumulatively
considerable impact to paleontological resources.
6.4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and their contribution to climate change are widely recognized as a global
problem, and California has acknowledged this phenomenon as a state concern. As such, the analysis of the
proposed project’s impacts to climate change is cumulative in nature. Therefore, the information and analysis
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 543 of 1271
6 - Cumulative Impacts
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 6-9
provided in Section 5.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, to determine project-level impacts, applies here and the
project’s contribution to global climate change would not be cumulatively considerable.
As discussed in Section 5.7, using the estimated operational plus amortized construction emissions of 7,860 MT
CO2e and service population (SP) of 2,321, the project would have a GHG efficiency metric of 3.39 MT CO2e per SP.
The project’s efficiency metric would exceed the significance threshold efficiency metric of 1.37 MT CO 2e per SP.
Therefore, impacts related to GHG emissions associated with the project would be potentially significant. MM-
GHG-1, outlined in Section 5.7.5, would be implemented and would minimize GHG emissions associated with
project operations. However, approximately 75% of the proposed project’s annual GHG emissions are from mobile
sources; therefore, to reduce GHG emissions to a less-than-significant level, the project would need to reduce its total
GHG emissions by approximately 76% to reduce the project-generated GHG emissions below the City’s efficiency
threshold. Because the project’s SP-based emissions would be more than the City’s efficiency metric of 1.37 MT
CO2e per SP, potential GHG emissions impacts associated with exceedance of the City’s efficiency metric would be
considered significant and unavoidable. Therefore, because the proposed project’s impacts to climate change is
cumulative in nature, the proposed project would result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact to GHGs.
6.4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Cumulative impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would result from projects that combine to increase
exposure to hazards and hazardous materials. As discussed in Section 5.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the
proposed project would have less-than-significant impacts related to hazardous materials. Past, current, and
reasonably foreseeable commercial projects in the region would result in the use and transport of incrementa lly
more oils, greases, and petroleum products for operation purposes. Although these could be subject to accidental
spillage, there is no quantifiable cumulative effect, since accidents are indiscriminate events, not related or
contributory to one another. Provided that individual projects adhere to current laws governing storage,
transportation, and handling of hazardous materials, no significant cumulative hazards or threats to human health
and safety are anticipated. In addition, although soil vapor attributable to the adjoining Otay Class III landfill is
present on site, methane was not detected in soils samples on-site indicating that the landfill gas control system
(LFGCS), installed and operated by the landfill owner, is effectively controlling the m igration of methane from the
adjoining Class III landfill. Potential soil contamination associated with cumulative projects listed in Table 6-2 could
create a hazard to public health during grading and excavation. However, cumulative projects listed in Table 6-2
would be required to analyze soils and mitigate any potentially significant hazards. Therefore, the proposed project’s
impact would not be cumulatively considerable.
In addition, as discussed in Section 5.8 and 5.17, the project could result in an impact related to exacerbating wildfire
risk that exposes project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrollable spread of a
wildfire if it would increase the risk of a wildfire occurring and the climatic, topographic, vegetation, weather
conditions, and other factors that aid in increasing the severity of such an occurrence. The project site is within a
wildland urban interface (WUI) location that is in an area statutorily designated a Local Respon sibility Area (LRA)
Non-Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) by the City and California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL
FIRE). The project site is within a Supplemental Fire Hazard Zone as designated by the City. In addition, project site
is designated as a High Hazard area (City of Chula Vista 2005). However, the proposed project would be required
to comply with the CVMC, the California Fire Code, and the requirements of the Fire Protection Plan (FPP) prepared
for the proposed project, including implementation of Fire Management Zones (FMZs) (Appendix H3). However, due
to site constraints, it is not feasible to achieve a 100-foot FMZ width on the south side of the project site. Therefore,
MM-WF-1 would be incorporated, only to the walls of the structures that face the open space areas adjacent to the
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 544 of 1271
6 - Cumulative Impacts
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 6-10
project site, to ensure impacts would be less than significant. Cumulative projects would also be required to
implement similar fire safety features and structure protection features to reduce impacts. Preparation of FPPs
would further reduce cumulative project impacts. Therefore, through compliance with existing regulations
associated with wildland fires, impacts associated with wildfire would not be cumulatively considerable.
6.4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
Cumulative hydrology impacts also result from projects combining to alter the course of surface water flow or to
increase flood hazards in a particular area, either through diverting floodways or constructing structures within the
floodways. Cumulative water quality impacts result from projects that combine to either pollute or increase the
turbidity of water. As stated in Section 5.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, during construction and operation, the
proposed project has the potential to violate water quality standards. However, compliance with the Chula Vista
Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance, the City of Chula Vista Subdivision Manual, Design
and Construction Standards of the City of Chula Vista, as well as the preparat ion of site-specific Storm Water
Stormwater Quality Management Plan (SWQMP) and Drainage Study (Appendices I1 and I2), impacts would remain
below a level of significance. Furthermore, because all surrounding projects are regulated under the same City and
Regional Water Quality Control Board standards, they too would be required to attenuate all drainage on site (to
maintain pre development flow quantities) and to incorporate hydrology and water quality design features to prevent
cumulative impacts to local drainage systems or water quality. Therefore, the proposed project would not contribute
to a cumulatively considerable impact related to hydrology and water quality.
6.4.10 Land Use and Planning
Significant adverse cumulative land use impacts would result from projects that contribute to development that is
inconsistent with applicable plans or incompatible with existing or planned uses or planned addition of incompatible uses.
As described in Section 5.10, Land Use and Planning, the proposed project would not physically divide an
established community. In addition, with incorporation of mitigation measures MM-GHG-1, MM-CUL-1, MM-GEO-1,
and MM-WF-1, the proposed project would be consistent with the City’s General Plan. In addition, the proposed
project wou ld not conflict with the goals and objectives of the GDP. Further, upon approval, the proposed
project would not conflict with the land use designations of the GDP and SPA Plan because these plans would
be amended concurrently with approval of the proposed project, to allow for the proposed land uses. The
proposed project would also be consistent with the Parkland Dedication Ordinance and Parks and Recreation
Master Plan. With notification of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the proposed project would comply with
the Brown Field Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). Lastly, as discussed in Section 5.3 and Section 5.10,
the proposed project would not result in conflicts with the City’s MSCP Subarea Plan through compliance with
the MSCP BLA functional equivalency and future facility criteria.
The cumulative projects listed in Table 6-2 would all include similar project features, design standards, and balance
of land uses. Additionally, all cumulative projects would be subject to similar criteria as the proposed project, which
would ensure compliance with existing applicable land use plans with jurisdiction over the project site. Analysis of
individual projects as they are submitted to the City will ensure compatibility with applicable plans and policies.
Since all current and future projects would be analyzed for compatibility and compliance with land use regulations,
the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 545 of 1271
6 - Cumulative Impacts
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 6-11
6.4.11 Noise
Potential cumulative impacts on noise would result when projects combine to generate noise levels in excess of
the City of Chula Vista Ordinance standards, either during construction or operation. As discussed in Section
5.11, typical construction noise during allowable daytime hours would not exceed the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) guidance-based standard. Thus, temporary construction-related noise impacts associated
with the project would be less than significant. Similarly, project-specific noise impacts during operations would
be less than significant.
Noise effects of the project would, for the most part, be confined to the project site and were evaluated on a project-
specific basis. Long-term on-site activities associated with the project would not have a regional effect upon
community noise levels (see Section 5.11), and therefore need not be considered in combination with approved or
proposed projects in the region. The one exception is the project’s contribution to traffic-related noise levels, which
would extend beyond the site boundaries, and must be considered in the context of proposed projects in the region.
However, as discussed in Section 5.11.3, the proposed project’s impact to off-site traffic noise increases would be
less than significant. Thus, the project’s contribution to cumulatively significant noise impacts would not be
cumulatively considerable.
6.4.12 Population and Housing
As discussed in Section 5.12, Population and Housing, the proposed project would introduce an estimated 2,314.83
persons to the project site (rounded to 2,315). The proposed residential development was originally identified to be
developed as Industrial Park in the GDP and SPA Plan . As such, the change in land use from Industrial Park to
Medium-High and High Residential would be considered unplanned population growth in excess of the original
estimates in the GDP and SPA Plan. Although this population growth would be considered unplanned, the proposed
project would only represent 5.9 percent of forecasted population growth and 6 percent of forecasted housing
growth between 2020 and 2035, based on SANDAG’s Series 13 forecast. Additionally, development of an Industrial
Park would directly result in some amount of population growth within the City due to new employment in the area.
Further, the proposed project would satisfy its affordable housing obligations via a Balanced Communities Affordable
Housing Agreement between the project Applicant and the City. This Balanced Communities Affordable Housing
Agreement will document satisfaction with affordable housing requirements which would help the City fulfill both
deficits from past 5th Cycle allocations and projections for current 6th Cycle allocations for low income housing.
While the proposed project would directly contribute to population growth in the area as compared to existing
conditions, the population inducement resulting from the proposed project would not be considered substantial.
Impacts would be less than significant.
Various cumulative projects listed in Table 6-2 would either directly or indirectly induce population growth. The
majority of the cumulative projects listed in Table 6-2 involve residential and development projects that may
increase population growth in the surrounding area. However, the introduction of a new population is not, in and of
itself, a significant impact. Although projects included in Table 6-2 would contribute to population growth, many of
these project sites have been previously slated for development, similar to the proposed project, and thus these
increases in population have largely been accounted for in appropriate planning documents. In addition, these
projects would be required to provide affordable housing units, which would help the City fulfill deficits of 5 th and
6th cycle low income housing allocations. Therefore, cumulative impacts to population and housing would not be
cumulatively significant.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 546 of 1271
6 - Cumulative Impacts
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 6-12
6.4.13 Public Services
Cumulative impacts on public services, including fire and police protection, parks, schools, and libraries, would
result when projects combine to increase demand on services such that additional services must be constructed
or provided. This would usually result from the incremental addition of people occupying an area or the incremental
construction of new or larger buildings requiring public services provision. As discussed in Section 5.13, with
implementation of MM-PS-1, which requires payment of a Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFDIF) and
implementation of existing Community Facilities Districts (CFDs), impacts to fire and police protection, schools, and
libraries would be less than significant. In addition, MM-PS-2, which requires payment of Development Impact Fees
(DIFs) pursuant to SB 50/Government Code Section 65995 and implementation of existing CFDs, would be required
to further reduce impacts to the schools to less than significant. Lastly, MM-PS-3, which requires payment of the
Park Benefit Fee, equal to the City’s Park Acquisition and Development (PAD) Fee Update pursuant to CVMC Section
17.10, would be implemented to reduce potentially significant impacts to public parks. Cumulative projects
included in Table 6-2 would be required to implement similar mitigation and payment of associated fees prior to
the issuance of each building permit. Therefore, through compliance with appropriate mitigation, cumulative
impacts related to public services would be less than significant.
6.4.14 Recreation
As discussed in Section 5.14, the proposed project would pay the appropriate development fees to offset potential
impacts to recreational facilities and parkland. A Community Benefit Agreement between the City and the Applicant
stipulates that the Applicant shall pay the City a Park Benefit Fee, equal to the Park Acquisition and Development
(PAD) fee that would have been due pursuant to CVMC Section 17.10, of approximately $11.03 million based on
2019 PAD fees, which may be revised by the City from time to time (MM-PS-3). Payment of the Park Benefit Fee
would fund parkland acquisition and construction, as determined by the City. Adverse physical effects resulting
from the construction of recreational facilities as addressed throughout this EIR as part of the proposed project and
with incorporation of proposed mitigation measures impacts would be less than significant. It is anticipated that all
cumulative projects included in Table 6-2 would be required to implement similar mitigation and payment of
associated fees prior to the issuance of each building permit. Therefore, through compliance with appropriate
mitigation, cumulative impacts related to recreation would be less than significant.
6.4.15 Transportation
As discussed in Section 5.15, the project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the
circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. In addition, the proposed project would
be required to implement PDF-TRA-1 (see Section 4.4.8) in order to ensure consistency with CEQA Guidelines section
15064.3, subdivision (b). PDF-TRA-1 would include various strategies to reduce automobile trips, such as ride share
coordination services, on-site transit opportunities information, and bicycle use encouragement. With implementation of
PDF-TRA-1, impacts would be less than significant. It is anticipated that all cumulative projects included in Table 6-2
would be required to implement similar mitigation or design features to reduce or avoid potential impacts.
In addition, as discussed in Section 5.15, the project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature or incompatible use and would not result in inadequate emergency access. It is anticipated that
cumulative projects included in Table 6-2 would implement access and circulation features that would ensure
projects would not result in an increase in hazards or inadequate emergency access. Therefore, cumulative impacts
related to transportation would be less than significant.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 547 of 1271
6 - Cumulative Impacts
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 6-13
6.4.16 Utilities and Service Systems
Cumulative impacts to utilities and services systems would result when projects combine to increase demand for utilities
and service systems such that additional facilities must be provided or expanded. This would usually result from the
incremental addition of people occupying an area or the incremental construction of new or larger buildings requiring public
services provision. As discussed in Section 5.16, with implementation of utility infrastructure associated with the project,
the proposed project would not result in relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or
storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities or expansion of existing facilities.
Although water demand would increase with implementation of the proposed project, water supplies are available to provide
a reliable local water source to the project during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. In addition, adequate wastewater
treatment would be available to serve the proposed project. Lastly, solid waste generated under the proposed project would
not exceed state or local standards, or capacity of local infrastructure. Cumulative projects would be required to perform
similar analyses, in accordance with CEQA, to ensure projects would have sufficient utilities. The SPA Plans implemented in
the City, including the proposed project, include development standards that would apply to future build-out of the planning
area and specifically include development elements and/or policies and measures to ensure that adequate utilities and
service systems such as water and wastewater are provided in conjunction with buildout of the proposed and cumulative
projects. Specific to water, each SPA Plan is required to prepare a water conservation plan to minimize use of water.
Total permitted capacity at the Otay Landfill is approximately 62.4 million cubic yards, and the landfill has a remaining
capacity of 53%, or 33.1 million cubic yards. The 2005 General Plan Update EIR (City of Chula Vista 2005) concluded
that there is sufficient capacity within the Otay Landfill to accommodate project solid waste generated and anticipated
under the General Plan Update. The Otay Landfill is scheduled to close in 2030; however, under the current franchise
agreement between the City of Chula Vista and Republic Services, solid waste would be disposed of at the Sycamore
Landfill once the Otay Landfill meets its permitted capacity and terminates solid waste services (City of Chula Vista 2012).
As such, solid waste service would continue following closure of the Otay Landfill and permitted capacity would be
available to accommodate the proposed project and cumulative projects. Waste collection for proposed and planned
land uses would be provided by the City under its contract agreement with Republic Services. The waste collection
procedures and programs for the proposed and cumulative projects would be required to comply with the municipal
requirements for recycling and collection of solid waste, including provision for litter control for public events. The
proposed and cumulative projects would be required to comply with all applicable statutes and regulations and therefore
would not have cumulatively considerable impacts with respect to solid waste collection and management.
6.4.17 Wildfire
With regard to wildfire hazards, as discussed in Section 5.17, the project site is located within a wildland-urban interface
(WUI) location that is in an area statutorily designated LRA FHSZ by the City and CAL FIRE (CAL FIRE 2009). While the project
site is not designated as a FHSV by CALFIRE, the General Plan has identified fire hazard zones (FHZ) within the City to
acknowledge areas that are potentially susceptible to wildfire. As such, the General Plan designates the project site as a
High Hazard area which suggests the area may contain substantial fire risk and hazards (City of Chula Vista 2005). However,
with implementation of MM-WF-1, impacts associated with wildfire risk would be less than significant. In addition, the project
would be required to comply with CVMC requirements and the Fire Protection Plan (FPP) prepared for the project (Appendix
H3). All cumulative projects within the WUI would be required to meet minimum fire fuel modification and/or clearing
requirements in addition to meeting the standards of the various fire codes in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
Cumulative projects would also be required to prepare FPPs, to evaluate and identify potential fire risks associated with the
project. As such, through compliance with existing regulations and similar project design features, as applicable, cumulative
impacts to wildfire would not be cumulatively considerable.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 548 of 1271
6 - Cumulative Impacts
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 6-14
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 549 of 1271
Date: 3/1/2021 - Last saved by: ckubacki - Path: Z:\Projects\j1261201\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\EIR\Figure6-1_CumulativeProjects.mxdUniversity
Villages
Eastern
Urban Center
Village 4
South Residential
Planning Area 12
Freeway Commercial
Village 2
Village
8 West
Eastlake Behavioral
Health Hospital
Village 9
54
125
P
i
c
a
d
o
r
Blv
dS w e e tw a te r R d
E L St
O tayLakesR d
EastlakePkwyE H S tB onitaRdHi
l
l
t
opDr
M a i n S tReoDr
OtayVal
l
eyRdF St
Palomar
S
t
Del Sol Blvd
L S t
H St
E St
4t
hAveV alley R d
BeyerBl
v
d
Ocea
n
Vi
ewHi
l
lsPkwyDenneryRdPalmAve
B
e
y
erWayHunt
e
Pk
wyH
e
rit
a
g
e
RdO ly m p ic P k w yOrangeA v e
E P a l o m arStT e l e g ra p h C anyonRdL
ake
Cr
estDr805
LOWER OTAY
RESERVOIR
UPPER OTAY
RESERVOIR
Cumulative Projects
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR
SOURCE: SanGIS 2017; Open Street Map 2019
010.5 Miles
Project Boundary
City of Chula Vista
Cumulative Projects
1 - University Villages
2 - Eastern Urban Center
3 - Village 4 South Residential
4 - Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial
5 - Village 2
6 - Village 8 West
7 - Village 9
8 - Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital
FIGURE 6-1
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 550 of 1271
6 - Cumulative Impacts
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 6-16
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 551 of 1271
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 7-1
7 Growth Inducement
Section 15126.2(d) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines mandates that the growth-
inducing nature of a proposed project be discussed. This CEQA Guideline states that the growth inducing analysis
is intended to address the potential for the project to “foster economic or population growth, or the construction
of additional housing, either directly or indire ctly, in the surrounding environment.” Further, the CEQA Appendix
G Checklist (Population and Housing) mandates that a CEQA document address a project’s likelihood to induce
substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposi ng new homes or businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure).
A project may be distinguished as either facilitating planned growth or inducing unplanned growth. Facilitating
growth relates to the establishment of direct employment, population, or housing growth that would occur within a
project site. Inducing growth is related to lowering or removing barriers to growth or by creating an amenity or facility
that attracts new population/economic activity. For purposes of this EIR analysis, a significant growth-inducement
impact would occur if the project, and all associated infrastructure improvements, directly or indirectly removes
obstacles to growth such that the induced growth would significantly burden existing community services or the
environment, or cause a demand for a General Plan Amendment.
This chapter contains a discussion of the growth -inducing factors related to the proposed Sunbow Sectional
Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Pr oject (project) and as defined under CEQA
Guidelines Section 15162.2(d). A project is defined as growth inducing when it directly or indirectly:
1. Fosters population growth;
2. Fosters economic growth;
3. Includes the construction of additional housing in the surrounding environment;
4. Removes obstacles to population growth;
5. Taxes existing community service facilities, requiring construction of new facilities that could cause
significant environmental effects; and/or
6. Encourages or facilitates other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually
or cumulatively.
It must not be assumed that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to
the environment.
7.1 Growth Inducement Due to Population Growth
As discussed in Section 5.12, Population and Housing, t he proposed project would directly contribute to
population growth in the City of Chula Vista (City). The proposed project would develop 718 multi-family
residential units composed of medium -high- and high-density units. The proposed project would directly
contribute to population growth in the area through the development of these dwelling units . Based on SANDAG’s
Series 13 forecast, the interpolated persons per household ratio in 2028 is 3.224. Thus, the proposed project would
result in 2,314.83 persons (rounded to 2,315) (Appendix F). Through existing Sunbow General Development Plan
(GDP) planning efforts, the project area was originally identified to be developed as Industrial Park and Open
Space . As such, the proposed project would result in unplanned population growth due to the change in land use
from Industrial Park to Medium-High and High residential. However, development of an Industrial Park would directly
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 552 of 1271
7– Growth Inducement
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 7-2
result in some amount of population growth within the City due to new employment in the area (i.e. relocation of
employees to the area). Based on the SANDAG Series 13 growth forecast, employment density1 in the City in 2035 is
anticipated to be 17.5 jobs per developed employment acre (SANDAG 2013). At this rate, a project consistent with the
existing Industrial Park land use would result in approximately 957 employees in 2035, some percentage of which
would move to the area resulting in population growth. Although the proposed project would likely result in greater
population inducement, development under the existing Industrial Park land use was already anticipated to generate
population under the City’s growth projections.
The San Diego Forward: Regional Plan (SANDAG 2015) combines the region’s two most important existing
planning documents: the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) and the Regional Transportation Plan and its
Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). The RCP, adopted in 2004, laid out key principles for managing
the region’s growth while preserving natural resources and limiting urban sprawl. The plan covers policy areas
including urban form, transportation, housing, hea lthy environment, economic prosperity, public facilities, our
borders, and social equity (SANDAG 2004). These policy areas were addressed in the 2050 Regional
Transportation Plan and its Sustainable Communities Strategy (2050 RTP/SCS) (SANDAG 2011) and are now
fully integrated into San Diego Forwa rd. As part of the regional planning effort for San Diego Forward, the San
Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) solicited input from the City for projects that were in the planning
phases. Development on the p roject site under existing plans would be included in the growth forecasts
associated with San Diego Forward.
Furthermore, the City of Chula Vista Growth Management Program, outlined in the Chula Vista Municipal Code
Chapter 19.09, Growth Management, call s for directing growth in and around the City in an orderly fashion, to
avoid “leapfrog” development, to protect and preserve the City’s amenities, and to guide growth in a general west
to east direction. The proposed project fosters a development pattern that promotes orderly growth and prevents
urban sprawl by developing on a site surrounded by existing development and planned for development for
several decades. Refer to Section 5.12 for additional information.
7.2 Growth Inducement Due to Economic Growth
An increase in population would foster economic growth by increasing demand for regional and local goods and
services. It is expected that future residents would demand a variety of goods and services from the existing and
future commercial uses within the surrounding area. The proposed project would not provide services on site and
therefore would not generate direct employment opportunities for residents. The proposed project would relate
closely to the Sunbow SPA and greater East Planning Area, relying on these areas’ retail, employment
opportunities, and other services. As the project proposes development of 718 residences, a community purpose
facility, and designation of open space, the project is not expected to result in substantial growth inducement
associated with economic growth.
7.3 Growth Inducement Due to Additional Housing
As discussed in Section 5.12, t hrough previous GDP planning efforts, the project site was identified to be
developed as Industrial Park with no residential units. The proposed project would result in the development of
718 residential units on the project site which were not previously planned in the GDP or SPA Plan. As a result,
it is anticipated the proposed project would result in a population of 2,315 persons, based on SANDAG’s Series
1 Civilian jobs per developed employment acre (industrial, retail, office, schools, and half of mixed-use acres).
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 553 of 1271
7– Growth Inducement
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 7-3
13 forecast (Appendix F). However, although this additional housing would be considered unplanned, t he
proposed project would only represent approximately 5.9% of forecasted population growth and 6% of forecasted
housing growth between 2020 and 2035, based on SANDAG’s Series 13 forecast. Furthermore, the project would
include a variety of housing types. The project Applicant would be required to enter into a Balanced Community
Affordable Housing Agreement, a policy adopted to support the City’s Balanced Communities Policy in order to
increase the diversity of housing prices and rent throughout the communi ty and meet the City’s Regional Housing
Allocation requirements. As shown in Table 5.12-2 of Section 5.12, the City was 4,271 units under the RHNA
allocation for the 5th Cycle (2013 –2020) and specifically for Very Low to Moderate income levels. As shown in
Table 5.12-3 of Section 5.12 , the City also has a current RHNA allocation of 11,105 units for the 6th Cycle
(2021–2029), including 6,438 units for Extremely Low to Moderate income levels. Therefore, as a small
percentage of the City’s forecasted housing growth between 2020 and 2035, the addition of 718 units between
2024 and 2028 would provide balanced and diverse housing to the City and would provide housing to
accommodate the City’s future growth projections.
7.4 Growth Inducement Due to Removal of Obstacles
Improvements to transportation, utilities, and public service infrastructure as part of the proposed project would
accommodate the direct growth induced by the proposed project. These improvements would not open up new areas to
development because they would connect to existing transportation and utility infrastructure (including water and sewer)
adjacent to the project site on and within Olympic Parkway. Furthermore, these improvements would provide access and
utility service solely to the proposed project. Areas of the project site outside of the development area would also remain
open space and would be part of the City’s MSCP Preserve. Therefore, the project site would not be capable of supporting
future development due to these transportation and utility improvements.
The proposed project would also include a storm drain system which would be designed to address peak flows
and to integrate water quality features needed to comply with the City’s Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan
requirements for water quality. The proposed storm drain system would be designed to prevent the co-mingling of treated
flows with untreated runoff and would include two proposed detention and water quality basins within the northeast and
northwest portions of the development area to treat stormwater runoff. The proposed storm drain system would
accommodate the proposed project and would not be capable of supporting future growth or development.
Public services such as schools, and police and fire services would be provided by existing and planned surrounding
facilities. As discussed above and in Section 5.13, Public Services, payment of Public Facilities Development Impact Fees
would ensure the proposed project would not significantly impact public services and facilities. Additionally, as discussed
in Section 5.14, Recreation, the proposed project would pay Park Benefit Fees, equal to the City’s Park Acquisition and
Development Fee Update, to fulfill parkland obligation requirements for population induced by the proposed project and
ensure the proposed project would not significantly impact parks and recreational facilities.
Infrastructure would not provide surplus capacity that would allow for additional, unplanned development. Public
Facilities Financing Plans (PFFPs) are included with each SPA Plan to ensure that public utilities provided for the
project would be provided concurrently with development. The Supplemental PFFP prepared for the proposed
project provides a complete description of all public facilities included within the boundaries of the SPA Plan
area, including phasing and financing of infrastructure. The proposed project would not provide surplus
infrastructure capacity that would induce growth in surrounding areas, but would, rather, help accommodate the
continued population influx in eastern Chula Vista over the next several decades. Therefore, the proposed project
would not result in growth inducement due to the removal of obstacles.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 554 of 1271
7– Growth Inducement
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 7-4
7.5 Taxation of Existing Public Facilities and Services
As described in Section 5.12, the proposed project would comply with the City of Chula Vista Growth Management
Ordinance (GMO) and established “quality of life” threshold standards. The Growth Management Oversight
Commission is charged with reviewing the GMO annually to ensure compliance and make recommendations, as
necessary. The GMO requires PFFPs for every SPA Plan. A Supplemental PFFP is required in conjunction with the
preparation of a SPA Plan Amendment to ensure that development of the proposed project is consistent with the
overall goals and policies of the General Plan and would not degrade public services. The PFFP provides a
complete description of all public facilities included within the bound aries of the SPA Plan area, including phasing
and financing of infrastructure. The PFFPs ensure that development of the SPA Plan would not adversely impact
the City’s quality of life standards by requiring public facilities and services to be provided concurrent with
demand. Therefore, compliance with the regulations listed above would ensure that development of the
proposed project would not tax existing public facilities and services.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 555 of 1271
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 8-1
8 Significant Irreversible
Environmental Changes
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15126.2(c) indicates the following:
[U]ses of non-renewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project may be
irreversible since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or non-use thereafter
unlikely. Primary impacts and, particularly, secondary impacts (such as highway improvement
which provides access to a previously inaccessible area) generally commit future generations to
similar uses. Also irreversible damage can result from environmental accidents associated with the
project. Irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current
consumption is justified.
Implementation of the proposed Sunbow Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase
3 Project (project or proposed project) would involve consumption of limited, slowly renewable, and non-renewable
resources. This consumption would occur during the construction phase of the project and would continue
throughout its operational lifetime. The project would require a commitment of resources that would include (1)
building materials, (2) fuel and operational materials/resources, and (3) the transportation of goods and people to
and from the project site.
Construction of the project would require the consumption of resources that are not renewable or that may renew
so slowly as to be considered non-renewable. These resources would include the following construction supplies:
certain types of lumber and other forest products; aggregate materials used in concrete and asphalt such as sand,
gravel, and stone; metals such as steel, copper, and lead; petrochemical construction materials such as plastics;
water; and fossil fuels such as gasoline and oil.
The resources that would be committed during operation of the project would include water for drinking and bathing,
and fossil fuels for electricity, natural gas, and transportation. Section 5.7.5 outlines a mitigation measure which
would include greenhouse gas emission reduction measures that would reduce consumption of fossil fuels such as
gasoline and oil during construction and operational activities. Additionally, Section 4.4.8 includes a transportation
project design feature that provides strategies to reduce the number of automobile trips generated by residents of
the project. However, while implementation of the mitigation measure and project design feature would reduce the
use of non-renewable resources, fossil fuels would represent the primary energy source associated with
construction and ongoing operation of the project, and the existing, finite supplies of these natural resources would
be incrementally reduced. Additionally, the project includes a Water Conservation Plan (Appendix L3) that includes
mandatory water reduction measures.
Additionally, the project would involve an unquantifiable, but limited, use of potentially hazardous materials typical
of residential uses, including cleaning solvents, and fertilizers and pesticides for landscaping. These materials
would be contained, stored, and used on site in accordance with manufacturers’ instructions, and applicable
standards and regulations. Compliance with regulations would serve to protect against a significant and irreversible
environmental change that could result from the accidental release of hazardous materials.
Furthermore, the project would result in the permanent commitment of land to the proposed project. The project
would result in direct permanent impacts to sensitive vegetation communities/habitats consisting of native
grassland, Diegan coastal sage scrub, and non‐native grassland habitats. Permanent project impacts consist of
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 556 of 1271
8 – Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 8-2
vegetation clearing, grading, and residential development including houses, a private recreation facility, fuel
modification zone activities, detention basins, and roadways. Permanent impacts to these sensitive upland
habitats, as well as sensitive plant species and habitats, would be considered potentially significant under CEQA
and require implementation of mitigation measures outlined in Section 5.3.5. These mitigation measures would be
consistent with the City of Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan and the Habitat Loss
and Incidental Take Ordinance and would reduce impacts to a level below significance.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 557 of 1271
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 9-1
9 Effects Found Not to Be Significant
Section 15128 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines requires that an environmental impact
report (EIR) briefly describe potential environmental effects that were determined not to be significant and therefore
were not discussed in detail in the EIR. The environmental issues discussed below are not considered significant
for the proposed Sunbow Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project (project
or proposed project), and the reasons for the conclusion of non-significance are discussed below.
9.1 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Under existing conditions, the project site is vacant, undeveloped land containing a variety of grasses, shrubs, and
trees. According to the Department of Conservation’s California Important Farmland Finder, the project site is
designated as Farmland of Local Importance on the northern boundary and eastern portion, Grazing Land within
the western portion and slightly within the southeastern corner, and Urban and Built-Up Land within small sections
in the northwestern and southeastern corners (DOC 2016). In total, the project site contains 72.97-acres of
Farmland of Local Importance, 62.61-acres of Grazing Land and 0.14-acres of Urban and Built-Up Land. Farmland
of Local Importance is considered land important to the local agricultural economy. Grazing land consists of existing
vegetation that is suited to the grazing of livestock. And lastly, Urban and Built-Up Land is defined as vacant and
nonagricultural land which is surrounded on all sides by development and is less than 40 -acres in size. While the
project site is predominantly designated as Farmland of Local Importance and Grazing Land, the project site is
currently zoned under the Sunbow Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan as open space preserve, open space, and
limited industrial. Further, the SPA Plan does not identify current agricultural use within the project site.
Furthermore, as discussed in the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) prepared for the project (Appendix
G1), aerial images of the project site show that the project site remained undeveloped from as early as 1943. While
the aerial images of the area surrounding the project site identified former agriculture use south of the project site,
the aerials did not reveal any previous agricultural use on the project site itself. However, despite the lack of agriculture
use shown in aerials in the Phase I ESA (Appendix G1), due to proximity to the agricultural use shown in the aerial
images of the surrounding area, the project site may have potentially been used as grazing land for animals.
The proposed project is primarily a residential project with associated infrastructure and open space areas.
Development would be centered within the southeastern portion of the site. The approximately 67.5-acre
development area would be composed of 44.2 acres of residential uses, a 0.9-acre Community Purpose Facility
(CPF), 5.9 acres of public streets, and 16.5 acres of manufactured slopes and basins. The project also includes
63.6 acres of MSCP Preserve area, 4.3 acres of Poggi Creek Conservation Easements and a 0.3 -acre wetland
avoidance area. As part of proposed discretionary actions, the project would include rezoning and General Plan and
SPA Plan amendments. Thus, upon approval of these amendments and rezone, the proposed project would be
consistent with the land use designation and zoning of the project site. Additionally, the project site has been slated
for development since the adoption of the Sunbow General Development Plan on December 5, 1989 and is not
planned to be utilized for agriculture use. Furthermore, approximately 63.6 acres designated Multiple Species
Conservation Program (MSCP) Preserve located within the project site would be permanently preserved. As such,
because the project site is not currently used for agriculture, has been planned for development since 1989, and
would propose to preserve 63.6 acres as MSCP Preserve, impacts to agriculture and forestry resources would be
less than significant.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 558 of 1271
9 – Effects Found Not to Be Significant
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 9-2
9.2 Mineral Resources
The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA) includes requirements and programs to ensure the long-
term availability of mineral resources and that the significant adverse environmental impacts of surface mining are
adequately mitigated. As mandated by the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975, aggregate mineral
resources within the state are classified by the State Mining and Geology Board through application of the Mineral
Resource Zone (MRZ) system. The MRZ system is used to map all mineral commodities within identified
jurisdictional boundaries, with priority given to areas where future mineral resource extraction may be prevented or
restricted by land use compatibility issues, or where mineral resources may be mined during the 50-year period
following their classification. The MRZ system classifies lands that contain mineral deposits and identifies the
presence or absence of substantial sand and gravel deposits and crushed rock source areas (i.e., commodities
used as, or in the production of, construction materials). The state geologist classifies MRZs within a region based
on the following factors:
MRZ-1: Areas where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present, or where
it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence.
MRZ-2: Areas where adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present or where it
is judged that a high likelihood for their presence exists.
MRZ-3: Areas containing mineral deposits for which the significance cannot be determined from available data.
MRZ-4: Areas where geologic information does not rule out either the presence or absence of mineral resources.
According to a map obtained through the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), the project site is located within
an MRZ-3 zone, meaning that mineral resources cannot be determined from available data (SANDAG n.d.).
As discussed in the General Plan, Environmental Element, portions of the Otay River Valley are identified as an MRZ-2
area (City of Chula Vista 2005). Additionally, two other MRZ-2 areas are located on and just outside the General Plan
area: one in the Sweetwater River Valley east of the Sweetwater Reservoir; and the other along the Jamul/Dulzura Creek
east of Lower Otay Lake (City of Chula Vista 2005). However, the project site is located outside of the “Regionally
Significant” MRZ-2 Aggregate Resource Areas (SANDAG n.d.). Additionally, the project would not be designated for
extractive uses, but rather for residential and open space. More specifically, approximately 63.6 acres of the project site
would be designated for MSCP Preserve and remain undeveloped. Thus, the City would not permit or plan for mining
operations as future use in these areas. Therefore, no impacts to mineral resources would occur.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 559 of 1271
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 10-1
10 Alternatives
10.1 Introduction
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, environmental impact reports (EIRs) are
required to “describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would
feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the
significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives” (14 CCR 15126.6(a)).
This EIR “must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision
making and public participation” (14 CCR 15126.6(a)). The alternatives discussion is required even if these
alternatives “would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly” (14
CCR 15126.6(b)).
The inclusion of an alternative in an EIR does not constitute definitive evidence that the alternative is in fact
“feasible.” The final decision regarding the feasibility of alternatives lies with the decision maker for a given project
who must make the necessary findings addressing the potential feasibility of reducing the severity of significant
environmental effects (California Public Resources Code, Section 21081; see also 14 CCR 15091).
10.2 Project Objectives
Following are the objectives of the proposed Sunbow Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Amendment for the
Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project (project or proposed project):
1. Develop a pedestrian-oriented community on an under-utilized site with a range of residential uses, open
space and MSCP Preserve areas, and recreational opportunities, which are compatible with the a djacent
established residential communities.
2. Contribute to the growing housing needs of the City and region by providing for multi-family housing units
with a range of housing types to accommodate a spectrum of demographics.
3. Preserve portions of the project site as permanent open space and increase the MSCP Preserve Areas.
4. Provide pedestrian and bicycle facilities, including a pedestrian connection to the Chula Vista Regional Trail
and connections to bike lanes within Olympic Parkway and nearby transit.
5. Implement the goals, objectives, and policies of the Chula Vista General Plan; the MSCP Subarea Plan; the
Sunbow GDP; and the Sunbow SPA Plan.
6. Implement the City of Chula Vista’s Growth Management Ordinance to ensure that public and community
facilities, such as transportation, water, flood control, sewage disposal, schools and parks, are provided in a
timely manner and financed by the parties creating the demand for, and benefiting from, the improvements.
7. Ensure new uses are compatible with the existing community by establishing setbacks, design regulations and
guidelines, best practices, and performance standards that enhance quality of life for neighboring properties.
8. Create a land use plan that can realistically be developed within a foreseeable time frame and under
projected economic conditions.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 560 of 1271
10 - Alternatives
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 10-2
10.3 Alternatives Considered but Rejected
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c) provides guidance in selecting a range of reasonable alternatives for the
project. The EIR should also identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency, but were rejected during
the planning or scoping process and briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency’s determination. Among
the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are: (i) failure to meet
most of the basic project objectives, (ii) infeasibility, or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts. State
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c) provides the following guidance in selecting a range of reasonable alternatives
for the project. There are many factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of range of
potential alternatives for the project, such as site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general
plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the proponent can
reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site (or the site is already owned by the
proponent). The alternatives discussion shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives
of the project, and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects.
The EIR need not discuss every alternative to the project. A range of alternatives that are “reasonable” for analysis have
been evaluated and are discussed below in Section 4.4, Alternatives Under Consideration. The following describes other
alternatives considered by the City but dismissed from further evaluation in this EIR, and a brief description of the reasons
for their rejection.
Alternative Location
Pursuant to Section 15126.6(f)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, the City considered the potential for alternative locations
to the project. There are sites within the City of an approximately equivalent size to the project site that could be
redeveloped with a residential project; however, the project applicant does not control another site within the City
of comparable land area that is available for development of the proposed project. One of the factors for feasibility
of an alternative is “whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the
alternative site.” Because the City is highly urbanized and is largely built out, obtaining another site of a similar size
in a similar location is not considered feasible. It should also be noted that the project site is surrounded on all
sides by development. As such, an alternative location was ultimately rejected from further analysis in the EIR.
10.4 Alternatives under Consideration
Section 15126.6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines states that the Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) shall “describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project,
which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any
of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.”
The range of alternatives evaluated in an EIR is governed by the “rule of reason” that requires the EIR set forth only
those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effects
cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative [Section 15126.6(a) of
the CEQA Guidelines].
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 561 of 1271
10 - Alternatives
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 10-3
In developing the alternatives to be addressed in this EIR, the potential alternatives were evaluated in terms of their
ability to meet the basic objectives of the project, while reducing or avoiding the environmental impacts of the
project identified in Section 5.0, Environmental Analysis, of the EIR.
In determining what alternatives should be considered in the EIR, it is important to acknowledge the objectives
of the project, the project’s significant effects, and unique project considerations. These fac tors are crucial to
the development of alternatives that meet the criteria specified in Section 15126.6(a). Although, as noted above,
EIRs must contain a discussion of “potentially feasible” alternatives, the ultimate determination as to whether
an alternative is feasible or infeasible is made by the lead agency’s decision ‐making body, the Chula Vista City
Council (see PRC Section 21081[a] [3].)
This chapter discusses alternatives to the proposed project, including the No Project/No Build Alternative. The No
Project/No Build Alternative is a required element of an EIR pursuant to Section 15126.6(e) of the CEQA Guidelines
that examines the environmental effects that would occur if the project were not to proceed. The alternatives
addressed in this chapter are listed below, followed by a more detailed discussion of each:
1. No Project/No Build Alternative
2. Existing Land Use Designations Alternative
3. Reduced Development Alternative
10.5 Alternatives Impact Summary
10.5.1 No Project/No Build Alternative
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires the inclusion of a No Project/No Build Alternative to be analyzed. Under
the No Project/No Build Alternative, no development would occur on the project site. Accordingly, the site
characteristics of this alternate would be equivalent to the existing conditions for each category analyzed in Chapter
5, Environmental Impact Analysis, of this EIR. Although no development would occur, surrounding land uses in the
region would continue to be built out.
Comparison to Proposed Project
Aesthetics
The No Project/No Build Alternative would not result in any changes to the existing visual character, views, or lighting
and glare. The site would remain as vacant and undeveloped land. Although the proposed project would result in
less than significant impacts associated with aesthetics, no impacts would occur under the No Project/No Build
Alternative because no development would occur on the project site. Therefore, impacts would be reduced under
the No Project/No Build Alternative.
Air Quality
There would be no direct construction or operational air quality impacts associated with the No Project /No Build
Alternative since the site would remain in its current state and no construction would occur. Although the proposed
project would result in less than significant impacts associated with air quality, no impacts would occur under the
No Project/No Build Alternative because no development would occur on the project site. Therefore, impacts would
be reduced under the No Project/No Build Alternative.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 562 of 1271
10 - Alternatives
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 10-4
Biological Resources
The No Project/No Build Alternative would not result in any changes to the currently vacant and undeveloped project
site. The project site would remain designated as Open Space Preserve, Open Space, and Industrial Park. Although
the No Project/No Build Alternative would not require a Boundary Line Adjustment to the MSCP Preserve on
the project site , this alternative would result in less acreage of MSCP Preserve lands on the project site.
Additionally, the No Project/No Build Alternative would not result in any direct impacts to biological resources
as would occur with development of the proposed project since there would be no construction involved.
Therefore, impacts to biological resources would be reduced under the No Project/No Build Alternative.
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
The No Project/No Build Alternative would not result in excavation of soils that may contain significant cultural or
tribal cultural resources; therefore, impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources would be reduced under the No
Project/No Build Alternative.
Energy
The No Project/No Build Alternative would not result in the use of energy as no changes to the currently vacant and
undeveloped project site would occur. Although the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts
associated with energy, including the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy re sources, no
impacts would occur under the No Project/No Build Alterative because no energy consumption would occur.
Therefore, impacts would be reduced under the No Project/No Build Alternative.
Geology and Soils
The No Project/No Build Alternative would not result in any changes to the currently vacant and undeveloped project
site. Although the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts associated with geologic hazards ,
the No Project/No Build Alternative would not place people or structures on the project site so no impacts would
occur. Additionally, as compared to the proposed project, the No Project/No Build Alternative would not result in
excavation of soils that may contain significant paleontological resources. Therefore, impacts to geology and soils,
and specifically paleontological resources, would be reduced under the No Project/No Build Alternative.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
There would be no direct construction or operational greenhouse gas emission impacts associated with the No
Project/No Build Alternative since the site would remain in its current state and no development would occur.
Significant and unavoidable impacts associated with greenhouse gas emissions would be avoided. Impacts
would be reduced under the No Project/No Build Alternative.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
As no construction would occur, the No Project/No Build Alternative would not result in any potential impacts
associated with hazards or hazardous materials. Compared to the proposed project, the No Project/No Build
Alternative would not introduce future residents to potential hazards or hazardous materials during operation,
including wildfires, because no development would occur. Therefore, impacts to hazards, and specifically wildfire
hazards, would be reduced under the No Project/No Build Alternative.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 563 of 1271
10 - Alternatives
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 10-5
Hydrology and Water Quality
The No Project/No Build Alternative would not result in any direct impacts related to hydrology and water quality since
no construction would occur and there would be no increase in runoff from the site. No construction or development
activities would take place that could generate potential pollutants. Although the proposed project would result in less
than significant impacts associated with hydrology and water quality, no impacts would occur under the No Project/No
Build Alternative. Therefore, impacts would be reduced under the No Project/No Build Alternative.
Land Use and Planning
No changes to the existing zoning or land use designations would occur under the No Project/No B uild Alternative
as the project site would remain vacant and undeveloped. Although the proposed project would result in less than
significant impacts associated with land use and planning, no impacts would occur under the No Project/No Build
Alternative. Therefore, impacts would be reduced under the No Project/No Build Alternative.
Noise
The No Project/No Build Alternative would not result in any construction-related noise since no construction would
occur. The No Project/No Build Alternative would not contribute to an increase in ambient noise levels either as no
development would be introduced on the project site. Although the proposed project would result in less than
significant noise impacts, no impacts would occur under the No Project/No Build Alternative. Therefore, impacts
would be reduced under the No Project/No Build Alternative.
Population and Housing
No impacts related to population growth would occur under this alternative because no residential or economic
growth would occur and no infrastructure would be developed on the project site. Although the proposed project
would result in less than significant impacts associated with population and housing, no impacts would occur under
the No Project/No Build Alternative. Therefore, impacts would be reduced under the No Project/No Build Alternative.
Public Services
Under the No Project/No Build Alternative there would be no increase in demand for public services, as would occur under
the proposed project. Therefore, impacts to public services would be reduced under the No Project/No Build Alternative.
Recreation
Under the No Project/No Build Alternative there would be no increase in demand for parks and recreation facilities
or the development of new or expanded parks and recreation facilities . Impacts associated with recreation would
be reduced under the No Project/No Build Alternative.
Transportation
The No Project/No Build Alternative would not generate any new traffic that wo uld affect the local roadway
network or result in an increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Although transportation impacts would be less
than significant under the proposed project, no transportation impacts would occur under the No Project/No
Build Alternative. Therefore, impacts would be reduced under the No Project/No Build Alternative.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 564 of 1271
10 - Alternatives
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 10-6
Utilities and Service Systems
Under the No Project/No Build Alternative, there would be no increase in demand for public utilities and service systems.
Therefore, impacts to public utilities and service systems would be reduced under the No Project/No Build Alternative.
Wildfire
As no construction would occur, the No Project/No Build Alternative would not result in any potential impacts
associated with wildfire hazards. Compared to the proposed project, the No Project/No Build Alternative would not
introduce future residents to potential wildfires hazards, because no development would occur. However, under
this alternative, the project site would remain in a natural state and more susceptible to potential wildfire compared
to the proposed project. Therefore, impacts associated with wildfire hazards would be similar under the No
Project/No Build Alternative.
Relation to Project Objectives
The No Project/No Build Alternative would not meet any of the project objectives.
10.5.2 Existing Land Use Designations Alternative
The Existing Land Use Designations Alternative would include the development consistent with the City’s General
Plan, Sunbow General Development Plan (GDP) and Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan. The City’s General Plan
designates the development area within the southeastern portion of the site as Research & Limited Industrial (see
Figure 3-1, Existing General Plan Land Use). The Sunbow GDP designated the 54.7 acres as Industrial Park to
include research/development and light industrial uses (see Figure 3-3, Existing General Development Plan Land
Use Designation), with approximately 700,000 square feet of leasable area generating approximately 2,800
employment opportunities; however, actual leasable area may be less than this approximation when accounting for
required infrastructure and amenities. Note, that the development areas under the existing land use designations
and the proposed project are different between the MSCP hardline, established after the approval of the Sunbow
GDP and SPA Plan. The rest of the project site would be preserved as Open Space and MSCP Preserve, similar to
the proposed project. It is anticipated that access would be provided via Olympic Parkway and internal circulation
on the project site would be similar to the proposed project. However, features such as pedestrian and bicycle
circulation, the Community Purpose Facility (CPF), and active and passive recreational open space areas, proposed
to be developed throughout the residential uses under the proposed project, would not be developed under the
Existing Land Use Designations Alternative.
Comparison to Proposed Project
Aesthetics
The Existing Land Use Designations Alternative would result in development of an industrial park within a similar
footprint as the proposed project. As discussed above, the industrial park footprint would be approximately 12.8
acres smaller than the proposed project’s development area. However, development of an industrial park would
introduce substantial bulk and scale associated with the 700,000 square feet of leasable area. The industrial park
in this alternative would be located in the same portion of the pro ject site as the development footprint of the
proposed project, which would be set back approximately 500 feet from Olympic Parkway. Additionally, this
alternative would be required to comply with applicable rules and regulations concerning lighting, glare, setbacks,
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 565 of 1271
10 - Alternatives
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 10-7
landscaping, and others related to scenic quality. Similar to the proposed project, the Existing Land Use
Designations Alternative would introduce new sources of lighting and glare to a currently vacant and undeveloped
project site. Additionally, due to the same location of the project site, this alternative would not impact a scenic
vista or state scenic highway, same as with the proposed project. Therefore, the Existing Land Use Designations
Alternative would result in similar impacts as the proposed project with regard to aesthetics.
Air Quality
The Existing Land Use Designations Alternative would result in similar ground disturbing activities as the proposed project
due to the relatively similar development footprint. Although air quality emissions from electricity and natural gas usage
associated with residential uses are typically higher per dwelling unit than industrial uses, air quality emissions would
most likely increase due to mobile source emissions generated from an industrial land use. For instance, under this
alternative, a higher percentage of trips would be associated with the use of higher duty trucks, which would result in
higher emissions than passenger vehicles associated with residential development. In addition, it is anticipated that
heavy duty truck distances would usually be higher (up to 40 miles). Therefore, air quality impacts associated with the
Existing Land Use Designations Alternative would be increased compared to the proposed project.
Biological Resources
The Existing Land Use Designations Alternative would disturb less land than the proposed project due to the slightly
reduced development footprint. Additionally, the Existing Land Use Designations Alternative would not overlap with the
existing MSCP Preserve lands on the project site and thus would not require a Boundary Line Adjustment. It should be
noted that the project’s proposed MSCP Boundary Line Adjustment would result in an increase in MSCP Preserve Area
and would be required to result in equal or higher biological value as compared to the existing MSCP Preserve. While the
development footprint would be slightly reduced under this alternative, the Existing Land Use Designations Alternative
would result in similar direct/indirect impacts to biological resources as the proposed project and would require similar
mitigation because development would occur on the same portion of the project site. Therefore, the Existing Land Use
Designations Alternative would result in similar impacts to biological resources.
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Although the Existing Land Use Designations Alternative would disturb less land than the proposed project, the Existing
Land Use Designations Alternative still has the potential to impact archaeological resources or human remains, and
would require the same mitigation as the proposed project. Therefore, compared to the proposed project, the Existing
Land Use Designations Alternative would result in similar impacts as the proposed project regarding cultural resources.
Energy
The Existing Land Use Designations Alternative would result in the consumption of energy during both construction
and operation. As discussed under Air Quality, above, compared to the proposed project, natural gas and electricity
usage are typically higher per dwelling unit than industrial uses. However, under an industrial land use, a higher
percentage of trips would be associated with the use of higher duty trucks, creating an increase in petroleum usage,
compared to the proposed project. Nonetheless, similar to the proposed project, the Existing Land Use Designations
Alternative would not result in a significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation , or a conflict with or obstruct a state or
local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Therefore, impacts would be similar to the proposed project
and remain less than significant.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 566 of 1271
10 - Alternatives
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 10-8
Geology and Soils
The Existing Land Use Designations Alternative would also introduce people and structures to the project site. The
project site would remain the same under this alternative as under the proposed project and therefore, similar
potential for geologic hazards would occur. The proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to
geology and soils, aside from paleontological resources. As such, the Existing Land Use Designations Alternative
would result in similar impacts as the proposed project to geology and soils due to the same project location.
Although the Existing Land Use Designations Alternative would disturb less land than the proposed project due to the
reduced development footprint, this alternative still has the potential to impact paleontological resources, and would
require the same mitigation as the proposed project. Therefore, compared to the proposed project, the Existing Land Use
Designations Alternative would result in similar impacts as the proposed project regarding geology and soils.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
As identified in Section 5.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the proposed project would have significant and
unavoidable impacts associated with the project’s efficiency metric and the state’s ability to meet future GHG
emission reductions. Even with incorporation of mitigation, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. As
discussed under Air Quality and Energy, above, the Existing Land Use Designations Alternative would result in an
increase of heavy duty trucks, which would result in higher emissions than passenger vehicles associated with
residential development. In addition, although residents would not be introduced on-site under this alternative, the
alternative would introduce 2,800 employees, which are still anticipated to result in an increase in the efficiency
threshold. While this alternative would place employment in proximity to existing and planned residential uses , in
the context of the City’s GHG efficiency threshold, impacts would be similar to the proposed project and remain
significant and unavoidable.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The proposed project would result in less than significant impacts associated with hazards and hazardous
materials, with the exception of wildfire hazards. Under the Existing Land Use Designations Alternative, the potential
for hazards and hazardous materials related impacts on the project site from construction activities would be similar
to the proposed project as location would remain the same. During operations of the industrial park, it is possible
that the Existing Land Use Designations Alternative could result in increased transport, use or disposal of hazardous
materials and the reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials. However, hazardous materials are highly regulated in California, including the methods by which they are
transported, used, and stored. Therefore, it is likely that if any hazardous materials are used for operation of a
potential industrial use under this alternative, potential impacts would be less than significant upon compliance
with applicable regulations.
Similar to the proposed project, the Existing Land Use Designations Alternative would also introduce people and
structures to potential wildfire hazards due to the same location. Therefore, the Existing Land Use Designations
Alternative would result in similar impacts as the proposed project regarding hazards and hazardous materials.
Hydrology and Water Quality
As identified in Section 5.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, the proposed project would have less than significant
impacts regarding hydrology and water quality on the project site. Under the Existing Land Use Designations
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 567 of 1271
10 - Alternatives
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 10-9
Alternative, the potential for hydrology and water quality related impacts on the project site would be slightly
reduced because less land would be altered from the existing and undeveloped condition with the reduced
development footprint. When compared to the proposed project, the Existing Land Use Designations Alternative
would result in similar impacts to water quality and hydrology.
Land Use and Planning
Under the Existing Land Use Designations Alternative, there would be no General Plan amendment, Sunbow General
Development Plan (GDP) amendment, Sunbow Sectional Area Plan (SPA Plan) amendment, Rezone, or MSCP
Boundary Line Adjustment. The development of an industrial park would be consistent with existing zoning and land
use designations. However, as discussed in Section 5.10, Land Use and Planning, the proposed project would not
result in any environmental impacts due to conflicts with relevant plans, policies, or regulation, including these
discretionary actions. Additionally, as a part of the proposed MSCP Boundary Line Adjustment, the proposed
project is required to set aside a potentially suitable area currently located outside of the MSCP Preserve to
incorporate into the MSCP Preserve at a 1:1 acreage ratio. The proposed MSCP Boundary Line Adjustment would
be required to result in e qual or higher biological value as compared to the existing MSCP Preserve. Although the
Existing Land Use Designations Alternative would not require these discretionary actions and would conform with
the existing site designations, the inclusion of these d iscretionary actions under the proposed project would not
result in any land use and planning impacts. Therefore, the Existing Land Use Designations Alternative would
result in similar as the proposed project regarding land use and planning.
Noise
Construction of this alternative would require more heavy duty traffic, which tends to result in greater mobile source
noise emissions. However, the Existing Land Use Designations Alternative would result in greater project generated
traffic trips associated with the 2,800 employment opportunities generated by development of an industrial park
as compared to the 2,315 residents generated by the proposed project . As such, mobile source noise emissions
would be increased under this alternative. Additionally, operational noise levels would be greater, as an industrial
park use would emit greater noise levels than a residential use. Therefore, impacts would be increased under the
Existing Land Use Designations Alternative.
Population and Housing
The Existing Land Use Designations Alternative would result in 2,800 employment opportunities and no residential
units, as compared to the proposed project’s 718 residential units. As such, population would not be induced in
the area due to new unplanned residential uses. The new employment opportunities at the industrial park under
this alternative would contribute to growth in the area, as it is reasonably anticipated that some employees of the
industrial park would move to the area. It is also reasonably anticipated that some employees of the industrial park
would already be living within the project area. However, the industrial park land use is already assumed in planning
documents including the City’s General Plan, GDP, and SPA Plan. As such, the potential growth induced by an
industrial park land use would not be considered unplanned. Although the proposed project would result in less
than significant impacts to population and housing, including due to unplanned growth, the Existing Land Use
Designations Alternative would not result in any unplanned growth. As such, impacts would be reduced under the
Existing Land Use Designations Alternative.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 568 of 1271
10 - Alternatives
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 10-10
Public Services
As identified in Section 5.13, Public Services, prior to mitigation, the proposed project would have potentially
significant impacts on public services due to the increase in demand for services. Mitigation in the form of payment
of fees would reduce impacts to public services to a less than significant level. Under the Existing Land Use
Designations Alternative, the potential for public services related impacts would still occur and mitigation in the form
of payment of fees would still be required. Therefore, the Existing Land Use Designations Alternative would result in
similar impacts as the proposed project with regard to public services.
Recreation
As identified in Section 5.14, Recreation, prior to mitigation, the proposed project would have potentially significant
impacts on parks and recreation facilities due to the increase in demand for service . Mitigation in the form of
payment of the Public Benefit Fee would reduce impacts to parks and recreation facilities to a less than significant
level. Under the Existing Land Use Designations Alternative, less demand for parks and recreation facilities would
occur from development of an industrial park. However, some demand on parks and recreation facilities may occur if
employees of the industrial park move to the City and area surrounding the project site. However, development of an
industrial park would not require payment of fees and impacts would be less than significant. Finally, the Existing Land
Use Alternative would not include any recreational facilities, contrary to the CPF and recreational facilities included
under the proposed project, and therefore would result in no impacts from the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities. As such, impacts would be reduced under the Existing Land Use Designations Alternative.
Transportation
The Existing Land Use Designations Alternative would result in greater project generated traffic trips associated
with the 2,800 employment opportunities generated by development of an industrial park as compared to the
2,315 residents generated by the proposed project. Accordingly, this alternative would have a greater impact on
the local street network and roadway capacity. Additionally, more heavy vehicles would be used under the Existing
Land Use Designations Alternative. However, it is likely that vehicle miles travelled (VMT) would be reduced due to
placement of employment opportunities in proximity to existing and planned residential uses. Therefore, impacts
to transportation would be similar under the Existing Land Use Designations Alternative.
Utilities and Service Systems
The Existing Land Use Designations Alternative would increase demand for utilities and service systems on the
project site, similar to the proposed project. As discussed in Section 5.16, the proposed project would result in a
total water demand of 122,060 gallons per day (GPD) or 44,551,900 gallons per year. In addition, per Section
5.16, the proposed project would result in a generation of 331.2 tons of solid waste per year. California Emissions
Estimator Model (CalEEMod) User’s Guide Version 2016.3.2 was used to estimate utility and service system usage
associated with this alternative (CAPCOA 2017). Per the CalEEMod User’s Guide, development of an approximately
700,000 square feet light industrial building would result in solid waste generation of 161,875,000 gallons per
year of water use. Per the CalEEMod User’s Guide, development of the Existing Land Use Designations Alternative
would result in a solid waste generation of 686 tons per year (CAPCOA 2017). Therefore, impacts to utilities and
service systems would be increased under the Existing Land Use Designations Alternative.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 569 of 1271
10 - Alternatives
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 10-11
Wildfire
As discussed in Section 5.17, Wildfire, prior to mitigation, the proposed project would result in potentially significant
impacts associated with the project facilitating wildfire spread or exacerbating wildfire risk. Similar to the proposed
project, the Existing Land Use Designations Alternative would introduce people and structures to the project site. As such,
under the Existing Land Use Designations Alternative, the potential for wildfire hazards on the project site would be similar
to the proposed project as the location would remain the same. Mitigation would still be required under the Existing Land
Use Designations Alternative to minimize risk on industrial park employees. Therefore, the Existing Land Use
Designations Alternative would result in similar impacts as the proposed project regarding wildfire hazards.
Relation to Project Objectives
The Existing Land Use Designations Alternative would meet project Objective 5, because this alternative would
implement the goals, objectives, and policies of the Chula Vista General Plan, the MSCP Subarea Plan, the Sunbow
GDP, and the Sunbow SPA Plan; Objective 6, because public services and facilities would be provided under this
alternative in accordance with the City’s Growth Management Ordinance; and Objective 7, because the industrial
park would be compatible with surrounding development and would establish setbacks and implement design
standards in accordance with City regulations.
The Existing Land Use Designations Alternative would not meet Objectives 1, 2, 3, 4, or 8. Objectives 1, 2, and 4
pertain to residential development and associated pedestrian and bicycle facilities which would not be included
under this alternative. While this alternative would preserve portions of the site, it would not result in an increase
in MSCP Preserve Areas (Objective 3). This alternative would not meet Objective 9 given that the site has been
designated for industrial uses for approximately 30 years yet has remained undeveloped.
10.5.3 Reduced Development Alternative
The Reduced Development Alternative would include the development of 360 residential units, within a similar
development footprint as the proposed project. This number of units, which is 358 fewer units than the proposed
project was chosen in order to provide low to medium density residential. This alternative would still include
associated infrastructure, a reduced size Community Purpose Facility, and Open Space/MSCP Preserve areas as
proposed under the project. Due to the decreased number of units within a similar development footprint, the
Reduced Development Alternative is assumed to be developed with low to medium density residential rather than
medium-high and high density residential as proposed under the project. As discussed in Section 5.3, the proposed
project would require a Boundary Line Adjustment between the currently proposed development boundaries and
the mapped Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) preserve on-site. Due to the reduced development of
this alternative, this Boundary Line Adjustment would be avoided under this alternative. However, it should be noted
that the Boundary Line Adjustment proposed under the project would result in an increase MSCP Preserve Areas.
Comparison to Proposed Project
Aesthetics
The Reduced Development Alternative would result in a reduced number of residential units developed within a
similar development footprint and the housing density would be reduced to low and medium density residential. As
such, the bulk and scale of the Reduced Development Alternative would be slightly reduced in conjunction with the
reduced density, including a potential reduction in the amount of retaining walls, manufactured slopes, and off-site
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 570 of 1271
10 - Alternatives
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 10-12
buttressing. However, the Reduced Density Alternative would still alter the visual character of the project site as
development would still occur. Additionally, the Reduced Development Alternative would introduce new sources of
lighting and glare to the currently vacant and undeveloped project site, similar to the propo sed project. Although
the Reduced Development Alternative would reduce the housing density, the project site would still change from
vacant and undeveloped land to residential with open space, same as with the proposed project. In addition, the
proposed project would result in less than significant impacts associated with aesthetics. Therefore, the Reduced
Development Alternative would result in similar impacts as the proposed project with regard to aesthetics.
Air Quality
The Reduced Development Alternative would require a shorter construction schedule because there would be fewer
residential units developed. As such, construction emissions would be reduced as compared to the proposed
project. Further, operational emissions would also be reduced under the Reduced Development Alternative due to
the reduction in project generated traffic trips associated with less population induced on the project site. Although
the proposed project would result in less than significant air quality impacts, the Reduced Development Alternative
would result in reduced construction and operational emissions. A s such, impacts would be reduced under the
Reduced Development Alternative, but remain less than significant.
Biological Resources
The Reduced Development Alternative would disturb approximately the same area of land as the proposed project.
Additionally, the Reduced Development Alternative would not overlap with the existing MSCP Preserve lands on the
project site and thus would not require a Boundary Line Adjustment. It should be noted that the project’s proposed
MSCP Boundary Line Adjustment would result in an increase in MSCP Preserve Area and would be required to result
in equal or higher biological value as compared to the existing MSCP Preserve. The Reduced Development
Alternative would result in similar direct/indirect impacts to biological resources as the proposed project and would
require similar mitigation because development would generally occur on the same portion of the project site but
would not require a Boundary Line Adjustment. Therefore, the Reduced Development Alternative would result in
similar impacts to biological resources but would not increase Preserve Lands.
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
The Reduced Development Alternative would disturb approximately the same area of land than the proposed
project. As such, the Reduced Development Alternative would have the potential to impact archaeological resources
or human remains, and would require the same mitigation as the proposed project. Therefore, compared to the
proposed project, the Reduced Development Alternative would result in similar impacts as the proposed project
regarding cultural resources.
Energy
The Reduced Development Alternative would result in a lower energy consumption during construction as compared
to the proposed project due to the reduction in residential units developed and shortened construction period.
Furthermore, with less population induced on the project site, operational energy use would also be reduced under
the Reduced Development Alternative. Although the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts
associated with energy, including the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, the
Reduced Development Alternative would result in slightly reduced construction and operational energy
consumption. Therefore, impacts would be reduced under the Reduced Development Alternative.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 571 of 1271
10 - Alternatives
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 10-13
Geology and Soils
The Reduced Development Alternative would introduce people and structures to the project site. However, the
proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to geology and soils, aside from paleontological
resources. Like the proposed project, the Reduced Development Alternative would also result in less than significant
impacts associated with geologic hazards because the project site would remain the same. The Reduced
Development Alternative still has the potential to impact paleontological resources, and would require the same
mitigation as the proposed project. Therefore, compared to the proposed project, the Reduced Development
Alternative would result in similar impacts as the proposed project regarding geology and soils.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
As identified in Section 5.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the proposed project would have significant and
unavoidable impacts associated with the p roject’s efficiency metric and the state’s ability to meet future GHG
emission reductions. Even with incorporation of mitigation, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable
under the proposed project. The Reduced Development Alternative would reduce the construction and
operational GHG emissions as compared to the proposed project. Approximately 64% of the proposed project’s
annual GHG emissions are from mobile sources; thus, reducing the development to 360 residential units would
not only reduce the mobile emissions but also reduce construction emissions (i.e., building construction and
architectural coating phases) and operational area, energy use, solid waste disposal, and generation of electricity
associated with water supply, treatment, and distri bution and wastewater treatment emissions as compared to
the proposed project. However, because the City’s GHG efficiency metric threshold is based on service population
(residents and/or employees), the Reduced Development Alternative service population (residents) would also
be reduced due to the reduction in number of residential units, resulting in similar impacts as the proposed
project in the context of the City’s GHG efficiency metric threshold . Therefore, impacts to GHGs would remain
significant and unavoidable under this alternative.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The proposed project would result in less than significant impacts associated with hazards and hazardous
materials, with the exception of wildfire hazards. Under the Reduced Development Alternative, the potential for
hazards and hazardous materials related impacts on the project site would be similar to the proposed project as
the land use and location would remain the same. Moreover, compared to the proposed project, the Reduced
Development Alternative would also introduce future residents to potential wildfire hazards due to the same project
location. Therefore, the Reduced Development Alternative would result in similar impacts as the proposed project
regarding hazards and hazardous materials.
Hydrology and Water Quality
As identified in Section 5.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, the proposed project would have less than significant
impacts regarding hydrology and water quality on the project site. Under the Reduced Development Alternative, the
potential for hydrology and water quality related impacts on the project site would be the same as the proposed
project. However, this alternative would still require the same permits as the proposed project, preparation of a
SWPPP, and incorporation of BMPs, due to the introduction of new development to a vacant and undeveloped site.
When compared to the proposed project, the Reduced Development Alternative would result in similar impacts to
water quality and hydrology.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 572 of 1271
10 - Alternatives
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 10-14
Land Use and Planning
With the exception of the MSCP BLA, the Reduced Development Alternative would require all the same discretionary
actions listed in Section 4.5 of Chapter 4, Project Description, because the project site is not currently zoned or
designated for residential development. This would include the General Plan amendment, GDP amendment, SPA
Plan amendment, and Rezone. However, as discussed in Section 5.10, Land Use and Planning, the proposed project
would not result in any environmental impacts due to conflicts with relevant plans, policies, or regulation, including
due to the MSCP BLA. As a part of the proposed MSCP BLA, the proposed project is required to propose a potentially
suitable area currently located outside of the MSCP Preserve to incorporate into the MSCP Preserve at a 1:1 acreage
ratio. The proposed MSCP BLA would be required to result in equal or higher biological value as compared to the
existing MSCP Preserve. Although the Reduced Development Alternative would not require a BLA, the BLA under
the proposed project would not result in any land use and planning impacts. Therefore, the Reduced Development
Alternative would result in similar as the proposed project regarding land use and planning.
Noise
Construction of this alternative would require a shorter schedule resulting in overall fewer noise generating
construction equipment and less groundwork. Additionally, the Reduced Development Alternative would result in
less project generated traffic trips thereby reducing mobile source noise emissions. Operational noise levels would
also be reduced due to the reduction in residential units. Although the proposed project would result in less than
significant noise impacts, the Reduced Development Alternative would result in slightly reduced noise levels during
both construction and operation. Therefore, impacts would be reduced under the Reduced Development Alternative
but remain less than significant.
Population and Housing
The Reduced Development Alternative would result in 360 residential units, which is 358 fewer units than the
proposed project, thereby resulting in less induced growth in the area as compared to the proposed project.
Although the Reduced Development Alternative would induce less growth in the area, both this alternative and the
proposed project would result in unplanned population growth on the project site, as the site is not currently zoned
for residential development. Nonetheless, for the reasons discussed in Section 5.12, Population and Housing, this
growth would not be considered substantial and impacts would be less than significant. With less growth induced
under this alternative, impacts would also be less than significant. Therefore, impacts under the Reduced
Development Footprint Alternative would be similar to the proposed project.
Public Services
As identified in Section 5.13, Public Services, prior to mitigation, the proposed project would have potentially
significant impacts on public services due to the increase in demand for service. Mitigation in the form of payment
of fees would reduce impacts to public services to a less than significant level. Under the Reduced Development
Alternative, the potential for public services related impacts would still occur and mitigation in the form of payment of
fees would still be required. However, the induced population would be smaller than the proposed project due to the
reduction in residential units developed. Thus, the increase in demand for public services would be less under this
alternative. When compared to the proposed project, the Reduced Development Alternative would result in reduced
impacts associated with public services.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 573 of 1271
10 - Alternatives
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 10-15
Recreation
As identified in Section 5.14, Recreation, prior to mitigation, the proposed project would have potentially significant
impacts on parks and recreation facilities due to the increase in demand for service. Mitigation in the form of
payment of fees would reduce impacts to parks and recreation facilities to a less than significant level. Under the
Reduced Development Alternative, the potential for parks and recreation facilities related impacts would still occur
and mitigation in the form of payment of fees would still be required. However, because the induced population would
be smaller than the proposed project, the increase in demand would be reduced under this alternative. When
compared to the proposed project, the Reduced Development Alternative would result in reduced impacts associated
with parks and recreation facilities.
Transportation
The Reduced Development Alternative would result in less traffic trips associated with both construction and
operation due to the reduction in residential units and reduced population inducement on the project site. The
Reduced Development Alternative would not result in a change in traffic patterns, substantially increase hazards
due to a design feature, or result in inadequate emergency access, similar to the proposed project. Additionally,
VMT would be similar under the Reduced Development Alternative as it is calculated on a per capita basis and the
land use type and project location would remain the same as the proposed project. Although the proposed project
would result in less than significant transportation impacts, the Reduced Development Alternative would result in
less traffic. Therefore, impacts would be reduced under the Reduced Development Alternative.
Utilities and Service Systems
The Reduced Development Alternative would increase demand for utilities and service systems on the project site,
similar to the proposed project. However, due to the reduction in residential units and reduced population
inducement on the project site, the demand for public utilities and service systems would be less than under the
proposed project. Therefore, impacts would be reduced under the Reduced Development Alternative.
Wildfire
As discussed in Section 5.17, Wildfire, prior to mitigation, the proposed project would result in potentially significant
impacts associated with the project facilitating wildfire spread or wildfire risk. Similar to the proposed project, the
Reduced Development Alternative would introduce future residents to the project site. As such, under the Reduced
Development Alternative, the potential for wildfire hazards on the project site would be similar to the proposed
project as the land use and location would remain the same. Mitigation would still be required under the Reduced
Development Alternative. Therefore, the Reduced Development Alternative would result in similar impacts as the
proposed project regarding wildfire hazards.
Relation to Project Objectives
The Reduced Development Alternative would meet most of the project objectives, with the exception of Objectives
1, 2, and 3. This alternative because the reduction in housing density to low and medium would not allow for multi-
family housing units with a range of housing types or residential uses. This alternative would not contribute to the
growing housing needs of the City and the region to the same extent as the proposed project. While this alternative
would preserve portions of the project site, it would not result in an increase to MSCP Preserve Areas that would
occur under the project.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 574 of 1271
10 - Alternatives
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 10-16
10.6 Environmentally Superior Alternative
The No Project Alternative would result in the least environmental impacts and would be the environmentally
superior alternative. However, Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines states that if the environmentally
superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative
among the other alternatives. In this case, the environmentally superior alternative is the Reduced Development
Alternative. The Reduced Development Alternative would meet most of the project objectives, but to a lesser degree
than the proposed project while reducing impact resulting from greater population growth of the proposed project.
The project’s impacts are compared to each alternative’s impacts in Table 10-1.
Table 10-1. Alternatives Impact Summary
Environmental Issue
Proposed
Project
Impacts Prior
to Mitigation
Proposed
Project
Impacts with
Mitigation
No
Project/
No Build
Alternative
Existing Land
Use
Designation
Alternative
Reduced
Development
Alternative
Aesthetics LTS LTS ▼ ▬ ▬
Air Quality LTS LTS ▼ ▲ ▼
Biological Resources PS LTS ▼ ▬ ▬
Cultural and Tribal Cultural
Resources
PS LTS ▼ ▬ ▬
Energy LTS LTS ▼ ▬ ▼
Geology and Soils PS LTS ▼ ▬ ▬
Greenhouse Gas Emissions PS SU ▼ ▬/SU impact
remains
▼/SU impact
remains
Hazards and Hazardous Materials PS LTS ▼ ▬ ▬
Hydrology and Water Quality LTS LTS ▼ ▬ ▬
Land Use and Planning LTS LTS ▼ ▬ ▬
Noise LTS LTS ▼ ▲ ▼
Population and Housing LTS LTS ▼ ▼ ▬
Public Services PS LTS ▼ ▬ ▼
Recreation LTS LTS ▼ ▼ ▼
Transportation LTS LTS ▼ ▬ ▼
Utilities and Service Systems LTS LTS ▼ ▲ ▼
Wildfire PS LTS ▬ ▬ ▬
Meets Most Project Objectives Yes Yes No No Yes
▲ Alternative is likely to result in greater impacts to issue when compared to proposed project.
▬ Alternative is likely to result in similar impacts to issue when compared to proposed project.
▼ Alternative is likely to result in reduced impacts to issue when compared to proposed project.
LTS = Less than significant impact.
PS = Potentially significant impact.
SU = Significant and unavoidable impact.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 575 of 1271
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 11-1
11 References
Section 2 Introduction
City of Chula Vista. 1989. Sunbow General Development Plan. December 5, 1989. https://www.chulavistaca.gov/
departments/development-services/planning/planning-digital-library/spa-plan.
City of Chula Vista. 1990. Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan. As revised February 20, 1990.
https://www.chulavistaca.gov/departments/development-services/planning/planning-digital-library/spa-plan.
City of Chula Vista. 2003. City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. February 2003. https://www.chulavistaca.gov/
departments/development-services/planning/habitat-conservation.
City of Chula Vista. 2005. City of Chula Vista General Plan. Adopted December 13, 2005; amended March 17,
2020. https://www.chulavistaca.gov/departments/development-services/planning/
planning-digital-library/general-plan.
Section 3 Environmental Setting
City of Chula Vista. 1989. Sunbow General Development Plan. December 5, 1989. https://www.chulavistaca.gov/
departments/development-services/planning/planning-digital-library/spa-plan.
City of Chula Vista. 1990. Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan. As revised. February 20, 1990.
https://www.chulavistaca.gov/departments/development-services/planning/planning-digital-library/
spa-plan.
City of Chula Vista. 2005. City of Chula Vista General Plan. Adopted December 13, 2005; amended March 17,
2020. https://www.chulavistaca.gov/departments/development-services/planning/
planning-digital-library/general-plan.
City of Chula Vista. 2020. Chula Vista Maps -- Zoning. Accessed October 2020. https://gisweb.chulavistaca.gov/
mapgallery/map.html?_ga=2.115709766.1596714540.1600270066-1733676646.1577724470&
webmap=936b5efd6fcc4585a1dde41ff7c7cd47
WRCC (Western Region Climate Center). 2017. Climate Summary for Chula Vista, California. Accessed October
2017. https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca1758.
Section 4 Project Description
Chula Vista Elementary School District. 2020. School Site Locator. Accessed July 20, 2020.
http://apps.schoolsitelocator.com/?districtcode=10005.
City of Chula Vista. 1989. Sunbow General Development Plan. December 5, 1989. https://www.chulavistaca.gov/
departments/development-services/planning/planning-digital-library/spa-plan.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 576 of 1271
11– References
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 11-2
City of Chula Vista. 1990. Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan. February 20, 1990. As revised.
https://www.chulavistaca.gov/departments/development-services/planning/planning-digital-library/spa-plan.
City of Chula Vista. 2005. City of Chula Vista General Plan. Adopted December 13, 2005; amended March 17,
2020. https://www.chulavistaca.gov/departments/development-services/planning/
planning-digital-library/general-plan.
Sweetwater Union High School District. 2020. School Site Locator. Accessed July 20, 2020.
http://apps.schoolsitelocator.com/?districtcode=79000.
Section 5.1 Aesthetics
Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2020. Scenic Highways System Lists. Accessed September
2020. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community-livability/
lap-liv-i-scenic-highways.
City of Chula Vista. 1989. Sunbow General Development Plan. Adopted December 5, 1989.
https://www.chulavistaca.gov/home/showdocument?id=19285.
City of Chula Vista. 19 90. Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan. As revised February 20, 1990.
https://www.chulavistaca.gov/departments/development-services/planning/planning-digital-library/
spa-plan.
City of Chula Vista. 2003. Chula Vista Greenbelt Master Plan. Adopted September 16, 2003.
https://www.chulavistaca.gov/departments/development-services/planning/
chula-vista-greenbelt-master-plan.
City of Chula Vista. 2005. City of Chula Vista General Plan. Adopted December 13, 2005; amended March 17,
2020. https://www.chulavistaca.gov/departments/development-services/planning/general-plan.
City of Chula Vista. 2011. Design Manual. Updated by the City Council on January 18, 2011. Accessed September
2020. https://www.chulavistaca.gov/departments/development-services/planning/
planning-digital-library/manuals.
City of Chula Vista. 2020. Chula Vista Maps – Zoning. https://gisweb.chulavistaca.gov/mapgallery/
map.html?_ga=2.115709766.1596714540.1600270066-1733676646.1577724470&webmap=
936b5efd6fcc4585a1dde41ff7c7cd47.
County of San Diego. 2009. Light Pollution Code. Adopted April 3, 2009. Accessed September 2020.
https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/pds/docs/LightPollutionCode.pdf.
US Census Bureau. 2019. QuickFacts: Chula Vista city, California. July 1, 2019. Accessed September 2020.
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/chulavistacitycalifornia.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 577 of 1271
11– References
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 11-3
Section 5.2 Air Quality
CalRecycle (Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. 2020. “Solid Waste Information System Facility
Detail: Otay Landfill (37-AA-0010).” Accessed April 2020. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/
Directory/37-AA-0010/Detail/.
Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 1998a. CALINE4 – A Dispersion Model for Predicting Air
Pollutant Concentrations near Roadways. Version 1.32. Written by Sonoma Technology Inc., Petaluma,
California. Sponsored by the University of California, Davis, Institute of Transportation Studies and
Caltrans. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/InfoSvcs/EngApps/.
Caltrans. 1998b. User’s Guide for CL4: A User-Friendly Interface for the CALINE4 Model for Transportation Project
Impact Assessments. User’s Guide STI-997480-1814-UG. June 1998. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/air/
documents/CL4Guide.pdf.
CAPCOA (California Air Pollution Control Officers’ Association). 2017. California Emissions Estimator Model
(CalEEMod) User’s Guide Version 2016.3.2 Prepared by Trinity Consultants and the California Air
Districts. Accessed October 2017. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/ default-source/caleemod/
upgrades/2016.3/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-1.pdf?sfvrsn=2.
CARB (California Air Resources Board). 2000. Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from
Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles. October 2000. Accessed August 2016. http://www.arb.ca.gov/
diesel/documents/rrpfinal.pdf.
CARB. 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. April 2005. Accessed August
2016. http://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/landuse.htm.
CARB. 2014. “California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000–2012—by Category as Defined in the 2008 Scoping
Plan.” Last updated March 24, 2014. Accessed October 2017. http://www.arb.ca.gov/ cc/inventory/
data/tables/ghg_inventory_scopingplan_00-12_2014-03-24.pdf.
CARB. 2016a. “Glossary of Air Pollution Terms.” CARB website. Accessed June 2016. http://www.arb.ca.gov/
html/gloss.htm.
CARB. 2016b. “Ambient Air Quality Standards.” May 4, 2016. Accessed August 2016. http://www.arb.ca.gov/
research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf.
CARB. 2018. In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation. April 11, 2018. Accessed April 2020.
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msprog/ordiesel/fac.htm.
CDPH (California Department of Public Health). 2019. Epidemiologic Summary of Coccidioidomycosis in
California, 2018. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/CDPH%20Document%20Library/
CocciEpiSummary2018.pdf.
City of Chula Vista. 1969. Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 19.66.090, Odors. Accessed November 2017.
http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/ChulaVista/#!/ChulaVista19/ChulaVista1966.html#19.66.090.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 578 of 1271
11– References
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 11-4
City of Chula Vista. 1989. Sunbow General Development Plan. December 5, 1989. Accessed April 2020.
https://www.chulavistaca.gov/home/showdocument?id=19285.
City of Chula Vista. 1990. Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan. As revised February 20, 1990.
https://www.chulavistaca.gov/departments/development-services/planning/planning-digital-library/spa-plan.
City of Chula Vista. 2005. City of Chula Vista General Plan. Adopted December 13, 2005; amended March 17,
2020. Accessed October 2017. http://www.chulavistaca.gov/departments/development-services/
planning/general-plan.
County of San Diego. 2007. Guidelines for Determining Significance and Report Format and Content
Requirements – Air Quality. Department of Planning and Land Use, Department of Public Works.
March 19, 2007.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1995. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Fifth Edition.
AP-42. January 1995, as amended.
EPA. 2009. Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter. EPA/600/R-08/139F.
EPA. 2013. Integrated Science Assessment of Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants. EPA/600R-10/076F.
EPA. 2016. Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen–Health Criteria (2016 Final Report).
EPA/600/R-15/068.
EPA. 2019a. “What is MERV Rating?” August 1, 2019. Accessed April 2020. https://www.epa.gov/
indoor-air- quality-iaq/what-merv-rating-1.
EPA. 2019b. “AirData: Access to Air Pollution Data.” Accessed March 2019. https://www.epa.gov/
outdoor-air-quality-data/monitor-values-report.
Gould, C. 2020a. APCD_Public_Records_Request Otay Landfill 37-AA-0010-signed.pdf. Email from C. Gould (San
Diego Air Pollution Control District) to S. Wang (Dudek). March 25, 2020.
Gould, C. 2020b. Chula Vista MET Data. Email from C. Gould (San Diego Air Pollution Control District) to S. Wang
(Dudek). February 21, 2020.
Kern County. 2017. Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Kern County Cannabis Land Use Ordinance
Project. July. Accessed April 2020. https://psbweb.co.kern.ca.us/planning/pdfs/eirs/CLUO/
CLUO_DEIR_Vol2_Appendix_A-J.pdf.
Kleipeis, N.E., W.C. Nelson, W.R. Ott, J.P. Robinson, A.M. Tsang, P. Switzer, J.V. Behar, S.C. Hern, and W.H.
Engelmann. 2001. “The National Human Activity Pattern Survey (NHAPS): A Resource for Assessing
Exposure to Environmental Pollutants.” Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology
11(3): 231–252.
Lakes Environmental. 2019. AERMOD View, Version 9.8.3.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 579 of 1271
11– References
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 11-5
Nelson, J. 2019. Coccidioidomycosis Data Requests. Email from J. Nelson (County of San Diego Health & Human
Services Agency, Epidemiologist II) to A. Poll (Dudek). October 11, 2019.
OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2015. Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health
Risk Assessments. OEHHA, Air Toxics Hot Spots Program, Risk Assessment Guidelines. February 2015.
Accessed October 2017. http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/2015/2015GuidanceManual.pdf.
SANDAG (San Diego Association of Governments). 2015. San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan. October 2015.
https://sdforward.com/previous-plan-dropdown/chapters-and-appendices.
SANDAG. 2016. Regional Transportation Improvement Program. September 2016. https://www.sandag.org/
uploads/publicationid/publicationid_2071_21174.pdf.
SANDAG. 2017a. Series 13: 2050 Regional Growth Forecast. Accessed June 2017. http://www.sandag.org/
index.asp?classid=12&subclassid=84&projectid=503&fuseaction=projects.detail.
SANDAG. 2017b. 2050 Regional Transportation Plan. Accessed June 2017. http://www.sandag.org/
index.asp?projectid=349&fuseaction=projects.detail.
SANDAG. 2020a. 2019 Federal Regional Transportation Plan. Accessed September 21, 2020. https://sdforward.com/
mobility-planning/2019FederalRTP#:~:text=The%20public%20comment%20period%20for%20the%
20proposed%20draft%20transportation%20network,house%20on%20August%2013%2C%202019.
SANDAG. 2020b. About San Diego Forward, Developing the 2021 Regional Plan. September 2020.
https://www.sdforward.com/about-san-diego-forward/developing-the-2021-regional-plan.
SCAQMD (South Coast Air Quality Management District). 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook.
SCAQMD. 2007. “Table XI-E, Mitigation Measure Examples: Fugitive Dust from Storage Piles.” April 2007.
Accessed April 2020. http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-
handbook/mitigation-measures-and-control-efficiencies/fugitive-dust.
SCS (SCS Engineers). 2013a. Air Toxics Health Risk Assessment for Otay Ranch Village 3 North. May 2013.
SCS. 2013b. Otay Ranch Village 3 North Nuisance Study. October 2013.
SCS. 2016. AB2588 Health Risk Assessment for Otay Landfill. December 2016.
SDAPCD (San Diego Air Pollution Control District). 1969. Rules and Regulations. Regulation IV. Prohibitions. Rule
51. Nuisance. Effective January 1, 1969.
SDAPCD. 1997. Rules and Regulations. Regulation IV. Prohibitions. Rule 50. Visible Emissions. Effective August
13, 1997. Accessed June 2017. http://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/apcd/PDF/
Rules_and_Regulations/Prohibitions/APCD_R50.pdf.
SDAPCD. 2005. Measures to Reduce Particulate Matter in San Diego County. December 2005. Accessed October
2017. http://www.sdapcd.org/planning/plan.html.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 580 of 1271
11– References
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 11-6
SDAPCD. 2009a. 2009 Regional Air Quality Strategy Revision. April 2009. Accessed October 2017.
http://www.sdapcd.org/content/dam/sdc/apcd/PDF/Air%20Quality%20Planning/ 2009-RAQS.pdf.
SDAPCD. 2009b. SDAPCD Regulation IV: Prohibitions; Rule 55: Fugitive Dust Control. June 24, 2009. Accessed
October 2017. http://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/apcd/PDF/Rules_and_Regulations/
Prohibitions/APCD_R55.pdf.
SDAPCD. 2015. SDAPCD Regulation IV: Prohibitions; Rule 67.0.1: Architectural Coatings. June 24. Accessed May
2017. http://www.sdapcd.org/content/dam/sdc/apcd/PDF/Rules_and_Regulations/Prohibitions/
APCD_R67-0-1.pdf.
SDAPCD. 2016a. 2008 Eight-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan for San Diego County. Final. Updated December 2016.
http://www.sdapcd.org/content/dam/sdc/apcd/PDF/Air%20Quality %20Planning/8-Hr-O3%
20Attain%20Plan-08%20Std.pdf.
SDAPCD. 2016b. 2016 Revision of the Regional Air Quality Strategy for San Diego County. December 2016.
Accessed June 2017. http://www.sdapcd.org/content/dam/sdc/apcd/PDF/Air%20Quality%
20Planning/2016%20RAQS.pdf.
SDAPCD. 2017a. Regulation XII. Toxic Air Contaminants; Rule 1200: Toxic Air Contaminants – New Source
Review. Accessed October 2017. http://www.sdapcd.org/content/dam/sdc/apcd/PDF/
Rules_and_Regulations/Toxic_Air_Cotaminants/ACPD_R1200.pdf.
SDAPCD. 2017b. Regulation XII. Toxic Air Contaminants; Rule 1210: Toxic Air Contaminants – Public Notification
and Risk Reduction. Accessed October 2017. http://www.sdapcd.org/content/dam/sdc/apcd/PDF/
Rules_and_Regulations/Toxic_Air_Cotaminants/APCD_R1210.pdf.
SDAPCD. 2019a. Supplemental Guidelines for Submission of Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Program. May 2019.
Accessed April 2020. https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/apcd/PDF/Toxics_Program/
APCD_Hot_Spots_Supplemental_Guidelines.pdf.
SDAPCD. 2019b. Permit APCD2009-PTO-971112. May 24, 2019.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2006. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Success Dam Seismic Remediation
Project. October. Accessed April 2020. https://archive.epa.gov/region9/nepa/web/pdf/success-dam.pdf.
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2000. Operational Guidelines (Version 1.0) for Geological Fieldwork in Areas 1
Endemic for Coccidioidomycosis (Valley Fever).
WRCC (Western Region Climate Center). 2017. Climate Summary for Chula Vista, California. Accessed October 2017.
https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca1758.
Section 5.3 Biological Resources
ACOE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y‐87‐
1. Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experimental Station, Environmental Laboratory.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 581 of 1271
11– References
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 11-7
ACOE. 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region
(Version 2.0). Environmental Laboratory, ERDC/EL TR-08-28. Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S. Army Engineer
Research and Development Center. September 2008. http://www.usace.army.mil/Portals/
2/docs/civilworks/regulatory/reg_supp/trel08-28.pdf.
AECOM, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Conservation Biology Institute. 2011. Vegetation Classification
Manual for Western San Diego County, First Edition. Prepared for San Diego Association of Governments.
American Ornithological Society. 2019. Check‐list of North American Birds (online). Prepared by R.T. Chesser, K.J.
Burns, C. Cicero, J.L. Dunn, A.W. Kratter, I.J. Lovette, P.C. Rasmussen, J.V. Remsen, Jr., D.F. Stotz, and
K. Winker. http://checklist.aou.org/taxa.
CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2019. “Special Animals List.” Periodic publication. California Natural
Diversity Database. August 2019. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109406&inline.
CDFW. 2020a. “Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List.” Quarterly publication. California Natural
Diversity Database. January 2020. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109383&inline.
City of Chula Vista. 2003. City of Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Plan (MSCP) Subarea Plan. Adopted
February 2003. Accessed October 2020. https://www.chulavistaca.gov/home/showdocument?id=7106.
City of Chula Vista. 2019. Chula Vista Municipal Code. Chapter 17.35 Habitat Loss and Incidental Take (HLIT). Passed
November 12, 2019.
CNPS (California Native Plant Society). 2020. “California Rare Plant Ranks” webpage. Accessed November 2020.
https://www.cnps.org/rare-plants/cnps-rare-plant-ranks.
Crother, B.I. (ed.). 2017. Scientific and Standard English Names of Amphibians and Reptiles of North America
North of Mexico, with Comments Regarding Confidence in Our Understanding.
Dudek and Associates, Inc. 2006. Biological Resources Report and Impact Assessment for Otay Ranch Villages 2
& 3, City of Chula Vista, San Diego County, California. Prepared for the Otay Ranch Company. February
2006. 97pp.
Hall, E.R. 1981. The Mammals of North America. 2nd Edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Two volumes.
Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. California
Department of Fish and Game, Nongame‐Heritage Program.
Oberbauer, T., M. Kelly, and J. Buegge. 2008. Draft Vegetation Communities of San Diego County [Internet]. Based
on “Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California,” R.F. Holland, 1986.
http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/dplu/docs/Veg_Comm_SDCounty_2008.pdf.
Rebman, J.P., and M.G. Simpson. 2014. Checklist of the Vascular Plants of San Diego County. 5th Edition. ISBN 0‐
918969‐08‐5. San Diego, California: San Diego Natural History Museum.
San Diego Natural History Museum. 2002. Butterflies of San Diego County [Internet]. Prepared by M.W. Klein.
http://www.sdnhm.org/research/entomology/sdbutterflies.html.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 582 of 1271
11– References
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 11-8
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2002. USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
http://SoilDataMart.nrcs.usda.gov/.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2004. Recovery Plan for Deinandra conjugens (Otay Tarplant). Portland,
Oregon. http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/041228.pdf.
USFWS. 2019a. GIS Division Species Occurrence Data Download (zip) updated May 2019. http://www.fws.gov/
carlsbad/giswebpage/giswebpage.htm.
USFWS 2019b. GIS Division Critical Habitat Data Download (zip) updated May 2019. https://www.fws.gov/
carlsbad/GIS/CFWOGIS.html
Wilson, D.E., and D.M. Reeder. 2005. Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference.
3rd edition. Johns Hopkins University Press. Available online. http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/
biology/resources/msw3/.
Section 5.4 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
City of Chula Vista. 2005. City of Chula Vista General Plan. Adopted December 13, 2005; amended March 17,
2020. Accessed September 8, 2020. https://www.chulavistaca.gov/home/showdocument?id=9341.
City of Chula Vista. 2011. City of Chula Vista Historic Preservation Program. Adopted July 19, 2011. Accessed
September 8, 2020. http://www.chulavistaca.gov/home/showdocument?id=10964.
CVMC (Chula Vista Municipal Code). 2011. City of Chula Vista Municipal Code – 21.04.100 Historical Designation
– Findings of fact and eligibility criteria. Amended 2011. Accessed September 4, 2020.
https://chulavista.municipal.codes/CVMC/21.04.100.
Section 5.5 Energy
CALGreen (California Green Building Code). 2019. 2019 California Green Building Standards Code, Title 24, Part 11 with
Jan 2020 Errata. Accessed September 16, 2020. https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/CGBC2019P3.
California Gas and Electric Utilities (Southern California Gas Company, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San
Diego Gas & Electric Company, Southwest Gas Corporation, City of Long Beach Gas & Oil Department,
and Southern California Edison Company). 2016. 2016 California Gas Report. Accessed March 20, 2017.
https://www.socalgas.com/regulatory/cgr.shtml.
CAPCOA (California Air Pollution Control Officers Association). 2017. California Emissions Estimator Model
(CalEEMod) User’s Guide Version 2016.3.2. Prepared by Trinity Consultants and the California Air
Districts. November 2017. http://www.caleemod.com.
CARB (California Air Resources Board) 2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan: A Framework for Change. Adopted
December 2008. Accessed September 17, 2020. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic//
cc/scopingplan/document/adopted_scoping_plan.pdf.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 583 of 1271
11– References
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 11-9
CARB. 2017. “Clean Car Standards – Pavley, Assembly Bill 1493.” January 11, 2017. Accessed April 17, 2017.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ccms/ccms.htm.Scag 2012
CARB. 2020. EMFAC 2017. Accessed October 2020. https://www.arb.ca.gov/emfac/2017/.
CEC (California Energy Commission). n.d. “2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards” webpage. Accessed
September 15, 2020. https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/building-energy-
efficiency-standards/2022-building-energy-efficiency.
CEC. 2018. “2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards Fact Sheet.” March 2018. https://www.energy.ca.gov/
title24/2019standards/documents/2018_Title_24_2019_Building_Standards_FAQ.pdf
CEC. 2020a. 2019 Integrated Energy Policy Report. Adopted February 20, 2020. Accessed September 16, 2020.
https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/
2019-total-system-electric-generation.
CEC. 2020b. “Electricity Consumption by County.” Accessed October 2020. http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/
elecbycounty.aspx.
CEC. 2020c. “Gas Consumption by County.” Accessed October 2020. http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx
City of Chula Vista. 2001. City Energy Strategy and Action Plan. Approved May 29, 2001. Accessed
September 17, 2020. https://www.chulavistaca.gov/home/showdocument?id=5439.
City of Chula Vista 2005. City of Chula Vista General Plan. Adopted December 13, 2005; amended March 17, 2020.
Accessed September 17, 2020. https://www.chulavistaca.gov/home/showdocument?id=9337.
City of Chula Vista 2011. Climate Adaptation Strategies – Implementation Plans. Adopted May 2011. Accessed
September 15, 2020. https://www.chulavistaca.gov/home/showdocument?id=5443.
City of Chula Vista 2017. Chula Vista Climate Action Plan (CAP). Adopted September 2017. Accessed September
15, 2020. https://www.chulavistaca.gov/home/showdocument?id=15586.
City of Chula Vista. 2020a. “Clean and Renewable Energy.” Accessed October 2020. https://www.chulavistaca.gov/
departments/clean/conservation/climate-action-plan/community-choice-aggregation#:
~:text=What%20is%20Community%20Choice%20Aggregation,San%20Diego%20Gas%20%26%20Electric).
City of Chula Vista. 2020b. “Chula Vista – Select Snapshot Activity Data.” Accessed October 2020.
https://www.chulavistaca.gov/home/showdocument?id=20826.
CPUC (California Public Energy Commission). 2011. CA Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan. Updated January 2011.
Accessed September 2020.
CPUC. 2016. Biennial RPS Program Update. Report prepared in compliance with Public Utilities Code Section
913.6. January 1, 2016. http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/uploadedfiles/cpuc_website/content/
utilities_and_industries/energy/reports_and_white_papers/final12302015section913_6report.pdf.
CPUC. 2020. “Natural Gas and California.” Accessed May 2020. http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/natural_gas/.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 584 of 1271
11– References
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 11-10
EIA (U.S. Energy Information Administration). 2010. “Trends in U.S. Residential Natural Gas Consumption.”
Accessed June 2010. https://www.eia.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/feature_articles/2010/
ngtrendsresidcon/ngtrendsresidcon.pdf.
EIA. 2016. “Today in Energy – EIA Creates Winter Version of Its Daily Energy Dashboard for Southern California.”
November 2016. Accessed April 18, 2017. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=28852.
EIA. 2020a. “State Electricity Profiles – California Electricity Profile 2018.” December 31, 2019; corrected March
23, 2020. Accessed May 2020. https://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/california/index.php.
EIA. 2020b. “California State Energy Profile.” Last updated January 16, 2020. Accessed May 2020.
https://www.eia.gov/state/print.php?sid=CA.
EIA. 2020c. “Natural Gas Consumption by End Use.” May 2020. Accessed May 2020. https://www.eia.gov/
dnav/ng/ng_cons_sum_a_EPG0_VC0_mmcf_a.htm.
EIA. 2020d. “California State Profile and Energy Estimates – Table F16: Total Petroleum Consumption Estimates, 2017.”
Accessed May 2020. https://www.eia.gov/state/seds/data.php?incfile=/state/seds/sep_fuel/html/
fuel_use_pa.html&sid=US&sid=CA.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2017. “Overview for Renewable Fuel Standard.” Last updated June
7, 2017. Accessed February 2019. https://www.epa.gov/renewable-fuel-standard-program/
overview-renewable-fuel-standard
SANDAG (San Diego Association of Governments). 1994. San Diego Regional Energy Plan. Adopted December
1994. Accessed September 17, 2020. https://www.sandag.org/uploads/publicationid/
publicationid_1381_8416.pdf.
SANDAG. 2009. Regional Energy Strategy for the San Diego Region. Adopted December 2009. Accessed
September 17, 2020. https://www.sandag.org/uploads/publicationid/publicationid_1476_10631.pdf.
SDG&E (San Diego Gas & Electric Company). 2020a. 2020 Individual Integrated Resource Plan of San Diego Gas &
Electric Company. Filed September 1, 2020. Accessed September 17, 2020. https://www.sdge.com/
sites/default/files/regulatory/R.20-05-003%20SDGE%202020%20IRP%20Cover%20Pleading%20Public.pdf.
SDG&E. 2020b. “SDG&E About Us” webpage. Accessed September 17, 2020. https://www.sdge.com/
more-information/our-company/about-us.
SDG&E. 2020c. San Diego Gas & Electric Final 2019 Renewable Portfolio Standard Procurement Plan. January
29, 2020. Accessed October 2020. https://www.sdge.com/sites/default/files/regulatory/
2019_Final%20RPS%20Plan%20Public%20Version.pdf.
The Climate Registry. 2020. The Climate Registry’s 2020 Default Emission Factors. April 2020.
https://www.theclimateregistry.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/The-Climate-Registry-2020-Default-
Emission-Factor-Document.pdf.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 585 of 1271
11– References
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 11-11
Section 5.6 Geology and Soils
City of Chula Vista. 2005. City of Chula Vista General Plan. Adopted December 13, 2005; amended March 2015.
http://www.chulavistaca.gov/departments/development-services/planning/general-plan.
Section 5.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
CALGreen (California Green Building Code). 2016. 2016 Green Building Standards Code. Accessed November
2017. http://codes.iccsafe.org/app/book/toc/2016/California/Green/index.html.
CAPCOA (California Air Pollution Control Officers Association). 2008. CEQA & Climate Change: Evaluating and
Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act.
January 2008.
CARB (California Air Resources Board). 2008a. Climate Change Scoping Plan: A Framework for Change.
December 2008. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/scopingplandocument.htm.
CARB. 2008b. Preliminary Draft Staff Proposal: Recommended Approaches for Setting Interim Significance
Thresholds for Greenhouse Gases under the California Environmental Quality Act. Sacramento, California.
October 24, 2008.
CARB. 2011a. Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking, Public Hearing to Consider
the “LEV III” Amendments to the California Greenhouse Gas and Criteria Pollutant Exhaust and
Evaporative Emission Standards and Test Procedures and to the On-Board Diagnostic System
Requirements for Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicles, and to the Evaporative
Emission Requirements for Heavy-Duty Vehicles. December 7, 2011.
CARB. 2014a. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan Building on the Framework Pursuant to AB 32 –
The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. May 2014. Accessed October 2017.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2013_update/first_update_climate_change_scoping_plan.pdf.
CARB. 2014b. “California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000–2012—by Category as Defined in the 2008
Scoping Plan.” Last updated March 24, 2014. Accessed October 2017. http://www.arb.ca.gov/
cc/inventory/data/tables/ghg_inventory_scopingplan_00-12_2014-03-24.pdf.
CARB. 2017a. The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update. January 20. Accessed January 2017.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2030sp_pp_final.pdf.
CARB. 2017b. Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy. March 14, 2017.
CCCC (California Climate Change Center). 2006. Our Changing Climate: Assessing the Risks to California. CEC-
500-2006-077. July 2006. Accessed August 2016. http://www.energy.ca.gov/2006publications/
CEC-500-2006-077/CEC- 500-2006-077.PDF.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 586 of 1271
11– References
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 11-12
CEC (California Energy Commission). 2015a. 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards – Frequently Asked
Questions. Accessed October 2017. http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2016standards/rulemaking/
documents/2016_Building_Energy_Efficiency_Standards_FAQ.pdf.
CEC. 2015b. 2016 Residential Compliance Manual. Chapter 7 – Solar Ready. November 2015.
CEC. 2018. “2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards Frequently Asked Questions.” http://www.energy.ca.gov/
title24/2019standards/documents/2018_Title_24_2019_ Building_Standards_FAQ.pdf.
City of Chula Vista. 2005. City of Chula Vista General Plan. Adopted December 13, 2005; amended March 17,
2020. Accessed October 2017. http://www.chulavistaca.gov/departments/development-services/
planning/general-plan.
City of Chula Vista. 2013. City of Chula Climate Action Plan Implementation Progress Report. Accessed October
2017. http://www.chulavistaca.gov/home/showdocument?id=5441.
City of Chula Vista. 2014. Climate Change Working Group 2014 Climate Action Plan Update - Recommendations.
Accessed October 2017. http://www.chulavistaca.gov/departments/clean/conservation/climate-action- plan.
City of Chula Vista. 2017. Climate Action Plan. Accessed October 2017. http://www.chulavistaca.gov/home/
showdocument?id=15586.
CNRA (California Natural Resources Agency). 2009. Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action:
Amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines Addressing Analysis and Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Pursuant to SB 97. December 2009.
CNRA. 2014. Safeguarding California: Reducing Climate Risk. An update to the 2009 California Climate
Adaptation Strategy. Accessed October 2017. http://resources.ca.gov/docs/climate/
Final_Safeguarding_CA_Plan_July_31_2014.pdf.
CNRA. 2016. Safeguarding California: Implementing Action Plans. March 2016. Accessed October 2017.
http://resources.ca.gov/docs/climate/safeguarding/Safeguarding%20California- Implementation%
20Action%20Plans.pdf.
CNRA. 2017. Draft Report Safeguarding California Plan: 2017 Update, California’s Climate Adaptation Strategy.
May 2017. Accessed October 2017. http://resources.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/
DRAFT- Safeguarding-California-Plan-2017-Update.pdf.
CPUC (California Public Utilities Commission). 2013. 2013 Integrated Energy Policy Report. Accessed March
2020. https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/2013publications/CEC-100-2013-001/CEC-100-2013-001-CMF.pdf.
CPUC. 2015.
EPA. 2007. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. December 19. Accessed October 2017.
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-110hr6enr/pdf/BILLS-110hr6enr.pdf.
EPA. 2016. “Glossary of Climate Change Terms.” August 9, 2016. Accessed August 2016. https://www3.epa.gov/
climatechange/glossary.html.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 587 of 1271
11– References
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 11-13
EPA. 2017. “Climate Change.” Last updated January 19, 2017. Accessed January 2017.
https://www.epa.gov/climatechange.
EPA and NHTSA (Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration). 2016.
Regulations and Standards: Heavy-Duty. EPA and DOT Finalize Greenhouse Gas and Fuel Efficiency
Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles. Last updated on August 30, 2016.
Accessed October 2017. https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/climate/regs-heavy-duty.htm.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007. IPCC Fourth Assessment Synthesis of Scientific-Technical
Information Relevant to Interpreting Article 2 of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.
IPCC. 2013. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Accessed October 2017.
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1.
IPCC. 2014. Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report: A Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Accessed August 2016. http://www.ipcc.ch/
report/ar5/syr/.
OPR (Governor’s Office of Planning and Research). 2008. CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change
through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review.
SANDAG (San Diego Association of Governments). 2011. 2050 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable
Communities Strategy. October 2011.
SANDAG. 2013. Series 13: 2050 Regional Growth Forecast. October 25, 2013. Accessed April 2020.
https://www.sandag.org/index.asp?classid=12&subclassid=84&projectid=503&fuseaction=
projects.detail.
SANDAG (San Diego Association of Goverments). 2015. San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan. October 2015.
https://sdforward.com/previous-plan-dropdown/chapters-and-appendices.
Under 2 Coalition. 2017. “Background on the Under 2.” Accessed August 2017. http://under2mou.org/background/..
U.S. Census Bureau. 1992. 1990 US Census.
Section 5.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
CalEPA (California Environmental Protection Agency). 2020a. “About Us.” Accessed August 2020.
https://calepa.ca.gov/about/.
CalEPA. 2020b. “Background and History.” Accessed September 2020. https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/
corteselist/Background/.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 588 of 1271
11– References
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 11-14
CalRecycle (California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery). 2020. “Solid Waste Information System
Facility Detail: Otay Landfill (37-AA-0010).” Accessed April 2020. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/
SWFacilities/Directory/37-AA-0010/Detail/.
City of Chula Vista. 2005. Chula Vista General Plan. Adopted December 13, 2005; amended March 17, 2020.
http://www.chulavistaca.gov/departments/development-services/planning/general-plan.
City of Chula Vista. 2020. “Volunteers.” City of Chula Vista Fire Department Information Page. Accessed
September 2020. http://www.chulavistaca.gov/departments/volunteer-programs.
County of San Diego. 2017. Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. Prepared by the County of San Diego
Office of Emergency Services and the San Diego County Unified Disaster Council. October 2017.
Accessed September 2020. https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/oes/
emergency_management/HazMit/2018/2018%20Hazard%20Mitigation%20Plan.pdf.
County of San Diego. 2018. San Diego County Emergency Operations Plan. Prepared by the Unified San Diego
County Emergency Services Organization and the County of San Diego. September 2018. Accessed
September 2020. https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/sdc/oes/emergency_management/
oes_jl_oparea.html.
County of San Diego. 2020. County of San Diego 2020 Consolidated Fire Code. Accessed September 2020.
https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/sdcfa/documents/prevention/
2020-County-Consolidated-Fire-Code-FINAL.pdf.
CVMC (Chula Vista Municipal Code). 2020a. Chapter 8.34, Regulation of Hazardous Materials. Accessed October
2020. https://chulavista.municipal.codes/search.
CVMC. 2020b. Chapter 12.12, Street Obstructions. Accessed October 2020. https://chulavista.municipal.codes/
CVMC/12.12.
CVMC. 2020c. Chapter 15.36, Fire Code. Current through July 28, 2020. Accessed September 2020.
https://chulavista.municipal.codes/CVMC/15.36.
DEH (San Diego County Department of Environmental Health). 2020. “Hazardous Materials Division” Accessed
September 29, 2020. https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/sdc/deh/hazmat.html.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). EPA. 2018a. “Superfund: CERCLA Overview.” Last updated June 4,
2018. Accessed September 2020. https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-cercla-overview.
EPA. 2018b. “The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA).” Last updated June 4, 2018.
Accessed May 2019. https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-amendments-and-
reauthorization-act-sara.
EPA. 2020a. “Summary of the Toxic Substances Control Act.” Last updated September 9, 2020. Accessed
September 2020. https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-toxic-substances-control-act.
EPA. 2020b. “Resources Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Overview.” Last updated May 26, 2020.Accessed
September 2020. https://www.epa.gov/rcra/resource-conservation-and-recovery-act-rcra-overview.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 589 of 1271
11– References
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 11-15
FAA (Federal Aviation Administration). 2019. “Safety: The Foundation of Everything We Do.” Accessed September
2019. https://www.faa.gov/about/safety_efficiency/.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 1999. Federal Response Plan. April 1999.
http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/blaw/FEMA/frpfull.pdf.
OES (California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services). 2017. California Emergency Services Act, California
Disaster Assistance Act, Emergency Compacts, and California Disaster and Civil Defense Master Mutual
Aid Agreement. https://www.caloes.ca.gov/PlanningPreparednessSite/Documents/
California_State_Emergency_Plan_2017.pdf.
OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration). 2014. “At-A-Glance OSHA.” OSHA 3439 2014.
https://www.osha.gov/Publications/3439at-a-glance.pdf.
SDCRAA (San Diego County Regional Airport Authority). 2010. Brown Field Municipal Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plan. Airport Land Use Commission. Approved December 20, 2010. https://www.san.org/
Airport-Projects/Land-Use-Compatibility#7121296-alucps.
Section 5.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
City of Chula Vista. 2005. City of Chula Vista General Plan. Adopted December 13, 2005; amended March 17,
2020. https://www.chulavistaca.gov/departments/development-services/planning/
planning-digital-library/general-plan.
City of Chula Vista. 2015. BMP Design Manual. December 2015. http://www.chulavistaca.gov/
home/showdocument?id=11881.
County of San Diego. 2020. San Diego County Sustainable Groundwater Management. Accessed October 22,
2020. https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/pds/SGMA.html.
DWR (California Department of Water Resources). 2016. California’s Groundwater, Working Toward Sustainability.
Bulletin 118. Sacramento: DWR. December 22, 2016. Accessed September 2018. https://water.ca.gov/
-/media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/Programs/Groundwater-Management/Bulletin-118/Files/
B118-Interim-Update-2016_ay_19.pdf.
DWR. 2020. “Groundwater Basin Boundary Assessment Tool.” Accessed October 22, 2020.
https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bbat/.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2020. “FEMA Flood Map Service Center.” FIRM panel
06071C6490H. Effective August 28, 2008. Accessed September 2020. https://msc.fema.gov/
portal/search?AddressQuery=chulavista%20#searchresultsanchor.
SDRWQCB (Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region). 2013. Order Number R9-2013-0001,
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements for
Discharges from the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Draining the Watersheds Within the
San Diego Region.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 590 of 1271
11– References
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 11-16
SDRWQCB. 2018. San Diego Region–Basin Plan Review. Accessed September 2020.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sandiego/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/tri_review.html.
SWRCB (State Water Resources Control Board). 2019. “Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program.” Accessed
September 2020. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/.
Section 5.10 Land Use and Planning
City of Chula Vista. 1989. Sunbow General Development Plan. Adopted December 5, 1989.
https://www.chulavistaca.gov/home/showdocument?id=19285.
City of Chula Vista. 1990. Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan. February 20, 1990.
https://www.chulavistaca.gov/home/showdocument?id=19285.
City of Chula Vista. 2003. City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. February 2003. http://www.chulavistaca.gov/
home/showdocument?id=7106.
City of Chula Vista. 2005. City of Chula Vista General Plan. Adopted December 13, 2005; amended March 17,
2020. http://www.chulavistaca.gov/departments/development-services/planning/general-plan.
City of Chula Vista. 2013. Chula Vista Vision 2020, General Plan – Housing Element. Adopted April 23, 2013.
https://www.chulavistaca.gov/home/showdocument?id=5503.
City of Chula Vista. 2018. Chula Vista Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Adopted August 7, 2018.
https://www.chulavistaca.gov/departments/development-services/planning/
parks-recreation-master-plan-update.
HR&A Advisors, Inc. (HR&A). 2020. Sunbow II Phase 3 Market and Financial Analysis of Industrial Use.
November 4, 2020.
SANDAG. 2011. 2050 Regional Transportation Plan. October 2011. http://www.sandag.org/uploads/
2050RTP/F2050rtp_all.pdf.
SANDAG. 2015. San Diego Forward, The Regional Plan. October 2015. http://www.sdforward.com/
pdfs/RP_final/The%20Plan%20-%20combined.pdf.
SANDAG. 2020. “About San Diego Forward, Developing the 2021 Regional Plan.” September 2020.
https://www.sdforward.com/about-san-diego-forward/developing-the-2021-regional-plan.
SDCRAA (San Diego County Regional Airport Authority). 2010. Brown Field Municipal Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plan. Airport Land Use Commission. January 25, 2010. http://www.ci.oceanside.ca.us/
civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=24640.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 591 of 1271
11– References
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 11-17
Section 5.11 Noise
Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2013a. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance
Manual. Division of Environmental Analysis, Environmental Engineering, Hazardous Waste, Air, Noise,
Paleontology Office. Sacramento, California. September 2013.
Caltrans. 2013b. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. September 2013.
Carrier. 2012. CA16NA 018-061 Single-Stage Air Conditioner w/ Puron Refrigerant. Catalog No: CA16NA-06PD.
https://resource.carrierenterprise.com/is/content/Watscocom/carrier_ca16na03600g_article_
1404816 230548_en_ss?_ga=2.123164302.489492439.1570570581-792571132.1570570581
City of Chula Vista. 2005. City of Chula Vista General Plan. Adopted December 13, 2005; amended March 17,
2020. https://www.chulavistaca.gov/departments/development-services/planning/
planning-digital-library/general-plan.
City of Chula Vista. 2020. Chula Vista Municipal Code. Updated February 25, 2020.
https://chulavista.municipal.codes/CVMC.
DOT (U.S. Department of Transportation). 2006. FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model: User’s Guide. Final
Report. FHWA-HEP-06-015. DOT-VNTSC-FHWA-06-02. Cambridge, Massachusetts: DOT, Research and
Innovative Technology Administration. August 2006.
FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). 2004. FHWA Traffic Noise Model Version 2.5.
FHWA. 2008. Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM), Software Version 1.1. U.S. Department of Transportation,
Research and Innovative Technology Administration, John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center,
Environmental Measurement and Modeling Division. Washington, D.C. December 8, 2008.
FHWA. 2011. Highway Traffic Noise: Analysis and Abatement Guidance. FHWA-HEP-10-025. December 2011.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/regulations_and_guidance/
analysis_and_abatement_guid ance/revguidance.pdf.
FTA (Federal Transit Administration). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. Final Report. FTA-
Report No. 0123. September 2018. https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/
research-innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-
no-0123_0.pdf
ICC (International Construction Code). 2019. California Building Code. Section 1206 – Sound Transmission.
https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/chapter/15426/.
OPR (Governor’s Office of Planning and Research). 2017. 2017 State of California General Plan Guidelines.
San Diego County Airport Land Use Commission. 2010. Brown Field Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility
Plan. January 25, 2010. https://www.san.org/DesktopModules/Bring2mind/DMX/API/Entries/
Download?Command=Core_Download&EntryId=2976&language=en -US&PortalId=0&TabId=225.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 592 of 1271
11– References
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 11-18
Section 5.12 Population and Housing
City of Chula Vista. 1989. Sunbow General Development Plan. December 5, 1989. Accessed April 2020.
https://www.chulavistaca.gov/home/showdocument?id=19285.
City of Chula Vista. 1990. Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan. As revised February 20, 1990.
https://www.chulavistaca.gov/departments/development-services/planning/planning-digital-library/
spa-plan.
City of Chula Vista. 2005. City of Chula Vista General Plan. Adopted December 13, 2005; amended March 17,
2020. https://www.chulavistaca.gov/departments/development-services/planning/
planning-digital-library/general-plan.
City of Chula Vista. 2013. Chula Vista Vision 2020, General Plan, Housing Element. Adopted April 23, 2013.
http://www.chulavistaca.gov/home/showdocument?id=5503.
City of Chula Vista. 2020a. “Housing Element Update 2021 – FAQs.” Accessed September 2020.
https://www.chulavistaca.gov/departments/development-services/housing-element-update/
housing-element-update-faqs.
City of Chula Vista. 2020b. “Housing Element Update 2021–2029 Presentation.” Accessed September 2020.
https://www.chulavistaca.gov/home/showdocument?id=21346.
SANDAG (San Diego Association of Governments). 2004. Regional Comprehensive Plan for the San Diego Region.
San Diego, California. Adopted July 23, 2004. http://www.sandag.org/uploads/publicationid/
publicationid_1094_3362.pdf.
SANDAG. 2011a. 2050 Regional Transportation Plan. October 2011. http://www.sandag.org/uploads/
2050RTP/F2050rtp_all.pdf.
SANDAG. 2011b. Regional Housing Needs Assessment Plan; Fifth House Element Cycle, Planning for Housing in
the San Diego Region, 2010–2020. October 28, 2011. http://www.sandag.org/uploads/publicationid/
publicationid_1661_14392.pdf.
SANDAG. 2013. Series 13 Regional Growth Forecast, San Diego Region. October 2013. Accessed December 8,
2016. http://www.sandag.org/uploads/projectid/projectid_503_19239.pdf.
SANDAG. 2015a. San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan. October 2015. https://sdforward.com/
previous-plan-dropdown/chapters-and-appendices.
SANDAG. 2015b. Series 13 Forecast for the Jurisdiction of Chula Vista. Accessed December 8, 2016.
http://datasurfer.sandag.org/dataoverview.
SANDAG. 2020. “About San Diego Forward, Developing the 2021 Regional Plan.” September 2020.
https://www.sdforward.com/about-san-diego-forward/developing-the-2021-regional-plan.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 593 of 1271
11– References
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 11-19
Section 5.13 Public Services
City of Chula Vista. 2003. City of Chula Vista Greenbelt Master Plan. Adopted September 16, 2003. Accessed
September 16, 2020. https://www.chulavistaca.gov/home/showdocument?id=212.
City of Chula Vista. 2005a. City of Chula Vista General Plan. Adopted December 13, 2005; amended March 17, 2020.
Accessed September 3, 2020. https://www.chulavistaca.gov/home/showdocument?id=9337.
City of Chula Vista. 2005b. “Public Facilities Development Impact Fee.” Approved December 2005. Accessed
September 21, 2020. https://www.chulavistaca.gov/home/showdocument?id=16189.
City of Chula Vista. 2011. Chula Vista Public Library (CVPL) Strategic Facilities Plan. Approved April 2011.
Accessed September 21, 2020. https://www.chulavistaca.gov/home/showdocument?id=4812
City of Chula Vista. 2014. Chula Vista Public Library (CVPL) Strategic Vision Plan. Approved February 20, 2014.
Accessed September 21, 2020. https://www.chulavistaca.gov/home/showdocument?id=11716.
City of Chula Vista. 2018. City of Chula Vista Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Updated August 7, 2020.
Accessed September 18, 2020. https://www.chulavistaca.gov/home/showdocument?id=18294.
City of Chula Vista. 2020a. City of Chula Vista Growth Management Oversight Commission – Annual Report for
Fiscal Year 2019 (July 1, 2018–June 20, 2019). Approved January 30, 2020. Accessed September 21,
2020. http://lfweblink.chulavistaca.gov:27630/weblink8/0/doc/215869/Page1.aspx.
City of Chula Vista. 2020b. Fire Stations and Locations webpage. Accessed September 21, 2020.
https://www.chulavistaca.gov/departments/fire-department/stations-locations/fire-stations-map.
City of Chula Vista. 2020c. Chula Vista Fire Department (CVFD) homepage. Accessed September 21, 2020.
https://www.chulavistaca.gov/departments/fire-department.
City of Chula Vista. 2020d. About Us – Fire Department webpage. Accessed September 21, 2020.
https://www.chulavistaca.gov/departments/fire-department/about-us.
City of Chula Vista. 2021. UAS Drone Program. Accessed January 15, 2021.
https://www.chulavistaca.gov/departments/police-department/programs/uas-drone-program.
CVESD (Chula Vista Elementary School District). 2010. Chula Vista Elementary School District – School Facilities
Needs Analysis. Adopted June 2010. Accessed September 22, 2020. http://schools.cvesd.org/district/
district/Documents/Business%20Services%20and%20Support%20(Lisa%20Brannen)/School%
20Facilities%20Needs%20Analysis%20(2010).pdf.
CVESD. 2020a. Chula Vista Elementary School District Map. Accessed September 21, 2020.
CVESD. 2020b. Chula Vista Elementary School District – About Our District webpage. Accessed September 2020.
https://www.cvesd.org/cms/One.aspx?portalId=412034&pageId=884900.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 594 of 1271
11– References
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 11-20
CVFD (Chula Vista Fire Department). 2019. Chula Vista Fire Department Annual Report 2019. Accessed
September 21, 2020. https://www.chulavistaca.gov/Home/ShowDocument?id=21499.
CVPD (Chula Vista Police Department). 2020a. Chula Vista Police Department Organization Chart. Published
August 28, 2020. Accessed September 21, 2020. https://www.chulavistaca.gov/home/
showdocument?id=21455.
CVPD. 2020b. Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) Response Times webpage. Accessed
September 21, 2020. https://www.chulavistaca.gov/departments/police-department/about-us/
gmoc-response-times.
SARC (School Accountability Report Card). 2019a. Valle Lindo Elementary School 2018-19 School Accountability
Report Card. Accessed September 22, 2020. https://www.cvesd.org/common/pages/
DisplayFile.aspx?itemId=14609861.
SARC. 2019b. Rancho Del Rey Middle School 2018-19 School Accountability Report Card. Accessed September
22, 2020. https://www.sarconline.org/SarcPdfs/11/37684116114276.pdf.
SARC. 2019c. Castle Park Middle School 2018-19 School Accountability Report Card. Accessed September 22,
2020. https://www.sarconline.org/SarcPdfs/11/37684116059752.pdf.
SARC. 2019d. Otay Ranch Senior High School 2018-19 School Accountability Report Card. Accessed September
22, 2020. https://www.sarconline.org/SarcPdfs/11/37684113731627.pdf.
SARC. 2019e. Castle Park Senior High 2018-19 School Accountability Report Card. Accessed September 22,
2020. https://www.sarconline.org/SarcPdfs/11/37684113730801.pdf.
SUHSD (Sweetwater Union High School District). 2020a. Sweetwater Union High School District Map. Accessed
September 21, 2020.
SUHSD. 2020b. Sweetwater Union High School District (SUHSD) – About webpage. Accessed September 22,
2020. http://www.sweetwaterschools.org/about-suhsd/.
SUHSD. 2020c. Sweetwater Union High School District (SUHSD) – Developer Fees webpage. Accessed
September 22, 2020. http://finance.sweetwaterschools.org/developer-fees/.
Section 5.14 Recreation
City of Chula Vista 2003a. City of Chula Vista Greenbelt Master Plan. Adopted September 16, 2003. Accessed
September 16, 2020. https://www.chulavistaca.gov/home/showdocument?id=212.
City of Chula Vista 2003b. City of Chula Vista Greenbelt Maintenance Map. Adopted September 16, 2003.
Accessed September 16, 2020. https://www.chulavistaca.gov/home/showdocument?id=234.
City of Chula Vista. 2005. City of Chula Vista General Plan. Adopted December 13, 2005; amended March 17, 2020.
Accessed September 16, 2020. https://www.chulavistaca.gov/home/showdocument?id=9341.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 595 of 1271
11– References
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 11-21
City of Chula Vista. 2018. City of Chula Vista Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Adopted August 7, 2018.
Accessed September 18, 2020. https://www.chulavistaca.gov/home/showdocument?id=18294.
City of Chula Vista. 2020a. City of Chula Vista Active Transportation Plan (ATP). Approved May 12, 2020. Accessed
September 18, 2020. https://www.chulavistaca.gov/home/showdocument?id=20838.
City of Chula Vista. 2020b. Growth Management Oversight Commission: Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2019.
January 30, 2020.
County of San Diego 2020. County of San Diego Parks and Recreation – Otay Lakes County Park webpage. Accessed
September 29, 2020. https://www.sdparks.org/content/sdparks/en/park-pages/OtayLakes.html.
Section 5.15 Transportation
Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2014. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices. Revision 5. Published 2014; revised March 27, 2 020. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/
safety-programs/camutcd/camutcd-rev5.
Caltrans. 2015. 2015 Interregional Transportation Strategic Plan. Caltrans, Division of Transportation Planning.
December 2015.
CAPCOA (California Air Pollution Control Officers ’ Association). 2010. Quantifying Green House Gas Mitigation
Measures. August 2010.
City of Chula Vista. 1989. Sunbow General Development Plan. December 5, 1989. https://www.chulavistaca.gov/
departments/development-services/planning/planning-digital-library/spa-plan.
City of Chula Vista. 2005. City of Chula Vista General Plan. Adopted December 13, 2005; amended March 17,
2020. http://www.chulavistaca.gov/departments/development-services/planning/general-plan.
County of San Diego. 2018. San Diego County Emergency Operations Plan. Prepared by the Unified San Diego
County Emergency Services Organization and the County of San Diego. September 2018. Accessed
September 2020. https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/sdc/oes/emergency_management/
oes_jl_oparea.html.
CVMC (Chula Vista Municipal Code). 2020. Chapter 12.12, Street Obstructions. Accessed October 2020.
https://chulavista.municipal.codes/CVMC/12.12.
OPR (Governor’s Office of Planning and Research). 2018. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation
Impacts in CEQA. December 2018.
SANDAG (San Diego Association of Governments). 2014. 2014 Regional Transportation improvement Program.
Final. September 2014.
SANDAG. 2015a. 2016 State Transportation Improvement Program. Submitted to the California Transportation
Commission December 10, 2015. https://www.sandag.org/uploads/projectid/projectid_520_20063.pdf.
SANDAG. 2015b. San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan. October 2015.
SANDAG. 2020. VMT Analysis.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 596 of 1271
11– References
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 11-22
Section 5.16 Utilities and Service Systems
CalRecycle (California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery). 2016a. “Otay Landfill.” Accessed
October 2020. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Summary/2863.
CalRecycle. 2016b. Sycamore Landfill detailed summary. Accessed October 2020.
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Summary/2871.
City of Chula Vista 2005. City of Chula Vista General Plan. Adopted December 13, 2005; amended March 17, 2020.
Accessed October 1, 2020. https://www.chulavistaca.gov/home/showdocument?id=9337.
City of Chula Vista. 2012a. A Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for Amendments to the City of Chula
Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11). Approved June
2012. Accessed October 1, 2020. https://www.chulavistaca.gov/home/showdocument?id=11414.
City of Chula Vista 2012b. City of Chula Vista Subdivision Manual. Revised March 13, 2012. Accessed October 1,
2020. http://www.chulavistaca.gov/home/showdocument?id=7819.
City of Chula Vista 2013. “City of Chula Vista Growth Management Program.” Accessed October 1, 2020.
http://www.chulavistaca.gov/city_services/development_services/planning_building/Planning/Growth/
Management.asp.
City of Chula Vista 2014. City of Chula Vista Wastewater Master Plan. Approved 2014. Accessed October 1, 2020.
https://www.chulavistaca.gov/departments/public-works/master-plans/wastewater-master-plan.
City of Chula Vista 2020. City of Chula Vista Growth Management Oversight Commission – Annual Report for
Fiscal Year 2019 (July 1, 2018 – June 20, 2019). Approved January 30, 2020. Accessed September 21,
2020. http://lfweblink.chulavistaca.gov:27630/weblink8/0/doc/215869/Page1.aspx.
MWD (Metropolitan Water District). 2016a. 2015 Regional Urban Water Management Plan. Approved June 2016.
Accessed October 1, 2020. http://www.mwdh2o.com/PDF_About_Your_Water/
2.4.2_Regional_Urban_Water_Management_Plan.pdf.
MWD. 2016b. Integrated Water Resources Plan. 2015 Update. Approved 2016. Accessed October 1, 2020.
http://www.mwdh2o.com/Reports/2.4.1_Integrated_Resources_Plan.pdf.
Otay Water District (OWD) 2016. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan Update. Approved May 2016. Accessed
October 1, 2020. http://www.otaywater.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/OWD-2015-UWMP-Draft_
20160503_with-appendices.pdf.
OWD n.d.a. “At-A-Glance” webpage. Accessed October 9, 2020. https://otaywater.gov/about-otay/
otay-at-a-glance/.
SDCWA (San Diego County Water Authority). 2016. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. Approved June 2016.
Accessed October 1, 2020. http://www.sdcwa.org/sites/default/files/files/water-management/
water_resources/2015%20UWMP%20Final%2006222016.pdf.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 597 of 1271
11– References
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 11-23
Section 5.17 Wildfire
CAL FIRE (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection). 2009. Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local
Responsibility Areas. Riverside County City FHSZ Maps, Murrieta. http://www.fire.ca.gov/
fire_prevention/fhsz_maps/FHSZ/riverside/Murrieta.pdf.
CAL FIRE. 2018. 2018 Strategic Fire Plan for California. August 22, 2018.
City of Chula Vista. 1989. Sunbow General Development Plan. December 5, 1989. https://www.chulavistaca.gov/
departments/development-services/planning/planning-digital-library/spa-plan.
City of Chula Vista. 2003. City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. February 2003. Accessed October 2020.
https://www.chulavistaca.gov/home/showdocument?id=7106.
City of Chula Vista. 2005. City of Chula Vista General Plan. Adopted December 13, 2005; amended March 17,
2020. https://www.chulavistaca.gov/departments/development-services/planning/
planning-digital-library/general-plan.
City of Chula Vista Municipal Code. 2020. Chula Vista Municipal Code, Chapter 15.36 Fire Code. Current through
July 28, 2020. Accessed September 2020. https://chulavista.municipal.codes/CVMC/15.36.
County of San Diego. 2017. Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. Accessed September 2020.
https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/oes/emergency_management/HazMit/2018/
2018%20Hazard%20Mitigation%20Plan.pdf.
County of San Diego. 2018. San Diego County Emergency Operations Plan. Accessed September 2020.
https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/sdc/oes/emergency_management/oes_jl_oparea.html.
DOI (U.S. Department of the Interior) and USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2000. “Managing the Impact of
Wildfires on Communities and the Environment.” September 8, 2000.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2020. “FEMA Flood Map Service Center,” FIRM panel
06071C6490H. Effective August 28, 2008. Accessed September, 2020. https://msc.fema.gov/
portal/search?AddressQuery=chulavista%20#searchresultsanchor.
International Fire Chiefs Association. 2013. Ready Set Go – My Personal Wildland Fire Action Guide. Accessed
November 2, 2020. https://www.wildlandfirersg.org/s/iafc2/iafc-wildland-fire-programs-20Y3
m0000004EhqEAE?language=en_US
ICC (International Code Council). 2014. 2015 International Wildland–Urban Interface Code. May 30, 2014.
https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/document/556?site_type=public.
ICC. 2017. 2018 International Fire Code. August 31, 2017. https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/
IFC2018?site_type=public.
International Fire Chiefs Association. 2013.
National Wildfire Coordinating Group. 2009. Guidance for Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire Management
Policy. February 13, 2009.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 598 of 1271
11– References
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 11-24
Section 6 Cumulative Impacts
CAL FIRE (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection). 2009. Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local
Responsibility Areas. Riverside County City FHSZ Maps, Murrieta. http://www.fire.ca.gov/
fire_prevention/fhsz_maps/FHSZ/riverside/Murrieta.pdf.
CPUC (California Public Utilities Commission). 2018. San Diego Gas & Electric Salt Creek Substation Project. Last
updated on June 15, 2018. Accessed November 2, 2020. https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/environment/
info/panoramaenv/Salt_Creek/index.html#:~:text=Construction%20of%20the%20Salt%
20Creek,completed%20as%20of%20June%202018.
City of Chula Vista. 2005. Final Environmental Impact Report, Chula Vista Vision 2020, General Plan Update.
December 2005. https://www.chulavistaca.gov/home/showdocument?id=11971.
City of Chula Vista. 2012. A Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for Amendments to the City of Chula
Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11). Approved June
2012. Accessed October 1, 2020. https://www.chulavistaca.gov/home/showdocument?id=11414.
Section 7 Growth Inducement
SANDAG (San Diego Association of Governments). 2004. Regional Comprehensive Plan for the San Diego Region.
San Diego, California. Adopted July 23, 2004. http://www.sandag.org/uploads/publicationid/
publicationid_1094_3362.pdf
SANDAG. 2011. 2050 Regional Transportation Plan. October 2011. http://www.sandag.org/uploads/
2050RTP/F2050rtp_all.pdf.
SANDAG. 2013. Series 13 Regional Growth Forecast, San Diego Region. October 2013. Accessed December 8,
2016. http://www.sandag.org/uploads/projectid/projectid_503_19239.pdf.
SANDAG. 2015. San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan. October 2015. https://sdforward.com/
previous-plan-dropdown/chapters-and-appendices.
Section 9 Effects Found Not to be Significant
City of Chula Vista. 2005. City of Chula Vista General Plan. Adopted December 13, 2005; amended March 17,
2020. https://www.chulavistaca.gov/departments/development-services/planning/
planning-digital-library/general-plan.
DOC (California Department of Conservation). 2016. California Important Farmland Finder. Accessed September
04, 2020. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/.
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). n.d. “Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ) Classification and
Correlations Map.” Accessed September 16, 2020. https://www.sandag.org/uploads/
publicationid/publicationid_1558_12641.pdf.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 599 of 1271
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 12-1
12 List of Preparers
City of Chula Vista
Steve Power, AICP, Principal Planner
Stacey Kurz, Senior Project Coordinator
Oscar Romero, Associate Planner
Michael Shirey, Deputy City Attorney III
Maggie Greene, Fire Inspector
Mary Radley, Landscape Architect
Paul Oberbauer, Senior Civil Engineer, Traffic
Scott Barker, Senior Transportation Engineer
Cheryl Goddard, Senior Planner
RH Consulting Group LLC
Ranie Hunter, Principal
Dudek
Brian Grover, AICP, Principal
Andrew Talbert, AICP, Environmental Planner
Iulia Roman, Environmental Planner
Joe Harrison, Environmental Analyst
Carolyn Somvilay, Environmental Analyst
Lilli Renier, Environmental Analyst
Samantha Wang, Air Quality Specialist
Jessica Colston, BA, Archaeologist
Angela Pham, MA, RPA, Archaeologist
Micah Hale, PhD, RPA, Cultural Senior Project Manager
Loukas Barton, PhD, RPA, Archaeologist
Michael Williams, PhD, Archaeologist
Michael Huff, Fire Protection Project Manager
Mike Scott, Senior Fire Protection Planner
Noam Stamm, Fire Protection Planner
Mark Storm, INCE Bd. Cert., Senior Technical Specialist
Connor Burke, Technical Analyst
Carrie Kubacki, Mapping/Surveying Analyst
Laurel Porter, ELS, Senior Technical Editor
Daniela Yurovsky, Publications Specialist
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 600 of 1271
12 – List of Preparers
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 12-2
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 601 of 1271
Appendix M
Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 602 of 1271
MITIGATION, MONITORING, AND
REPORTING PROGRAM
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the
Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR
Prepared for:
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 91910
Prepared by:
605 Third Street
Encinitas, California 92024
Contact: Brian Grover, AICP
JULY 2021
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 603 of 1271
Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 604 of 1271
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 MMRP-1
Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program
Introduction
California Public Resources Code, Section 21081.6, requires that, upon certification of an Environmental Impact
Report, “the public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or
conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The
reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation.”1
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been developed in compliance with Section 21081.6 of the
California Public Resources Code and Section 15097 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines,2 and
includes the following information:
• A list of mitigation measures
• The timing for implementation of the mitigation measures
• The party responsible for implementing or monitoring the mitigation measures
• The date of completion of monitoring
The City of Chula Vista must adopt this Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, or an equally effective
program, if it approves the proposed Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3
Project (project) with the mitigation measures that were adopted or made conditions of project approval.
1 California Public Resources Code, Sections 21000–21189. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as amended.
2 14 CCR 15000–15387 and Appendices A–N. Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 605 of 1271
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 MMRP-2
Table 1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Agency Responsible for Monitoring Date of Completion
Biological Resources
MM-BIO-1: The Applicant shall include an irrevocable offer of
dedication (IOD) to the City of Chula Vista on the first final
map for 62.16 acres of onsite Preserve land within Preserve
Management Area 3, Subunits 3-1a, 3-1b, and 3-1c of the
Chula Vista Central City Preserve lands. The MSCP Preserve
land shall be conserved, maintained, and managed by the City
of Chula Vista or its designee in perpetuity as directed in the
Chula Vista Central City Preserve Area-Specific Management
Directives (ASMDs) for Preserve Management Area 3 (PMA 3)
(RECON Environmental, April 26, 2004) and funded by the
Sunbow Preserve Community Facilities District (No. 98-3). The
City of Chula Vista Preserve Habitat Manager shall be
responsible for the long-term Preserve management activities
identified in the Central City Preserve ASMD. Said IOD for the
62.16 acres Proposed MSCP Preserve shall include 48.95
acres to mitigate for significant habitat impacts to 7.79 acres
of native grassland, 8.55 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub,
and 55.61 of non‐native grassland as well as the following
sensitive species significant impacts: Coastal California
Gnatcatcher- occupied Diegan coastal sage scrub to mitigate
for significant direct impacts to coastal California gnatcatcher
occupied habitat; Otay Tarplant- 0.34 acre of Otay tarplant
occupied habitat (i.e., native grassland) to mitigate for direct
impacts to 0.34 acre of Otay tarplant occupied habitat that
currently supports 836 Otay tarplant individual plants; Orcutt’s
Bird’s-beak- Orcutt’s bird’s-beak habitat (i.e., Diegan coastal
sage scrub) to mitigate for significant direct impacts to onsite
Diegan coastal sage scrub that currently supports 91 Orcutt’s
bird’s‐beak individual plants; Decumbent Goldenbush
Decumbent goldenbush habitat (i.e., Diegan coastal sage
scrub and native grassland), that includes at least 289
decumbent goldenbush individual plants) to mitigate for
significant direct impacts to onsite native grassland and
Diegan coastal sage scrub that currently supports 289
Prior to construction City of Chula Vista
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 606 of 1271
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 MMRP-3
Table 1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Agency Responsible for Monitoring Date of Completion
decumbent goldenbush individual plants; and San Diego
Viguiera- San Diego viguiera habitat (i.e., Diegan coastal sage
scrub) that includes at least 2,979 San Diego viguiera
individual plants) to mitigate for significant direct impacts to
onsite Diegan coastal sage scrub that currently supports
5,958 San Diego viguiera individual plants.
MM-BIO-2: Prior to initiation of construction related activities
including clearing and grubbing or prior to vegetation/ground
disturbance or prior to site mobilization activities or issuance
of a grading permit, the Applicant shall submit documentation
to the City demonstrating that the Applicant has contracted
with a qualified biologist(s) to monitor the project construction
activities and avoid any inadvertent impacts to sensitive
biological and ensure complete avoidance of jurisdictional
resources. Each qualified biologist shall have demonstrated
expertise with the sensitive habitats, special status species of
the project region. The qualified biologist(s) shall monitor the
installation of the construction temporary fencing and/or
flagging, silt fencing, and other best management practices
(BMPs) along the construction limits prior to construction
activities. The qualified biologist shall be present full‐time
during all initial vegetation clearing and grubbing activities,
and potentially on a less frequent basis during grading
activities to ensure construction remains within the approved
project development area. The Applicant shall report results of
biological monitoring activities to the City on a regular basis
through the preparation and submission of summary
monitoring reports.
Prior to and during
construction
City of Chula Vista
MM-BIO-3: Prior to the issuance of any land development
permits including for clearing and grubbing or grading, the
Applicant shall prepare a Restoration Plan prepared by a
qualified biologist to mitigate for impacts to sensitive plant
species consisting of Otay tarplant, Orcutt’s bird’s-beak,
decumbent goldenbush, and San Diego County viguiera
consistent with the Habitat Restoration and Sensitive Plant
Prior to construction City of Chula Vista
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 607 of 1271
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 MMRP-4
Table 1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Agency Responsible for Monitoring Date of Completion
Specifies Mitigation Plan (Merkel & Associates, Inc. 2021,
Appendix D). The Applicant shall implement the 5-year
maintenance and monitoring activities consistent with the
Conceptual Restoration Plan to the satisfaction of the
Development Services Director (or their designee). The
revegetation plan must be prepared by a qualified City
approved biologist familiar with the City’s MSCP Subarea Plan
and must include, but not be limited to, an implementation
plan; appropriate seed mixtures and planting method;
irrigation method; quantitative and qualitative success
criteria; maintenance, monitoring, and reporting program;
estimated completion time; and contingency measures. The
Project Applicant shall be required to prepare and implement
the revegetation plan subject to the oversight and approval of
the Development Services Director (or their designee). NOTE:
Since the revegetation is critical to approving the MSCP
Boundary Line Adjustment, the applicant will be required to
enter into a Secured Agreement with the City and will be
required to provide a cash deposit.
MM-BIO-4: To avoid any direct impacts to nesting coastal
California gnatcatcher, all vegetation clearing, grubbing and
grading activities within gnatcatcher occupied habitat (i.e.,
Diegan coastal sage scrub) shall be conducted outside of the
gnatcatcher breeding season (February 15 to August 15).
Prior to and during
construction
City of Chula Vista
MM-BIO-5: Prior to initiating any construction related activities
requiring a clearing and grubbing or grading permit, the
Applicant shall delineate coastal California gnatcatcher
occupied habitat located adjacent to the proposed project
development area during the breeding season (February 15 to
August 15) by orange biological fencing or comparable
materials to ensure that no work shall occur within these
habitats. In addition, a minimum 300-foot buffer and on-site
noise reduction/attenuation techniques shall be incorporated,
as appropriate to avoid impacts to breeding gnatcatcher from
elevated construction noise levels. The City Development
Prior to and during
construction
City of Chula Vista
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 608 of 1271
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 MMRP-5
Table 1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Agency Responsible for Monitoring Date of Completion
Services Director (or their designee) shall have the discretion
to modify the buffer width depending on site-specific
conditions. Noise monitoring may be required to ensure that
the elevated construction noise levels are appropriately
attenuated at the edge of occupied habitat to a level that is
not expected to adversely affect nesting bird behavior (i.e., not
to exceed an hourly average of 60 A-weighted decibels (dBA)
or ambient at the edge of occupied habitat).
MM-BIO-6: Prior to initiating any construction related activities
requiring a clearing and grubbing or grading permit, the
Applicant shall delineate least Bell’s vireo occupied habitat by
orange biological fencing or comparable to avoid direct impact
to vireo within occupied habitat located adjacent to the
proposed project during the breeding season (March 15 to
September 15). In addition, a minimum 300-foot buffer and
on-site noise reduction/attenuation techniques shall be
incorporated, as appropriate to avoid impacts to breeding
vireo from elevated construction noise levels. The City
Development Services Director (or their designee) shall have
the discretion to modify the buffer width depending on site-
specific conditions. Noise monitoring may be required to
ensure that the elevated construction noise levels are
appropriately attenuated at the edge of occupied habitat to a
level that is not expected to adversely affect nesting bird
behavior (i.e., not to exceed an hourly average of 60 dBA or
ambient at the edge of occupied habitat).
Prior to and during
construction
City of Chula Vista
MM-BIO-7: To avoid any direct impacts to migratory birds
and/or raptors protected under the federal Migratory Bird
Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503
and 3513, removal of habitat that supports active nests on
the proposed area of disturbance should occur outside of the
breeding season for these species. The breeding season is
defined as January 15–August 31 for raptor species and
February 15–August 15 for other non-raptor birds (excluding
listed species). If removal of habitat on the proposed area of
Prior to construction City of Chula Vista
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 609 of 1271
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 MMRP-6
Table 1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Agency Responsible for Monitoring Date of Completion
disturbance must occur during the breeding season, then
prior to initiating any construction related activities requiring a
clearing and grubbing or grading permit, the Applicant shall
retain a City-approved biologist to conduct a pre-construction
survey to determine the presence or absence of nesting birds
(including nesting birds) on the proposed area of disturbance.
The pre-construction survey must be conducted within 10
calendar days prior to the start of construction, and the
results must be submitted to the City for review and approval
prior to initiating any construction activities. If nesting birds
are detected, a letter report or mitigation plan, as deemed
appropriate by the City, shall be prepared and include
proposed measures to be implemented to ensure that
disturbance of breeding activities are avoided. The report or
mitigation plan shall be submitted to the City for review and
approval and implemented to the satisfaction of the City. The
City’s mitigation monitor shall verify and approve that all
measures identified in the report or mitigation plan are in
place prior to and/or during construction.
To reduce potential impacts to burrowing owl during
construction, the City-approved biologist shall perform pre-
construction inspection of potential habitat, and, at minimum,
twice weekly inspections be performed while rough grading is
ongoing. All pre-construction survey efforts shall be conducted
prior to any project activities that could result in habitat
disturbance to soil, vegetation or other sheltering habitat for
burrowing owl. If any burrowing owls or sign of burrowing owls
are detected, the Wildlife Agencies (jointly, CDFW and USFWS)
shall be contacted; efforts shall be made to determine the
breeding status of the species on site, and whether it is safe
at that point to exclude burrowing owls from occupied
burrows. Active or passive relocation methods shall only be
employed with concurrence by CDFW and USFWS.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 610 of 1271
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 MMRP-7
Table 1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Agency Responsible for Monitoring Date of Completion
MM-BIO-8: Prior to approval of the first final map, the
Applicant shall submit a Landscape Master Plan for the entire
project which shall demonstrate compliance with the
proposed fence and wall plan for the project. The proposed
fence and wall plan shall include appropriate fencing and
barriers (e.g., vegetation) where applicable to shield human
presence and deter human intrusion into the Preserve.
Prior to construction City of Chula Vista
MM-BIO-9: Concurrent with design review and prior to
issuance of a building permit for any development located
adjacent to the Preserve, the Applicant shall prepare, a
lighting plan and photometric analysis for review and approval
the Development Services Director (or their designee). The
lighting plan shall illustrate the location of the proposed
lighting standards and type of shielding measures. Low-
pressure sodium lighting shall be used, if feasible, and shall
be subject to the approval of the Development Services
Director (or their designee).
Prior to construction City of Chula Vista
MM-BIO-10: Prior to approval of the first final map, the Applicant
shall submit a Landscape Master Plan for the entire project
which shall demonstrate compliance with the proposed plant
palette for the project. The proposed plant palette shall prohibit
invasive non‐native plant species on the California Exotic Pest
Plant Council List of Exotic Pest Plants of Greatest Ecological
Concern in California that could spread into the adjacent
Preserve. No invasive non-native plant species shall be
introduced into areas immediately adjacent to the preserve. All
slopes immediately adjacent to the Preserve shall be planted
with native species that reflect the adjacent native habitat.
Further, the proposed plant palette shall be consistent with the
plant list contained in the “Wildland/Urban Interface: Fuel
Modification Standards,” and provided as Appendix L of the
Subarea Plan, must be reviewed and utilized to the maximum
extent practicable when developing landscaping plans in areas
adjacent to the Preserve.
Prior to construction City of Chula Vista
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 611 of 1271
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 MMRP-8
Table 1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Agency Responsible for Monitoring Date of Completion
MM-BIO-11: To avoid habitat degradation to the adjacent
Preserve lands, project irrigation shall be contained to the
project development and fuel modification zones and shall not
drain or overspray resulting in potential
erosion/sedimentation, spread of invasive plant species,
and/or non‐native species such as Argentine ants.
During operation City of Chula Vista
MM-BIO-12: Prior to initiating any construction related
activities requiring a clearing and grubbing or grading permit,
the Applicant shall demonstrate how the project would avoid
or minimize applicable inadvertent impacts during
construction. To ensure the avoidance and minimization of
impacts to biological resources during construction the
following construction BMPs shall be implemented:
a. Prior to ground disturbance, all permanent and temporary
disturbance areas shall be clearly delineated by orange
construction fencing and the identification of
environmentally sensitive areas with flagging and/or fencing.
b. To minimize disturbance of areas outside the project site,
all construction and operation vehicle traffic shall be
restricted to established roads, construction areas, and
other designated areas. These areas shall be included in
pre‐construction surveys and, to the extent possible, shall
be established in locations disturbed by previous activities
to prevent further impacts.
c. Construction and operation vehicles shall observe
appropriate safe speed limits and adhere to safety
practices.
d. Dust suppression shall occur during construction activities
when necessary to meet air quality standards and protect
biological resources.
e. No vehicles or equipment shall be refueled or undergo
maintenance within 100 feet of a jurisdictional waters
feature. Spill kits shall be maintained on the site in
sufficient quantity to accommodate at least three
complete vehicle tank failures of 50 gallons each. Any
Prior to construction City of Chula Vista
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 612 of 1271
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 MMRP-9
Table 1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Agency Responsible for Monitoring Date of Completion
vehicles driven or operated within or adjacent to
drainages or wetlands shall be checked and maintained
daily to prevent leaks of contaminated fluids.
f. All general trash, food‐related trash items (wrappers,
cans, bottles, food scraps, cigarettes, etc.), and other
human‐generated debris scheduled to be removed shall
be stored in animal‐proof containers and removed from
the site on a regular basis (weekly during construction,
and at least monthly during operations). No deliberate
feeding of wildlife shall be allowed.
g. Use of chemicals, fuels, lubricants, or biocides shall
comply with all local, state, and federal regulations. All
uses of such compounds shall observe label and other
restrictions mandated by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, California Department of Food and
Agriculture, and other state and federal legislation. Use of
first‐and second‐ generation rodenticides shall not be
permitted except for the limited use of zinc phosphide, or
a rodenticide approved by the City, and only after other
means of pest control (e.g. rodent traps) have proven to
be ineffective.
MM-BIO-13: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, prior to
vegetation clearing, grubbing, grading, or any ground
disturbing activities, the Applicant shall submit evidence to
the City that the Applicant has retained qualified biologists to
prepare a Worker Environmental Awareness Program that
shall be presented to all construction personnel and
employees before any ground‐disturbing activities commence
at the project site and shall be continued through the
construction phase for all new construction personnel. The
program shall consist of a brief presentation going over the
on-site sensitive biological resources and compliance with
project impact and open space boundaries, and applicable
environmental laws and requirements with all personnel
involved in the project. This presentation shall explain to
Prior to construction City of Chula Vista
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 613 of 1271
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 MMRP-10
Table 1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Agency Responsible for Monitoring Date of Completion
construction personnel how best to avoid impacts sensitive
resources during construction. The program shall include a
description of all special status species potentially on the
project site and their habitat needs; an explanation of the
status of the species and their protection under the state and
federal regulations; specific mitigation measures applicable to
listed and other special status species; permit conditions, and
the penalties for violation of applicable laws. The program
shall also explain to construction personnel how to avoid
impacts to jurisdictional waters, including wetlands. The
program shall include a map and description of jurisdictional
waters on the site to be avoided and measures to implement
to ensure the protection and avoidance of jurisdictional
waters.
MM-BIO-14: Prior to initiating any construction related
activities requiring a clearing and grubbing or grading permit,
the Applicant shall prepare a revegetation plan for the
temporary impact areas within the 25-foot grading buffer in
the Minor Amendment Area that utilizes a native erosion
control hydroseed mix acceptable to the City and the Wildlife
Agencies (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California
Department of Fish and Wildlife) to ensure soil stability and
prevent subsequent erosion. The revegetation plan must be
prepared by a qualified City approved biologist familiar with
the City’s MSCP Subarea Plan and must include, but not be
limited to, an implementation plan; appropriate seed mixtures
and planting method; irrigation method; quantitative and
qualitative success criteria; maintenance, monitoring, and
reporting program; estimated completion time; and
contingency measures. The Project Applicant shall be required
to prepare and implement the revegetation plan subject to the
oversight and approval of the Development Services Director
(or their designee).The proposed project MSCP BLA and Minor
Amendment would require implementation of the following
mitigation measure.
Prior to construction City of Chula Vista
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 614 of 1271
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 MMRP-11
Table 1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Agency Responsible for Monitoring Date of Completion
MM-BIO-15: Prior to initiating any construction related
activities requiring a clearing and grubbing or grading permit,
the Applicant shall receive approval by the City and Wildlife
Agencies for the MSCP BLA. The Applicant shall be required to
implement conditions associated with the BLA subject to the
oversight and approval of the Development Services Director
(or their designee).
Prior to construction City of Chula Vista
MM-BIO-16: Prior to initiating any construction related
activities requiring a clearing and grubbing or grading permit,
the Applicant shall receive approval by the City and Wildlife
Agencies for the MSCP Minor Amendment. The Applicant shall
be required to implement conditions associated with the
Minor Amendment subject to the oversight and approval of
the Development Services Director (or their designee).
Prior to construction City of Chula Vista
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
MM-CUL-1:
a. Prior to beginning construction activities, the project
archaeologist and Native American representative shall
attend any pertinent preconstruction meetings with the
construction manager and/or grading contractor in order
to provide recommendations and answer questions
relating to the archaeological monitoring program. The
project archaeologist shall be familiar with the cultural
inventory conducted for the current project and shall be
prepared to introduce any pertinent information
concerning expectations and probabilities of discovery
during ground-disturbing activities. Prior to the initiation of
construction, the cultural consultant shall acquire all
evaluation information and the draft evaluation report, if a
report was prepared.
b. Both an archaeological monitor familiar with local
resources and a Native American monitor shall be
present full time during the initial disturbance of soil
with potential to contain cultural deposits. All areas of
Prior to and during
construction
City of Chula Vista
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 615 of 1271
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 MMRP-12
Table 1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Agency Responsible for Monitoring Date of Completion
initial project-related subsurface distur bance shall be
assumed to have the potential to contain cultural
deposits. Monitoring of initial ground disturbance shall
not exceed a depth of 5 feet (1.5 meters) unless cultural
resources are identified or if, through direct inspection
of subsurface exposures by the project Archaeologist,
an area is observed to have the potential to support the
presence of archaeological deposits at greater depths.
Cultural resources monitoring may be reduced from
initial full-time monitoring to periodic spot checks, or
discontinued if appropriate, once the project
archaeologist determines that there is little or no risk of
encountering cultural material.
c. Daily archaeological and Native American monitoring logs
shall be prepared. Logs shall include monitor names and
affiliations, a description of general activities observed,
cultural discoveries, as well as comments or concerns as
applicable.
d. In the event of an archaeological discovery, and when
requested by the archaeological monitor or Native American
monitor, the resident contractor will divert, redirect, or
temporarily halt ground disturbing activities in the area of
discovery or impacts to allow for preliminary inspection of
potentially significant archaeological resources or impacts.
The significance of the discovered resources or impacts shall
be determined by the archaeologist, in consultation with the
City of Chula Vista (City). For significant cultural resources, a
Research Design and Data Recovery Program shall be
prepared and carried out to mitigate impacts before grading
activities in the area of discovery shall be allowed to resume.
e. The project archaeologist shall be responsible for
ensuring that all cultural materials collected will be
cleaned, catalogued, and curated permanently with an
appropriate institution; that a letter of acceptance from
the curation institution has been submitted to the City;
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 616 of 1271
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 MMRP-13
Table 1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Agency Responsible for Monitoring Date of Completion
that all artifacts are analyzed to identify function and
chronology as they relate to the history of the area; that
faunal material will be identified as to species; and that
specialty studies are completed, as appropriate. The
project archaeologist shall make a good-faith effort to
ensure that all archaeological material collected through
previous work is appropriately curated with any material
recovered through construction monitoring.
f. If human remains are discovered, work shall halt in that area
and procedures set forth in the California Public Resources
Code (Section 5097.98) and State Health and Safety Code
(Section 7050.5) shall be followed by the archaeological
monitor after notification to the County Coroner by the project
Archaeologist. If Native American remains are present, the
County Coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage
Commission to designate a Most Likely Descendant, who
shall arrange for the dignified disposition and treatment of
the remains.
g. Within 3 months following the completion of monitoring,
two copies of a monitoring results report (even if negative)
and/or evaluation report, if applicable, that describes the
results, analysis, and conclusions of the archaeological
monitoring program (with appropriate graphics) shall be
submitted to City.
h. For significant archaeological resources encountered
during monitoring, the Research Design and Data
Recovery Program shall be included as part of the final
evaluation monitoring report. Two copies of the final
monitoring report for significant archaeological resources,
if required, shall be submitted to the City. This final
monitoring report should also incorporate a summary of
the evaluation results and analyses previously conducted
within the project area.
i. The archaeologist shall be responsible for recording (on the
appropriate CA DPR 523 Series forms) any significant or
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 617 of 1271
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 MMRP-14
Table 1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Agency Responsible for Monitoring Date of Completion
potentially significant resources encountered during the
archaeological monitoring program in accordance with
Section 106 and the City’s Cultural Resources Guidelines,
and submittal of such forms to the South Coastal
Information Center at San Diego State University with the
final monitoring results report.
Geology and Soils
MM-GEO-1: Paleontological Monitoring Program. 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-
grading meeting shall be held that shall include 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., Otay Formation and
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., unnamed river terrace deposits and the
Mission Valley Formation) to inspect cuts for contained fossils.
However, neither of these rock units have been mapped
within the project area of potential effect (APE) and are
therefore not anticipated to be impacted during construction.
The monitor shall be on site on at least a quarter-time basis
during the original cutting of previously undisturbed sediments
of low sensitivity geologic formations (e.g., Lindavista Formation
Prior to and during
construction
City of Chula Vista
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 618 of 1271
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 MMRP-15
Table 1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Agency Responsible for Monitoring Date of Completion
and Santiago Peak Volcanics [metasedimentary portion only])
to inspect cuts for contained fossils. However, these deposits
have not been mapped within the project APE and are
therefore not anticipated to be impacted during construction.
The monitor shall periodically (every several weeks) inspect
original cuts in deposits with an unknown resource sensitivity
(i.e., Quaternary alluvium).
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
(i.e., Santiago Peak Volcanics, metavolcanic portion).
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.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 619 of 1271
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 MMRP-16
Table 1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Agency Responsible for Monitoring Date of Completion
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
MM-GHG-1: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Measures.
The following GHG emissions reduction measures shall be
implemented:
• Off-road construction equipment with engines rated at 75
horsepower or greater shall meet at a minimum Tier 3
standard.
• Install purple pipes to provide reclaimed water for outdoor
water use.
• Install low-flow water fixtures such as low-flow toilets,
faucets, showers, etc.
• Two parking spaces shall be pre-wired for electric vehicle
(EV) capable and designated as preferential parking spaces
shall be provided for carpool, shared, electric, and hydrogen
vehicles.
• 718 parking garages shall be pre-wired to be EV capable.
• Energy-efficient lighting shall be used for all street,
parking, and area lighting associated with the proposed
project, including all on-site and off-site lighting.
• Energy-efficient design practices, such as high-
performance glazing, Energy Star compliant systems and
appliances, radiant heat roof barriers, insulation on all
pipes, programmable thermostats, and sealed ducts, shall
be implemented.
• Native species and drought-tolerant species shall be used
for a minimum of 50% of the ornamental plant palette in
non-turf areas to minimize water demand.
• Recycling of construction debris and waste shall be
ensured through administration by an on- site recycling
coordinator and presence of recycling/separation areas.
Exceed the City of Chula Vista’s Construction and
Demolition Debris Waste Management Plan’s 65%
diversion of construction and demolition waste.
During construction and
operation
City of Chula Vista
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 620 of 1271
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 MMRP-17
Table 1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Agency Responsible for Monitoring Date of Completion
• Install cool roofs that meet the U.S. Green Building
Council standards with a greater solar reflectivity to help
conserve energy.
• Install 1,462-kilowatt solar photovoltaic system meeting the
minimum 2019 Title 24 standards.
• Install bicycle racks.
• The project shall plant 600 trees and 40 acres of shrubs.
Public Services/Recreation
MM-PS-1: Prior to the issuance of each building permit for any
residential dwelling units, the applicant shall pay a Public
Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFDIF) in accordance with
the fees in effect at the time of building permit issuance and
phasing approved in the Supplemental Public Facilities
Finance Plan, unless stated otherwise in a separate
development agreement.
Prior to construction City of Chula Vista
MM-PS-2: Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the
applicant shall provide evidence or certification by the Chula
Vista Elementary School District (CVESD) and the Sweetwater
Union High School District (SUHSD) that any fee charge,
dedication or other requirement levied by the school district(s)
has been complied with or that the district(s) has determined
the fee, charge, dedication or other requirements do not apply
to the construction or that the applicant has entered into a
school mitigation agreement. School facility mitigation fees
shall be in accordance with the fees in effect at the time of
building permit issuance.
Prior to construction City of Chula Vista
MM-PS-3: No earlier than issuance of certificate of occupancy,
the applicant shall pay the Park Benefit Fee, as outlined in the
project’s Development Agreement, equal to the City’s Park
Acquisition and Development (PAD) Fee Update pursuant to
Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 17.10. The final Park
Benefit Fee amount shall be determined based on the number
and type of residential units constructed and the PAD fee
rates in effect as of the effective date of the project’s
Prior to construction City of Chula Vista
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 621 of 1271
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 MMRP-18
Table 1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Agency Responsible for Monitoring Date of Completion
Development Agreement. To create this Park Benefit Fee, the
City will waive the parkland dedication and development
requirements set in Chapter 17.10 of the Chula Vista
Municipal Code, including the Parkland Acquisition and Public
Facilities Development fees, and Quimby Act fees. The Park
Benefit Fee shall satisfy the project’s park obligations and
may be utilized by the City to acquire or develop parkland, as
the City determines appropriate and in the best interest of the
City.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 622 of 1271
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 MMRP-19
Table 1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Agency Responsible for Monitoring Date of Completion
Wildfire/Hazards and Hazardous Materials
MM-WF-1:
Site Access
Site access, including fire lane, driveway, and entrance road
widths, primary and secondary access, gates, turnarounds,
dead end lengths, signage, aerial fire apparatus access,
surface, and other requirements will comply with the
requirements of the 2019 California Fire Code and the Chula
Vista Fire Department (CVFD) Standards. Fire access will be
reviewed and approved by CVFD prior to construction (see the
FPP, Appendix H3, for additional details).
The developer will provide information illustrating the new
roads, in a format acceptable to the City, for updating of City
maps.
Ignition Resistant Construction
All new structures within the Proposed Project will be
constructed to at least the California Fire Code standard. Each
of the proposed buildings will comply with the enhanced
ignition-resistant construction standards of the 2019 CBC
(Chapter 7A) and Chapter 5 of the Urban-Wildland Interface
code, except where buildings require enhanced ignition
resistance as part of an alternative material and method
proposal. These requirements address roofs, eaves, exterior
walls, vents, appendages, windows, and doors and result in
hardened structures that have been proven to perform at high
levels (resist ignition) during the typically short duration of
exposure to burning vegetation from wildfires (see the FPP,
Appendix H3, for additional details).
Fire Protection Systems
1. Water supply requirements specified in the California Fire
Code (see FPP, Appendix H3, for additional details)
During construction and
operation
City of Chula Vista
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 623 of 1271
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 MMRP-20
Table 1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Agency Responsible for Monitoring Date of Completion
including for hydrants and interior sprinklers will be
provided for the proposed project.
2. Hydrants shall be located along fire access roadways and
cul-de-sacs as determined by the CVFD Fire Marshal to meet
operational needs. Hydrants will be consistent with CVFD
Design Standards and provided every 500 feet (on-center).
3. All structures within the Proposed Project will include
interior sprinklers, per code requirements (see FPP,
Appendix H3, for additional details). Sprinklers will be
specific to each occupancy type and based on the most
recent National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 13,
13R, or 13D, requirements.
4. All residential units shall have a fire alarm system be
installed in accordance with NFPA 72, Fire Protection
Signaling System and CVFD requirements. The fire alarm
system will be supervised by a third-party alarm company.
The system will be tested annually, or as needed, with test
results provided to CVFD.
Additionally, all residences will be equipped with residential
smoke detectors and carbon monoxide detectors and comply
with current CBC, CFC, and California Residential Code
standards.
All residential dwelling units shall have electric-powered, hard-
wired smoke detectors with battery backup per CVFD.
Defensible Space and Vegetation Management
Fuel Modification Zones (FMZs) would be located on the
perimeter of all structures and along both ingress/egress
roadways to and from Olympic Parkway. All brush
management zones and related fuel modification activities
shall occur outside of the Preserve. FMZs shall be a minimum
of 100 feet in width. A 100-foot-wide FMZ will be installed for
lots abutting designated Preserve Lands to the north and west
of the Project Site. To ensure long-term identification and
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 624 of 1271
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 MMRP-21
Table 1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Agency Responsible for Monitoring Date of Completion
maintenance, each respective FMZ shall be identified by a
permanent marker system meeting the approval of CVFD.
Other Vegetation Management
1. New roads will be subject to fuel modification zones with
Zone 1 and/or Zone 2 standards described above. The
combustible vegetation will be modified within 30 feet
from each side of Streets A and B. Roadway-adjacent fuel
modification does not preclude the planting of street trees
in these fuel modification zones, as long as they are not
found on the Prohibited Plant List (Appendix D of the FPP)
and are included in the Approved Plant Palette (Appendix
C of the FPP).
2. Pre-Construction Requirements:
o Perimeter fuel modification areas must be implemented
and approved by the CVFD prior to combustible
materials being brought on site.
o Existing flammable vegetation shall be reduced by 50%
on vacant lots upon commencement of construction.
o Dead fuel, ladder fuel (fuel which can spread fire from
ground to trees), and downed fuel shall be removed, and
trees/shrubs shall be properly limbed, pruned, and
spaced per this plan.
1. Undesirable Plants. Certain plants are considered to be
undesirable in the landscape due to characteristics that
make them highly flammable. These characteristics can
be physical (structure promotes ignition or combustion) or
chemical (volatile chemicals increase flammability or
combustion characteristics). The plants included in the
Prohibited Plant List (Appendix D of Appendix H3, FPP) are
unacceptable from a fire safety standpoint and will not be
planted on the site or allowed to establish
opportunistically within fuel modification zones or
landscaped areas. No fuel modification zones are
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 625 of 1271
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 MMRP-22
Table 1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Agency Responsible for Monitoring Date of Completion
proposed within the MSCP areas, thus no vegetation
within the MSCP will be removed.
2. Tree Notes for Publicly Owned Areas.
The project shall maintain all trees in publicly owned areas,
per the project's FPP. These requirements include, but are not
limited to (see Appendix H3 for additional details):
• All standard form (single trunk) trees to include a single
strong central leader with no branches extending at an
angle narrower than 30 degrees from the main trunk. If
the tree does not display a single strong central leader, a
tree may be approved if the Developer’s arborist or
landscape architect of record can demonstrate that a
single strong central leader can be achieved through
structural pruning.
• No grafted species that sucker from the base stock will be
allowed as a street tree.
1. Vacant Parcels and Lots
The project shall comply with requirements of the project's
FPP related to vacant parcels and lots. These requirements
include, but are not limited to:
• Vegetation management would not be required on vacant
lots until construction begins. However, perimeter FMZs
must be implemented prior to commencement of
construction utilizing combustible materials.
• Vacant lots adjacent to active construction areas/lots
would be required to implement vegetation management
if they are within 50 feet of the active construction area.
Perimeter areas of the vacant lot would be maintained as
a vegetation management zone extending 50 feet from
roadways and adjacent construction areas.
• Prior to issuance of a permit for any construction, grading,
digging, installation of fences, etc., on a vacant lot, the 50
feet at the perimeter of the lot is to be maintained as a
vegetation management zone.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 626 of 1271
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 MMRP-23
Table 1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Agency Responsible for Monitoring Date of Completion
• FMZ on slope L&I does not have to be completed prior to
construction starting, but all flammable vegetation and
plants found on the Prohibited Plant List, needs to
grubbed and graded or mowed prior to any construction.
Fuel Modification Area Vegetation Maintenance
All fuel modification area vegetation management shall be
completed annually by May 1 of each year and more often as
needed for fire safety, as determined by the CVFD.
Annual Fuel Modification Area Vegetation Maintenance
The property owner would obtain an FMZ inspection and
report from a qualified CVFD-approved 3rd party inspector in
May of each year certifying that vegetation management
activities throughout the Project Site have been performed
pursuant to this FPP. A copy of the annual inspection report
would be provided to the proposed project homeowner
association (HOA) and a copy made available to CVFD, if
requested.
Reduced Fuel Modification Zone Discussion
Due to site constraints, it is not feasible to achieve a 100-foot
FMZ width on the south side of the proposed development.
This FPP incorporates additional fire protection measures as
described in this mitigation measure that shall be
implemented to compensate for potential fire related threats.
These measures were customized for this site based on the
analysis results and focus on providing functional equivalency
for reduced defensible space.
Landscape and Building Hardening.
1. Provide exterior glazing in windows (and sliding glass
doors, garage doors, or decorative or leaded glass doors)
facing the open space areas to be dual pane with both
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 627 of 1271
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 MMRP-24
Table 1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Agency Responsible for Monitoring Date of Completion
panes tempered glass, exceeding the fire-building code
requirement.
2. Ensure no eave overhangs and combustible construction
in portion of yards facing natural open space areas.
3. Install 1-hour rated walls (Type X- 5/8-inch thickness of
gypsum) behind non-combustible covering (stucco, fiber
cement siding) for a façade facing the open space areas to
the east and south.
4. Conduct a formal landscaping plan review for structures
with a façade facing open space area. Landscape plans
shall be reviewed and approved by the Chula Vista Fire
Department.
5. Annually hire a third-party inspector to evaluate whether
designated fuel modification zone areas meet the
requirements of the project Fire Protection Plan.
6. Provide a non-combustible fire-rated 6-foot-tall masonry
block or view wall at the property line on the south and
east sides of the proposed project to provide a physical,
non-combustible barrier that would deflect heat and flame
and would capture ground-blowing embers before they
reached the proposed project’s developed areas.
The proposed project’s slopes to the south provide an
opportunity to place a non-combustible, 6-foot-tall, heat-
deflecting wall (or view wall with lower 1 to 2 feet block wall
and upper 4 to 5 feet dual-pane, one pane tempered glazing)
to provide additional deflection for these lots to compensate
for the reduced fuel modification zones. The wall shall meet
any of the following specifications:
• Be constructed of multi-pane glazing with a minimum of
one tempered pane meeting the requirements of Section
2406 Safety Glazing, or
• Have a fire-resistance rating of not less than 20 minutes
when tested according to NFPA 257, or
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 628 of 1271
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project EIR 12612
July 2021 MMRP-25
Table 1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Agency Responsible for Monitoring Date of Completion
• Be tested to meet the performance requirements of SFM
Standard 12-7A-2.
Homeowner’s Wildfire Education Program
Per the FPP, the proposed project’s residents shall be
provided a proactive educational component disclosing the
potential wildfire risk and this report’s requirements as part of
their purchase documents. Property owners shall be required
to sign notice of receiving this information during escrow. This
educational information must include maintaining the
landscape and structural components according to the
appropriate standards and embracing a “Ready, Set, Go”
stance on evacuation.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 629 of 1271
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment”
DISTRICT 11
4050 TAYLOR STREET, MS-240
SAN DIEGO, CA 92110
(619) 709-5152 | FAX (619) 688-4299 TTY 711
www.dot.ca.gov
June 16, 2021
11-SD- I-805
PM 4.4
Sunbow II, Phase 3 DEIR
SCH #2020110148
Ms. Stacey Kurz
Senior Project Coordinator
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Dear Ms. Kurz:
Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the
environmental review process for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Draft Environmental Impact
Report (DEIR). The proposed project is located near Olympic Parkway and Interstate
805 (I-805). The mission of Caltrans is to provide a safe, sustainable, integrated, and
efficient transportation system to enhance California’s economy and livability. The
Local Development-Intergovernmental Review (LD-IGR) Program reviews land use
projects and plans to ensure consistency with our mission and state planning priorities.
Caltrans has the following comments:
Traffic
A significant VMT impact was identified in the project’s March 2021-
Transportation Impact Analysis (TIS). The TIS proposes the use of an Adaptive
Traffic Signal Control (ATSC) as one of the project’s mitigations. Caltrans
recommends that the ATSC be implemented as a mitigation instead of only
contributing towards a fair share.
Verification with Caltrans Signal Operations branch will be required to ensure the
proposed Adaptive Traffic Signal Control (ATSC) mitigation method will function
as proposed at intersection number 1- Orange Avenue/I-805 Southbound
Ramps and intersection number 2 - Olympic Parkway/I-805 Northbound Ramps.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 630 of 1271
Ms. Stacey Kurz
June 16, 2021
Page 2
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment”
The project will produce substantial impacts at intersection 1 and 2. If the signals
are already optimized, and if the ATSC will not be implemented or will not
function as a proposed mitigation, Caltrans recommends other improvements.
Please consider the following:
- Extend the left turn lanes for the southbound I-805 off-ramp to E. Orange
Avenue at intersection number 1.
- Extend the right turn lanes at the northbound I-805 off-ramp to Olympic
Parkway at intersection number 2.
- Both improvements would add storage for the additional trips being
generated from the project.
As part of the TIS, please provide an existing storage and queue length table for
all scenarios at intersections 1 and 2. (existing, existing + project, existing +
project + cumulative, near-term 2024 and long-term 2035). See table below as
an example.
Signal Operations
The signal timing sheets marked ‘Do Not Duplicate’ are not to be duplicated or
included in the report. They need to be removed from the TIS, and any copies
needed should be requested from Caltrans.
The Traffic Impact Analysis needs to show the impact to the I-805 off ramps with
the proposed adaptive system. Adaptive systems do not add capacity, so the
report must include the additional capacity needed and how this storage will
be obtained. Also, please add a discussion of whether the segment is saturated
and how these conditions will be mitigated.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 631 of 1271
Ms. Stacey Kurz
June 16, 2021
Page 3
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment”
Complete Streets and Mobility Network
The City of Chula Vista Active Transportation Plan, approved in May 2020,
identifies class II bicycle lanes for Orange Avenue and Olympic Parkway.
The existing conditions for active transportation infrastructure at Orange
Avenue/Olympic Parkway and I-805 interchange includes transverse crosswalk
markings and narrow shoulders that are not clearly marked as bicycle lanes.
There are improvements that will enhance the pedestrian and bicycle
infrastructure at this location and that will also complement the traffic signal
improvements.
These active transportation improvements at the Orange Avenue/Olympic
Parkway and I-805 interchange include (but are not limited to):
- Pedestrian and bicycle signage
- Enhanced visibility crosswalks
- Lane width reductions and other roadway striping reconfigurations to
create wider class II bicycle lanes and improved bicycle facility
approaches to the interchange
- Bicycle detection at traffic signals
- Green pavement markings for bicycle lanes
Right-of-Way
Any work performed within Caltrans’ Right-of-Way (R/W) will require
discretionary review and approval by Caltrans and an encroachment permit will
be required for any work within the Caltrans’ R/W prior to construction.
If you have any questions, please contact Roger Sanchez at (619) 987-1043 or by email
at roger.sanchez-rangel@dot.ca.gov.
Sincerely,
Maurice A. Eaton
MAURICE EATON
Branch Chief
Local Development and Intergovernmental Review
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 632 of 1271
Responses to Caltrans Letter on Sunbow II, Phase 3 Environmental Impact Report, dated June 16, 2021
Traffic and Signal Operations
This comment states that the project’s Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) identifies a significant vehicle
miles travelled (VMT) impact. The comment further states that use of adaptive traffic signal control (ATSC)
is proposed as mitigation. As discussed in the TIA, the project would exceed the VMT threshold by 1.4%
(refer to Table 5-1 of the TIA). However, through implementation of CAPCOA measure LUT-1: Increase
Density, the project VMT calculated via the proxy site would be reduced by 8%, thereby reducing project
VMT below the significance threshold. The TIA does not propose ATSC as mitigation for VMT impacts.
The CEQA Guidelines and relevant case law provide that: “a lead agency for a project has the authority to
require feasible changes in any or all activities involved in the project in order to substantially lessen or
avoid significant effects on the environment, consistent with applicable constitutional requirement such
as the ‘nexus’ and ‘rough proportionality’ standards established by case law.” CEQA Guidelines 15041. See
also Nollan v. California Coastal Comm’n 483 U.S. 825 (1987) and Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374
(19194). Cities cannot include the cost attributable to existing deficiencies in public facilities but may
include the cost attributable to the increased demand for public facilities reasonably related to the
development project. (Gov’t Code Section 66001(g).) The City cannot require the entire ATSC to be
installed by the applicant or the other improvements listed in the letter because the project's effects are
resolved by the applicant's payment of the TDIF fees. There is no nexus for the conditions requested by
Caltrans and therefore cannot be legally imposed by the City.
CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, which implements SB 743, establishes VMT as the most appropriate
measure of transportation impacts, resulting in a shift away from the level of service (LOS) analysis that
evaluated a project's impacts on traffic conditions and traffic delay on nearby roadways and intersections.
SB 743 stated that upon certification of the CEQA Guidelines by the California Natural Resources Agency,
"automobile delay, as described solely by LOS or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic
congestion, shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment" pursuant to CEQA. See CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.3 that specifically establishes that a project's effect on automobile delay shall
not constitute a significant environmental impact. Under CEQA a significant impact must exist for
mitigation to be required. Intersection delay does not constitute a significant impact, therefore the ATSC
(and the other Caltrans suggested conditions) cannot be mitigation measures.
As part of the TIA, a project -specific Local Mobility Analysis (LMA) was prepared that focuses on
automobile delay/LOS. The LOS analysis was conducted to id entify roadway deficiencies in the project
study area and recommend project improvements to address such deficiency. The LMA was prepared
for existing plus project conditions, near -term without project conditions, near -term with project
conditions, and year 2035 conditions. The City’s goal for acceptable levels of service is generally LOS D
or better at signalized and unsignalized intersections and LOS C along roadway segments. The LMA is a
City requirement for transportation analysis that is not tied to CE QA; therefore, implementation of
measures to address LOS -related effects does not constitute CEQA mitigation.
The LMA determined that the project would result in effects associated with unacceptable LOS under the
General Plan LOS standards. While Olympic Parkway is built-out and the provision of additional lanes is
considered physically infeasible, it is recommended that payment of the City’s Transportation Development
Impact Fee (TDIF) should be applied towards other planned network enhancements included in the Eastern
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 633 of 1271
TDIF program that would reduce traffic on Olympic Parkway. The majority of the ADTs on Olympic Parkway
are lower under Year 2035 model conditions (which assumes buildout of the City’s General Plan Circulation
Element and includes Project traffic) as compared to the Existing ADTs, counted in January 2020. Table 17-1 of
the TIA shows that, on average, the Year 2035 traffic volumes are 6.1% lower as compared to the Existing ADTs,
which supports the assertation that the contribution of TDIF funds towards other planned network
enhancements included in the Eastern TDIF study will reduce the amount of traffic on Olympic Parkway,
thereby addressing the Project’s substantial cumulative effect identified in the LMA.
In addition, it is recommended that the project provide a fair share contribution toward the provision of ATSC
modules to each signalized intersection along the Olympic Parkway corridor between the I-805 Ramps and La
Media Road (refer to Appendix K for further details). These TDIF and other requirements associated with LOS
deficiencies would be included as part of the project’s conditions of approval, outside of this EIR. However, as
noted above, there is no nexus for installing the entire ATSC system or the other conditions requested by
Caltrans and therefore cannot be legally imposed by the City.
In light of the above discussion, neither the additional queueing analysis nor the requested physical ramp
improvements are within the scope of CEQA. As there is no significant CEQA impact resulting from this
project, the TIA does not need to include a queueing analysis of the I-805 off ramps. In summary, the
information and issues raised by this letter revolve around delay/LOS, which is no longer a valid measure
of impacts that are to be analyzed in a traffic study. See CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3.
Signal Operations
The signal timings sheets will be removed from the appendices.
Complete Streets and Mobility Network and Right-of-Way
These comments provide information and do no raise an issue regarding the adequacy of analysis
contained in the EIR or TIA.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 634 of 1271
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan
Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project
Environmental Impact Report
SCH No. 2020110148
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 91910
JULY 2021
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 635 of 1271
Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 636 of 1271
12612
i July 2021
Table of Contents
SECTION PAGE NO.
1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Purpose ................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1.1 Record of Proceedings ............................................................................................................. 2
1.1.2 Custodian and Location of Records ......................................................................................... 3
1.2 Project Description ................................................................................................................................. 3
1.2.1 Project Objectives ..................................................................................................................... 5
1.2.2 Discretionary Actions ................................................................................................................ 6
2 CEQA FINDINGS OF INDEPENDENT JUDGEMENT ........................................................................................ 7
2.1 Independent Review and Analysis ......................................................................................................... 7
2.2 Summary of Impacts .............................................................................................................................. 7
2.3 Impacts Determined to Be Significant and Unavoidable .................................................................... 8
2.3.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ..................................................................................................... 8
2.4 Impacts Determined to Be Less Than Significant with Mitigation .................................................... 12
2.4.1 Biological Resources ............................................................................................................. 13
2.4.2 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources ................................................................................. 26
2.4.3 Geology and Soils .................................................................................................................. 29
2.4.4 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ....................................................................................... 31
2.4.5 Public Services ....................................................................................................................... 36
2.4.6 Recreation .............................................................................................................................. 39
2.4.7 Wildfire ................................................................................................................................... 41
3 FINDINGS ON PROJECT ALTERNATIVES ...................................................................................................... 44
3.1 Alternatives Considered and Eliminated During the Scoping/Project Planning Process ................ 44
3.2 Alternatives Selected for Further Analysis ......................................................................................... 44
3.2.1 Alternative 1: No Project/No Build Alternative ..................................................................... 45
3.2.2 Alternative 2: Existing Land Use Designation Alternative .................................................... 46
3.2.3 Alternative 3: Reduced Development Alternative ................................................................ 47
3.2.4 Environmentally Superior Alternative ................................................................................... 48
4 GENERAL CEQA FINDINGS .......................................................................................................................... 49
4.1 Findings Regarding Recirculation ....................................................................................................... 49
4.2 Legal Effects of Findings ..................................................................................................................... 50
5 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................................ 51
6 CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................................. 54
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 637 of 1271
DRAFT FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
SUNBOW SPA PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT EIR
12612
ii July 2021
TABLE
Table 1. Sunbow II, Phase 3 Sectional Planning Area Plan Land Use Summary ........................................................... 4
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 638 of 1271
12612
1 July 2021
1 Introduction
This statement of Findings of Fact (Findings) addresses the environmental effects associated with the Sunbow
Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project (project or proposed project), as
described in the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) SCH No. 2020110148 (Final EIR) for the project. These
Findings are made pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources Code
[PRC] Section 21000 et seq.), specifically PRC Sections 21081, 21081.5, and 21081.6, and the CEQA Guidelines
(14 CCR 15000 et seq.), specifically Sections 15091 and 15093. The Final EIR examines the full range of potential
effects of construction and operation of the proposed project, identifies standard mitigation practices that could be
employed to reduce, minimize, or avoid those potential effects, and evaluates alternatives to the proposed project.
The Final EIR is incorporated into these Findings by reference.
1.1 Purpose
PRC Section 21081, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 require that the lead agency, in this case the City of Chula Vista
(City), prepare written findings for identified significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each
finding. Specifically, CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 states, in part, that:
a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified
which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public
agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied
by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are:
1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid
or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.
2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public
agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such
other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision
of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation
measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR.
In accordance with PRC Section 21081, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, whenever significant effects cannot
be mitigated to below a level of significance, the decision‐making agency is required to balance, as applicable, the
benefits of the project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the
project. If the benefits of a project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse effects
may be considered “acceptable.” In that case, the decision-making agency may prepare and adopt a Statement of
Overriding Considerations, pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines.
Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines states the following:
a) CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal,
social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable
environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic,
legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 639 of 1271
DRAFT FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
SUNBOW SPA PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT EIR
12612
2 July 2021
adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered
“acceptable.”
b) When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant
effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the
agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the Final EIR
and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be
supported by substantial evidence in the record.
c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included
in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination.
This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant
to Section 15091.
The Final EIR for the project identified potentially significant effects that could result from the proposed project. The
City finds that the inclusion of certain mitigation measures as part of the approval of the proposed project would
reduce most, but not all, of those effects to less-than‐significant levels. Those impacts that are not reduced to less‐
than‐significant levels are identified and overridden due to specific benefits of the project (see Section 5, Statement
of Overriding Considerations).
As required by CEQA, the City, in adopting these Findings, also adopts a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (MMRP) for the proposed project. The City finds that the MMRP, which is incorporated by reference and
made part of these Findings, meets the requirements of PRC Section 21081.6 by providing for the implementation
and monitoring of measures intended to mitigate potentially significant effects of the proposed project.
In accordance with the CEQA Statutes and Guidelines, the City adopts these Findings for the proposed project.
Pursuant to PRC Section 21082.1(c)(3), the City also finds that these Findings reflect the City’s independent
judgment as the lead agency for the proposed project.
1.1.1 Record of Proceedings
For the purposes of CEQA, the Findings herein set forth the record of proceedings for the proposed project both oral
and written and consist of those items listed in CEQA Section 21167.6(e), along with other miscellaneous items
contained within the City’s files that are relevant to the consideration of the proposed project. The record of
proceedings for the City’s decision on the proposed project consists of the following documents, at a minimum and
without limitation, which are incorporated by reference and made part of the record supporting these Findings:
• The Notice of Preparation, Notice of Availability, and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction
with the proposed project.
• Comments received on the NOP.
• The Draft EIR for the proposed project and all technical appendices and documents relied upon or
incorporated by reference.
• All written comments submitted by agencies, organizations, and members of the public during the public
review comment period on the Draft EIR, and the City’s responses to those comments.
• The Final EIR for the proposed project.
• The MMRP for the proposed project.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 640 of 1271
DRAFT FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
SUNBOW SPA PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT EIR
12612
3 July 2021
• All reports, studies, memoranda, maps, staff reports, and other planning documents relating to the
proposed project prepared by the City or consultants to the City with respect to the City’s compliance with
the requirements of CEQA.
• All documents submitted to the City by other public agencies and members of the public in connection with
the Draft and Final EIR.
• Minutes and verbatim transcripts of all information sessions, public meetings, and public hearings held by
the City in connection with the proposed project.
• Documentary or other evidence submitted to the City at such information sessions, public meetings, and
public hearings.
• All resolutions adopted by the City regarding the proposed project, and all staff reports, analyses, and
summaries related to the adoption of those resolutions.
• Matters of common knowledge related to the proposed project, including, but not limited to, federal, state,
and local laws and regulations.
• Any documents expressly cited in these Findings, in addition to those cited above, and any other materials
required for the Record of Proceedings by CEQA Section 21167.6(e).
1.1.2 Custodian and Location of Records
The documents and other materials that constitute the Record of Proceedings for the City’s actions related to the
project are located at the City of Chula Vista, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California 91910. The City is the
custodian of the Record of Proceedings for the proposed project.
1.2 Project Description
The proposed project is primarily a residential project with associated infrastructure and open space areas. The
proposed land uses are summarized in Table 1 and shown in Figure 4-2, Proposed Chula Vista General Plan Land
Use; Figure 4.3, Proposed Sunbow General Development Plan Land Use; and Figure 4-4, Proposed Sunbow II, Phase
3 SPA Plan Land Use, all included in Chapter 4, Project Description, of the Final EIR. Development would be centered
within the southeastern portion of the site. The approximately 67.5-acre development area would be composed of
44.2 acres of residential uses to include 718 multi-family residential units, a 0.9-acre Community Purpose Facility
(CPF), 5.9 acres of public streets, 4.3 acres of Poggi Creek conservation easements, 16.5 acres of manufactured
slopes and basins, and a 0.3-acre wetland avoidance area. Approximately 63.6 acres designated MSCP Preserve
are also within the project site. Under the proposed project, the Industrial Park area (Planning Area 23) would be
modified to Medium-High and High Residential, Community Purpose Facility, Open Space and Open Space Preserve
land uses (see Figures 4-2 and 4-3 of the Final EIR). Direct access to the project site would be provided by two
proposed public streets, Street A and Street B. Street A would extend south from Olympic Parkway, through the
project site, and then curve to the east and connect with Street B. Street B would also extend south from the eastern
portion of Olympic Parkway, adjacent to the project site.
The proposed project also includes a Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Plan (MSCP) Boundary Adjustment
(BLA), an MSCP Minor Amendment Area for off-site grading and other off-site grading impacts. The BLA would
implement minor adjustments to the development limits and the adjacent open space and MSCP open space
preserve areas. The applicant is also requesting an MSCP Minor Amendment to allow off-site temporary project
impacts that would encroach 25 feet onto City’s property and within this Minor Amendment Area. This off-site area
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 641 of 1271
DRAFT FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
SUNBOW SPA PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT EIR
12612
4 July 2021
would result in the installation of permanent buttressing; however, the impacts from grading would be temporary
as this area would be return to its original condition. These areas are intended to remain unimproved and/or
restored and their use strictly limited consistent with the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan.
Table 1. Sunbow II, Phase 3 Sectional Planning Area Plan Land Use Summary
Land Use Planning Area Units Gross Acres Target Density
Residential
Multi-Family (Medium-High) Residential – 13–16 du/ac
MF R-1 131 8.5 15.4
MF R-2 73 4.6 15.8
MF R-3 108 8.1 13.3
MF R-4 118 8.2 14.4
MF R-5 104 7.0 14.7
Multi-Family Medium-High Residential Subtotal 534 36.5 14.7a
Multi-Family (High) Residential – 24.1 du/ac
MF R-6 184 7.6 24.1
Multi-Family High Residential Subtotal 184 7.6 24.1
Residential Total 718 44.2 16.3a
Other
Community Purpose Facility (CPF)
CPF CPF — 0.9 —
CPF Subtotal — 0.9 —
Other Total — 0.9 —
Open Space
MPCP Open Space Preserve (OS)
OS OS-1 — 42.8 —
OS OS-2 — 10.0 —
OS OS-3 — 9.6 —
OS OS-9b — 1.1 —
MSCP Open Space Preserve Subtotal — 63.6 —
Poggi Creek Conservation Easement
OS OS-4 — 2.6 —
OS OS-5 — 0.7 —
OS OS-6a — 1.0 —
OS OS-6b — 0.1 —
Poggi Creek Conservation Easement Subtotal — 4.3 —
Manufactured Slopes/Basins
OS OS-7 — 3.2 —
OS OS-8 — 0.5 —
OS OS-9a — 0.5 —
OS OS-10 — 4.9 —
OS OS-11 — 1.3 —
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 642 of 1271
DRAFT FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
SUNBOW SPA PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT EIR
12612
5 July 2021
Table 1. Sunbow II, Phase 3 Sectional Planning Area Plan Land Use Summary
Land Use Planning Area Units Gross Acres Target Density
OS OS-12 — 1.6 —
OS OS-13 — 4.6 —
Manufactured Slopes/Basins Subtotal — 16.5 —
Wetland Avoidance Area
OS OS-14 — 0.3 —
Wetland Avoidance Area Subtotal — 0.3 —
Open Space Total — 84.7 —
Circulation
Public Streetsb Circulation — 5.9 —
Circulation Subtotal — 5.9 —
Circulation Total — 5.9 —
All Land Use Types – Summary
All Land Use Types Total — 135.7 —
Notes: du/ac = dwelling units per acre; MSCP = Multiple Species Conservation Program.
Subtotals and totals may not sum precisely due to rounding.
a Target density represents the average densities proposed.
b The acreages for all proposed private streets are included as a part of the residential portion.
1.2.1 Project Objectives
Following are the objectives of the proposed project:
1. Develop a pedestrian-oriented community on an underutilized site with a range of residential uses, open
space and MSCP Preserve areas, and recreational opportunities, which are compatible with the adjacent
established residential communities.
2. Contribute to the growing housing needs of the City and the region by providing for multi -family housing
units with a range of housing types to accommodate a spectrum of demographics.
3. Preserve portions of the project site as permanent open space and increase MSCP Preserve Areas.
4. Provide pedestrian and bicycle facilities, including a pedestrian connection to the Chula Vista Regional Trail
and connection to bike lanes within Olympic Parkway and nearby transit.
5. Implement the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan; the MSCP Subarea Plan; the GDP; and
the SPA Plan.
6. Implement the City’s Growth Management Ordinance to ensure that public and community facilities, such
as transportation, water, flood control, sewage disposal, schools, and parks, are provided in a timely
manner and financed by the parties creating the demand for, and benefiting from, the improvements.
7. Ensure new uses are compatible with the existing community by establishing setbacks, design regulations and
guidelines, best practices, and performance standards that enhance quality of life for neighboring properties.
8. Create a land use plan that can realistically be developed within a foreseeable time frame and under
economic conditions.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 643 of 1271
DRAFT FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
SUNBOW SPA PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT EIR
12612
6 July 2021
1.2.2 Discretionary Actions
A discretionary action is an action taken by an agency that calls for the exercise of judgment in deciding whether to
approve or how to carry out a project. The following discretionary actions are associated with the proposed project
and would be considered by the City:
• Certification of a Final EIR and adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program pursuant to CEQA
• Approval of amendments to the Chula Vista General Plan
• Approval of amendments to the Sunbow GDP
• Approval of amendments to the Sunbow SPA Plan
• Approval of the Tentative Map for Sunbow II, Phase 3
• Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan Boundary Adjustment and Minor Amendment
• Rezone
• Approval of the Development Agreement between the applicant and the City
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 644 of 1271
12612
7 July 2021
2 CEQA Findings of
Independent Judgement
2.1 Independent Review and Analysis
Under CEQA, the lead agency must (1) independently review and analyze the Environmental Impact Report (EIR);
(2) circulate draft documents that reflect its independent judgment; (3) as part of the certification of an EIR, fi nd
that the EIR or declaration reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency; and (4) submit copies of the
documents to the State Clearinghouse if there is state agency involvement or if the project is of statewide, regional,
or area-wide significance (PRC Section 21082.1[c]).
The City has exercised independent judgment in accordance with CEQA Section 21082.1(c)(3) in the preparation of the
EIR, as well as reviewing, analyzing, and revising material prepared by the consultant. Multiple iterations of technical
reports and the preliminary draft EIR were “screen-checked” by the City staff, as well as the independent third-party
reviewer to ensure the analyses contained therein are factual, accurate, applicable, and based on the City’s independent
review and judgment. Further, the City’s Development Services Department completes an independent evaluation of
private land development applications, including the project, for compliance with applicable City, State, and Federal laws,
regulations, and ordinances. As such, City staff is acting in its independent regulatory capacity as the lead agency to
review and independently evaluate the EIR and project.
Thus, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21082.1(c), and prior to certification, the City hereby finds it has
independently reviewed and analyzed the Draft EIR and its technical studies, and the Final EIR, including public
comments, responses to comments, revised draft EIR pages, and additional or revised technical studies and that both
the Draft EIR and Final EIR reflect the independent judgment of the City as the Lead Agency for the Project.
Having received, reviewed, and considered the information in the EIR, as well as any and all other information in
the record, the City hereby makes findings pursuant to and in accordance with CEQA Sections 21081, 21081.5,
and 21081.6.
2.2 Summary of Impacts
The Final EIR identified a number of direct and indirect significant environmental effects (or “impacts”) resulting
from the project. Some of these significant effects can be reduced to a less than significant level through the
adoption of feasible mitigation measures. Others cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level by the adoption
of feasible mitigation measures or feasible environmentally superior alternatives. However, these effects a re
outweighed by overriding considerations set forth in Section 5 below.
As identified in Chapters 5, 6, and 9 of the Final EIR, no significant environmental impacts would occur with regard
to the following issues: aesthetics, agriculture and forestry resources, hydrology and water quality, land use and
planning, mineral resources, noise, population and housing, transportation, and utilities and service systems. As
such, these issue areas are not discussed further within this document.
As identified in Chapters 5 and 6 of the Final EIR, the project would mitigate, avoid, or substantially lessen to below
a level of significance direct, indirect, and/or cumulative significant environmental effects with regard to the
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 645 of 1271
DRAFT FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
SUNBOW SPA PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT EIR
12612
8 July 2021
following issues: biological resources, cultural and tribal cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and
hazardous materials, public services, recreation, and wildfire.
As identified in Chapters 5 and 6 of the Final EIR, the project would result in significant unavoidable environmental
impacts associated with greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
2.3 Impacts Determined to Be Significant
and Unavoidable
This section identifies the significant, unavoidable impacts that require a statement of overriding considerations to
be issued by the City, pursuant to Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, if the proposed project is approved. Based
on the analysis contained in the Final EIR, the following impacts have been determined to fall within the “significant
unavoidable impacts” category:
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
o Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on
the environment.
o Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions
of greenhouse gases.
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines,
the City finds that for the following significant effects, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
considerations, including provisions of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the
mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the Final EIR. These findings are explained below and are
supported by substantial evidence in the record of proceedings.
2.3.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
2.3.1.1 Description of Potentially Significant Impacts to Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment.
Because the project’s service population (SP)-based emissions would be more than the City’s efficiency metric of
1.37 MT CO2e per SP, potential GHG emissions impacts associated with exceedance of the City’s efficiency metric
would be considered significant and unavoidable.
GHG emissions associated with temporary construction activity were quantified using CalEEMod. Total construction-
related GHG emissions for the project were 12,928 MT CO2e. Estimated 30-year amortized project- generated
construction emissions would be approximately 431 MT CO2e per year. Operation of the 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 project); solid waste disposal; and
generation of electricity associated with water supply, treatment, and distribu tion and wastewater treatment. The
estimated annual project-generated GHG emissions in 2028 would be approximately 4,928 MT CO2e per year as a
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 646 of 1271
DRAFT FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
SUNBOW SPA PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT EIR
12612
9 July 2021
result of project operations. Estimated annual project -generated emissions in 2028 from area, energy, mobile,
solid waste, water/wastewater, and amortized project construction emissions would be approximately 5,359 MT
CO2e per year.
The proposed project is anticipated to generate 2,321 residents. Using the estimated operational plus amortized
construction emissions of 5,359 MT CO2e and SP of 2,321, the project would have a GHG efficiency metric of 2.31
MT CO2e per SP. The project’s efficiency metric would exceed the significance threshold efficiency metric of 1.37
MT CO2e per SP.
Although GHG emission reductions from implementation of project design feature (PDF)-TRA-1 were not quantified,
implementation of the following strategies would further reduce the project’s vehicle miles traveled: provide ride
share coordination services, coordinate with nearby schools to carpool to/from school, provide on-site transit
opportunities information, and encourage bicycling by providing on-site bicycle infrastructure such as bike racks.
The project would also provide pedestrian and bicycle connectivity to the neighborhood due to proximity to existing
bicycle routes and provide on-site pedestrian sidewalk connections to the existing Chula Vista Regional Trail.
Furthermore, the project would be located near MTS bus route 704 and the East Palomar Transit Station. These
project characteristics would promote pedestrian and bicycle activity and alternate forms of transportation.
MM-GHG-1 would also be implemented and would minimize GHG emissions associated with project operations,
which include installation of low-flow water fixtures, use of recycled water, pre-wiring for EV capable, installing
energy-efficient appliances and design practices, installing cool roofs, and planting 600 trees and 40 acres of
shrubs on-site. However, approximately 64% of the proposed project’s annual GHG emissions are from mobile
sources; therefore, to reduce GHG emissions to a less-than-significant level, the project would need to reduce its
total GHG emissions by approximately 65% to reduce the project-generated GHG emissions below the City’s
efficiency threshold.
MM-GHG-1 and PDF-TRA-1 would respectively ensure that GHG emissions from the buildout of the proposed project
would be minimized and would encourage and accommodate the use of alternative-fueled vehicles and
nonmotorized transportation. However, additional statewide measures would be necessary to reduce GHG
emissions under the proposed project to meet the state’s long-term GHG reduction goals. The specific path to
compliance for the state with regard to meeting such long-term goals will likely require development of technology
or other changes that are not currently known or available. As identified by the California Council on Science and
Technology, the state cannot meet the 2050 goal without major advancements in techno logy. Since no additional
statewide measures are currently available, the proposed project’s GHG emissions Impact would remain significant
and unavoidable.
Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emis sions of
greenhouse gases
Because the project’s SP-based emissions would be more than the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) efficiency metric
of 1.37 MT CO2e per SP, the proposed project would potentially conflict with the state’s ability to meet future GHG
emission reductions. Therefore, the project’s GHG emissions impact would result in a significant and unavoidable
impact.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 647 of 1271
DRAFT FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
SUNBOW SPA PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT EIR
12612
10 July 2021
The project includes several design features that will help reduce its GHG emissions in line with the CAP and the
project would be consistent with the applicable measures of the CAP. Regarding consistency with SANDAG’s
Regional Plan, the project would include site design elements and PDFs developed to support the policy objectives
of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and SB 375. The project is also consistent with all applicable Regional
Plan policy objectives or strategies.
The Scoping Plan, approved by the California Air Resources Board (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. The Scoping Plan recommends strategies for implementation at
the statewide level to meet the goals of AB 32 and establishes an overall framework for the measures that will be
adopted to reduce California’s GHG emissions. The project would be consistent with the applicable measures and
policy goals of CARB’s Scoping Plan. The proposed project is consistent with the applicable plans, policies, and
regulations adopted for regulation of GHG emissions and would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
However, the project’s service population (SP)-based emissions would be more than the City’s efficiency metric of
1.37 MT CO2e per SP and no additional mitigation measures for the proposed project can be identified at this time
until development of technology or other measures are established. Therefore, the proposed project would
potentially conflict with the state’s ability to meet future GHG emission reductions and the project’s GHG emissions
impact would be potentially significant and unavoidable impact.
2.3.1.2 Mitigation Measures
While there are no feasible mitigation measures available to avoid or mitigate the identified impact to a less than
significant level, the following feasible mitigation measures will minimize the identified impact:
MM-GHG-1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Measures. The following GHG emissions reduction
measures shall be implemented:
• Off-road construction equipment with engines rated at 75 horsepower or greater shall meet
at a minimum Tier 3 standard.
• Install purple pipes to provide reclaimed water for outdoor water use.
• Install low-flow water fixtures such as low-flow toilets, faucets, showers, etc.
• Two parking spaces shall be pre-wired for electric vehicle (EV) capable and designated as
preferential parking spaces shall be provided for carpool, shared, electric, and hydrogen
vehicles.
• 718 parking garages shall be pre-wired to be EV capable.
• Energy-efficient lighting shall be used for all street, parking, and area lighting associated
with the proposed project, including all on-site and off-site lighting.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 648 of 1271
DRAFT FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
SUNBOW SPA PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT EIR
12612
11 July 2021
• Energy-efficient design practices, such as high-performance glazing, Energy Star compliant
systems and appliances, radiant heat roof barriers, insulation on all pipes, programmable
thermostats, and sealed ducts, shall be implemented.
• Native species and drought-tolerant species shall be used for a minimum of 50% of the
ornamental plant palette in non-turf areas to minimize water demand.
• Recycling of construction debris and waste shall be ensured through administration by an
on- site recycling coordinator and presence of recycling/separation areas. Exceed the City
of Chula Vista’s Construction and Demolition Debris Waste Management Plan’s 65%
diversion of construction and demolition waste.
• Install cool roofs that meet the U.S. Green Building Council standards with a greater solar
reflectivity to help conserve energy.
• Install 1,462-kilowatt solar photovoltaic system meeting the minimum 2019 Title 24
standards.
• Install bicycle racks.
• The project shall plant 600 trees and 40 acres of shrubs.
2.3.1.3 Findings per CEQA Guidelines
While mitigation measure MM-GHG-1 when adopted will minimize GHG emissions associated with project
operations and changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project design, there are no
feasible mitigation measures that will reduce the identified significant impacts to below a level of significance.
Therefore, impacts associated with climate change, must be considered significant and unavoidable Pursuant to
PRC Section 21081(a)(3), and as described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has determined
that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the alternatives
identified in the EIR, and the identified GHG impacts are thereby acceptable because of specific overriding
considerations (see Section 5).
2.3.1.4 Facts in Support of the Findings Related to Greenhouse Gas Emissions
As discussed in Section 2.2.1.3, Findings per CEQA Guidelines, since measures to reduce the GHG emissions
generated during construction and operation of the project are limited, the project’s impacts related to generating
GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment would be
significant and unavoidable. Furthermore, since the specific path to compliance for the state with regard to the long-
term goals will likely require development of technology or other changes that are not currently known or available,
specific additional mitigation measures for the proposed project would be speculative and cannot be identified at
this time; thus, conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of GHGs would be significant and unavoidable. Refer also to Section 5.7 of the Final EIR.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 649 of 1271
DRAFT FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
SUNBOW SPA PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT EIR
12612
12 July 2021
2.4 Impacts Determined to Be Less Than Significant
with Mitigation
This section identifies significant adverse impacts of the proposed project that require findings to be made under
CEQA Section 21081(a) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1). Based on substantial evidence, the City finds
that adoption of the mitigation measures set forth in this section would reduce the identified significant impacts to
less than significant:
• Biological Resources
o Impact candidate, sensitive, or special-status species
o Impact riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community
o Conflict with Adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat
conservation plan (Facilities Siting Criteria, MSCP Conditions of Coverage, Adjacency Management
Guidelines, MSCP Minor Amendment Area)
• Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
o Impact archaeological resources
o Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside formal cemeteries
o Cause adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource
• Geology and Soils
o Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
o Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death
involving wildland fires
• Public Services
o Require new or physically altered governmental facilities (fire protection services, police protection
services, library services, schools, and parks)
• Recreation
o Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities
• Wildfire
o Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 650 of 1271
DRAFT FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
SUNBOW SPA PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT EIR
12612
13 July 2021
2.4.1 Biological Resources
2.4.1.1 Description of Potentially Significant Impacts to Biological Resources
Impact candidate, sensitive, or special-status species
Direct Impacts (Sensitive Plant Species) Otay Tarplant
The proposed project would impact an estimated 836 Otay tarplants (142 located inside of the Preserve; 694
located outside of the Preserve) out of the total 5,449 Otay tarplants present on site. Of the total Otay tarplant
impacts, the proposed residential development would permanently impact 142 Otay tarplant inside the Preserve
(including some impacted Otay tarplants within the Future Facility‐Detention Basin) and 424 Otay tarplants outside
the Preserve. Further, construction related vegetation clearing and grading activities would temporarily impact 270
Otay tarplants outside the Preserve.
Based on the sensitivity of this federally endangered and narrow endemic species, impacts to Otay tarplant would
be considered potentially significant (Impact BIO-1) under CEQA and would require appropriate mitigation that
would consist of on-site habitat mitigation (i.e., native grassland) within appropriate on-site conserved lands in the
Preserve. Mitigation measures MM-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-3 would be implemented to reduce impacts to the Otay
tarplant. The project also proposes habitat restoration efforts (soil salvage, seed transplant) within appropriate on-
site areas within the Preserve (PDF BIO-1).
Orcutt’s Bird’s-Beak
Implementation of the proposed project would impact approximately 10% of the population of Orcutt’s bird’s‐ beak
population estimated to be present on site (91 out of 911 plants). The proposed impacts to Orcutt’s bird’s‐ beak
would occur from development of the proposed Future Facility-Detention Basin, located within Diegan coastal sage
scrub, just south of the previously restored slope along Poggi Creek, where the majority of the Orcutt’s bird’s beak
is located. The proposed impacts to Orcutt’s bird’s‐beak would be considered significant (Impact BIO-2) under CEQA
based on the sensitivity of this species and the rarity of this species in the region and the extent of impacts to the
on-site population.
The proposed project’s impacts to Orcutt’s bird’s-beak would be potentially significant (Impact BIO-2) and would
require appropriate mitigation that would consist of preserving 90% (820 out of 911 ) of the Orcutt’s bird’s-beak
estimated on-site population within the on-site Preserve (MM-BIO-3) and habitat mitigation (i.e., Diegan coastal
sage scrub) and habitat restoration efforts (soil salvage, seed translocation) within appropriate on -site conserved
lands in the Preserve (MM-BIO-3).
Decumbent Goldenbush
Implementation of the proposed project would impact approximately 36% of the decumbent goldenbush on -site
population (289 out of 803 plants). A majority of the impacts to this species are associated with non‐native
grassland habitat located within the proposed development area. The proposed impacts to decumbent goldenbush
would be considered potentially significant (Impact BIO-3). Therefore, require appropriate mitigation that may
consist of preserving 64% (513 out of 803) of the decumbent goldenbush estimated on-site population within the
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 651 of 1271
DRAFT FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
SUNBOW SPA PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT EIR
12612
14 July 2021
on-site Preserve (MM-BIO-3) and habitat mitigation (i.e., native grassland) and habitat restoration efforts (soil
salvage, seed translocation) within appropriate on-site conserved lands in the Preserve (MM-BIO-3).
San Diego Viguiera
Implementation of the proposed project would impact approximately 78% of the San Diego viguiera population
(5,958 out of 7,647 plants). Impacts to this species are associated with impacts to Diegan coastal sage scrub along
the western edge of the proposed development. The proposed impacts to San Diego viguiera, a CNDDB Special
Plant with a CRPR 4.3 ranking, would be considered significant under CEQA primarily due to potential impacts to
5,958 plants out of 7,647 plants. The impacts to San Diego viguiera would be potentially significant (Impact BIO -
4). MM-BIO-3, which consists of habitat mitigation (i.e., Diegan coastal sage scrub) and may also include habitat
restoration within appropriate on-site conserved lands in the Preserve, would be implemented to reduce impacts to
the San Diego viguiera.
Small-Flowered Bindweed, Coast Barrel Cactus, San Diego Bursage, Southwestern Spiny Rush, San Diego Marsh
Elder, and Palmer’s Sagewort
San Diego marsh elder is ranked CRPR 2B.2, and San Diego bursage plant is ranked CRPR 2B.1. CRPR 2B is
designated for plants that are rare, threatened, or endangered in California but are more common elsewhere. Threat
rank 0.2 is defined as “moderately threatened in California” (20%–80% of occurrences threatened and a moderate
degree and immediacy of threat), and threat rank 0.1 is defined as “seriously threatened in California” (over 80%
of occurrences threatened and a high degree and immediacy of threat). Although the rank for San Diego marsh
elder is relatively high, the amount that would be impacted resulting from implementation of the proposed project
(0.37% of the existing San Diego marsh elder plant population within the project site) would be considered less
than significant. However, 66.7% of existing San Diego bursage plants would be impacted due to implementation
of the proposed project. Impacting 16 out of 24 existing San Diego bursage plants, paired with the plant’s CRPR,
would result in a potentially significant impact (Impact BIO-5). Impacts would be mitigated through biological
construction monitoring and implementation of construction best management practices (BMPs; MM-BIO-12) and
preparation of a Worker Environment Awareness Program (MM-BIO-13).
Direct Impacts (Sensitive Wildlife Species)
Coastal California Gnatcatcher
Two coastal California gnatcatcher territories were determined to be present on site during the USFWS gnatcatcher
protocol surveys. One gnatcatcher territory is located in the central portion of the site west of the proposed western
access road within the larger area of high quality Diegan coastal sage scrub, while the other gnatcatcher territory is
located along the southeastern site boundary where a small amount of Diegan coastal sage scrub occurs on site
along with more suitable habitat that extends off site onto the County of San Diego landfill property to the south.
The one gnatcatcher territory located along the southeastern parcel boundary would be directly impacted by the
proposed project vegetation clearing, grubbing, and grading activities through the loss of a portion of nesting habitat
(i.e., Diegan coastal sage scrub). This project impact would be potentially significant (Impact BIO-6) and would
require implementation of mitigation measures (MM-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-2, and MM-BIO-4 and MM-BIO-5).
Further, gnatcatcher specific MSCP Conditions of Coverage, such as area-specific management directives that must
include measures to reduce edge effects and minimize disturbance during the nesting period, fire protection
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 652 of 1271
DRAFT FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
SUNBOW SPA PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT EIR
12612
15 July 2021
measures to reduce the potential for habitat degradation due to unplanned fire, management measures to maintain
or improve habitat quality including vegetation structure, and prohibition of clearing of occupied habitat in the
County of San Diego Multiple Habitat Planning Area may occur from March 1 through August 15, would apply.
The other on-site gnatcatcher territory located in the central portion of the project site is not expected to be directly
impacted by the project. The gnatcatchers observed in this area were limited to the Diegan coastal sage scrub
located west of the proposed western main access road, largely within the existing Preserve that would remain
protected as proposed by the project. In addition, although suitable gnatcatcher habitat occurs in other surrounding
areas, no gnatcatchers were observed during the proto col surveys and/or any of the other biological surveys on
site. Nonetheless, the reduction of potentially suitable and contiguous habitat and the potential for nesting failure
due to the adjacent on-site construction related activities would result in potentially significant direct impacts
(Impact BIO-7) to gnatcatcher and would require implementation of MM-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-2, and MM-BIO-4
and MM-BIO-5 to reduce impacts to a level below significance.
Least Bell’s Vireo
The least Bell’s vireo that occurs on site is located entirely within Poggi Creek, where no development is proposed.
Therefore, least Bell’s vireo would not be directly impacted by the proposed project. Nonetheless, the potential for
nesting failure due to the adjacent on-site construction related activities would result in potential direct impacts to
vireo that would be considered potentially significant (Impact BIO-8) and would require implementation of MM-BIO-
6 in order to reduce impacts to a level below significance.
Sensitive Raptors
Raptors including sensitive species such as the white-tailed kite, northern harrier, and Cooper’s hawk were
observed flying over and potentially foraging on site and may be negatively affected by the loss of this potential
foraging habitat in the project area. The project would have direct impacts to potential raptor foraging habitat for
white-tailed kite, northern harrier, and Cooper’s hawk associated with the loss of 61.0 acres of grassland habitat
(i.e., 53.28 acres of non‐native grassland, 7.72 acres of native grassland). As an important note, the potential
raptor foraging habitat proposed to be impacted is located almost entirely inside the MSCP Development Area and
is of lower habitat quality due to its densely thatched condition, while the proposed raptor foraging habitat mitigation
consists of higher quality native grassland, patches of non‐native grassland in a matrix of native habitats, and
proposed habitat restoration areas that is either currently or proposed to be in the Preserve. The proposed im pact
to potential foraging habitat for white‐tailed kite, northern harrier, and Cooper’s hawk would be a potentially
significant impact (Impact BIO-9) and would require implementation of MM-BIO-1, which requires habitat mitigation
(i.e., native grassland, open Diegan coastal sage scrub) to reduce impacts to a level below significance.
Birds Protected under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code
The project site has the potential to support active nests for regionally common migratory birds and raptors that are
not designated as special status species under CEQA but are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act
(MBTA) and California Fish and Game (CFG) Code Sections 3503 and 3513.
The project could result in impacts to active bird and/or raptor nests protected under the federal MBTA and/or CFG
Code Sections 3503 and 3513 if construction-related activities were to occur during the avian and/or raptor
breeding season. The project construction activities undertaken for the project should comply with the regulatory
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 653 of 1271
DRAFT FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
SUNBOW SPA PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT EIR
12612
16 July 2021
requirements of the federal MTBA and CDFG Codes Sections 3503 and 3513. The potential impact to active nests
of birds protected under MBTA and/or CDFG Codes would be a potentially significant impact (Impact BIO-10) and
would require avoidance of the avian breeding season or conduct pre -construction active nest surveys through
implementation of MM-BIO-7, which requires to reduce impacts to a level below significance.
Impact riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community
Based on the proposed project design, the proposed project would result in direct permanent and temporary
impacts to sensitive vegetation communities/habitats consisting of native grassland (Tier I), Diegan coastal sage
scrub (Tier II), and non‐native grassland (Tier III) habitats. Impacts would result in a total of 69.28 acres of on -site
impacts and 1.15 acres of off-site impacts. Permanent project impacts to sensitive vegetation communities would
result from vegetation clearing, grading, and residential development including houses, fuel modification zone
activities, detention basins, and roadways. Temporary impacts to sensitive vegetation communities would result
from vegetation clearing, construction vehicular temporary access and activities, grading in some areas, and
subsequent revegetation efforts to ensure erosion control and/or native habitat restoration activities to ensure
long‐term biological functions and values.
In association with direct impacts to native vegetation communities, there are usually indirect impacts to the
remaining native vegetation. Many of these are related to habitat fragmentation, which occurs when a native
vegetation community is not entirely altered or developed, but what remains has a diminished wildlife habitat value
due to edge effects and lack of connectivity. Fragmented habitats may no longer be able to support large predators.
The presence of native predators has been demonstrated to hold in check populations of meso‐predators such as
domestic/feral cats. Without the presence of such predators, avian and small mammal diversity and abundance
declines, presumably due to increased depredation pressure from non‐native meso‐predators. Edge effects may
include increased predation pressure, increased brood parasitism, increased competition for nesting cavities from
non‐native species, and increased floral competition from weedy species. Outside of those effects associated with
fragmentation, indirect impacts may include elevated noise above 60 A-weighted decibels (dBA) equivalent
measured sound level (Leq), artificial night lighting within wildlife habitat, increased human disturbance, change in
duration and amount of surface water within a floodplain, and increased erosion or sedimentation. These types of
indirect impacts can affect vegetation communities or alter habitat use by sensitive species.
The project proposes to fill in gaps of the MSCP Preserve where areas have not been previously included in the in
the 2003 City Subarea Plan configuration with areas of the Preserve along Poggi Creek by adjusting the proposed
BLA. The proposed project would also extend the native habitat buffer widths between Poggi Creek and the
proposed project footprint that will be included in the Preserve.
Permanent impacts (totaling on-site 64.05 acres) and temporary impacts (totaling on-site 4.24 acres) to native
grassland, Diegan coastal sage scrub, and non-native grassland from construction activities such as vegetation
clearing, grading, residential development, and construction vehicular temporary access and activities would be
considered potentially significant (Impact BIO-11) and would require implementation of MM-BIO-1, MM-BIO-2, MM-
BIO-12, and MM-BIO-13, consistent with the City MSCP Subarea Plan as well as the HLIT, to reduce impacts to a
level below significance.
It is expected that the portions of the MSCP Preserve directly adjacent and closest to the proposed project
development boundaries would potentially be negatively affected by edge effects such as invasive plant invasion,
habitat degradation, increased predation pressure from domestic pets (i.e., cats), lighting, noise, irrigation, and human
disturbance. These potential indirect impacts would be considered potentially significant (Impact BIO-12) and would
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 654 of 1271
DRAFT FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
SUNBOW SPA PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT EIR
12612
17 July 2021
require mitigation measures MM-BIO-8 through MM-BIO-13 to reduce impacts to a level below significance. Therefore,
with incorporation of MM-BIO-1, MM-BIO-2, and MM-BIO-8 through MM-BIO-13 impacts would be reduced to a less-than-
significant level.
Conflict with Adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation
plan
Facilities Siting Criteria
The proposed project includes a MSCP Future Facility (i.e., detention basin) that would be located partially in the
existing Preserve on site. The relocation of this basin was considered in the project design to avoid or minimize
impacts to the Preserve but was determined to be site specific due to the necessary topography for drainage and
the confined development configuration due to the avoidance of wetlands and Otay tarplant (a narrow endemic) in
this area; however, the size and configuration of the basin was modified to reduce impacts to the Preserve to the
maximum extent practicable. The City MSCP, Chapter 6.0 Land Use Considerations in the Preserve, identifies
permitted uses including Future Facilities within the Preserve. Future Facilities are subject to the MSCP Facilities
Siting Criteria which ensures that the facilities located within the Preserve have been sited within the least
environmentally sensitive areas and that impacts to the Preserve have been minimized to the maximum extent
practical. The City of Chula Vista is allotted up to 50 acres of impact/”Take” for Future Facilities. The proposed
Future Facility‐Detention Basin (1.12 acres) is partially within an area of the existing Preserve on site. The proposed
project has been designed to completely avoid any wetland habitat impacts and would predominantly result in
impacts to non‐native grassland consisting primarily of densely thatched non‐native grasses. In addition, the
proposed project would result in significant impacts to Diegan coastal sage scrub, specifically within the pro posed
Future Facility-Detention Basin area, as well as impacts to native grassland, within the southwestern portion of the
area proposed for residential uses. Therefore, with implementation of MM-BIO-11, impacts would be reduced to a less-
than-significant level.
Narrow Endemic Policy and Wetland Protection Program Narrow Endemic Policy
Otay tarplant is the only Narrow Endemic Species that is known and/or expected to occur within the project site.
Based on 2019 ‐2020 Otay tarplant field surveys completed on t he project site, the on-site population is
estimated to be 5,449 plants predominantly located in the western half of the project site within the existing
Preserve (4,044 plants within the Preserve and 1,405 plants outside the Preserve). Of the 5,449 on -site Otay
tarplant population, the proposed project would impact an estimated 142 Otay tarplant plants (2.6%) inside the
Preserve and 694 Otay tarplant plants (12.7%) outside the Preserve/within Development Area. Impacts to Otay
tarplant would be potentially significant (Impact BIO-1). However, to ensure consistency with the City’s MSCP
Narrow Endemic Policy, the proposed project would minimize impacts to Otay tarplant to less than 5% within the
Preserve and less than 20% within the Development Area with imple mentation of MM-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-3.
The proposed project would meet the MSCP Narrow Endemic Policy based on the estimated Otay tarplant population
on-site totals and estimated plants to be impacted in the Preserve and the Development Area that are below the
Narrow Endemic Policy impact thresholds. The proposed project would ensure consistency with MSCP Narrow
Endemic Policy Section 5.2.3.3 for Development Areas outside of Covered Projects, where applicable by limiting the
proposed impacts to the existing Otay tarplant population within the project site to less than 5% of the population
within the Preserve and less than 20% of the population outside of the Preserve. Therefore, with implementation of
MM-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-3, impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 655 of 1271
DRAFT FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
SUNBOW SPA PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT EIR
12612
18 July 2021
MSCP Conditions of Coverage
Coastal California Gnatcatcher Condition of Coverage
The MSCP Condition of Coverage for coastal California gnatcatcher specifies that the area specific management
directives must include measures to reduce edge effects and minimize disturbance during the nesting period, fire
protection measures to avoid habitat degradation due to unplanned fire, management measures to maintain and
improve habitat quality, and prohibit clearing of occupied habitat during gnatcatcher breeding season (March 1‐August
15) within the Preserve. Therefore, prior to implementation of mitigation, impacts would be potentially significant.
However, the proposed project would comply with and address the applicable Conditions of Coverage (see MM-BIO-4
through MM-BIO-5). Therefore, with implementation of MM-BIO-4 through MM-BIO-5, impacts would be reduced to a less-
than-significant level.
Least Bell’s Vireo Condition of Coverage
The MSCP Condition of Coverage for least Bell’s vireo specifies that the area specific management directives must
include measures consistent with the ACOE 404(b)(1) Guidelines into the project where applicable. In addition,
measures to provide appropriate successional habitat, upland buffers for known populations, cowbird control, and
measures to reduce edge effects, as well as, prohibit clearing of occupied habitat during vireo breeding season
(March 15‐September 15). Therefore, prior to implementation of mitigation, impacts would be potentially
significant. However, the proposed project would completely avoid direct impacts to least Bell’s vireo through
implementation of MM-BIO-6) and would provide a conserved upland buffer to the one vireo pair on site that is
limited to the northeastern most portion of riparian habitat on site. Further, the project proposes measures such as
vegetation barriers, fencing, and night light shielding to avoid and/or reduce potential edge effects (MM-BIO-8
through MM-BIO-13) to the vireo pair within Poggi Creek. Due to the limited vireo presence/population on site and
uncertainty regarding a least Bell’s vireo population within Poggi Creek upstream to the east, the project does not
propose a brown‐headed cowbird control program on site. These cowbird control programs are typically
implemented and most cost effective within a river system where a larger known vireo population within conserved
lands would benefit. Although the project does not propose any direct impacts to vireo occupied habitat, the project
proposes to comply and address the applicable Conditions of Coverage (MM-BIO-7). Therefore, with incorporation of
MM-BIO-6 through MM-BIO-13, impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Otay Tarplant Condition of Coverage
The MSCP Condition of Coverage for Otay tarplant specifies that the area specific management directives must
include measures for monitoring of populations, adaptive management of preserves, and measures to protect
against detrimental edge effects. The project proposes to comply and a ddress the Conditions of Coverage where
applicable. Additionally, impacts to Otay tarplant (Impact BIO-1) would be mitigated with the implementation of MM-
BIO-1 and MM-BIO-2. Therefore, with implementation of MM-BIO-1 and MM-BIO-2, impacts would be reduced to
less than significant.
Adjacency Management Guidelines
The City of Chula Vista requires that land uses adjacent to the MSCP Preserve be managed to avoid and
minimize impacts to the preserve; therefore, project mitigation measures pertaining to lighting (MM-BIO-9),
noise (MM-BIO-4 through MM-BIO-6), landscaping (MM -BIO-10), access (MM -BIO-8), and drainage (MM-BIO-
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 656 of 1271
DRAFT FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
SUNBOW SPA PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT EIR
12612
19 July 2021
11) would be required to ensure consistency with the City’s MSCP , Section 7.5.2, Adjacency Management
Guidelines, and ensure the long ‐term viability of wildlife and sensitive habitats in the Preserve.
Lighting
Lighting of all developed areas adjacent to the Preserve should be directed away from the Preserve wherever
feasible and consistent with public safety. Where necessary, development should provide adequate shielding with
non‐invasive plant materials (preferably native), berming, and/or other methods to protect the Preserve and
sensitive species from night lighting. As provided in the City’s MSCP, consideration should be given to the use of
low‐pressure sodium lighting.
Although the specificity of the proposed lighting plan is not available at this time, the proposed project would include
the use of outdoor lighting along roadways and in association with proposed buildings that may have the p otential
to spill into the adjacent Preserve (Impact BIO-12). Therefore, the proposed project would result in potentially
significant impacts. Due to this potential impact, the project would incorporate MM-BIO-9, which requires adequate
shielding and the potential use of low‐pressure sodium lighting to ensure consistency with the Guidelines. Therefore,
with implementation of MM-BIO-9, impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Noise
Uses in or adjacent to the Preserve should be designed to m inimize noise impacts. Berms or walls should be
constructed adjacent to commercial areas and any other use that may introduce noises that could impact or
interfere with wildlife utilization of the Preserve. Excessively noisy uses or activities adjacent to breeding areas,
including temporary grading activities, must incorporate noise reduction measures or be curtailed during the
breeding season of sensitive bird species, consistent with Table 3‐5 of the MSCP Subregional Plan.
The Poggi Creek portion of the Preserve and the north‐facing slope directly adjacent to the creek are close to
Olympic Parkway, a busy roadway that is a source of consistent noise from vehicular traffic. The northern portion of
the project site likely has a higher ambient noise level tha n the southern portion of the site due to the Olympic
Parkway traffic noise levels and thus the proposed noise levels may or may not result in substantially greater noise
levels. Conversely, the proposed project may potentially introduce elevated noise levels into the Preserve
particularly along the southwestern boundary of the proposed development where the current conditions are
relatively quiet. Therefore, impacts would be potentially significant (Impact BIO-12). Due to this potential impact,
the project would implement MM-BIO-4, MM-BIO-5, MM-BIO-6 and MM-BIO-7, which requires the avoidance of the
breeding season for construction activities to ensure consistency with the Guidelines. Therefore, impacts would be
reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Invasives
No invasive non‐native plant species shall be introduced into areas immediately adjacent to the Preserve. All open
space slopes immediately adjacent to the Preserve should be planted with native species that reflect the adjacent
native habitat. The plant list contained in the Wildland / Urban Interface: Fuel Modification Standards (Appendix K
of the City’s MSCP), must be utilized to the maximum extent practicable when developing landscaping plans in
areas adjacent to the Preserve.
The proposed project includes fuel modification zones within the project development adjacent to the Preserve as
well as landscape areas that have the potential to introduce invasive non -native species into the Preserve
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 657 of 1271
DRAFT FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
SUNBOW SPA PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT EIR
12612
20 July 2021
Therefore, impacts would be potentially significant (Impact BIO-12). Due to this potential impact, the project would
incorporate MM-BIO-10, which requires the prohibition of invasive plant species in the planting palette as well as
the maintenance and monitoring of the adjacent areas to ensure consistency with the Guidelines. Therefore, with
implementation of MM-BIO-10, impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
MSCP Minor Amendment Area
The City-owned property directly south of the proposed project site is designated a Minor Amendment Area.
Designated Minor Amendment Areas throughout the City are not currently a part of the City’s MSCP and do not
receive any take authorization or coverage benefits. Minor Amendment Areas may be incorporated into the City’s
MSCP through the Minor Amendment Process described in the City’s MSCP, Section 5.1.3.1.
The Applicant is working with the City to request a Minor Amendment to allow off-site temporary grading impacts
(Impact BIO-15) that would encroach 25 feet onto the City’s property and within this Minor Amendment Area, which
is located directly south of the proposed project. This request for a Minor Amendment would also require Wildlife
Agency concurrence.
This potential encroachment onto the City property would consist of a 25‐foot grading buffer for temporary construction
equipment access and grading as well as a minor excavation and fill for a buttress to address slope stability that would be
located entirely within the 25‐foot construction buffer. The temporary impact areas in the 25‐foot grading buffer within the
Minor Amendment Area from project construction activities and buttress construction (Impact BIO-15) would be revegetated
with a native erosion control hydroseed mix acceptable to the City and Wildlife Agencies to ensure soil stability and prevent
subsequent erosion (MM-BIO-14); further, these temporary impacts would be fully mitigated within the proposed project
site inside the Preserve. Because the proposed project would result in temporary impacts to the Minor Amendment Area,
impacts would be potentially significant and would require implementation of MM-BIO-14 through MM-BIO-16 to reduce
impacts to a level below significance.
2.4.1.2 Mitigation Measures
MM-BIO-1 The Applicant shall include an irrevocable offer of dedication (IOD) to the City of Chula Vista on the
first final map for 62.16 acres of onsite Preserve land within Preserve Management Area 3,
Subunits 3-1a, 3-1b, and 3-1c of the Chula Vista Central City Preserve lands. The MSCP Preserve
land shall be conserved, maintained, and managed by the City of Chula Vista or its designee in
perpetuity as directed in the Chula Vista Central City Preserve Area-Specific Management Directives
(ASMDs) for Preserve Management Area 3 (PMA 3) (RECON Environmental, April 26, 2004) and
funded by the Sunbow Preserve Community Facilities District (No. 98-3). The City of Chula Vista
Preserve Habitat Manager shall be responsible for the long-term Preserve management activities
identified in the Central City Preserve ASMD. Said IOD for the 62.16 acres Proposed MSCP Preserve
shall include 48.95 acres to mitigate for significant habitat impacts to 7.79 acres of native
grassland, 8.55 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub, and 55.61 of non‐native grassland as well as
the following sensitive species significant impacts:
• Coastal California Gnatcatcher- occupied Diegan coastal sage scrub to mitigate for
significant direct impacts to coastal California gnatcatcher occupied habitat;
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 658 of 1271
DRAFT FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
SUNBOW SPA PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT EIR
12612
21 July 2021
• Otay Tarplant- 0.34 acre of Otay tarplant occupied habitat (i.e., native grassland) to
mitigate for direct impacts to 0.34 acre of Otay tarplant occupied habitat that currently
supports 836 Otay tarplant individual plants;
• Orcutt’s Bird’s-beak- Orcutt’s bird’s-beak habitat (i.e., Diegan coastal sage scrub) to
mitigate for significant direct impacts to onsite Diegan coastal sage scrub that currently
supports 91 Orcutt’s bird’s‐beak individual plants;
• Decumbent Goldenbush- Decumbent goldenbush habitat (i.e., Diegan coastal sage scrub
and native grassland), that includes at least 289 decumbent goldenbush individual plants)
to mitigate for significant direct impacts to onsite native grassland and Diegan coastal sage
scrub that currently supports 289 decumbent goldenbush individual plants; and
• San Diego Viguiera- San Diego viguiera habitat (i.e., Diegan coastal sage scrub) that
includes at least 2,979 San Diego viguiera individual plants) to mitigate for significant
direct impacts to onsite Diegan coastal sage scrub that currently supports 5,958 San Diego
viguiera individual plants.
MM-BIO-2 Prior to initiation of construction related activities including clearing and grubbing or prior to
vegetation/ground disturbance or prior to site mobilization activities or issuance of a grading
permit, the Applicant shall submit documentation to the City demonstrating that the Applicant has
contracted with a qualified biologist(s) to monitor the project construction activities and avoid any
inadvertent impacts to sensitive biological and ensure complete avoidance of jurisdictional
resources. Each qualified biologist shall have demonstrated expertise with the sensitive habitats,
special status species of the project region. The qualified biologist(s) shall monitor the installation
of the construction temporary fencing and/or flagging, silt fencing, and other best management
practices (BMPs) along the construction limits prior to construction activities. The qualified biologist
shall be present full‐time during all initial vegetation clearing and grubbing activities, and
potentially on a less frequent basis during grading activities to ensure construction remains within
the approved project development area. The Applicant shall report results of biological monitoring
activities to the City on a regular basis through the preparation and submission of summary
monitoring reports.
MM-BIO-3 Prior to the issuance of any land development permits including for clearing and grubbing or
grading, the Applicant shall prepare a Restoration Plan prepared by a qualified biologist to mitigate
for impacts to sensitive plant species consisting of Otay tarplant, Orcutt’s bird’s-beak, decumbent
goldenbush, and San Diego County viguiera consistent with the Habitat Restoration and Sensitive
Plant Specifies Mitigation Plan (Merkel & Associates, Inc. 2021). The Applicant shall implement the
5-year maintenance and monitoring activities consistent with the Conceptual Restoration Plan to
the satisfaction of the Development Services Director (or their designee). The revegetation plan
must be prepared by a qualified City approved biologist familiar with the City’s MSCP Subarea Plan
and must include, but not be limited to, an implementation plan; appropriate seed mixtures and
planting method; irrigation method; quantitative and qualitative success criteria; maintenance,
monitoring, and reporting program; estimated completion time; and contingency measures. The
Project Applicant shall be required to prepare and implement the revegetation plan subject to the
oversight and approval of the Development Services Director (or their designee). NOTE: Since the
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 659 of 1271
DRAFT FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
SUNBOW SPA PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT EIR
12612
22 July 2021
revegetation is critical to approving the MSCP Boundary Line Adjustment, the applicant will be
required to enter into a Secured Agreement with the City and will be required to provide a cash
deposit.
MM-BIO-4 To avoid any direct impacts to nesting coastal California gnatcatcher, all vegetation clearing,
grubbing and grading activities within gnatcatcher occupied habitat (i.e., Diegan coastal sage
scrub) shall be conducted outside of the gnatcatcher breeding season (February 15 to August 15).
MM-BIO-5 Prior to initiating any construction related activities requiring a clearing and grubbing or grading
permit, the Applicant shall delineate coastal California gnatcatcher occupied habitat located
adjacent to the proposed project development area during the breeding season (February 15 to
August 15) by orange biological fencing or comparable materials to ensure that no work shall occur
within these habitats. In addition, a minimum 300 -foot buffer and on-site noise
reduction/attenuation techniques shall be incorporated, as appropriate to avoid impacts to
breeding gnatcatcher from elevated construction noise levels. The City Development Services
Director (or their designee) shall have the discretion to modify the buffer width depending on site-
specific conditions. Noise monitoring may be required to ensure that the elevated construction
noise levels are appropriately attenuated at the edge of occupied habitat to a level that is not
expected to adversely affect nesting bird behavior (i.e., not to exceed an hourly average of 60 A-
weighted decibels (dBA) or ambient at the edge of occupied habitat).
MM-BIO-6 Prior to initiating any construction related activities requiring a clearing and grubbing or grading
permit, the Applicant shall delineate least Bell’s vireo occupied habitat by orange biological fencing
or comparable to avoid direct impact to vireo within occupied habitat located adjacent to the
proposed project during the breeding season (March 15 to September 15). In addition, a minimum
300-foot buffer and on-site noise reduction/attenuation techniques shall be incorporated, as
appropriate to avoid impacts to breeding vireo from elevated construction noise levels. The City
Development Services Director (or their designee) shall have the discretion to modify the buffer
width depending on site-specific conditions. Noise monitoring may be required to ensure that the
elevated construction noise levels are appropriately attenuated at the edge of occupied habitat to
a level that is not expected to adversely affect nesting bird behavior (i.e., not to exceed an hourly
average of 60 dBA or ambient at the edge of occupied habitat).
MM-BIO-7 To avoid any direct impacts to migratory birds and/or raptors protected under the federal Migratory
Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503 and 3513, removal of habitat
that supports active nests on the proposed area of disturbance should occur outside of the
breeding season for these species. The breeding season is defined as January 15–August 31 for
raptor species and February 15–August 15 for other non-raptor birds (excluding listed species). If
removal of habitat on the proposed area of disturbance must occur during the breeding season,
then prior to initiating any construction related activities requiring a clearing and grubbing or
grading permit, the Applicant shall retain a City-approved biologist to conduct a pre-construction
survey to determine the presence or absence of nesting birds (including nesting birds) on the
proposed area of disturbance. The pre-construction survey must be conducted within 10 calendar
days prior to the start of construction, and the results must be submitted to the City for review and
approval prior to initiating any construction activities. If nesting birds are detected, a letter report
or mitigation plan, as deemed appropriate by the City, shall be prepared and include proposed
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 660 of 1271
DRAFT FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
SUNBOW SPA PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT EIR
12612
23 July 2021
measures to be implemented to ensure that disturbance of breeding activities are avoided. The
report or mitigation plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval and implemented
to the satisfaction of the City. The City’s mitigation monitor shall verify and approve that all
measures identified in the report or mitigation plan are in place prior to and/or during construction.
To reduce potential impacts to burrowing owl during construction, the City-approved biologist shall
perform pre-construction inspection of potential habitat, and, at minimum, twice weekly
inspections be performed while rough grading is ongoing. All pre-construction survey efforts shall
be conducted prior to any project activities that could result in habitat disturbance to soil,
vegetation or other sheltering habitat for burrowing owl. If any burrowing owls or sign of burrowing
owls are detected, the Wildlife Agencies (jointly, CDFW and USFWS) shall be contacted; efforts shall
be made to determine the breeding status of the species on site, and whether it is safe at that
point to exclude burrowing owls from occupied burrows. Active or passive relocation methods shall
only be employed with concurrence by CDFW and USFWS.
MM-BIO-8 Prior to approval of the first final map, the Applicant shall submit a Landscape Master Plan for the
entire project which shall demonstrate compliance with the proposed fence and wall plan for the
project. The proposed fence and wall plan shall include appropriate fencing and barriers (e.g.,
vegetation) where applicable to shield human presence and deter human intrusion into the
Preserve.
MM-BIO-9 Concurrent with design review and prior to issuance of a building permit for any development
located adjacent to the Preserve, the Applicant shall prepare, a lighting plan and photometric
analysis for review and approval the Development Services Director (or their designee). The lighting
plan shall illustrate the location of the proposed lighting standards and type of shielding measures.
Low-pressure sodium lighting shall be used, if feasible, and shall be subject to the approval of the
Development Services Director (or their designee).
MM-BIO-10 Prior to approval of the first final map, the Applicant shall submit a Landscape Master Plan for the
entire project which shall demonstrate compliance with the proposed plant palette for the project.
The proposed plant palette shall prohibit invasive non‐native plant species on the California Exotic
Pest Plant Council List of Exotic Pest Plants of Greatest Ecological Concern in California that could
spread into the adjacent Preserve. No invasive non-native plant species shall be introduced into
areas immediately adjacent to the preserve. All slopes immediately adjacent to the Preserve shall
be planted with native species that reflect the adjacent native habitat. Further, the proposed plant
palette shall be consistent with the plant list contained in the “Wildland/Urban Interface: Fuel
Modification Standards,” and provided as Appendix L of the Subarea Plan, must be reviewed and
utilized to the maximum extent practicable when developing landscaping plans in areas adjacent
to the Preserve.
MM-BIO-11 To avoid habitat degradation to the adjacent Preserve lands, project irrigation shall be contained
to the project development and fuel modification zones and shall not drain or overspray resulting
in potential erosion/sedimentation, spread of invasive plant species, and/or non‐native species
such as Argentine ants.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 661 of 1271
DRAFT FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
SUNBOW SPA PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT EIR
12612
24 July 2021
MM-BIO-12 Prior to initiating any construction related activities requiring a clearing and grubbing or grading
permit, the Applicant shall demonstrate how the project would avoid or minimize applicable
inadvertent impacts during construction. To ensure the avoidance and minimization of impacts to
biological resources during construction the following construction BMPs shall be implemented:
a) Prior to ground disturbance, all permanent and temporary disturbance areas shall be
clearly delineated by orange construction fencing and the identification of environmentally
sensitive areas with flagging and/or fencing.
b) To minimize disturbance of areas outside the project site, all construction and op eration
vehicle traffic shall be restricted to established roads, construction areas, and other
designated areas. These areas shall be included in pre‐construction surveys and, to the
extent possible, shall be established in locations disturbed by previous activities to prevent
further impacts.
c) Construction and operation vehicles shall observe appropriate safe speed limits and
adhere to safety practices.
d) Dust suppression shall occur during construction activities when necessary to meet air
quality standards and protect biological resources.
e) No vehicles or equipment shall be refueled or undergo maintenance within 100 feet of a
jurisdictional waters feature. Spill kits shall be maintained on the site in sufficient quantity
to accommodate at least three complete vehicle tank failures of 50 gallons each. Any
vehicles driven or operated within or adjacent to drainages or wetlands shall be checked
and maintained daily to prevent leaks of contaminated fluids.
f) All general trash, food‐related trash items (wrappers, cans, bottles, food scraps, cigarettes,
etc.), and other human‐generated debris scheduled to be removed shall be stored in
animal‐proof containers and removed from the site on a regular basis (weekly during
construction, and at least monthly during operations). No deliberate feeding of wildlife shall
be allowed.
g) Use of chemicals, fuels, lubricants, or biocides shall comply with all local, state, and federal
regulations. All uses of such compounds shall observe label and other restrictions
mandated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, California Department of Food and
Agriculture, and other state and federal legislation. Use of first‐and second‐ generation
rodenticides shall not be permitted except for the limited use of zinc phosphide, or a
rodenticide approved by the City, and only after other means of pest control (e.g. rodent
traps) have proven to be ineffective.
MM-BIO-13 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, prior to vegetation clearing, grubbing, grading, or any ground
disturbing activities, the Applicant shall submit evidence to the City that the Applicant has retained
qualified biologists to prepare a Worker Environmental Awareness Program that shall be presented
to all construction personnel and employees before any ground‐disturbing activities commence at
the project site and shall be continued through the construction phase for all new construction
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 662 of 1271
DRAFT FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
SUNBOW SPA PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT EIR
12612
25 July 2021
personnel. The program shall consist of a brief presentation going over the on-site sensitive
biological resources and compliance with project impact and open space boundaries, and
applicable environmental laws and requirements with all personnel involved in the project. This
presentation shall explain to construction personnel how best to avoid impacts sensitive resources
during construction. The program shall include a description of all special status species potentially
on the project site and their habitat needs; an explanation of the status of the species and their
protection under the state and federal regulations; specific mitigation measures applicable to listed
and other special status species; permit conditions, and the penalties for violation of applicable
laws. The program shall also explain to construction personnel how to avoid impacts to
jurisdictional waters, including wetlands. The program shall include a map and description of
jurisdictional waters on the site to be avoided and measures to implement to ensure the protection
and avoidance of jurisdictional waters.
MM-BIO-14 Prior to initiating any construction related activities requiring a clearing and grubbing or grading
permit, the Applicant shall prepare a revegetation plan for the temporary impact areas within the
25-foot grading buffer in the Minor Amendment Area that utilizes a native erosion control
hydroseed mix acceptable to the City and the Wildlife Agencies (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
California Department of Fish and Wildlife) to ensure soil stability and prevent subsequent erosion.
The revegetation plan must be prepared by a qualified City approved biologist familiar with the
City’s MSCP Subarea Plan and must include, but not be limited to, an implementation plan;
appropriate seed mixtures and planting method; irrigation method; quantitative and qualitative
success criteria; maintenance, monitoring, and reporting program; estimated completion time; and
contingency measures. The Project Applicant shall be required to prepare and implement the
revegetation plan subject to the oversight and approval of the Development Services Director (or
their designee).The proposed project MSCP BLA and Minor Amendment would require
implementation of the following mitigation measure:
MM-BIO-15 Prior to initiating any construction related activities requiring a clearing and grubbing or grading
permit, the Applicant shall receive approval by the City and Wildlife Agencies for the MSCP BLA. The
Applicant shall be required to implement conditions associated with the BLA subject to the
oversight and approval of the Development Services Director (or their designee).
MM-BIO-16 Prior to initiating any construction related activities requiring a clearing and grubbing or grading
permit, the Applicant shall receive approval by the City and Wildlife Agencies for the MSCP Minor
Amendment. The Applicant shall be required to implement conditions associated with the Minor
Amendment subject to the oversight and approval of the Development Services Director (or their
designee).
2.4.1.3 Finding
Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)(1), feasible measures that can minimize significant adverse
impacts were developed for the potentially significant impacts described in Section 2.4.1.1, Potentially Significant
Impacts to Biological Resources. The feasible measures, MM-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-16, are listed in Section
2.4.1.2, Mitigation Measures.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 663 of 1271
DRAFT FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
SUNBOW SPA PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT EIR
12612
26 July 2021
The City finds that the mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and would reduce the potential biological
resources impacts of the proposed project to less-than-significant levels as described above. Accordingly, the City
finds that, pursuant to CEQA Section 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that mitigate or avoid potentially significant
biological resource‐related impacts of the project identified in the EIR.
2.4.1.4 Facts in Support of the Findings Related to Biological Resources
The City finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and would reduce the proposed
project’s biological resources impacts to less than significant. Potential to impact candidate, sensitive, or special-
status-species directly would be reduced to less than significant with incorporation of MM-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-
7, MM-BIO-12, and MM-BIO-13.
Additionally, impacts associated with riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities would be reduced to
less than significant with incorporation of MM-BIO-1, MM-BIO-2, and MM-BIO-8 through MM-BIO-13. Furthermore,
impacts associated with conflict of an Adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State
habitat conservation plan would be reduced to less than significant with incorporation of MM -BIO-1 through MM-
BIO-16. There would be no significant, unavoidable impacts related to biological resources after implementation of
these mitigation measures. Refer also to Section 5.3 of the Final EIR.
2.4.2 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
2.4.2.1 Description of Potentially Significant Impacts to Cultural and Tribal
Cultural Resources
Impacts to archaeological resources
No known cultural resources will be impacted as a result of project implementation. However, while no cultural
resources have been identified or recorded within the proposed project area of potential effect (APE), the proximity
to known sites beyond the southern boundary of the project site, P-37-010473 (CA-SDI-10473) and P-37-010471
(CA-SDI-10471), indicates a high sensitivity of encountering intact subsurface cultural resources. The hills dividing
Poggi Canyon and its affiliated seasonal drainage (located within the northern portion of the site) from the more
substantial Otay River (located 1 mile directly south of the proposed project APE) likely housed numerous trails
connecting them, and may have hosted occasional gatherings or other activities. As with the existing archaeological
record of the broader area, the proposed project APE may contain intact, buried evidence of prehistoric or historic
transit, transportation, short-term encampments, and/or resource acquisition. There is potential to encounter
previously unidentified subsurface cultural deposits. Therefore, impacts would be potentially significant and
mitigation, as required and detailed in MM-CUL-1, would reduce potentially significant impacts to a level below
significance.
Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries
No evidence of human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, was discovered during the
records search, literature review, field survey, or site testing and evaluation. Further, the site has been previously
disturbed and never used as a formal cemetery. However, the possibility exists that human remains may be
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 664 of 1271
DRAFT FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
SUNBOW SPA PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT EIR
12612
27 July 2021
discovered during project grading and construction. Any disturbance of human remains that may occur during
project grading or construction would be potentially significant. Therefore, impacts would be potentially significant
and mitigation, as required by mitigation measure MM-CUL-1 would reduce potentially significant impacts to a level
below significance.
Cause adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource
Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a loc al register of historical
resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k).
No historical resources, as defined by California Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), are present within areas
that would be impacted by the proposed project. No previously recorded tribal cultural resources (TCRs) listed in the
CRHR or a local register were identified within the proposed project APE. However, there is still potential to disturb
unknown TCRs. Mitigation measure MM-CUL-1 would be implemented to reduce potentially significant impacts to a level
below significance.
A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance
of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
No TCRs have been identified that could be impacted by the proposed project. However, there is still potential for
unknown subsurface TCRs to be present on site. Proposed grading activities have potential to disturb unknown
subsurface TCRs. Therefore, impacts would be potentially significant. Mitigation measure MM-CUL-1 would be
implemented to reduce potentially significant impacts to a level below significance.
2.4.2.2 Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measure is recommended to reduce potentially significant impacts to unrecorded
subsurface archaeological resources, unrecorded human remains, and tribal cultural resources within the proposed
project site:
MM-CUL-1 A. Prior to beginning construction activities, the project archaeologist and Native American
representative shall attend any pertinent preconstruction meetings with the construction manager
and/or grading contractor in order to provide recommendations and answer questions relating to
the archaeological monitoring program. The project archaeologist shall be familiar with the cultural
inventory conducted for the current project and shall be prepared to introduce any pertinent
information concerning expectations and probabilities of discovery during ground-disturbing
activities. Prior to the initiation of construction, the cultural consultant shall acquire all evaluation
information and the draft evaluation report, if a report was prepared.
B. Both an archaeological monitor familiar with local resources and a Native American monitor
shall be present full time during the initial disturbance of soil with potential to contain cultural
deposits. All areas of initial project-related subsurface disturbance shall be assumed to
have the potential to contain cultural deposits. Monitoring of initial ground disturbance shall
not exceed a depth of 5 feet (1.5 meters) unless cultural resources are identified or if, through
direct inspection of subsurface exposures by the project Archaeologist, an area is observed
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 665 of 1271
DRAFT FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
SUNBOW SPA PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT EIR
12612
28 July 2021
to have the potential to support the presence of archaeological deposits at greater depths.
Cultural resources monitoring may be reduced from initial full-time monitoring to periodic
spot checks, or discontinued if appropriate, once the project archaeologist determines that
there is little or no risk of encountering cultural material.
C. Daily archaeological and Native American monitoring logs shall be prepared. Logs shall include
monitor names and affiliations, a description of general activities observed, cultural discoveries,
as well as comments or concerns as applicable.
D. In the event of an archaeological discovery, and when requested by the archaeological monitor or
Native American monitor, the resident contractor will divert, redirect, or temporarily halt ground
disturbing activities in the area of discovery or impacts to allow for preliminary inspection of
potentially significant archaeological resources or impacts. The significance of the discovered
resources or impacts shall be determined by the archaeologist, in consultation with the City of Chula
Vista (City). For significant cultural resources, a Research Design and Data Recovery Program shall
be prepared and carried out to mitigate impacts before grading activities in the area of discovery
shall be allowed to resume.
E. The project archaeologist shall be responsible for ensuring that all cultural materials collected
will be cleaned, catalogued, and curated permanently with an appropriate institution; that a
letter of acceptance from the curation institution has been submitted to the City; that all
artifacts are analyzed to identify function and chronology as they relate to the history of the area;
that faunal material will be identified as to species; and that specialty studies are completed, as
appropriate. The project archaeologist shall make a good-faith effort to ensure that all
archaeological material collected through previous work is appropriately curated with any
material recovered through construction monitoring.
F. If human remains are discovered, work shall halt in that area and procedures set forth in the
California Public Resources Code (Section 5097.98) and State Health and Safety Code (Section
7050.5) shall be followed by the archaeological monitor after notification to the County Coroner by
the project Archaeologist. If Native American remains are present, the County Coroner shall contact
the Native American Heritage Commission to designate a Most Likely Descendant, who shall
arrange for the dignified disposition and treatment of the remains.
G. Within 3 months following the completion of monitoring, two copies of a monitoring results
report (even if negative) and/or evaluation report, if applicable, that describes the results,
analysis, and conclusions of the archaeological monitoring program (with appropriate graphics)
shall be submitted to City.
H. For significant archaeological resources encountered during monitoring, the Research Design
and Data Recovery Program shall be included as part of the final evaluation monitoring report.
Two copies of the final monitoring report for significant archaeological resources, if required,
shall be submitted to the City. This final monitoring report should also incorporate a summary
of the evaluation results and analyses previously conducted within the project area.
I. The archaeologist shall be responsible for recording (on the appropriate CA DPR 523 Series
forms) any significant or potentially significant resources encountered during the
archaeological monitoring program in accordance with Section 106 and the City’s Cultural
Resources Guidelines, and submittal of such forms to the South Coastal Information Center at
San Diego State University with the final monitoring results report.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 666 of 1271
DRAFT FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
SUNBOW SPA PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT EIR
12612
29 July 2021
2.4.2.3 Finding
Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)(1), a feasible measure that can minimize significant adverse
impacts was developed for the potentially significant impacts described in Section 2.4.2.1, Potentially Significant
Impacts to Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources. The feasible mitigation, MM-CUL-1, is listed in Section 2.4.2.2,
Mitigation Measures.
The City finds that the mitigation measure is feasible, adopted, and will reduce the potential cultural and tribal
cultural resources impacts of the proposed project to less-than-significant levels. Accordingly, the City finds that,
pursuant to CEQA Section 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have
been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that mitigate or avoid potentially significant cultural
and tribal cultural‐related impacts of the project identified in the EIR.
2.4.2.4 Facts in Support of the Findings Related to Cultural and Tribal Cultural
Resources
The City finds that the above mitigation measure is feasible, adopted, and will reduce the proposed project’s cultural
and tribal cultural impacts. Potential impacts to archaeological resources, disturbance of human remains, and tribal
cultural resources would be less than significant with incorporation of MM-CUL-1. There would be no significant,
unavoidable impacts related to cultural and tribal cultural resources after implementation of this mitigation
measures. Refer also to Section 5.4 of the Final EIR.
2.4.3 Geology and Soils
2.4.3.1 Description of Potentially Significant Impacts to Geology and Soils
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature
A review of record search data, geological mapping, geological and paleontological literature, and on-site field survey
did not identify any existing paleontological resources within the proposed project APE boundaries. However, the
paleontological records search performed by SDNHM revealed there are 14 fossil localities within a 0.5-mile radius of
the APE boundaries from the San Diego and Otay Formations, which underlie the majority of the proposed project APE.
Based on the records search results and map and literature review, the study area has high potential to produce
paleontological resources during planned construction activities. Therefore, the project shall implement MM-GEO-1 to
reduce potential impacts in the event paleontological resources are uncovered during construction activities. MM-
GEO-1 requires that a qualified paleontologist be retained for the proposed project, in accordance with the Society of
Vertebrate Paleontology guidelines, and a complete paleontological monitoring program be adopted prior to project-
related earthmoving activities. Therefore, impacts would be potentially significant, but implementation of MM-GEO-1
would reduce potentially significant impacts to a less-than-significant level.
2.4.3.2 Mitigation Measures
MM-GEO-1 Paleontological Monitoring Program. 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
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 667 of 1271
DRAFT FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
SUNBOW SPA PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT EIR
12612
30 July 2021
out an appropriate mitigation program. (A qualified paleontologist is defined as an individua l with
an MS or PhD in paleontology or geology who is familiar with paleontological procedures and
techniques.) A pre-grading meeting shall be held that shall include 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., Otay Formation and 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., unnamed river terrace deposits and the Mission
Valley Formation) to inspect cuts for contained fossils. However, neither of these rock units have
been mapped within the project area of potential effect (APE) and are therefore not anticipated to
be impacted during construction.
The monitor shall be on site on at least a quarter-time basis during the original cutting of previously
undisturbed sediments of low sensitivity geologic formations (e.g., Lindavista Formation and
Santiago Peak Volcanics [metasedimentary portion only]) to inspect cuts for contained fossils.
However, these deposits have not been mapped within the project APE and are therefore not
anticipated to be impacted during construction. The monitor shall periodically (every several weeks)
inspect original cuts in deposits with an unknown resource sensitivity (i.e., Quaternary alluvium).
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 (i.e., Santiago Peak Volcanics, metavolcanic portion).
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.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 668 of 1271
DRAFT FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
SUNBOW SPA PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT EIR
12612
31 July 2021
2.4.3.3 Finding
Consistent with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)(1), a feasible measure that can minimize significant
adverse impacts was developed for the potentially significant impacts described in Section 2.4.3.1, Potentially
Significant Impacts to Geology and Soils. The feasible mitigation measure, MM-GEO-1 is listed in Section 2.4.3.2,
Mitigation Measures.
The City finds that the mitigation measure is feasible, is adopted, and would reduce the potential geology and soils
impacts of the proposed project to less than significant. Accordingly, the City finds that, pursuant to CEQA Section
21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the proposed project that would mitigate or avoid potentially significant geology and soil‐related
impacts of the proposed project identified in the EIR.
2.4.3.4 Facts in Support of the Findings Related to Geology and Soils
MM-GEO-1 would require that a qualified paleontologist be retained for the proposed project, in accordance with the
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology guidelines, and a complete paleontological monitoring program be adopted prior
to project-related earthmoving activities. Implementation of MM-GEO-1 would reduce potentially significant impacts
related to paleontological resources to a less-than-significant level. There would be no significant, unavoidable
impacts related to geology and soils after implementation of this mitigation measure. Refer also to Section 5.6 of
the Final EIR.
2.4.4 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
2.4.4.1 Description of Potentially Significant Impacts to Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving
wildland fires
The project site is located in an area statutorily designated as a Local Responsibility Area (LRA) Non-Fire Hazard
Severity Zone (FHSZ). However, the project site is within a Supplemental Fire Hazard Zon e as designated by the
City. The General Plan designates the project site as a High Hazard area (City of Chula Vista 2005).
All new structures within the project site would be constructed in accordance with the enhanced ignition-resistant
construction standards of the 2019 CBC (Chapter 7A) and the Urban–Wildland Interface code Chapter 5, except
where buildings require enhanced ignition resistance as part of an alternative material and method proposal. These
requirements address roofs, eaves, exterior walls, vents, appendages, windows, and doors and result in hardened
structures that have been proven to perform at high levels (resist ignition) during the typically short duration of
exposure to burning vegetation from wildfires. Buildings that include higher occupancies shall meet all California
Fire and Building requirements for higher occupancy structures. Included in the high occupancy category are multi-
family residences over three units, attached condominiums, and attached townhomes up to three stories, but less
than 30 feet overall height. In addition, the project would include fire protection systems including fire hydrants,
automatic fire sprinkler system, and fire alarm systems and residential hazard detectors.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 669 of 1271
DRAFT FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
SUNBOW SPA PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT EIR
12612
32 July 2021
Per CVMC Chapter 15.36, the City shall incorporate vegetation management and clearance standards set by the
California Fire Code. As such, FMZs of one hundred feet would be located on the perimeter of all structures and
along both ingress/egress roadways to and from Olympic Parkway However, due to site constraints, it is not feasible
to achieve a 100-foot FMZ width on the south side of the project site. As a result, fire exposure for buildings along
the southern edge of the project site would be potentially significant. Mitigation measure MM-WF-1 includes the
placement of non-combustible, heat-deflecting walls to provide additional deflection for these lots to compensate
for the reduced fuel modification zones to ensure impacts would be less than significant.
2.4.4.2 Mitigation Measures
MM-WF-1 Site Access
Site access, including fire lane, driveway, and entrance road widths, primary and secondary access,
gates, turnarounds, dead end lengths, signage, aerial fire apparatus access, surface, and other
requirements will comply with the requirements of the 2019 California Fire Code and the Chula
Vista Fire Department (CVFD) Standards. Fire access will be reviewed and approved by CVFD prior
to construction.
The developer will provide information illustrating the new roads, in a format acceptable to the City,
for updating of City maps.
Ignition Resistant Construction
All new structures within the Proposed Project will be constructed to at least the California Fire
Code standard. Each of the proposed buildings will comply with the enhanced ignition -resistant
construction standards of the 2019 CBC (Chapter 7A) and Chapter 5 of the Urban -Wildland
Interface code, except where buildings require enhanced ignition resistance as part of an
alternative material and method proposal. These re quirements address roofs, eaves, exterior
walls, vents, appendages, windows, and doors and result in hardened structures that have
been proven to perform at high levels (resist ignition) during the typically short duration of
exposure to burning vegetation from wildfires.
Fire Protection Systems
1. Water supply requirements specified in the California Fire Code (see FPP, Appendix H3, for
additional details) including for hydrants and interior sprinklers will be provided for the
proposed project.
2. Hydrants shall be located along fire access roadways and cul-de-sacs as determined by the CVFD
Fire Marshal to meet operational needs. Hydrants will be consistent with CVFD Design Standards
and provided every 500 feet (on-center).
3. All structures within the Proposed Project will include interior sprinklers, per code requirements
(see FPP, Appendix H3, for additional details). Sprinklers will be specific to each occupancy
type and based on the most recent National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 13, 13R, or
13D, requirements.
4. All residential units shall have a fire alarm system be installed in accordance with NFPA 72,
Fire Protection Signaling System and CVFD requirements. The fire alarm system will be
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 670 of 1271
DRAFT FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
SUNBOW SPA PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT EIR
12612
33 July 2021
supervised by a third-party alarm company. The system will be tested annually, or as needed,
with test results provided to CVFD.
Additionally, all residences will be equipped with residential smoke detectors and carbon monoxide
detectors and comply with current CBC, CFC, and California Residential Code standards.
All residential dwelling units shall have electric-powered, hard-wired smoke detectors with battery
backup per CVFD.
Defensible Space and Vegetation Management
Fuel Modification Zones (FMZs) would be located on the perimeter of all structures and along both
ingress/egress roadways to and from Olympic Parkway. All brush management zones and related
fuel modification activities shall occur outside of the Preserve. FMZs shall be a minimum of 100
feet in width. A 100-foot-wide FMZ will be installed for lots abutting designated Preserve Lands to
the north and west of the Project Site. To ensure long-term identification and maintenance, each
respective FMZ shall be identified by a permanent marker system meeting the approval of CVFD.
Other Vegetation Management
1. New roads will be subject to fuel modification zones with Zone 1 and/or Zone 2 standards
described above. The combustible vegetation will be modified within 30 feet from each side of
Streets A and B. Roadway-adjacent fuel modification does not preclude the planting of street trees
in these fuel modification zones, as long as they are not found on the Prohibited Plant List (Appendix
D of the FPP) and are included in the Approved Plant Palette (Appendix C of the FPP).
2. Pre-Construction Requirements:
• Perimeter fuel modification areas must be implemented and approved by the CVFD prior
to combustible materials being brought on site.
• Existing flammable vegetation shall be reduced by 50% on vacant lots upon commencement
of construction.
• Dead fuel, ladder fuel (fuel which can spread fire from ground to trees), and downed fuel shall
be removed, and trees/shrubs shall be properly limbed, pruned, and spaced per this plan.
3. Undesirable Plants. Certain plants are considered to be undesirable in the landscape due to
characteristics that make them highly flammable. These characteristics can be physical
(structure promotes ignition or combustion) or chemical (volatile chemicals increase
flammability or combustion characteristics). The plants included in the Prohibited Plant List
(Appendix D of Appendix H3, FPP) are unacceptable from a fire safety standpoint and will not
be planted on the site or allowed to establish opportunistically within fuel modification zones
or landscaped areas. No fuel modification zones are proposed within the MSCP areas, thus no
vegetation within the MSCP will be removed.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 671 of 1271
DRAFT FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
SUNBOW SPA PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT EIR
12612
34 July 2021
Tree Notes for Publicly Owned Areas.
The project shall maintain all trees in publicly owned areas, per the project's FPP. These
requirements include, but are not limited to:
• All standard form (single trunk) trees to include a single strong central leader with no branches
extending at an angle narrower than 30 degrees from the main trunk. If the tree does not
display a single strong central leader, a tree may be approved if the Developer’s arborist or
landscape architect of record can demonstrate that a single strong central leader can be
achieved through structural pruning.
• No grafted species that sucker from the base stock will be allowed as a street tree.
Vacant Parcels and Lots
The project shall comply with requirements of the project's FPP related to vacant parcels and lots.
These requirements include, but are not limited to:
• Vegetation management would not be required on vacant lots until construction begins.
However, perimeter FMZs must be implemented prior to commencement of construction
utilizing combustible materials.
• Vacant lots adjacent to active construction areas/lots would be required to implement
vegetation management if they are within 50 feet of the active const ruction area. Perimeter
areas of the vacant lot would be maintained as a vegetation management zone extending 50
feet from roadways and adjacent construction areas.
• Prior to issuance of a permit for any construction, grading, digging, installation of fences, etc.,
on a vacant lot, the 50 feet at the perimeter of the lot is to be maintained as a vegetation
management zone.
• FMZ on slope L&I does not have to be completed prior to construction starting, but all
flammable vegetation and plants found on the Prohibited Plant List, needs to grubbed and
graded or mowed prior to any construction.
Fuel Modification Area Vegetation Maintenance
All fuel modification area vegetation management shall be completed annually by May 1 of each
year and more often as needed for fire safety, as determined by the CVFD.
Annual Fuel Modification Area Vegetation Maintenance
The property owner would obtain an FMZ inspection and report from a qualified CVFD -approved
3rd party inspector in May of each year certifying that vegetation management activities throughout
the Project Site have been performed pursuant to this FPP. A copy of the annual inspection report
would be provided to the proposed project homeowner association (HOA) and a copy made
available to CVFD, if requested.
Reduced Fuel Modification Zone Discussion
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 672 of 1271
DRAFT FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
SUNBOW SPA PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT EIR
12612
35 July 2021
Due to site constraints, it is not feasible to achieve a 100-foot FMZ width on the south side of the
proposed development. This FPP incorporates additional fire protection measures as described in
this mitigation measure that shall be implemented to compensate for potential fire related threats.
These measures were customized for this site based on the analysis results and focus on providing
functional equivalency for reduced defensible space.
Landscape and Building Hardening.
1. Provide exterior glazing in windows (and sliding glass doors, garage doors, or decorative or
leaded glass doors) facing the open space areas to be dual pane with both panes tempered
glass, exceeding the fire-building code requirement.
2. Ensure no eave overhangs and combustible construction in portion of yards facing natural open
space areas.
3. Install 1-hour rated walls (Type X- 5/8-inch thickness of gypsum) behind non-combustible covering
(stucco, fiber cement siding) for a façade facing the open space areas to the east and south.
4. Conduct a formal landscaping plan review for structures with a façade facing open space area.
Landscape plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Chula Vista Fire Department.
5. Annually hire a third-party inspector to evaluate whether designated fuel modification zone
areas meet the requirements of the project Fire Protection Plan.
6. Provide a non-combustible fire-rated 6-foot-tall masonry block or view wall at the property line
on the south and east sides of the proposed project to provide a physical, non-combustible
barrier that would deflect heat and flame and would capture ground-blowing embers before
they reached the proposed project’s developed areas.
The proposed project’s slopes to the south provide an opportunity to place a non-combustible, 6-foot-tall,
heat-deflecting wall (or view wall with lower 1 to 2 feet block wall and upper 4 to 5 feet dual-pane, one
pane tempered glazing) to provide additional deflection for these lots to compensate for the reduced fuel
modification zones. The wall shall meet any of the following specifications:
• Be constructed of multi-pane glazing with a minimum of one tempered pane meeting the
requirements of Section 2406 Safety Glazing, or
• Have a fire-resistance rating of not less than 20 minutes when tested according to NFPA 257, or
• Be tested to meet the performance requirements of SFM Standard 12-7A-2.
Homeowner’s Wildfire Education Program
Per the FPP, the proposed project’s residents shall be provided a proactive educational component
disclosing the potential wildfire risk and this report’s requirements as part of their purchase documents.
Property owners shall be required to sign notice of receiving this information during escrow. This
educational information must include maintaining the landscape and structural components according
to the appropriate standards and embracing a “Ready, Set, Go” stance on evacuation.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 673 of 1271
DRAFT FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
SUNBOW SPA PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT EIR
12612
36 July 2021
2.4.4.3 Findings per CEQA Guidelines
Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)(1), feasible measures that can minimize significant adverse
impacts were developed for the potentially significant impacts described in Section 2.4.4.1, Potentially Significant
Impacts to wildfires. The feasible mitigation measure, MM-HAZ-1 is listed in Section 2.4.4.2, Mitigation Measures.
The City finds that the mitigation measure is feasible, is adopted, and would reduce the potential impacts
associated with wildfires to less than significant. Accordingly, the City finds that, pursuant to CEQA Section
21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in or
incorporated into the proposed project that will mitigate or avoid potentially significant impacts on hazards and
hazardous materials.
2.4.4.4 Facts in Support of the Findings Related to Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
Implementation of MM-WF-1 would be required, applying only to the walls of the structures that face the open space
areas adjacent to the project site. Implementation of MM-WF-1 would reduce potentially significant impacts related
to hazards and hazardous materials, specifically wildfire, to less than significant. There would be no significant,
unavoidable impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials after implementation of this mitigation measure.
There would be no significant, unavoidable impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials after
implementation of this mitigation measures. Refer also to Section 5.8 of the Final EIR. FMZs would be located on
the perimeter of all structures and along both ingress/egress roadways to and from Olympic Parkway. However,
due to site constraints, it is not feasible to achieve a 100-foot FMZ width on the south side of the project site. As
such, it is possible that the project would exacerbate wildfire risk and impacts would be potentially significant; thus,
the project would implement MM-WF-1 which includes fire protection measures that shall be implemented to
compensate for potential fire related threats. Implementation of MM-WF-1 would reduce potentially significant
impacts related to wildfire to less than significant. There would be no significant, unavoidable impacts related to
wildfire after implementation of this mitigation measure. Refer also to Section 5.17 of the Final EIR.
2.4.5 Public Services
2.4.5.1 Description of Potentially Significant Impacts to Public Services
Fire Protection Services
The proposed project is projected to slightly increase the nearest City fire station’s (Fire Station 3) current call
volume, but not at significant levels, because the current call volume is considered slightly above average compared
to other urban fire stations and the capacity would not be considered impacted to the point of res ulting in a busy
or stressed condition. Therefore, the proposed project does not include the construction or alteration of any fire
stations in the City in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives.
In the event that new fire stations are constructed after implementation of the proposed project, the new fire
stations would be supported on a fair share basis by future development (including the proposed project), through
payment of the City’s Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFDIF). The PFDIF addresses a project’s
proportional impact on capital facilities, such as structures and equipment, associated with fire protection. It does
not address the impacts associated with operations and maintenance for those facilities, and it is the City’s policy
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 674 of 1271
DRAFT FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
SUNBOW SPA PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT EIR
12612
37 July 2021
to use public funds such as property taxes, sales taxes, and fees generated by the proposed project to cover the
incremental costs associated with providing fire services. This impact would be potentially significant if these
mechanisms are not enforced. Therefore, impacts would be potentially significant, and incorporation of MM-PS-1
would be required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Police Protection Services
The project would generate approximately 2,315 residents. Thus, rounding the number of residents to 2,500 to
determine adequate police coverage would result in approximately 3 sworn police officers (2.5 multiplied by 1.16)
required to support the population generated from the project. Although additional law enforcement staff may be
required to adequately support the proposed project at buildout, the project would be required to pay the PFDIF,
which would be used exclusively for future facility improvements necessary to ensure that the development
contributes its fair share of the cost of police facilities and equipment determined to be necessary to adequately
accommodate new development in the City. This impact would be potentially significant if these PFDIF mechanisms
are not enforced. Therefore, impacts would be potentially significant; however, with incorporation of MM-PS-1,
impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Schools
Fees paid by the developer would be used to offset the impact of the number of new students generated by the
development of the proposed project. These fees are required to be paid by future development prior to issuance
of building permits.
The project site is located within existing Community Facilities Districts (CFD) for Chula Vista Elementary School
District (CFD No. 4) and Sweetwater Union High School District (CFD No. 4), which impose a special tax on property
owners to finance facilities for both school districts. Any development of new school facilities resulting from these
CFDs would be undertaken by the school district and an environmental document would be prepared at such time.
Pursuant to Education Code Section 17620(a)(1), the governing board can authorize the levy of a fee, charge,
dedication, or other requirements against any construction within school district boundaries, and with the school
district’s collection of Statutory and Alternative fees developers could fully mitigate their impact. However, in the
event that these taxes are not implemented, impacts to schools would be potentially significant. Therefore, impacts
would be potentially significant; however, with incorporation of MM-PS-2, impacts would be reduced to a less than
significant level.
Parks
The proposed project is aligned with the City’s forecasted population growth for 2030. The proposed project would not
disrupt the City’s existing conditions and existing plans that would create an adequate parkland per resident ratio.
The Applicant would comply with CVMC Section 19.80, Controlled Residential Development, which would ensure
that development would not degrade existing public services and facilities below acceptable standards for parks
and other public services. Payment of appropriate fees (further discussed below) would allow existing public
services and facilities to remain at acceptable standards while the usage potentially increases due to the population
increase resulting from the proposed project. The applicant would comply with CVMC Section 19.09, Growth
Management, which provides policies and programs that tie the pace of development to the provision of public
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 675 of 1271
DRAFT FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
SUNBOW SPA PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT EIR
12612
38 July 2021
facilities and improvements. CVMC Section 19.09.040E, specifically, requires three acres of neighborhood and
community park land with appropriate facilities per 1,000 residents east of I-805.
Additionally, the proposed project would pay the appropriate land acquisition and park development fees to offset
potential impacts to recreational facilities and parkland. A Community Benefit Agreement between the City and the
Applicant stipulates that the Applicant shall pay the City a Park Benefit Fee, equal to the Park Acquisition and
Development (PAD) fee that would have been due pursuant to CVMC Section 17.10, of approximately $11.03
million based on 2019 PAD fees, which may be revised by the City from time to time. The Public Benefit Fee would
be used by the City to acquire or develop parkland, pursuant to the City’s Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Without
payment of the Park Benefit Fees, impacts associated with parks would be potentially significant. Therefore,
impacts would be potentially significant; however, with incorporation of MM-PS-3, impacts would be reduced to a
less than significant level.
Libraries
The proposed project would generate demand for approximately 1,158 square feet of additional library facilities
within the City. Although the proposed project does not specifically include the development of a library, this demand
would be satisfied through payment of PFDIF as stated in CVMC Section 3.50.030 and 3.50.060, which would go
toward the City’s library system expansion program. Thus, impacts would be potentially significant if these PFDIF
mechanisms are not enforced. Therefore, impacts would be potentially significant ; however, with incorporation of
MM-PS-1, impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.
2.4.5.2 Mitigation Measures
MM-PS-1 Prior to the issuance of each building permit for any residential dwelling units, the applicant shall
pay a Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFDIF) in accordance with the fees in effect at the
time of building permit issuance and phasing approved in the Supplemental Public Facilities
Finance Plan, unless stated otherwise in a separate development agreement.
MM-PS-2 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide evidence or certification by
the Chula Vista Elementary School District (CVESD) and the Sweetwater Union High School District
(SUHSD) that any fee charge, dedication or other requirement levied by the school district(s) has
been complied with or that the district(s) has determined the fee, charge, dedication or other
requirements do not apply to the construction or that the applicant has entered into a school
mitigation agreement. School facility mitigation fees shall be in accordance with the fees in effect
at the time of building permit issuance.
MM-PS-3 No earlier than issuance of certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall pay the Park Benefit Fee,
as outlined in the project’s Development Agreement, equal to the City’s Park Acquisition and
Development (PAD) Fee Update pursuant to Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 17.10. The final
Park Benefit Fee amount shall be determined based on the number and type of residential units
constructed and the PAD fee rates in effect as of the effective date of the project’s Development
Agreement. To create this Park Benefit Fee, the City will waive the parkland dedication and
development requirements set in Chapter 17.10 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, including the
Parkland Acquisition and Public Facilities Development fees, and Quimby Act fees. The Park Benefit
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 676 of 1271
DRAFT FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
SUNBOW SPA PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT EIR
12612
39 July 2021
Fee shall satisfy the project’s park obligations and may be utilized by the City to acquire or develop
parkland, as the City determines appropriate and in the best interest of the City.
2.4.5.3 Findings per CEQA Guidelines
Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)(1), feasible measures that can minimize significant adverse
impacts was developed for the potentially significant impacts described in Section 2.4.5.1, Potentially Significant
Impacts to Public Services. The feasible measures, MM-PS-1 through MM-PS-3, are listed in Section 2.4.5.2,
Mitigation Measures.
The City finds that the mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and would reduce the potential public service
impacts of the proposed project to less than significant. Accordingly, the City finds that, pursuant to CEQA Section
21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in or
incorporated into the proposed project that would mitigate or avoid potentially significant impacts associated with
public services.
2.4.5.4 Facts in Support of the Findings Related to Public Services
Implementation of MM-PS-1 would require that prior to the issuance of each building permit for any residential
dwelling units, the applicant shall pay a PFDIF in accordance with the fees in effect at the time o f building permit
issuance and phasing approved in the Supplemental Public Facilities Finance Plan, unless stated otherwise in a
separate development agreement. Additionally, implementation of MM-PS-2 would require that prior to the issuance
of a building permit, the applicant shall provide evidence or certification by the Chula Vista Elementary School
District (CVESD) and the Sweetwater Union High School District (SUHSD) that any fee charge, dedication or other
requirement levied by the school district(s) has been complied with or that the district(s) has determined the fee,
charge, dedication or other requirements do not apply to the construction or that the applicant has entered into a
school mitigation agreement. Furthermore, implementation of MM-PS-3 would require that no earlier than issuance
of certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall pay the Park Benefit Fee, as outlined in the project’s Development
Agreement, equal to the City’s Park Acquisition and Development (PAD) Fee Update pursuant to Chula Vista
Municipal Code Section 17.10. Thus, implementation of MM-PS-1 through MM-PS-3 would reduce potentially
significant impacts related to public services to less than significant. Therefore, there would be no significant,
unavoidable impacts related to public services after implementation of these mitigation measures. Refer also to
Section 5.13 of the Final EIR.
2.4.6 Recreation
2.4.6.1 Potentially Significant Impacts to Recreation
Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities
The proposed project would comply with the PLDO by the payment of the Park Benefit Fee pursuant to the Community
Benefit Agreement described below. Therefore, the proposed project would not disrupt the City’s existing conditions
and existing plans that would create an adequate parkland per resident ratio. Additionally, the Applicant would comply
with CVMC Section 19.80, Controlled Residential Development, which would ensure that development would not
degrade existing public services and facilities below acceptable standards for parks and other public services.
Payment of appropriate fees (further discussed below) would allow existing public services and facilities to remain
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 677 of 1271
DRAFT FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
SUNBOW SPA PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT EIR
12612
40 July 2021
at acceptable standards while the usage potentially increases due to the population increase resulting from the
proposed project. The Applicant would comply with CVMC Section 19.09, Growth Management, which provides
policies and programs that tie the pace of development to the provision of public facilities and improvements. CVMC
Section 19.09.040E, specifically, requires “three acres of neighborhood and community park land with appropriate
facilities per 1,000 residents east of I-805.” While not contributing to the parkland requirement, the proposed
project would provide 0.9 acres of CPF land and 63.6 acres of MSCP Preserve open space areas well as various
passive and active recreational open space areas, to be distributed throughout the residential areas.
Furthermore, the proposed project would pay the appropriate land acquisition and park development fees to offset
potential impacts to recreational facilities and parkland. A Community Benefit Agreement between the City and the
Applicant stipulates that the Applicant shall pay the City a Park Benefit Fee , equal to the Park Acquisition and
Development (PAD) fee that would have been due pursuant to CVMC Section 17.10, of approximately $11.03
million based on 2019 PAD fees, which may be revised by the City from time to time. Payment of the Park Benefit
Fee would satisfy the proposed project’s park obligations and may be utilized by the City to acquire or develop
parkland at some point in the future, as the City determined appropriate and in the best interest of the City. Without
payment of the Park Benefit Fee, impacts associated with recreational facilities would be potentially significant.
Therefore, impacts would be potentially significant and incorporation of MM-PS-3 would be required to reduce
impacts to a less than significant level.
2.4.6.2 Mitigation Measures
Refer to MM-PS-3 in Public Services Section 2.4.5.2, Mitigation Measures.
2.4.6.3 Findings per CEQA Guidelines
Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)(1), a feasible measure that can minimize significant adverse
impacts was developed for the potentially significant impacts described in Section 2.4.6.1, Potentially Significant
Impacts to Recreation. The feasible mitigation measure, MM-PS-3, is listed in Section 2.4.6.2, Mitigation Measures.
The City finds that this mitigation measure is feasible, is adopted, and would reduce the potential recreational
impacts of the proposed project to less than significant. Accordingly, the City finds that, pursuant to CEQA Section
21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in or
incorporated into the proposed project that would mitigate or avoid potentially significant impacts from recreation.
2.4.6.4 Facts in Support of the Findings Related to Recreation
Incorporation of MM-PS-3 would require that no earlier than issuance of certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall
pay the Park Benefit Fee, as outlined in the project’s Development Agreement, equal to the City’s Park Acquisition
and Development (PAD) Fee Update pursuant to Chu la Vista Municipal Code Section 17.10. Therefore,
implementation of MM-PS-3 would reduce potentially significant impacts related to recreation to less than significant.
There would be no significant, unavoidable impacts related to recreation after implementation of this mitigation
measure. Refer also to Section 5.14 of the Final EIR.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 678 of 1271
DRAFT FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
SUNBOW SPA PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT EIR
12612
41 July 2021
2.4.7 Wildfire
2.4.7.1 Potentially Significant Impacts to Wildfire
Due to slope prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants
to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire
As mentioned previously in Section 2.4.4, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the project includes fire resistance-
related measures that shall lessen the potential impact of the project exacerbating wildfire risk. FMZs would be
located on the perimeter of all structures and along both ingress/egress roadways to and from Olympic Parkway .
Roadway-adjacent fuel modification does not preclude the planting of street trees in these fuel modification zones,
as long as they are not found on the Prohibited Plant List and are included in the Approved Plant Palette. Typical
fuel modification includes establishment of a minimum 50-foot wide irrigated zone (Zone 1) and a 50-foot wide
thinned zone (Zone 2) on the periphery of the project site, beginning from the rear or side yard lot line. As discussed
in the FPP, FMZ areas experience a significant reduction in flame length and intensity. Reduction of flame lengths
and intensities are assumed to occur within the full 100 feet of fuel modification (a combination of Zones 1 and 2).
However, due to site constraints, it is not feasible to achieve a 100-foot FMZ width on the south side of the project
site. As such, it is possible that the project would exacerbate wildfire risk and impacts would be potentially
significant. Thus, implementation of MM-WF-1 is required and would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
2.4.7.2 Mitigation Measures
Refer to MM-WF-1 in Hazards and Hazardous Materials Section 2.4.4.2, Mitigation Measures.
2.4.7.3 Findings per CEQA Guidelines
Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)(1), a feasible measure that can minimize significant adverse
impacts were developed for the potentially significant impacts described in Section 2.4.7.1, Potentially Significant
Impacts to Wildfire. The feasible mitigation measure, MM-WF-1, is listed in Section 2.4.7.2, Mitigation Measures.
The City finds that the mitigation measure is feasible, is adopted, and would reduce the potential wildfire impacts
of the proposed project to less than significant. Accordingly, the City finds that, pursuant to CEQA Section
21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in or
incorporated into the proposed project that would mitigate or avoid potentially significant impacts from wildfire.
2.4.7.4 Facts in Support of the Findings Related to Wildfire
Implementation of MM-WF-1 would be required, applying only to the walls of the structures that face the open space
areas adjacent to the project site. Implementation of MM-WF-1 would reduce potentially significant impacts related
to wildfire, to less than significant. There would be no significant, unavoidable impacts related to wildfire after
implementation of this mitigation measures. Refer also to Section 5.8 of the Final EIR. FMZs would be located on
the perimeter of all structures and along both ingress/egress roadways to and from Olympic Parkway. However,
due to site constraints, it is not feasible to achieve a 100-foot FMZ width on the south side of the project site. As
such, it is possible that the project would exacerbate wildfire risk and impacts would be potentially significant; thus,
the project would implement MM-WF-1 which includes fire protection measures that shall be implemented to
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 679 of 1271
DRAFT FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
SUNBOW SPA PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT EIR
12612
42 July 2021
compensate for potential fire related threats. Implementation of MM-WF-1 would reduce potentially significant
impacts related to wildfire to less than significant. There would be no significant, unavoidable impacts related to
wildfire after implementation of this mitigation measure. Refer also to Section 5.17 of the Final EIR.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 680 of 1271
DRAFT FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
SUNBOW SPA PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT EIR
12612
43 July 2021
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 681 of 1271
12612
44 July 2021
3 Findings on Project Alternatives
CEQA requires that an EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to a project, or to the location of the project,
that could feasibly attain the basic objectives of that project, and to evaluate the comparative merits of the
alternatives (14 CCR 15126.6[a]). The CEQA Guidelines direct that the selection of alternatives be governed by “a
rule of reason” (14 CCR 15126.6[a], [f]). As defined by the CEQA Guidelines, “The range of alternatives required in
an EIR is governed by a ‘rule of reason’ that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit
a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the
significant effects of the project. Of those alternatives, the EIR needs to examine in detail only the ones that the
Lead Agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project” (14 CCR 15126.6[f]).
3.1 Alternatives Considered and Eliminated During the
Scoping/Project Planning Process
The CEQA Guidelines provide that an EIR should “identify any alternatives that were considered by the Lead Agency
but were rejected as infeasible during the scoping process and briefly explain the reasons underlying the Lead
Agency’s determination” (14 CCR 15126.6[c]). The following is a discussion of the project alternatives proposed
during the scoping and planning process and the reasons they were not selected for detailed analysis in th e EIR.
With respect to the feasibility of potential alternatives to the proposed project, CEQA Guidelines Section
15126.6(t)(l) states, “Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of
alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other
plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries … and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire,
control or otherwise have access to the alternative site.”
In determining an appropriate range of proposed project alternatives to be evaluated in the EIR, a number of
possible alternatives were initially considered and then rejected. Proposed project alternatives were rejected
because they could not accomplish the basic objectives of the proposed project, or they would not have resulted in
a reduction of significant adverse environmental impacts.
Alternative Locations
Pursuant to Section 15126.6(f)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, the City considered the potential for alternative locations
to the project. There are sites within the City of an approximately equivalent size to the project site that could be
redeveloped with a residential project; however, the project applicant does not control another site within the City
of comparable land area that is available for development of the proposed project. One of the factors for feasibility
of an alternative is “whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the
alternative site.” Because the City is highly urbanized and is largely built out, obtaining another site of a similar size
in a similar location is not considered feasible. It should also be noted that the project site is surrounded on all
sides by development. As such, an alternative location was ultimately rejected from further analysis in the Final EIR.
3.2 Alternatives Selected for Further Analysis
This section discusses a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project, including a No Project Alternative,
in compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e). These alternatives are as follows:
• Alternative 1: No Project/No Build Alternative
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 682 of 1271
DRAFT FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
SUNBOW SPA PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT EIR
12612
45 July 2021
• Alternative 2: Existing Land Use Designation Alternative
• Alternative 3: Reduced Development Alternative
These alternatives are evaluated for their ability to avoid or substantially lessen the impacts of the proposed project
identified in the Final EIR, and in consideration of their ability to meet the basic objectives of the proposed project
as described in the Final EIR.
3.2.1 Alternative 1: No Project/No Build Alternative
Section 15126.6(e) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR evaluate and analyze the impacts of a No
Project/No Build Alternative. The “purpose of describing and analyzing a no project alternative is to allow decision
makers to compare the impacts of approving the proposed project with the impacts of not approving the proposed
project” (14 CCR 15126.6[e][1]). When defining the No Project/No Build Alternative, the analysis must be informed
by “what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based
on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services” (14 CCR 15126.6[e][2]).
Description
Section 15126.6(e) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR evaluate and analyze the impacts of the No
Project/No Build Alternative, which reflects the “circumstances under which the project does not proceed.” Under
the No Project/No Build Alternative, no development would occur on the project site. Accordingly, the site
characteristics of this alternate would be equivalent to the existing conditions.
Finding
The City rejects the No Project/No Build Alternative as undesirable because it would not meet any of the project
objectives. Therefore, pursuant to Section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social,
technological, or other considerations make this alternative infeasible.
Rationale
While the No Project/No Build Alternative would have lesser impacts in the majority of resource areas, adoption of
the No Project/No Build Alternative would not meet most of the project objectives. Alternative 1 would not support
Objective 1 by developing a pedestrian-oriented community with a range of residential uses, open space and MSCP
Preserve areas, and recreational opportunities, which are compatible with the adjacent established residential
communities. The No Project (No Build) alternative would not meet Objective 2 in contributing to the growing
housing needs of the City and the region by providing for multi-family housing units with a range of housing types
to accommodate a spectrum of demographics. Portions of the project site would not be preserved as permanent
open space, nor would there be an increase in MSCP Preserve Areas as described in Objective 3. Alternative 1
would not support Objective 4 in providing pedestrian and bicycle facilities, including pedestrian connections to the
existing Chula Vista Regional Trail and connections to existing bike lanes within Olympic Parkway and nearby transit.
The No Project (No Build) alternative would not meet Objective 5 because the both the General Plan, GDP and SPA
anticipated development of the site as part of the Sunbow Master Plan and the goals, objectives, and policies of
the MSCP would not be met because land would not be preserved in the MSCP preserve system in pe rpetuity
Objective 8 would not be met by the No Project/No Build Alternative because a land use plan that can realistically
be developed within a foreseeable time frame and under economic conditions would not be implemented. Since
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 683 of 1271
DRAFT FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
SUNBOW SPA PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT EIR
12612
46 July 2021
no construction or development would occur under this alternative, Objectives 6 with respect to ensuring adequate
public and community facilities would not be met. This alternative would not generate funding for existing and
planned infrastructure and services through payment of development impact fees. Additionally, this alternative
would not widen or improve off-site roads, or extend or expand existing planned infrastructure related to the project.
Objective 7, ensuring new uses are compatible with the existing regulations, would not be relevant. Refer to Section
1.2.1, Project Objectives, for a list of project objectives. Refer also to Chapter 10 of the Final EIR. For these reasons
and others detailed in the record before the City, the City rejects the No Project (No Build) Alternative as both
undesirable and infeasible.
3.2.2 Alternative 2: Existing Land Use Designation Alternative
Description
The Existing Land Use Designations Alternative would include the development consistent with the City’s General
Plan, Sunbow General Development Plan (GDP) and Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan. The City’s General Plan
designates the development area within the southeastern portion of the site as Research & Limited Industrial. The
Sunbow GDP designated the 54.7 acres as Industrial Park to include research/development and light industrial
uses, with approximately 700,000 square feet of leasable area generating approximately 2,800 employment
opportunities; however, actual leasable area may be less than this approximation when accounting for required
infrastructure and amenities. Note, that the development areas under the existing land use designations and the
proposed project are different than the MSCP hardline, established after the approval of the Sunbow GDP and SPA
Plan. The rest of the project site would be preserved as Open Space and MSCP Preserve, similar to the proposed
project. It is anticipated that access would be provided via Olympic Parkway and internal circulation on the project
site would be similar to the proposed project. However, features such as pedestrian and bicycle circulation, the
Community Purpose Facility (CPF), and active and passive recreational open space areas, proposed to be developed
throughout the residential uses under the proposed project, would not be deve loped under the Existing Land Use
Designations Alternative.
Finding
The City rejects the Existing Land Use Designation Alternative as undesirable because it would only partially meet the
objectives of the project, would result in greater impacts to some environmental issue areas, and would still result
in significant and unavoidable impacts to GHG emissions. Therefore, pursuant to Section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA
Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make this alternative infeasible.
Rationale
As discussed in Section 10 of the Final EIR, under the Existing Land Use Designations Alternative environmental
impacts related to most of the topical areas of the EIR would be similar as compared to the project. However, the
environmental impacts associated with Air Quality and Noise would be increased under the Existing Land Use
Designations Alternative as compared to the proposed project. Finally, environmental impacts would be reduced
with respect to Recreation,
The Existing Land Use Designations Alternative would meet project Objective 5, because this alternative would
implement the goals, objectives, and policies of the Chula Vista General Plan, the MSCP Subarea Plan, the Sunbow
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 684 of 1271
DRAFT FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
SUNBOW SPA PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT EIR
12612
47 July 2021
GDP, and the Sunbow SPA Plan; and Objective 6, because public services and facilities would be provided under
this alternative in accordance with the City’s Growth Management Ordinance.
The Existing Land Use Designations Alternative would not meet Objectives 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 or 8. Objective 7 would only
be partially met because while the new uses would meet established setbacks and design standards for industrial
uses, it would not enhance the quality of life for neighboring residential properties because environmental impacts
associated with Air Quality and Noise would be increased. Objectives 1, 2, and 4 pertain to residential development
and associated pedestrian and bicycle facilities which would not be included under this alternative. This alternative
would not contribute to meeting the growing housing needs of the City and the region by providing for multi-family
housing units with a range of housing types to accommodate a spectrum of demographics (objective 2). Nor would
it develop a residential community that is compatible with the surrounding residential uses (objective 1). This
alternative would not meet Objective 9 given that the site has been designated for industrial uses for approximately
30 years yet has remained undeveloped. While this alternative would preserve portions of the site, it would not result
in an increase in MSCP Preserve Areas (Objective 3). Refer also to Section 10 of the Final EIR.
For these reasons and others detailed in the record before the City, the City rejects Alternative 2 as both undesirable and
infeasible.
3.2.3 Alternative 3: Reduced Development Alternative
Description
The Reduced Development Alternative would include the development of 360 residential units, within a similar
development footprint as the proposed project. This number of units, which is 358 fewer units than the proposed
project was chosen in order to provide low to medium density residential. This alternative would still include
associated infrastructure, a reduced size Community Purpose Facility, and Open Space/MSCP Preserve areas as
proposed under the project. Due to the decreased number of units within a similar development footprint, the
Reduced Development Alternative is assumed to be developed with low to medium density residential rather than
medium-high and high density residential as proposed under the project. The proposed project would require a
Boundary Line Adjustment (BLA) between the currently proposed development boundaries and the mapped Multiple
Species Conservation Program (MSCP) preserve on-site. Due to the reduced development of this alternative, this
BLA would be avoided under this alternative. However, it should be noted that the BLA proposed under the project
would result in an increase MSCP Preserve Areas.
Finding
The City rejects the Existing Land Use Designation Alternative as undesirable because the alternative would only
partially meet the objectives of the project and would still result in significant and unavoidable impacts to GHG
emissions. Therefore, pursuant to Section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social,
technological, or other considerations make this alternative infeasible.
Rationale
As discussed in Section 10 of the Final EIR, in the event Alternative 3, Reduced Residential Alternative, is developed,
significant environmental impacts would be reduced with respect to energy, public services, recreation, transportation
utilities and service systems. However, environmental impacts related to Wildfire, Population and Housing, Land Use
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 685 of 1271
DRAFT FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
SUNBOW SPA PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT EIR
12612
48 July 2021
and Planning, Hydrology and Water Quality, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Geology and Soils, Cultural and Tribal
Cultural Resources, Biological Resources, and Aesthetics would be similar under the Reduced Residential Alternative
as compared to the project. Environmental impacts related to GHG would remain significant and unavoidable.
The Reduced Development Alternative would meet most of the project objectives, with the exception of Objectives
1, 2, and 3, it would not contribute to meeting the growing housing needs of the City and the region to the same
extent as the proposed project because the reduction in housing density to low and medium would not allow for
multi-family housing units with a range of housing types or residential uses. Multi-family housing that would be
provided by the project accommodates a wide variety of household types, income levels, and lifestyle preferences;
thus, the Reduced Development Alternative would potentially decrease opportunities for housing supply, diversity,
and economic competitiveness. Additionally, while this alternative would preserve portions of the project site, it
would not result in an increase to MSCP Preserve Areas that would occur under the project. This alternative would
still result in significant and unavoidable impacts to GHG emissions and a majority of the environmental impacts
would remain the same as the project. Refer also to Section 10 of the Final EIR.
For these reasons and others detailed in the record before the City, the City rejects Alternative 2 as both undesirable
and infeasible.
3.2.4 Environmentally Superior Alternative
The No Project Alternative would result in the least environmental impacts and would be the environmentally
superior alternative. However, Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines states that if the environmentally
superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative
among the other alternatives. In this case, the environmentally superior alternative is the Reduced Development
Alternative. The Reduced Development Alternative would meet most of the project objectives, but to a lesser degree
than the proposed project while reducing impact resulting from greater population growth of the proposed project.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 686 of 1271
12612
49 July 2021
4 General CEQA Findings
Based on the foregoing Findings and the information contained in the administrative record, and as conditioned by
the foregoing, the City has determined the following:
1. The plans for the proposed project have been prepared and analyzed so as to provide for public
involvement in the planning and the CEQA processes.
2. To the degree that any impacts described in the Draft EIR are perceived to have a significant effect on the
environment, or such impacts appear ambiguous as to their effect on the environment, any significant
effect of such impacts has been substantially lessened or avoided by the mitigation measures set forth in
the Draft and Final EIR.
3. Comments regarding the Draft EIR received during the public review period have been adequately
addressed in Chapter 2, Responses to Comments Received, in the Final EIR. Any significant effects
described in such comments were avoided or substantially lessened by the mitigation measures
described in the Draft and Final EIR.
4.1 Findings Regarding Recirculation
The City finds that the Draft EIR does not require recirculation under CEQA (CEQA Section 21092.1, CEQA Guidelines
Section 15088.5). CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 requires recirculation of an EIR prior to certification of the
Final EIR when “significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the
draft EIR for public review.” As described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5:
New information added to an EIR is not “significant” unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives
the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect
of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project
alternative) that the project’s proponents have declined to implement. “Significant new information”
requiring recirculation includes, for example, a disclosure showing that:
1. A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new
mitigation measure proposed to be implemented;
2. A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless
mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance;
3. A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others
previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the
project, but the project’s proponents decline to adopt it;
4. The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature
that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.
In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(b) provides that “recirculation is not required where the new
information added to the EIR merely clarifies and amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate
EIR.” Recirculation also is not required simply because new information is added to an EIR; indeed, new information
is oftentimes added given CEQA’s public/agency comment and response process and CEQA’s post-Draft EIR
circulation requirement of proposed responses to comments submitted by public agencies. In short, recirculation
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 687 of 1271
DRAFT FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
SUNBOW SPA PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT EIR
12612
50 July 2021
is “intended to be an exception rather than the general rule” (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of
University of California (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112, 1132).
As such, the City makes the following Findings:
1. None of the public comments submitted to the City regarding the Draft EIR present any significant new
information that would require the Draft EIR to be recirculated for public review.
2. No new or modified mitigation measures are proposed that would have the potential to create new
significant environmental impacts.
3. The Draft EIR adequately analyzed project alternatives and there are no feasible alternatives or mitigation
measures considerably different from others previously analyzed that would clearly lessen the significant
environmental impacts of the project.
4. The Draft EIR was not fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature and did not
preclude meaningful public review and comment.
In this legal context, the City finds that recirculation of the Draft EIR prior to certification is not required. In addition
to providing responses to comments, the Final EIR includes revisions to expand upon information already presented
in the Draft EIR (Chapter 3, Changes to the Draft EIR); explain or enhance the evidentiary basis for the Draft EIR’s
findings; update information; and to make clarifications, amplifications, updates, or helpful revisions to the Draft
EIR. The Final EIR’s revisions, clarifications, and/or updates do not result in any new significant impacts or increase
the severity of a previously identified significant impact.
In sum, the Final EIR demonstrates that the proposed project would not result in any new significant impacts or
increase the severity of a significant impact compared to the analysis presented in the Draft EIR. The changes
reflected in the Final EIR also do not indicate that meaningful public review of the Draft EIR was precluded in the
first instance. Accordingly, recirculation of the EIR is not required because revisions to the EIR are not significant
as defined in Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines.
4.2 Legal Effects of Findings
To the extent that these Findings conclude that the proposed mitigation measures outlined herein are feasible and
have not been modified, superseded, or withdrawn, the City hereby commits to implementing these measures.
These Findings, in other words, are not merely informational, but rather constitute a binding set of obligations that
will come into effect upon approval of the proposed project.
The mitigation measures that are referenced herein and adopted concurrently with these Findings will be
effectuated through the process of construction and implementation of the proposed project as indicated in the
concurrently adopted MMRP.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 688 of 1271
12612
51 July 2021
5 Statement of Overriding
Considerations
Pursuant to PRC Section 21081(b) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093(a) and (b), the decision-making agency is
required to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a project against
its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve a project. If the specific economic, legal,
social, technological, or other benefits of a project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, those
effects may be considered “acceptable” (14 CCR 15093[a]). CEQA requires the agency to support, in writing, the
specific reasons for considering a project acceptable when significant impacts are not avoided or substantially
lessened. Those reasons must be based on substantial evidence in the Final EIR or elsewhere in the administrative
record (14 CCR 15093[b]).
Courts have upheld overriding considerations that were based on a variety of policy considerations , including new
jobs; stronger tax base; and implementation of an agency’s economic development goals, growth management
policies, redevelopment plans, the need for housing and employment, conformity to community plan, and provision
of construction jobs (see Towards Responsibility in Planning v. City Council (1988) 200 Cal App. 3d 671; Dusek v.
Redevelopment Agency (1985) 173 Cal App. 3d 1029; City of Poway v City of San Diego (1984) 155 Cal App. 3d
1037; Markley v. City Council (1982) 131 Cal App.3d 656).
In accordance with the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City finds that the mitigation measures
identified in the Final EIR and the MMRP, when implemented, will avoid or substantially lessen virtually all of the
significant effects identified in the EIR for the Sunbow SPA Plan Amendment for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project .
However, certain significant impacts of the proposed project are unavoidable even after incorporation of all feasible
mitigation measures. These significant unavoidable impacts result from GHG impacts due to generation of GHG
emissions, that may either directly or indirectly have a significant impact on the environment and conflict with an
applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.
The City finds that all feasible mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR would be imple mented with the
proposed project. As identified below, the City further finds that the remaining significant unavoidable effects are
outweighed and are found to be acceptable due to the following specific overriding economic, legal, social,
technological, or other benefits based on the facts set forth above, the Final EIR, and the record.
The City finds that any one of the benefits set forth below is sufficient by itself to warrant approval of the proposed
project. This determination is based on the Findings herein and the evidence in the record. Having balanced the
unavoidable adverse environmental impacts against each of the benefits, the City hereby adopts this Statement of
Overriding Considerations for the following reasons:
1. Contribution of the growing housing needs of the City and region: The project would provide balanced and
diverse housing opportunities to the City and would provide housing to accommodate the City’s future growth
projections. The project features four unique multi-family attached residential product types with 15 unique
floorplans, ranging in square footage from approximately 1,100 to 2,050, in two- and three-story homes, to
accommodate a full spectrum of family demographics. The project’s mix of housing types and choices would
also support a reasonable share of the City’s projected regional population growth to help the City meet its
required regional housing needs, as detailed in the City’s General Plan Housing Element and SANDAG’s
Regional Housing Needs Assessment. The project will also provide an affirmative outreach program,
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 689 of 1271
DRAFT FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
SUNBOW SPA PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT EIR
12612
52 July 2021
including advertising and marketing, that would encourage buyers of all majority and minority groups,
regardless of sex, disability, and familial status.
In addition, the project will contribute to the Balanced Communities Policy by extending covenants for an
existing affordable housing complex in Sunbow II, called “Villa Serena Senior” which provides 132 units for
seniors. Under the Development Agreement being entered into by the applicant and city, sixty-seven (67)
units currently designated as moderate-income units will be restricted to low income housing and the
Affordability Covenants will be extended until June 1, 2055.
2. Park Benefit Fee: Payment of a Park Benefit Fee, equal to the PAD fee that would have been due pursuant
to CVMC Section 17.10, of approximately $11.03 million based on 2019 PAD fees, which may be revised
by the City from time to time. The final Park Benefit Fee amount will be determined based on the number
and type of residential units constructed and the PAD fee rates in effect as of the effective date of the
project’s Development Agreement. This Park Benefit Fees may be utilized by the City for park and
recreational amenities that can be used anywhere in the City that it deems appropriate.
3. Facilitation of Economic Growth: After marketing the project for over 30 years as an industrial park, the
applicant will aid the City which provides an opportunity to facilitate economic growth funding for office
uses within the SR-125 corridor or the construction of facilities for academic, institutional, and innovation-
related businesses within the University Innovation District.
4. Preservation and increase of MSCP Preserve Areas: Approximately 63.6 acres of Open Space (Parcels OS-
1, OS-2, OS-3, and OS-9b) would be preserved as MSCP open space under the City’s MSCP Subarea Plan.
The MSCP open space area would be dedicated to the City of Chula Vista. The MSCP open space area would
be managed, monitored and maintained by the City with funding provided by CFD 98-3. The proposed MSCP
Boundary Adjustment would meet the MSCP Boundary Line Adjustment functional equivalency criteria and
would result in a 0.09-acre increase to the MSCP Preserve Area.
5. Public Facilities Financing: To identify, summarize, and implement the various facility costs associated with
the project, a Supplemental Public Facility Financing Plan (PFFP) was prepared for the project that
implements the City’s Growth Management Program and meets General Plan/Growth Management
Element goals and objectives. The Chula Vista Growth Management Program ensures the City’s necessary
public facilities and services exist or are provided concurrent with the demands of new development.
6. Benefits from Construction Jobs Creation: The project will boost the local economy by supporting
construction related jobs during the approximately 7 years of project construction.
7. Fiscal Impact: The proposed project encourages economic growth and diversity within the City. The project
will provide a stable and significant source of property tax revenue for the City by increasing tax revenues
from residential uses, supports employment of construction workers, and reduces per capita costs for
provision of public services. The Fiscal Impact Report prepared for the project utilized the City’s Fiscal
Impact Model and estimated that the project with generate $3 million in net positive impacts to the City’s
General Fund over a 20-year period, and also estimated year-over-year net positive impacts.
8. Job Enhancement Funds. The project will provide a unique public benefit to the community by providing
$8.0 million in Job Enhancement Funds that can be used by the City as a catalyst for development that will
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 690 of 1271
DRAFT FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
SUNBOW SPA PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT EIR
12612
53 July 2021
generate high-quality jobs within the SR-125 corridor or University Innovation District Master Plan. Thus,
facilitating the creation of high-quality jobs and economic growth within the City by providing opportunities
that target and attract industries and businesses that contribute to diversification and stabilization of the
local economy and allow the City to advance the vision of the University Innovation District (such as enabling
the development of an Institute for International Studies), or some other notable project at the City’s
discretion.
On balance, the City finds that under CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(t)(l), there are specific economic, legal,
social, technological, and other considerations associated with the proposed project that serve to override and
outweigh the significant unavoidable effects of the proposed project, and, thus, the adverse effects are considered
acceptable. Therefore, the City hereby adopts this Statement of Overriding Considerations.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 691 of 1271
12612
54 July 2021
6 Conclusion
The mitigation measures listed in conjunction with each of the findings set forth above, as implemented through
the MMRP, will eliminate or reduce to a less-than-significant level most of the adverse environmental impacts of
the proposed project. The significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed project would be rendered
acceptable by the specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other considerations benefits identified in
Section 5, Statement of Overriding Considerations.
Taken together, the Final EIR, the mitigation measures, and the MMRP provide an adequate basis for approval of
the proposed project.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 692 of 1271
12612
55 July 2021
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 693 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3
Chula Vista General Plan Amendment
Justification Report
May 2021
APPLICANT:
ACI SUNBOW, LLC
Contact: Bill Hamlin
2356 Moore Street
San Diego, CA 92110
619-544-9171
PREPARED FOR:
LENNAR HOMES OF CALIFORNIA, INC.
16465 Via Esprillo, Suite 150
San Diego, CA 92127
Contact: David Shepherd
Adopted ______________
By Resolution No. ______________
PREPARED BY:
RH Consulting Group, LLC
Contact: Ranie Hunter
Ranie@RHConsultingGroup.com
619-823-1494
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 694 of 1271
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 695 of 1271
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction & Background .................................................................................................. 2
II. Existing Site Conditions ......................................................................................................... 3
III. Proposed Amendments and Project Proposal ...................................................................... 5
A. Proposed Amendments .............................................................................................................. 5
B. Project Proposal ......................................................................................................................... 5
C. Development Schedule .............................................................................................................. 6
D. Fiscal Impact Analysis Update .................................................................................................. 6
E. Other Sunbow II, Phase 3 Entitlements ..................................................................................... 6
IV. Land Use Considerations ....................................................................................................... 7
V. Economic Considerations ....................................................................................................... 8
VI. Environmental Considerations .............................................................................................. 9
VII. Housing Development Considerations .................................................................................. 9
VIII. Infrastructure Considerations ............................................................................................. 10
IX. Public Benefit Consideration ............................................................................................... 10
X. Annexation ............................................................................................................................. 10
XI. List of Proposed General Plan Amendments ..................................................................... 10
Attachment A: Sunbow II, Phase 3 Chula Vista General Plan Consistency Analysis
Attachment B: Sunbow II, Phase 3 Market and Financial Analysis of Industrial Use (HR&A 2021)
Attachment C: Sunbow II, Phase 3 Fiscal Impact Analysis (DPFG 2021)
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 696 of 1271
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 697 of 1271
Sunbow II, Phase 3
Chula Vista General Plan Amendment Report
Page 2 May 2021
I. Introduction & Background
The City of Chula Vista authorized development of the 604.8 acre Sunbow Planned Community upon
approval of the following:
• Sunbow II General Development Plan (GDP) approved by Resolution No. 15427 on December
5, 1989;
• Sunbow II Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP) approved by Resolution No. 15525 on
January 24, 1990;
• Sunbow II Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan approved by Resolution No. 15524 on
February 20, 1990;
• Sunbow II Planned Community District Regulations and Land Use District Map approved by
Ordinance No. 2361 on February 27, 1990;
• Sunbow II Design Guidelines approved by Resolution No. 15640 on May 22, 1990;
• Sunbow II Tentative Subdivision Map (TSM 90-07) approved by Resolution No. 115640 on
May 22, 1990; and
• Sunbow II Affordable Housing Agreement approved by Resolution No. 18662 on May 13,
1997.
In February 2003, the City of Chula Vista adopted the City of Chula Vista MSCP (Multi-Species
Conservation Plan) Subarea Plan. At that time, development of the approved Sunbow Planned
Community was underway. When the City adopted the MSCP Plan, Sunbow was not identified as a
“covered project;” however, the MSCP Plan established a hardline MSCP Preserve Boundary adjacent
to the Sunbow II, Phase 3 development area. Based upon the City’s MSCP Boundary data, the
Applicant’s Engineer (Hunsaker & Associates) determined that within the 135.7-acre Sunbow II,
Phase 3 Project Area, there are approximately 62.07 acres of land designated MSCP Preserve, the 3.9-
acre Poggi Easement area and approximately 69.7 acres of development area.
In 2004, 2009 and most recently in 2019, the Applicant pursued a General Plan Amendment and rezone
to convert the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Industrial Park from Limited Industrial to residential land uses. In
response to this request, the Chula Vista City Council approved the Community Benefit Agreement
on January 7, 2020 (Adopted by Resolution 2020-003) between the Applicant and the City which
would allow the Applicant to process entitlements to convert the undeveloped Sunbow II, Phase 3 site
from Limited Industrial to residential uses, open space and other associated land used described below.
The Community Benefit Agreement would provide funding that can be utilized by the City to facilitate
the construction of high value job producing land uses within the City. Refer to Section IV. Public
Benefit Considerations for additional details.
On February 26, 2020, ACI Sunbow, LLC (Applicant) filed an application with the City of Chula
Vista for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Amendment . The application
included the discretionary actions necessary to implement a proposal to rezone the Sunbow II, Phase
3 Industrial Park to residential, Community Purpose Facility and other related land uses. The
application also includes a proposed a minor MSCP Boundary Adjustment between the development
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 698 of 1271
Sunbow II, Phase 3
Chula Vista General Plan Amendment Report
Page 3 May 2021
area and the adjacent Chula Vista MSCP Preserve area north and west of Planning Area 23, which
would result in a 0.09 acre increase to MSCP Preserve Open Space within the 135.7-acre Project Area.
The Project includes the following:
• Chula Vista General Plan Amendment
• Sunbow II General Development Plan Amendment
• Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan Boundary Adjustment
• Sunbow II SPA Plan Amendment
• Rezone
• Tentative Map
• Development Agreement
The scope of the Project encompasses Sunbow II, Phase 3. Based upon a more precise level of
engineering information currently available, including GIS mapping, the Sunbow II, Phase 3
development area acreage has been refined and encompasses 67.5 acres, which includes 44.2 acres of
residential, a 0.9-acre Community Purpose Facility (CPF) site, 5.9 acres of public streets and 16.5
acres of manufactured open space slopes and basins. Approximately 4.3 acres of Poggi Creek
Conservation Easement area, a 0.3-acre conserved wetland resource area and 63.61 acres of MSCP
Preserve area are also within the 135.7-acre Project Area.
The City of Chula Vista contracted with HR&A Advisors, Inc. to assist the Development Services
Department in understanding 1) the potential impact of the proposed industrial rezoning on Chula
Vista’s ability to meet the City’s long-term employment goals; and 2) whether it is reasonable to expect
the Sunbow property would develop as an industrial property rather than remain vacant, if it were to
retain its current industrial zoning. The Sunbow II, Phase 3 Market and Financial Analysis of
Industrial Use (HR&A 2021) is provided as Attachment B to this report.
The City also requested that the Applicant prepare the City’s Net Fiscal Impact Model to estimate the
fiscal impacts of the Project. The Applicant retained Development Planning & Financing Group
(DPFG) to prepare the City’s Net Fiscal Impact Model. The Sunbow II, Phase 3 – Fiscal Impact
Analysis (DPFG 2021) is provided as Attachment C to this report.
II. Existing Site Conditions
The 135.7-acre Project Area is within the municipal boundaries of the City of Chula Vista. The Project
Area is located within the Chula Vista General Plan (CVGP), Master Planned Communties Subarea.
The current CVGP designates Sunbow II, Phase 3 as Limited Industrial (46.0 acres) and the adjacent
MSCP Preserve area is designated Open Space Preserve. The Project Area is currently governed by
the Planned Community District Regulations approved with the 1990 Sunbow II SPA Plan. However,
1 The proposed MSCP Preserve area also includes approximately 1.31 acres of “Mapping Correction area” and
approximately 1.12 acres of MSCP Allowable Use (Basin – Future Facility).
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 699 of 1271
Sunbow II, Phase 3
Chula Vista General Plan Amendment Report
Page 4 May 2021
Sunbow II, Phase 3 Planned Community Regulations specific to the Project are provided in the
Sunbow II, Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment, Chapter 14.0.
The Project Area is vacant and undeveloped. Surrounding land uses include existing Olympic
Parkway and Sunbow single family homes to the north, the Otay Landfill to the south, future Otay
Ranch Village 2 West to the east and existing single family homes to the west. The Project Area
landform consists of undulating slopes south of existing Poggi Creek.
Access to the Project Area is provided directly from Olympic Parkway, an existing 6-Lane Prime
Arterial roadway, via the extension of two public streets planned through the project site. Regional
access is provided via I-805 to the west and SR-125 to the east. (See Vicinity Map below) Access,
surrounding land use designations and adopted and proposed Sunbow II, Phase 3 land use designations
are depicted on the “General Plan Land Use Diagram” provided below.
Vicinity Map
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 700 of 1271
Sunbow II, Phase 3
Chula Vista General Plan Amendment Report
Page 5 May 2021
III. Proposed Amendments and Project Proposal
The Applicant proposes to amend the CVGP Land Use Diagram to change the land use designation
from Limited Industrial to High Residential, Medium-High Residential and modify the limits of Open
Space Preserve and Open Space land uses within the Project Area. The proposed amendments to
CVGP are outlined below.
A. Proposed Amendments
This proposal includes amendments to the following CVGP diagrams and tables:
• General Plan Land Use Diagram (Figure 5-12, Page LUT-47) –
o Modify the General Plan land use designations from Limited Industrial to High
Residential, Medium High Residential, Open Space and Open Space Preserve
• General Plan Land Use Distribution in 2030 (Acreages), (Table 5-6, Page LUT-56)
o Modify the land use acreages of Medium-High Residential, High Residential, Open
Space Preserve and Open Space to reflect the Project
• General Plan Land Use in 2030 (Table 5-7, Page LUT-57)
o Modify the residential dwelling units within the Medium-High and High residential
land uses and and acreage by land use designations to reflect the Project
See Attachment B, Chula Vista General Plan Amendment Consistency Analysis for an analysis
demonstrating how the proposed project is consistent with applicable CVGP Objectives and Policies.
B. Project Proposal
The proposed Sunbow II, Phase 3 Site Utilization Plan includes 718 multi-family attached dwelling
on 44.2 acres, 63.6 acres designated MSCP Preserve and 16.5 acres comprised of manufactured slopes
and basins, 5.9 acres of public streets, a 0.9-acre Community Purpose Facility (private recreation
facility), a 0.3-acre conserved wetland resource and 4.3 acres of Poggi Creek Conservation Easement
areas.
Four distinct multi-family residential product types are proposed within the Project, including 2- and
3-story row townhomes and triplex homes served by private streets and drives. A Community Purpose
Facility designed as a private recreation facility is conveniently located and is planned as a private
swim club for homeowner use. The areas designated Open Space Preserve would become part of the
City’s permanent MSCP Preserve.
A comparison between the Sunbow II, Phase 3 land uses approved in the 2009 Sunbow II SPA Plan
and the Proposed Sunbow II, Phase 3 SPA Amendment are depicted in Table 1 below:
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 701 of 1271
Sunbow II, Phase 3
Chula Vista General Plan Amendment Report
Page 6 May 2021
Table 1 – Comparison of Land Uses: 1990 Sunbow II SPA Plan to 2020 Proposed Project1
Approved Land
Uses
Proposed Project Land
Uses
Approved vs. Proposed
Land Uses
Land Use Acres Units Acres Units Acres Units
Research & Limited Industrial 46.0 -46.0
Residential Medium High
36.6 534 +36.6 +534
Residential High 7.6 184 +7.6 +184
Community Purpose Facility 0.9 +0.9
Preserve Open Space 62.1
63.62 0 +1.5
Open Space/Other3 27.6 21.1 -6.5
Circulation 5.9 +5.9
TOTAL 135.7
135.7 718 +0.0 +718
1Acreage reflects rounding of numbers to nearest 1/10th acre and may vary slightly from calculated total.
2 Preserve Open Space includes 1.31 acres of “Mapping Correction Area.”
3 Includes manufactured slopes, basins, Poggi Creek Conservation Easement areas and conserved wetland resource area.
C. Development Schedule
The Project development schedule assumes entitlements are approved in mid-2021. Initial grading
activities are planned to begin immediately after entitlement approvals, with build out anticipated by
approximately 2028.
D. Fiscal Impact Analysis Update
The Applicant prepared an updated fiscal analysis for Sunbow II, Phase 3 utilizing the City’s fiscal
model. The fiscal update assumes full build out 718 residential units. The results generated from the
fiscal model meet the requirements of CVMC 19.09.040 and demonstrate that the Project will generate
an annual fiscal surplus in Years 1 - 20 ($46,461 - $270,298) and a cumulative fiscal surplus over the
first 20 years of approximately $3,218,323. (See Attachment C, Sunbow II, Phase 3 Fiscal Impact
Analysis, 2020).
E. Other Sunbow II, Phase 3 Entitlements
Along with this proposed CVGP Amendment, the Applicant is concurrently processing the following
entitlements:
• Sunbow GDP Amendment;
• Chula Vista MSCP Boundary Adjustment;
• MSCP Minor Amendment (to address temporary off-site grading impacts);
• Sunbow SPA Plan Amendment (including required SPA Appendices);
• Rezone;
• Tentative Map (CVT # 20-0002); and
• Development Agreement
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 702 of 1271
Sunbow II, Phase 3
Chula Vista General Plan Amendment Report
Page 7 May 2021
IV. Land Use Considerations
The Sunbow Industrial Park is the last remaining undeveloped portion of the Sunbow II SPA Plan .
The Sunbow II, Phase 3 site was designated Limited Industrial (IL) and Open Space (OS) in the 1989
Chula Vista General Plan and the 2005 General Plan Update. In 2004 and again in 2019, the Applicant
pursued revisions to the land use designation within the Sunbow II, Phase 3 area. 30 years after the
Sunbow II SPA Plan was approved, and with no market interest to invest in public improvement and
grading for the Sunbow Industrial Park over that same timeframe, the Applicant submitted a request
to initiate a General Plan amendment and rezone to develop as a residential/commercial development.
As part of the review of the GPA initiation request, the City raised questions regarding the viability of
industrial uses planned for the site vs. development of office and residential land uses. In response to
these issues, the Applicant prepared an Employment Analysis and Fiscal Impact Analysis. The
employment analysis concluded that commercial office uses in general produce a high er number of
jobs than light industrial uses. The fiscal analysis identified that a modest amount of commercial use
would offset the fiscal impacts of a market rate housing development.
In order to encourage development of viable employment lands in eastern Chula Vista that will also
serve as a catalyst for development of a university campus, the City asked the Applicant for alternative
solutions to achieve the City’s goals and address the contention that the industrial development market
could not overcome the necessary construction costs of the Sunbow Industrial Business Park stie. The
Community Benefits Agreement provided the City and Applicant preferred solutions.
On January 7, 2020, the Chula Vista City Council approved the Community Benefit Agreement (CBA)
between the City of Chula Vista and ACI Sunbow, LLC by Resolution No. 2020-003, which would
allow the Applicant to process entitlements that would involve converting the undeveloped 46-acre
site designated Limited Industrial to residential uses. For the City, the CBA would provide funding
that can be utlized by the City to direct the construction of either a Class “A” office building that
would facilitate high quality job enhancement uses along the SR-125 corridor on City or non-profit
owned land or a commercial/academic building that can facilitate either an academic or private-sector
market-rate project to advance the vision of the University Innovation District (such as enabling the
development of an Institute for International Studies), or some other notable project at the City’s
discretion.
The City of Chula Vista contracted with HR&A Advisors, Inc. to assist the Development Services
Department in understanding the potential economic implications of the proposed General Plan
Amendment. HR&A Advisors Inc. prepared the Sunbow II, Phase Market and Fiscal Analysis of
Industrial Use (2021). The analyses included the following conclusions:
“Chula Vista currently has enough developable land to accommodate projected industrial
demand with a surplus of 190 to 311 acres of vacant developable industrial land remaining
after 2050.”
“With a FAR of approximately 0.38, tied to the blended average between standard industrial
and flex spaces in the region, this analysis indicates that the city will need 118 and 239 acres
to accommodate future industrial growth. Based on the city’s current industrial land uses and
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 703 of 1271
Sunbow II, Phase 3
Chula Vista General Plan Amendment Report
Page 8 May 2021
zoned capacity, Figure 15 shows that, after accounting for future industrial demand, the city
would still have at least 190 acres of additional, undeveloped industrial lands. If rezoning of
the Site is approved, between 147 and 268 net acres of land zoned for industrial use are likely
to remain in Chula Vista.”
The HR&A analyses also resulted in the following conclusions regarding the viability of the Planning
Area 23 site developing as an industrial use:
“Significant topographical variation on the site is a barrier to industrial development due to the
expense and time associated with grading and site development preparation.”
“Based on an analysis of recent land sales and the lack of developer or end-use interest over
the past 20 years, industrial development on the Site is unlikely to be financial feasible.”
Under the proposed land uses, Sunbow II, Phase 3 is designed to help satisfy the increasing demands
for attainable work-force homes and move-up home buyers. The amended Sunbow II, Phase 3 land
use plan provides four distinct multi-family product types with 15 unique floor plans. Connections to
existing bicyle and pedestrian facilities, specifically the Chula Vista Regional Trail and dedicated bike
lanes along Olympic Parkway, are also planned. The on-site pedestrian pathways connect a series of
passive and active recreational areas and provide pleasant and convenient walking routes throughout
the residential neighborhoods. A centrally located private recreation facility will provide a gathering
area and meet the social and recreational needs of the residents.
The proposed land use plan is compatible with adjacent residential land uses within the existing
Sunbow Planned Community and creates a unique theme and experience for its residents and visitors.
The Project is designed as a residential enclave featuring contemporary architectural styles.
Architecture will include a variety of distinct and unique combinations of elevations and colors. The
landscape design compliments the contemporary architectural styling of the community while
providing a series of open space amenities to serve the active and passive recreational needs of the
community. The landscape evolves from a naturalized aesthetic at the edges to a drought tolerant
gardenesque tyling in the central streetscape and green spaces.
A buffer that serves as the fuel modification area is planned at the perimeter of the development area
and along the development edge adjacent to the on-site MSCP Preserve areas. Walls and landscape
materials will provide visual softening and screening from adjacent properties. Impacts to adjacent
development are not anticipated.
V. Economic Considerations
The Applicant prepared an updated fiscal analysis for Sunbow II, Phase 3 utilizing the City’s fiscal
model. The fiscal update assumes build out 718 residential units. The results generated from the fiscal
model meet the requirements of CVMC 19.09.040 and demonstrate that the Project will generate an
annual fiscal surplus in Years 1 - 20 ($46,461 - $270,298) and a cumulative fiscal surplus over the
first 20 years of approximately $3,218,323. (See Sunbow II, Phase 3 Fiscal Impact Analysis, 2021).
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 704 of 1271
Sunbow II, Phase 3
Chula Vista General Plan Amendment Report
Page 9 May 2021
The Community Benefits Agreement provides the City with an opportunity to facilitate economic
growth by the Applicant providing $8.0 million (“Job Enhancement Funds”) in support funding for
the development of a Class “A” office building within the SR-125 corridor. The construction of such
office spaces would provide a catalyst for development that could generate high -quality jobs in
locations currently suitable for construction. In addition to payment of the $8.0 million Job
Enhancement Funds, the City would also receive Park Benefit Fees (approximately $11.06 million)
for park and recreation amentities that can be used by the City to acquire and/or develop parkland, as
the City determines appropriate and in the best interest of the City.
VI. Environmental Considerations
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the Sunbow II, Phase 2 SPA Plan
Amendment. The following technical reports were prepared for the EIR to determine potential
environmental impacts associated with the Project and to evaluate potential impacts of the adjacent
Otay Landfill on proposed residential development within Planning Area 23:. See Sunbow II, Phase
3 SPA Amendment EIR for additional details.
• Memorandum (Appendix B) and Health Risk Assessment (Dudek 2020)
• Sunbow II, Phase 3 – Noise Impact Analysis (Dudek 2020)
• Sunbow II, Phase 3 SPA Amendment – Biological Impact Analysis Report (Merkel 2021)
• Sunbow II, Phase 3 SPA Amendment - Functional Equivalency Analysis for MSCP
Boundary Line Adjustment and Facility Siting Criteria Report (Merkel 2020)
• Habitat Restoration and Sensitive Species Mitigation Plan for the Sunbow II, Phase 2 SPA
Plan Amendment (Merkel 2020)
• Sunbow II, Phase 3 Geotechnical Investigation (GEOCON, Inc. 2020)
• Priority Development Project (PDP) Storm Water Quality Management Plan for the
Sunbow II, Phase 3 Tentative Map (Hunsaker 2020)
• Drainage Study for Sunbow II, Phase 3 (Hunsaker 2021)
• Traffic Impact Analysis for Sunbow II, Phase 3 (Linscott, Law & Greenspan 2021)
• Overview of Water Service for Sunbow II, Phase 3 (Dexter Wilson Engineering 2020)
• Sewer System Evaluation for Sunbow II, Phase 3 (Dexter Wilson Engineering 2020)
• Sunbow II, Phase 3 SPA Amendment Water Conservation Plan Updated (SPA Plan
Appendix E) (Dexter Wilson Engineering 2020)
• Cultural and Paleontological Resources Report for Sunbow II, Phase 3 (Dudek 2020)
• Sunbow II, Phase 3 Fiscal Impact Analysis (DPFG 2021)
• Sunbow II, Phase 3 Market and Financial Analysis of Industrial Use (HR&A Advisors,
Inc. 2021)
VII. Housing Development Considerations
Sunbow II, Phase 3 is designed to help satisfy the increasing demand for attainable work-force homes
and move-up home buyers. The amended Sunbow II, Phase 3 land use plan provides four distinct
multi-family product types with 15 unique floor plans. A centrally located private recreation facility
will provide a gathering area and meet the social and recreational needs of the residents.The Sunbow
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 705 of 1271
Sunbow II, Phase 3
Chula Vista General Plan Amendment Report
Page 10 May 2021
II, Phase 3 Project is subject to the City of Chula Vista Balanced Community Affordable Housing
Policies. This obligation is addressed in the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Balanced Communities Affordable
Housing Agreement and Development Agreement.
VIII. Infrastructure Considerations
The City approved the Sunbow II Public Facility Finance Plan (PFFP) by Resolution No. 15524 on
February 20, 1990 that outlines the infrastructure, services and facilities needed to serve the Sunbow
Planned Community, consistent with the City’s Growth Management Program. The Supplemental
PFFP (2021) addresses traffic, police, fire and emergency medical services, schools, libraries, parks,
trails and open space, water, sewer, drainage, air quality, civic center corporation and other public
faciities to ensure the Project provides the infrastructure necessary to serve Sunbow II, Phase 3.
IX. Public Benefit Consideration
The Community Benefits Agreement provides the City with the ability to facilitate development within
the SR-125 corridor or the University Innovation District in the academic, high technology and
innovation fields that produce opportunities for high paying jobs for the residents of Chula Vista. The
Applicant’s commitments to providing $8.0 million in Job Enhancement Funds, will allow the City to
realize significant economic, social, and other benefits. These public benefits will advance the
interests and meet the needs of Chula Vista’s residents and visitors to a significantly greater extent
than the vacant land under the current entitlements and absent the Community Benefits Agreement.
In addition to payment of the $8.0 million Job Enhancement Funds, the City would also receive Park
Benefit Fees (approximately $11.03 million) for park and recreation amentities that can be used by the
City to acquire and/or develop parkland, as the City determines appropriate and in the best interest of
the City. The Applicant has also entered into a Development Agreement with the City of Chula Vista
that memorializes the commitments in the Community Benefits Agreements and how the Community
Purpose Facility and affordable housing obligations are satisfied, among other things.
X. Annexation
No annexations actions are planned for the Project.
XI. List of Proposed General Plan Amendments
With the proposed amendments, the Project will remain consistent with the Chula Vista General Plan
land use, transportation, economic development, housing, public facilities and services, environmental
and growth management objectives and policies. This section provides a list of proposed amendments
by CVGP page number. Proposed revisions to CVGP diagrams and tables are provided below.
Chapter 5 – Land Use and Transportation Element
• General Plan Land Use Diagram (Figure 5-12, Page LUT-47) –
o Modify the General Plan land use designation with Planning Area 23 from Limited
Industrial to Medium High and High Residential
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 706 of 1271
Sunbow II, Phase 3
Chula Vista General Plan Amendment Report
Page 11 May 2021
o Modify the limits of development for the Medium High and High Residential, Open
Space and Open Space Preserve land use boundaries per the MSCP Boundary
Adjustment
• General Plan Land Use Distribution in 2030 (Acreages), (Table 5-6, Page LUT-56)
o Modify the Medium High, High, Limited Industrial and Open Space and Open Space
Preserve acreages to reflect the Project
• General Plan Land Use in 2030 (Table 5-7, Page LUT-57)
o Modify the residential dwelling units within the Medium High and High land use
designations to reflect the project
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 707 of 1271
Sunbow II, Phase 3
Chula Vista General Plan Amendment Report
Page 12 May 2021
ADOPTED - GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DIAGRAM, FIGURE 5-12 (PAGE LUT-47)
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 708 of 1271
Sunbow II, Phase 3
Chula Vista General Plan Amendment Report
Page 13 May 2021
PROPOSED - REVISION TO - GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DIAGRAM, FIGURE 5-12
(PAGE LUT-47)
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 709 of 1271
Sunbow II, Phase 3
Chula Vista General Plan Amendment Report
Page 14 May 2021
EXISTING TABLE 5-6: GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DISTRIBUTION IN 2030
(ACREAGES)
General Plan Land
Use Designation
Total
General
Plan Area
Bayfront Northwest Southwest
East
East Chula
Vista
Subareas
Unincorporated
Sweetwater
Subareas
Unincorporated
Otay Ranch
Subareas
Residential
Low 6,977 - 64 - 1,560 2,453 2,900
Low Medium 8,010 - 1,354 1,401 4,737 307 211
Medium 1,604 - 187 288 1,025 32 72
Medium High 665 - 143 113 312 - 97
High 525 - 124 253 148 - -
Urban Core 84 - 84 - - - -
Bayfront High 14 14 - - - - -
Commercial
Retail 826 - 115 202 477 32 -
Visitor 148 135 11 2 - - -
Professional & Admin. 160 13 61 7 67 12 -
Mixed Use
Mixed Use Residential 933 - 174 98 611 - 50
Mixed Use
Commercial 135 25 37 58 15 - -
Mixed Use Transit
Focus Area 122 - 83 39 - - -
Industrial
Limited Industrial 1,885 62 116 384 1,107 - 216
Regional Technology
Park 85 - - - 85 - -
General Industrial 175 175 - - - - -
Public, Quasi Public
and Open Space
Public, Quasi Public 2,901 55 225 321 1,880 381 39
Parks and Recreation 978 74 73 106 606 88 31
Open Space 7,305 100 215 617 3,578 1,101 1,694
Open Space Preserve 16,926 362 18 97 4,582 1,997 9,870
Open Space - Active
Recreation 375 8 44 - 323 - -
Water 2,672 1,498 - - - 9 1,165
Special Planning
Area
Eastern Urban Center 266 - - - 266 -
Resort 230 - - - - 230
Town Center 85 - - - 85 -
Other² 4,606 99 866 829 2,343 408 61
Total Acres 58,692 2,620 3,994 4,815 23,807 6,820 16,636
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 710 of 1271
Sunbow II, Phase 3
Chula Vista General Plan Amendment Report
Page 15 May 2021
PROPOSED TABLE 5-6: GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DISTRIBUTION IN 2030
(ACREAGES) (Proposed changes shown in red)
General Plan Land
Use Designation
Total
General
Plan Area
Bayfront Northwest Southwest
East
East Chula
Vista
Subareas
Unincorporated
Sweetwater
Subareas
Unincorporated
Otay Ranch
Subareas
Residential
Low 6,977 - 64 - 1,560 2,453 2,900
Low Medium 8,010 - 1,354 1,401 4,737 307 211
Medium 1,604 - 187 288 1,025 32 72
Medium High 708 - 143 113 355 - 97
High 537 - 124 253 160 - -
Urban Core 84 - 84 - - - -
Bayfront High 14 14 - - - - -
Commercial
Retail 826 - 115 202 477 32 -
Visitor 148 135 11 2 - - -
Professional & Admin. 160 13 61 7 67 12 -
Mixed Use
Mixed Use Residential 933 - 174 98 611 - 50
Mixed Use
Commercial 135 25 37 58 15 - -
Mixed Use Transit
Focus Area 122 - 83 39 - - -
Industrial
Limited Industrial 1,839 62 116 384 1,061 - 216
Regional Technology
Park 85 - - - 85 - -
General Industrial 175 175 - - - - -
Public, Quasi Public
and Open Space
Public, Quasi Public 2,901 55 225 321 1,880 381 39
Parks and Recreation 978 74 73 106 606 88 31
Open Space 7,299 100 215 617 3,572 1,101 1,694
Open Space Preserve 16,927 362 18 97 4,583 1,997 9,870
Open Space - Active
Recreation 375 8 44 - 323 - -
Water 2,672 1,498 - - - 9 1,165
Special Planning
Area
Eastern Urban Center 266 - - - 266 -
Resort 230 - - - - 230
Town Center 85 - - - 85 -
Other² 4,606 99 866 829 2,343 408 61
Total Acres 58,696 2,620 3,994 4,815 23,811 6,820 16,636
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 711 of 1271
Sunbow II, Phase 3
Chula Vista General Plan Amendment Report
Page 16 May 2021
EXISTING TABLE 5-7: GENERAL PLAN LAND USE IN 2030
General Plan Land Use Designation 2030 Acres 2030 Dwelling
Units
RESIDENTIAL
Low 6,977 8,232
Low Medium 8,010 41,286
Medium 1,604 16,159
Medium High 665 10,314
High 525 15,382
Urban Core 84 3,830
Bayfront High 14 1,500
COMMERCIAL
Retail 826
Visitor 148
Professional & Office 160
MIXED USE
Mixed Use Residential 933 17,639
Mixed Use Commercial 135
Mixed Use Transit Focus Area 122 3,782
INDUSTRIAL
Limited Industrial 1,885
Regional Technology Park 85
General Industrial 175
PUBLIC, QUASI PUBLIC AND OPEN
SPACE
Public/Quasi-Public 2,901
Parks and Recreation 978
Open Space 7,305
Open Space Preserve 16,926
Open Space - Active Recreation 375
Water 2,672
SPECIAL PLANNING AREA
Eastern Urban Center 266 4,905
Resort 230
Town Center 85 1,929
OTHER* 4,606
TOTAL 58,692 124,958
* Streets, freeways, utility rights-of-way
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 712 of 1271
Sunbow II, Phase 3
Chula Vista General Plan Amendment Report
Page 17 May 2021
PROPOSED TABLE 5-7: GENERAL PLAN LAND USE IN 2030
(Proposed amendments shown in red)
General Plan Land Use Designation 2030 Acres 2030 Dwelling
Units
RESIDENTIAL
Low 6,977 8,232
Low Medium 8,010 41,286
Medium 1,604 16,159
Medium High 708 10,848
High 537 15,566
Urban Core 84 3,830
Bayfront High 14 1,500
COMMERCIAL
Retail 826
Visitor 148
Professional & Office 160
MIXED USE
Mixed Use Residential 933 17,639
Mixed Use Commercial 135
Mixed Use Transit Focus Area 122 3,782
INDUSTRIAL
Limited Industrial 1,839
Regional Technology Park 85
General Industrial 175
PUBLIC, QUASI PUBLIC AND OPEN
SPACE
Public/Quasi-Public 2,901
Parks and Recreation 978
Open Space 7,299
Open Space Preserve 16,927
Open Space - Active Recreation 375
Water 2,672
SPECIAL PLANNING AREA
Eastern Urban Center 266 4,905
Resort 230
Town Center 85 1,929
OTHER* 4,606
TOTAL 58,696 125,676
* Streets, freeways, utility rights-of-way
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 713 of 1271
Sunbow II, Phase 3
Chula Vista General Plan Amendment Report
Page 18 May 2021
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 714 of 1271
ATTACHMENT A
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 715 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 716 of 1271
1
Sunbow II, Phase 3 General Plan Consistency Analysis
Chula Vista General Plan Applicable Objectives/Policies
The following is a consistency analysis of the applicable Chula Vista General Plan Objectives and
Policies.
OBJECTIVE/
POLICY OBJECTIVE/POLICY TEXT CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION
Objective – LUT 1: Provide a balance of residential and non-residential development throughout the City that achieves a
vibrant development pattern, enhances the character of the City, and meets the present and future needs of all residents
and businesses.
LUT 1.1 Ensure that land uses develop in accordance
with the Land Use Diagram and Zoning Code
in an effort to attain land use compatibility.
The Sunbow GDP and Chula Vista General Plan designate
Sunbow II, Phase 3 as Limited Industrial and Open Space.
Further, the Sunbow SPA Plan adopted in 1990 also
designated Planning Area 23 as an Industrial Park. The
Sunbow Planned Community is built-out, with the
exception of Planning Area 23. The Applicant
unsuccessfully marketed Planning Area 23 as an Industrial
Park. In response to the Applicant’s request for a General
Plan Amendment Authorization, the Applicant and the City
entered into a Community Benefits Agreement on January
7, 2020 (Adopted by Resolution No. 2020-003) which
provided economic benefits to the City and also allowed the
Applicant to process an application to change the land use
designation to High and Medium-High Residential Upon
approval of the Sunbow SPA Amendment and PC District
Regulations and establishes zoning districts would be in
accordance with the amended General Plan Land Use
Diagram.
The City of Chula Vista contracted with HR&A Advisors,
Inc. to prepare the Sunbow II Phase 3 Market and Financial
Anlaysis of Industrial Use (March 26, 2021) (HR&A
Analysis), that analyzes the potential implications of
rezoning Planning Area 23 from industrial to residential
land uses (HR&A Analysis, provided as an attachment to
the Fiscal Impact Analysis). The HR&A Analysis also
analyzed the feasibility of developing Planning Area 23
portion of Sunbow II, Phase 3 as an Industrial Park. The
HR&A Analysis concluded that the City would need
approximately 118 to 239 acres of industrially zoned land
to meet the calculated demand for 1.9 million to 3.8 million
square feet of industrial space in Chula Vista by 2050.
Given that the City’s inventory of industrially zoned land is
estimated at approximately 428 acres, the HR&A Analysis
concluded that, if the proposed project is approved, the City
would have between 190 and 311 acres of vacant
industrially zoned land remaining after 2050.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 717 of 1271
2
OBJECTIVE/
POLICY OBJECTIVE/POLICY TEXT CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
The HR&A Analysis analyzed the feasibility of developing
Planning Area 23 as a industrial site and concluded that, due
to the high cost to develop Planning Area 23, industrial
development is “unlikely to be financially feasible.”
The current proposal for a residential enclave is compatible
with the existing Sunbow residential development north of
Olympic Parkway. (See Sunbow II, Phase 3 Land Use
Context Exhibit).
LUT 1.2 Coordinate planning and redevelopment
activities and resources to balance land uses,
amenities, and civic facilities in order to sustain
or improve the quality of life.
The project will offer residential, a private recreation
facility and shared passive open space areas designed to
meet the daily recreational needs of residents.
LUT 1.4 Seek to achieve an improved balance between
jobs and housing in Chula Vista.
The project provides housing in close proximity to the
major employment centers in Chula Vista, Otay Mesa and
downtown San Diego.
LUT 1.5 Endeavor to create a mixture of employment
opportunities for citizens’ at all economic
levels.
As provided for in the Community Benefits Agreement
(CBA) and the Development Agreement (DA) between the
Applicant and the City of Chula Vista the Applicant would
deposit $8M with the City “Job Enhancement Funds” to be
utilized as seed funding for the construction of either: a
Class “A” office building that would facilitate high quality
job enhancement uses along the SR-125 corridor or a
commercial/academic building that can facilitate either an
academic or private-sector market-rate project to advance
the vision of the University Innovation District Master Plan
(such as enabling the development of an Institute for
International Studies), or some other notable project at the
City’s discretion which will create high value jobs for all
income levels.
LUT 1.6 Attract and maintain land uses that generate
revenue for the City of Chula Vista, while
maintaining a balance of other community
needs, such as housing, jobs, open space, and
public facilities.
The Sunbow II, Phase 3 Fiscal Impact Analysis prepared for
the Project demonstrates that the Project complies with
LUT 1.6 and CVMC Section 19.09.040.H.3 in that it
produces net positive revenue to the City of Chula Vista
over the 20-year timeframe. Revenues range from an
annual fiscal surplus in Years 1 - 20 ($46,461 - $270,928)
and a $3,218,323 cumulative fiscal surplus over the first 20
years of approximately. The project provides a balance of
residential development and the preservation of 63.6 acres
of land designated as part of the City’s MSCP Preserve.
The Community Benefits Agreement and the Development
Agreement provides the City with an opportunity to
facilitate economic growth by the Applicant providing $8.0
million (“Job Enhancement Funds”) in support funding for
the development of a Class “A” office building within the
SR-125 corridor. The construction of such office spaces
would provide a catalyst for development that could
generate high-quality jobs in locations currently suitable for
construction. In addition to payment of the $8.0 million Job
Enhancement Funds, the City would also receive Park
Benefit Fees (approximately $11.03 million) for park and
recreation amenities that can be used by the City to acquire
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 718 of 1271
3
OBJECTIVE/
POLICY OBJECTIVE/POLICY TEXT CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
and/or develop parkland, as the City determines appropriate
and in the best interest of the City.
The Project includes an MSCP Boundary adjustment that
would result in an increase of 0.09 acres of MSCP Open
Space Preserve areas for a total of 63.6 acres of MSCP Open
Space Preserve within the Project Area.
Also see Response to LUT 1.1 above.
LUT 1.7 Provide high-quality public facilities, services,
and other amenities within close proximity to
residents.
The project proposes a community recreation area centrally
located to serve Project residents. The facility includes a
swimming pool, multi-use hardcourt area, level lawn area,
outdoor gathering and dining space, a children’s play area
and clubhouse. In addition, the Project distributes small
active and passive recreation areas throughout the
community conveniently located to serve the residents. The
Project provides an enhanced pedestrian walkway along the
on-site public streets to connect to the Chula Vista Regional
Trail located along Olympic Parkway as well as the
dedicated bike lanes along Olympic Parkway.
The CBA provides for the payment of a Park Benefit Fee,
equal to the PAD fees that would have otherwise been due
pursuant to Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC) Chapter
17.10, of approximately $11.03 million based on 2019 PAD
fees (the final amount will be determined based on the
number of residential units built and the PAD fee rates in
effect as of the effective date of the Development
Agreement) The Park Benefit Fee will satisfy the Owner’s
park obligations for the project and may be utilized by the
City to acquire or develop parkland, as the City determines
appropriate and in the best interest of the overall City.
LUT 1.8 Pursue higher density residential categories
and retail demand that are not being met within
the City.
The Project’s residential land uses are in the ‘High” and
“Medium-High” residential category consistent with this
objective. The existing The Plaza at Sunbow commercial
center includes a full-service grocery store, drug store,
banks, a gas station, restaurants, and other commercial uses
intended to serve the entire Sunbow Planned Community.
There were no other retail uses anticipated in the Chula
Vista General Plan, Sunbow GDP or the Sunbow SPA Plan.
Though the Project does include retail land uses, it is
planned to provide much needed housing and help meet the
City’s housing demands identified in the SANDAG
Housing Needs Assessment Report. In addition, through
payment of the Job Enhancement Funds, the project
provides economic stimulus funding per the CBA that
benefits the entire City of Chula Vista.
LUT 1.9 Provide opportunities for development of
housing that respond to diverse community
needs in terms of density, size, location, and
cost.
The Project provides for-sale housing to meet the needs of
a diverse community. Densities range from 13.3 to 24.1
units per acre and products provide a range of bedroom
typologies for singles, couples, and families. Some homes
will have private rear yards, while the highest density
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 719 of 1271
4
OBJECTIVE/
POLICY OBJECTIVE/POLICY TEXT CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
product type will have a private balcony. Product types are
focused on providing attainable housing as well as meeting
the need for move-up home buyers. Though the Project will
not include any on-site affordable housing, it will include a
Chula Vista Balanced Affordable Housing Agreement in
conformance with the City’s Balanced Community
Affordable Housing policy.
LUT 1.10 Maintain an adequate supply of land
designated and zoned for residential use at
appropriate densities to meet housing needs,
consistent with the objective of maintaining a
balance of land uses.
The Project supports the creation of new housing as
articulated in the Housing Element. The Project will
provide 718 new housing units for the current and future
residents of Chula Vista which, combined with the CBA Job
Enhancement Funds financial stimulus, ensures a
jobs/housing balance in the City of Chula Vista.
LUT 1.13 Maintain neighborhood and community
shopping centers of sizes and at locations that
offer both choice and convenience for shoppers
and residents, while sustaining a strong retail
base for the City.
Retail uses are provided within the Sunbow Planned
Community and other proximate sites. The existing “Plaza
at Sunbow” commercial/retail center includes a full-service
grocery store, drug store, banks, a gas station, restaurants,
and other commercial uses intended to serve the entire
Sunbow Planned Community. There were no other retail
uses anticipated in the Chula Vista General Plan, Sunbow
GDP or the Sunbow SPA Plan for the Sunbow Planned
Community. The project will not impact the availability or
sustainability of existing retail shopping centers. In fact, the
increased population resulting from the Project will
increase use of the existing Plaza at Sunbow Shopping
Center, thereby enhancing the viability of this existing
neighborhood shopping center.
LUT 1.15 Allow office uses that are associated with
complementary commercial service businesses
in commercial service areas.
The Applicant’s contribution of the $8M Job Enhancement
Fund financial stimulus will increase the ability of the City
to assist and attract employers to grow their operations in
the City of Chula Vista thus resulting in varied office and
commercial uses and future job creation. These public
benefits will advance the interests and meet the needs of
Chula Vista’s residents and visitors to a significantly greater
extent than the vacant land under the current entitlements
and absent the Community Benefits Agreement.
LUT 1.17 Encourage the development of cultural and
performing arts nodes in different areas
throughout the City, each with a specific non -
competing focus, such as viewing
performances or works of art, and learning
about, creating, or purchasing art.
In conjunction with the CBA, the project will provide Park
Benefit Fees which may be utilized by the City to support
programming within the City’s public park system to
encourage a diversity of uses, which may include art shows
and cultural festivals.
Objective – LUT 3: Direct the urban design and form of new development and redevelopment in a manner that blends
with and enhances Chula Vista’s character and qualities, both physical and social.
LUT 3.1 Adopt urban design guidelines and/or other
development regulations for all Districts or
Focused Areas of Change as presented in
Sections LUT 8.0 - 10.0 of the Land Use and
Transportation Element, as necessary, to
ensure that new development or redevelopment
recognizes and enhances the character and
The Sunbow II, Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment includes
Planned Community District Regulations as well as
Landscape and Design Guidelines to ensure new
development recognizes and enhances the character and
identity of adjacent areas. The architectural theme for the
Project is a modern interpretation of the existing
architecture within the Sunbow Planned Community. In
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 720 of 1271
5
OBJECTIVE/
POLICY OBJECTIVE/POLICY TEXT CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
identity of adjacent areas, consistent with this
General Plan’s Vision.
addition, the proposed Planned Community District
Regulations are equal to or greater than the existing Sunbow
SPA regulations design guidelines and will be appropriately
implemented to ensure the proposed residential enclave has
its own identity.
LUT 3.2 Any such urban design guidelines and/or other
development regulations shall be consistent
with other, related policies and provisions in
this General Plan, including Sections 7.3
through 7.6.
The Sunbow SPA Plan Amendment includes Planned
Community District Regulations as well as Landscape and
Design Guidelines consistent with the policies and
provisions of the General Plan.
Objective – LUT 5: Designate opportunities for mixed use areas with higher density housing that is near shopping, jobs,
and transit in appropriate locations throughout the City.
LUT 5.1 Promote mixed use development, where
appropriate, to ensure a pedestrian-friendly
environment that has opportunities for housing;
jobs; childcare; shopping; entertainment;
parks; and recreation in close proximity to one
another.
Because of its location, the Project is not an appropriate
location for mixed use development and is not designated
for mixed use development in the General Plan. However,
the existing Sunbow Planned Community provides a variety
of land uses, including housing, child care, a school, public
parks and shopping areas. See Figure 1, Aerial Context.
LUT 5.2 Encourage new development that is organized
around compact, walkable, mixed use
neighborhoods and districts in order to
conserve open space resources, minimize
infrastructure costs, and reduce reliance on the
automobile.
Based on the Project specific VMT analysis using a proxy
site, the Project would exceed the VMT threshold. Several
quantifiable Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
strategies can be used to mitigate a project’s VMT impacts.
TDM strategies can be quantified using methodologies
described in Quantifying Green House Gas Mitigation
Measures published by the California Air Pollution Control
Officers Association (CAPCOA) in 2010. While many of
the CAPCOA Measures were considered applicable to the
Project, the “Land Use / Location – Increased Density”
measure was selected to reduce the Project’s VMT impact.
The calculations provided in the CAPCOA methodology
for the recommended measure produces a VMT reduction
based on the number of dwelling units per acre. Based on
the Project’s proposed density of 16.3 units per acre, the
VMT reduction is 8.0%. This measure exceeds the Project’s
1.4% VMT impact and is therefore considered sufficient to
reduce the Project’s VMT and avoid a significant impact.
The following strategies are recommended to further reduce
the number of automobile trips generated by residents of the
Project and the distance that the residents drive:
• Provide Ride Share coordination services thru the
Project’s Home Owner’s Association to match
residents interested in carpooling.
• Coordinate with near-by schools and / or the Project’s
Home Owner’s Association to match residents
interested in carpooling to / from schools.
• Provide on-site transit opportunities information.
• Encourage bicycling by providing on-site bicycle
infrastructure such as bike racks.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 721 of 1271
6
OBJECTIVE/
POLICY OBJECTIVE/POLICY TEXT CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
LUT 5.3 Authorize and encourage mixed use
development in focus areas, including high-
density residential housing, neighborhood-
serving commercial, and office uses.
The CVGP did not identify Sunbow II, Phase 3 as an area
that could support mixed use development. The project
features high and medium-high density residential
development; however, mixed-use development is not
feasible in this location. The Sunbow Planned Community
includes a mix of housing, neighborhood-serving
commercial and office uses intended to serve the entire
Sunbow Planned Community, including the Sunbow II,
Phase 3 development area.
The Applicant’s contribution of the $8M Job Enhancement
Fund financial stimulus will increase the ability of the City
to assist and attract employers to grow their operations in
the City of Chula Vista thus resulting in varied office and
commercial uses and future job creation. These public
benefits will advance the interests and meet the needs of
Chula Vista’s residents and visitors to a significantly greater
extent than the vacant land under the current entitlements
and absent the Community Benefits Agreement
LUT 5.4 Develop the following areas as mixed use
centers: Urban Core; Palomar Trolley Station;
EUC; and Otay Ranch Village Cores and Town
Centers.
The Sunbow II, Phase 3 project is not within the Urban
Core, Palomar Trolley Station, EUC or Otay Ranch Village
Cores and Town Centers identified in the General Plan for
mixed use development and therefore is not subject to LUT
5.4.
However, the Applicant entered into a CBA with the City
which provides an opportunity to facilitate economic
growth by providing $8.0 million in funding for
development of a Class “A” office building within the SR-
125 corridor or the construction of facilities for academic,
institutional, and innovation-related businesses within the
University Innovation District. The City is interested in
facilitating the creation of high-quality jobs and economic
growth within the City by providing opportunities that
target and attract industries and businesses that contribute
to diversification and stabilization of the local economy.
Facilitating such economic growth by encouraging the
development of spaces that can be used by high technology
and manufacturing businesses within the SR-125 corridor
or academic, institutional, and innovation-related
businesses within the University Innovation District is a
potential solution. The construction of such spaces would
provide a catalyst for development that could generate high-
quality jobs in locations currently suitable for construction.
Through implementation of the CBA, the office uses
typically found in an urban mixed-use setting can be
realized.
LUT 5.11 Endeavor to reduce the number of peak hour
automobile trips by supporting increased
services near workplaces.
The project includes Transportation Demand Management
features including:
▪ Provide Ride Share coordination services thru the
Project’s Home Owner’s Association to match
residents interested in carpooling.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 722 of 1271
7
OBJECTIVE/
POLICY OBJECTIVE/POLICY TEXT CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
▪ Coordinate with near-by schools and / or the Project’s
Home Owner’s Association to match residents
interested in carpooling to / from schools.
▪ Provide on-site transit opportunities information.
▪ Encourage bicycling by providing on-site bicycle
infrastructure such as bike racks.
LUT 5.13 Higher density residential and mixed use
residential/commercial development should be
designed to: create a pleasant walking
environment to encourage pedestrian activity;
maximize transit usage; provide opportunities
for residents to conduct routine errands close to
their residence; integrate with surrounding uses
to become a part of the neighborhood rather
than an isolated project; use architectural
elements or themes from the surrounding
neighborhood; and provide appropriate
transition between land use designations to
minimize neighbor compatibility conflicts
The project is not identified in the General Plan for mixed
use residential/commercial development. The architectural
theme for the Project is a modern interpretation of the
existing architecture within the Sunbow Planned
Community. In addition, the proposed Planned Community
District Regulations are equal to or greater than the existing
Sunbow SPA regulations and design guidelines and will be
appropriately implemented to ensure the proposed
residential enclave has its own identity. The project is set
back from Olympic Parkway approximately 500’ and
provides additional buffers to surrounding land uses at the
project perimeter. Given the project is intended to provide
housing at attainable levels for various employment sectors,
the provision of a shuttle service by the project is not
feasible.
The project is designed to provide a pedestrian network of
walkways connecting neighborhoods and the centrally
located private recreation site. In addition, the project
provides two direct connections to the existing Chula Vista
Regional Trail and bike lanes along Olympic Parkway at
two fully signalized intersections. The internal public
streets (Streets A & B) are designed to include an enhanced
6’ sidewalk along one side, with expanded landscaped
parkways on both sides.
Objective- LUT 6: Ensure adjacent land uses are compatible with one another.
LUT 6.1 Ensure, through adherence to design guidelines
and zoning standards, that the design review
process guarantees excellence in design and
that new construction and alterations to
existing buildings are compatible with the best
character elements of the area.
The Sunbow SPA Plan Amendment includes Planned
Community District Regulations as well as Landscape and
Residential Design Guidelines to ensure new development
recognizes and enhances the character and identity of
adjacent areas. All residential development is subject to the
City’s Design Review process.
LUT 6.2 Require that proposed development plans and
projects consider and minimize project impacts
upon surrounding neighborhoods.
The project includes PC District Regulations and
Landscape and Residential Design Guidelines to ensure the
project is compatible with surrounding residential
development. The project is set back from Olympic
Parkway approximately 500’ and provides additional
buffers between surrounding land uses.
LUT 6.3 Require that the design of new residential,
commercial, or public developments is
sensitive to the character of existing
neighborhoods through consideration of
access, compatible building design and
massing, and building height transitions, while
maintaining the goals and values set forth in the
The project is on an undeveloped site with no abutting
residential development. The project includes PC District
Regulations and Landscape and Residential Design
Guidelines to ensure the project is compatible with future
residential development planned east of the site. The
project is set back from Olympic Parkway approximately
500’ and provides additional buffers between surrounding
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 723 of 1271
8
OBJECTIVE/
POLICY OBJECTIVE/POLICY TEXT CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
General Plan. Within transit focus areas,
design provisions should include requirements
for a minimum building step back of 15 feet for
every 35 feet in height, for edges abutting
residential uses.
land uses. All homes will have a separation from the
landfill. The landfill operation is significantly below the top
of the slope on the southern project boundary. Fuel
modification zones, slope landscaping and wall designs will
ensure the homes closest to the landfill property are
buffered sufficiently.
Objective LUT 7: Appropriate transitions should be provided between land uses.
LUT 7.2 Require new or expanded uses to provide
mitigation or buffers between existing uses
where significant adverse impacts could occur.
The project is buffered from existing development on the
west and north by over 63.6 acres of MSCP open space and
Olympic Parkway and the east and south by a planned
buffer/fuel modification area. In addition, home sites within
Planning Areas 23 are 50-feet below the adjacent landfill.
See above response to LUT 6.3.
LUT 7.4 Require landscape and/or open space buffers to
maintain a naturalized or softer edge for
proposed private development directly
adjacent to natural and public open space areas.
The project includes a series of graded and revegetated
slopes and water quality basins at the edge of development
designed to buffer development from the adjacent MSCP
Preserve areas, while maintaining a softer edge between the
land uses.
Objective – LUT 8: Strengthen and sustain Chula Vista's image as a unique place by maintaining, enhancing, and creating
physical features that distinguish Chula Vista's neighborhoods, communities, and public spaces, and enhance its image as
a pedestrian-oriented and livable community.
LUT 8.1 Develop a program to enhance the identity of
special districts and neighborhoods to create
variety and interest in the built environment,
including such items as signage, monuments,
landscaping, and street improvements.
Sunbow II, Phase 3 is a residential enclave featuring
contemporary architectural styles. The community is
planned to include four unique multi-family attached
product types with 15 distinct floor plans. Architecture will
include a variety of distinct and unique combinations of
elevations and colors. The Sunbow SPA Plan Amendment
includes Planned Community District Regulations as well
as Landscape and Residential Design Guidelines which
provide guidance for the development of high-quality
architecture, landscape, and street improvements.
LUT 8.2 Emphasize certain land uses and activities,
such as cultural arts; entertainment; specialty
retail; or commercial recreation, to enhance or
create the identity of specialized districts or
Focus Areas in the City.
The project does not include the land uses identified in LUT
8.2; however, by providing the Park Benefit Fees, the
project supports programming within the City’s public park
system to encourage a diversity of uses, which may include
art shows and cultural festivals as well as commercial
recreation opportunities.
LUT 8.3 Ensure that buildings are appropriate to their
context and designed to be compatible with
surrounding uses and enhance the desired
character of their District.
The Sunbow SPA Amendment includes residential
architectural guidelines and establishes an architectural
theme to be implemented within Sunbow II, Phase 3. All
residential development within the project is subject to the
City’s Design Review process.
LUT 8.4 Encourage and require, where feasible, the
incorporation of publicly accessible urban open
spaces, including: parks; courtyards; water
features; gardens; passageways; paseos; and
plazas, into public improvements and private
projects.
The Community Benefit Agreement between the City and
the Applicant includes a provision for the waiver of the
Project PAD fees and the payment of a Park Benefit Fee,
equal to the PAD fees that would otherwise have been due
pursuant to Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC) Chapter
17.10. As of the writing of this report, the Park Benefit Fee
is anticipated to total $11.03 million. The final Park Benefit
Fee amount will be determined based on the number of
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 724 of 1271
9
OBJECTIVE/
POLICY OBJECTIVE/POLICY TEXT CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
residential units constructed and the PAD fee rates in effect
as of the effective date of the Development Agreement The
Park Benefit Fee will satisfy the Project’s park obligations.
The Park Benefit Fees may be utilized by the City to acquire
and/or develop parkland, as the City determines appropriate
and in the best interest of the City.
LUT 8.5 Prepare urban design guidelines that help to
create pedestrian-oriented development by
providing:
• Varied and articulated building facades;
• Visual (first floor clear glass windows) and
physical access for pedestrians;
• Pedestrian circulation among parcels; uses;
transit stops; and public or publicly
accessible spaces;
• Human scale design elements;
• Ground floor residential and commercial
entries that face and engage the street; and
• Pedestrian-oriented streetscape amenities.
The Sunbow II, Phase 3 SPA Amendment is not designed
in an urban setting to warrant the preparation of “urban
design guidelines;” however the SPA Plan amendment
includes residential architectural and landscape guidelines
and establishes an architectural theme to be implemented
within Sunbow II, Phase 3.
The project does not include mixed-use development and
therefore several of the guidelines in LUT 8.5 are not
applicable to the project.
LUT 8.6 Develop a master plan for artwork in public
places that would identify the types of art
desired and establish appropriate settings for
the display of art, including within public
rights-of-way and landscape medians.
LUT 8.6 is a City-wide objective; however, by providing
the Park Benefit Fees, the project supports programming
within the City’s public park which may include public art
displays.
LUT 8.7 Ensure that vacant parcels and parcels with
unsightly storage uses, such as auto salvage
yards, are appropriately screened from the
street to reduce their negative visual effects.
Because of its location and natural open spaces that buffer
the project from Olympic Parkway, negative visual impacts
are minimal. The EIR for the project includes a visual
simulation that demonstrates the project is not be impacted
by unsightly uses on adjacent parcels. The visual
simulation clearly demonstrates the slope landscaping and
walls adequately buffer the project from any negative visual
effects.
Objective – LUT 10: Create attractive street environments that complement private and public properties, crea te attractive
public rights-of-way, and provide visual interest for residents and visitors.
LUT 10.2 Landscape designs and standards shall include
a coordinated street furniture palette, including
waste containers and benches, to be
implemented throughout the community at
appropriate locations.
The Sunbow II, Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment includes
Landscape Design Guidelines which will ensure
implementation of a coordinated design for the community.
The design and location of street furniture, if any, will be
determined during preparation of the Landscape Master
Plan and further refined during the Design Review Process,
when the passive and active recreation designs are prepared.
The Project does not propose sheltered seating; however,
the TIA for the project includes TDM strategies to
encourage ridesharing and carpooling amongst residents.
LUT 10.3 Provide well-designed, comfortable bus stops
throughout the City.
See Figure 1, Aerial Context for the location of existing bus
stops near the Project. The Applicant will work with the
City and MTS to encourage the establishment of a local bus
stop closer to the Project; however, the Applicant has no
control over the location, timing or feasibility of adding a
local bus stop. If bus stops are added, bus shelters would be
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 725 of 1271
10
OBJECTIVE/
POLICY OBJECTIVE/POLICY TEXT CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
designed consistent with MTS and City of Chula Vista
standards.
LUT 10.4 Prior to the approval of projects that include
walls that back onto roadways, the city shall
require that the design achieves a uniform
appearance from the street. The walls shall be
uniform in height, use of materials, and color,
but also incorporate elements, such as pilasters,
that add visual interest.
A Fence and Wall Plan will be provided as part of the
Project’s Landscape Master Plan, consistent with City
policies.
LUT 10.5 Require under grounding of utilities on private
property and develop a priority based program
of utility under grounding along public rights-
of-way.
All new utilities will be undergrounded, consistent with this
objective, except as required by utility providers. However,
the Applicant will coordinate with the City and utility
providers to place above-ground appurtenances in the least
intrusive locations.
LUT 10.6 Study the locational requirements of utility,
traffic control, and other cabinets and hardware
located in the public rights-of-way to
determine alternative locations for these items
in less obtrusive areas of the street
environment.
The location of utility facilities in the public realm is
designed to minimize intrusion into the street environment
and avoid conflicts with entry monuments and landscaping,
to the greatest extent feasible. The Applicant is not
proposing any entry monuments at this time. See response
to LUT 10.5 regarding coordinating utility appurtenance
locations.
Objective – LUT 11: Ensure that buildings and related site improvements for public and private development are well -
designed and compatible with surrounding properties and districts.
LUT 11.1 Promote development that creates and
enhances positive spatial attributes of major
public streets, open spaces, cityscape,
mountain and bay sight lines, and important
gateways into the City.
The project maintains and is sensitive to the design
elements of Olympic Parkway and the East Orange Avenue
Master Plan.
LUT 11.2 Promote and place a high priority on quality
architecture, landscape, and site design to
enhance the image of Chula Vista, and create a
vital and attractive environment for businesses,
residents, and visitors.
Sunbow II, Phase 3 is a residential enclave featuring
contemporary architectural styles. Architecture will include
a variety of distinct and unique combinations of elevations
and colors. The Sunbow SPA Plan Amendment includes
Planned Community District Regulations as well as
Landscape and Residential Design Guidelines which
provide guidance for the development of high-quality
architecture, landscape, and street improvements.
LUT 11.4 Actively promote architectural and design
excellence in buildings, open space, and urban
design.
Sunbow II, Phase 3 is a residential enclave featuring
contemporary architectural styles. Architecture will include
a variety of distinct and unique combinations of elevations
and colors designed by respected and creative architects and
design professionals.
LUT 11.5 Require a design review process for all public
and private discretionary projects (which
includes architectural, site plan, landscape and
signage design) to review and evaluate projects
prior to issuance of building permits to
determine their compliance with the objectives
and specific requirements of the City's Design
Manual, General Plan, and appropriate zone or
Area Development Plans.
Design Review is required in the Sunbow II, Phase 3 SPA
Plan Amendment.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 726 of 1271
11
OBJECTIVE/
POLICY OBJECTIVE/POLICY TEXT CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Objective – LUT 16: Integrate land use and transportation planning and related facilities.
LUT 16.1 Promote the development of well-planned
communities that will tend to be self-
supportive and, thus, reduce the length of
vehicular trips, reduce dependency on the
automobile, and encourage the use of other
modes of travel.
The project includes Transportation Demand Management
features, including:
▪ Provide Ride Share coordination services thru the
Project’s Home Owner’s Association to match
residents interested in carpooling.
▪ Coordinate with near-by schools and / or the Project’s
Home Owner’s Association to match residents
interested in carpooling to / from schools.
▪ Provide on-site transit opportunities information.
▪ Encourage bicycling by providing on-site bicycle
infrastructure such as bike racks.
However, the TIA conservatively did not apply any VMT
reductions with implementation of the TDM measures.
The project also provides direct connections to the existing
Chula Vista Regional Trail and bike lanes along Olymp ic
Parkway.
In addition to the TDM measures described above, the
project will provide connections to the Chula Vista regional
trail and bike lane.
LUT 16.2 Ensure that new development and community
activity centers have adequate transportation
and pedestrian facilities.
The project is designed to provide a pedestrian connection
between neighborhoods and the centrally located private
recreation site. The internal public streets (Streets A & B)
are designed to include an enhanced 6’ sidewalk along one
side, with expanded landscaped parkways on both sides. In
addition, the project provides direct connections to the
existing Chula Vista Regional Trail and bike lanes along
Olympic Parkway at two fully signalized intersections. The
project will pay its fair share of the Eastern TDIF Fees as
required to fund transportation and pedestrian facilities that
are part of the TDIF program.
LUT 16.3 Provide direct and convenient access to public
transit stops within residential, commercial,
and industrial areas.
The project provides direct connections to the existing
Chula Vista Regional Trail and bike lanes along Olympic
Parkway as well as the MTS transit stop located at Olympic
Parkway and Brandywine Avenue approximately ½ mile
west of the project (Refer to Figure 1, Aerial Context).
Objective – LUT 17: Plan and coordinate development to be compatible and supportive of planned transit.
LUT 17.1 Designate sufficient land at appropriate
densities to support planned transit and require
that development be transit-oriented, as
appropriate to its proximity to transit facilities.
The project is not a transit-oriented development. However,
the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the Project
included several quantifiable Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) strategies which can be used to
mitigate a project’s VMT impacts. TDM strategies can be
quantified using methodologies described in Quantifying
Green House Gas Mitigation Measures published by the
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association
(CAPCOA) in 2010, including increased density and a
VMT Reduction Analysis. In addition, the following
strategies are recommended to further reduce the number of
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 727 of 1271
12
OBJECTIVE/
POLICY OBJECTIVE/POLICY TEXT CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
automobile trips generated by residents of the Project and
the distance that the residents drive:
▪ Provide Ride Share coordination services thru the
Project’s Home Owner’s Association to match
residents interested in carpooling.
▪ Coordinate with near-by schools and / or the Project’s
Home Owner’s Association to match residents
interested in carpooling to / from schools.
▪ Provide on-site transit opportunities information.
▪ Encourage bicycling by providing on-site bicycle
infrastructure such as bike racks.
The Applicant will work with the City and MTS to
encourage the establishment of a local bus stop closer to the
Project; however, the Applicant has no control over the
location, timing, or feasibility of adding a local bus stop.
LUT 17.4 Require developers to consult and coordinate
with SANDAG and the City to ensure that
development is compatible with and supports
the planned implementation of public transit.
The Applicant will work with the City and MTS to
encourage the establishment of a local bus stop closer to the
Project and/or a future MTS transit shuttle; however, the
Applicant has no control over the location, timing or
feasibility of adding a local bus stop or providing an MTS
shuttle to serve the Project.
Objective LUT 18: Reduce traffic demand through Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies, increased use
of transit, bicycles, walking, and other trip reduction measures.
LUT 18.1 Support and encourage the use of public transit. The project includes Transportation Demand Management
measures to facilitate ride sharing, transit ridership, school
carpooling to reduce reliance on the automobile and peak
hour trips. See response to LUT 17.1 above.
The project also provides direct connections to the existing
Chula Vista Regional Trail along and bike lanes along
Olympic Parkway at two fully signalized intersections
LUT 18.2 Provide an efficient and effective paratransit
service for elderly and handicapped persons
unable to use conventional transit service.
This is the responsibility of MTS, the public transit service
provider. See Figure 1, Aerial Context for the locations of
MTS local bus stops.
LUT 18.3 Provide and enhance all feasible alternatives to
the automobile, such as bicycling and walking,
and encourage public transit ridership on
existing and future transit routes.
The project is located to take advantage of tran sit, walking
and cycling to reduce vehicular trips. The internal public
streets (Streets A & B) are designed to include an enhanced
6’ sidewalk along one side, with expanded landscaped
parkways on both sides. In addition, the project provides
direct connections to the existing Chula Vista Regional
Trail and bike lanes along Olympic Parkway at two fully
signalized intersections.
The MTS local bus stop is located at Olympic Parkway and
Brandywine Avenue approximately ½ mile west of the
project (Refer to Figure 1, Aerial Context).
See response to LUT 17.1 above for TDM measures
included in the Traffic Impact Analysis.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 728 of 1271
13
OBJECTIVE/
POLICY OBJECTIVE/POLICY TEXT CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
LUT 18.4 Use master planning techniques in new
development and redevelopment projects to
enable effective use of public transit.
The project includes Transportation Demand Management
measures to facilitate ride sharing, transit ridership, school
carpooling to reduce reliance on the automobile and peak
hour trips. The project also provides direct connections to
the existing Chula Vista Regional Trail along and bike lanes
along Olympic Parkway at two fully signalized
intersections. See response to LUT 17.1 above for TDM
measures included in the Traffic Impact Analysis.
LUT 18.5 Implement TDM strategies, such as carpooling,
vanpooling, and flexible work hours that
encourage alternatives to driving alone during
peak periods.
The Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the Project
included several quantifiable Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) strategies which can be used to
mitigate a project’s VMT impacts. response to LUT 17.1
above for TDM measures included in the Traffic Impact
Analysis.
LUT 18.6 Encourage employer-based TDM strategies,
such as: employee transportation allowances;
preferential parking for rideshare vehicles;
workplace-based carpool programs; and shuttle
services.
The Project does not include any employment land uses that
would facilities implementation of the measures identified
in LUT 18.6. However, the Traffic Impact Analysis
prepared for the Project included several quantifiable
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies
which can be used to mitigate a project’s VMT impacts.
response to LUT 17.1 above for TDM measures.
LUT 18.7 Support the location of private “telework”
centers.
The Project includes a private club house as a part of the
common recreation area for the residents use, as designated
in the Sunbow II, Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment. This
facility could be utilized for a private telework center if the
residents express an interest in such a facility. The
feasibility and interest to be determined by the Homeowners
Association.
LUT 18.8 Encourage establishment of park-and-ride
facilities near or at transit stations, as
appropriate to the area's character and
surrounding land uses.
The Project is not “near” or “at transit stations,” therefore,
LUT 18.8 does not apply to the Project. However, the
Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the Project included
several quantifiable Transportation Demand Management
(TDM) strategies which can be used to mitigate a project’s
VMT impacts. response to LUT 17.1 above for TDM
measures included in the Traffic Impact Analysis
Objective LUT 20: Make transit-friendly roads a top consideration in land use and development design.
LUT 20.1 Incorporate transit-friendly and pedestrian-
friendly elements into roadway design
standards, such as signal priority for transit and
adequate sidewalk widths for pedestrians.
The Project does not include any transit routes or roadways
that accommodate transit. However, the project includes a
network of sidewalks connecting residential neighborhoods
to the existing Chula Vista Regional Trail located adjacent
to Olympic Parkway and the MTS local bus stop located
west of the project.
Objective LUT 23: Promote the use of non-polluting and renewable alternatives for mobility through a system of bicycle
and pedestrian paths and trails that are safe, attractive and convenient forms of transportation.
LUT 23.1 Encourage the use of bicycles and walking as
alternatives to driving.
The project provides a system of pedestrian walkways and
paseos connecting the residential neighborhoods to two
connections to the existing Chula Vista Regional Trail and
bike lanes along Olympic Parkway. See response to LUT-
18.3 above.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 729 of 1271
14
OBJECTIVE/
POLICY OBJECTIVE/POLICY TEXT CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
LUT 23.2 Foster the development of a system of inter-
connecting bicycle routes throughout the City
and region.
The project provides a system of pedestrian walkways and
paseos connecting the residential neighborhoods to two
connections to the existing Chula Vista Greenbelt Trail and
bike lanes along Olympic Parkway, which connects to the
City’s network of bike lanes.
LUT 23.3 Preserve, restore, or provide the opportunity
for a cyclist to ride a bicycle to virtually any
chosen destination, in order to make the bicycle
a viable transportation alternative.
The project provides a system of pedestrian walkways and
paseos connecting the residential neighborhoods to two
connections to the existing Chula Vista Regional Trail and
bike lanes along Olympic Parkway, which connects to the
City’s network of bike lanes.
LUT 23.4 Link major residential areas with principal trip
destinations, such as schools; parks;
community centers; and shopping centers.
The project is part of the larger Sunbow Planned
Community that provides parks, shopping, and an
elementary school close to the project. Refer to Figure 1,
Aerial Context, for the locations and travel times from the
project to schools, shopping, and public parks in the vicinity
of the Project.
LUT 23.5 Provide linkages between bicycle facilities that
utilize circulation element alignments and open
space corridors.
The project connects to the existing bike lanes along
Olympic Parkway, designated a Scenic Corridor in the
General Plan.
LUT 23.6 In addition to using open space corridors, off-
street bicycle trails should use flood control
and utility easements. The trails shall be
designed to minimize interaction with
automobile cross traffic.
The Project does not include any of the features described
in LUT 23.6. However, the Project provides two points of
access to the bike lanes along Olympic Parkway that are
designated “Cycle Track (Class IV)” in the City’s Active
Transportation Plan. This Plan includes both on- and off-
street trails.
LUT 23.7 Provide bicycle support facilities at all major
bicycle usage locations.
The Project does not include a “major bicycle usage
location;” however, the Project will include bicycle storage
at the common recreation area. All homes within the
Project will include 2-car garages which could also be
utilized by homeowners for bicycle storage.
LUT 23.10 Promote the system of trails envisioned within
the Chula Vista Greenbelt.
The project connects to the existing Chula Vista Regional
Trail along Olympic Parkway which connects to the Chula
Vista Greenbelt Trail system.
LUT 23.11 Implement recommendations of the City's
Bikeway Master Plan and Greenbelt Master
Plan.
See response to LUT 23.6 above regarding the City’s Active
Transportation Plan. The Project provides two pedestrian
connections to the existing Chula Vista Regional Trail, as
recommended by the City’s Greenbelt Master Plan. These
connections link the Project to the City-wide system of
trails and bike facilities.
LUT 23.12 Provide opportunities for use of personal
mobility devices.
The walkways and paseo planned within the Project area
adequately sized to accommodate personal mobility
devices.
LUT 23.13 New overpasses and interchanges should be
designed to accommodate bicycles and
pedestrians.
No new overpasses, interchanges or pedestrian bridges are
planned for the Project. The Project will contribute its fair
share through the payment of the Eastern TDIF to fund
transportation facilities included in the TDIF program,
which may include both pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
LUT 23.14 Require new development projects to provide
internal bikeway systems with connections to
the citywide bicycle networks.
Bicycles share the roadway with automobiles on the internal
streets, which have very low traffic volumes. The Project
is designed to provide connections to the existing bike lanes
in Olympic Parkway at two signalized intersections. The
internal streets (Streets A & B) are designed as Modified
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 730 of 1271
15
OBJECTIVE/
POLICY OBJECTIVE/POLICY TEXT CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Class III Collectors, which, per City standards, do not
require dedicated bike lanes.
Objective LUT 61: Create balanced communities that can provide a high quality of life for residents.
LUT 61.1 Adhere to the regulations established in
existing GDPs and SPAs.
The propose includes a proposal to amend the Sunbow GDP
and Sunbow SPA Plan to address the proposed land use
change for Planning Area 23. Therefore, the proposed
project is not consistent with the regulations established in
the existing GDPs and SPAs. The proposed amendments
would establish regulations which would guide
development of the Sunbow II, Phase 3 area and upon
approval by the City Council, the Project would adhere to
the amended regulations and meet the intent of LUT 61.1.
The Applicant entered into a Community Benefit
Agreement which provides the City with an opportunity to
facilitate economic growth by the Applicant providing $8.0
million (“Job Enhancement Funds”) in support funding for
the development of a Class “A” office building within the
SR-125 corridor. The construction of such office spaces
may occur within the Eastern Urban Center or within the
University Innovation District/Regional Technology Park
and would provide a catalyst for development that could
generate high-quality jobs in locations currently suitable for
construction.
LUT 61.2 Future SPAs shall focus on creating a vibrant
sense of community, a vigorous economy, and
a healthy environment.
Sunbow II, Phase 3 is a residential enclave featuring
contemporary architectural styles. The Sunbow II, Phase 3
SPA Plan Amendment includes Planned Community
District Regulations as well as Landscape and Residential
Design Guidelines which provide guidance for the
development of a vibrant community with high-quality
architecture, landscape, and street improvements. Streets
are designed to encourage walking within the
neighborhoods. Connections to the existing Chula Vista
Regional Trail and bike lanes in Olympic Parkway are
provided via two signalized intersections promote walking
and biking. The Project is designed to promote health and
wellness with a well-designed common recreation area
designed to meet the active recreation needs of the
residents, as it includes a pool, children’s playground,
multi-use hard court facility, turf area for open play and
areas for social gathering. In addition, active and passive
recreation areas are distributed throughout the community
to provide for casual play and gathering.
The Fiscal Impact Analysis prepared by the project
demonstrates that the project produces net positive revenue
to the City of Chula Vista over the 20-year timeframe.
Revenues range from an annual fiscal surplus in Years 1 -
20 ($46.461 - $270,928) and a cumulative fiscal surplus
over the first 20 years of approximately $3,218,323. This
fiscal surplus supports ongoing funding for municipal
services, ensuring a safe and healthy community. The
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 731 of 1271
16
OBJECTIVE/
POLICY OBJECTIVE/POLICY TEXT CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
additional residents generated from the Project will support
local business and invigorate the local economy.
Also see Response to LUT 1.1 above.
LUT 61.3 Require all future community identification
signs and monuments to recognize
communities as part of the City of Chula Vista.
The project does not currently include monument
identification signs. However, if there is an opportunity to
include a monument sign at the entrances to the Project,
then the Applicant will include such a proposal on the
Landscape Master Plan.
Objective LUT 62: Require development to consider and plan for careful use of natural and man -made resources and
services, and maximize opportunities for conservation while minimizing waste.
LUT 62.1 Require developments within the East Planning
Area to provide resource management plans for
water; air quality; recycling; solid waste
management; and energy.
The project is not within the General Plan East Planning
Area; however, the project includes a Water Conservation
Plan and Air Quality Improvement Plan, must comply with
the City’s Landscape Water Ordinance, and sets aside 63.6
acres in permanent open space within the project area. The
project must also comply with all required recycling
programs implemented in the City.
The Project includes approximately 63.6 acres designated
MSCP Open Space Preserve in the City’s MSCP Plan.
There are 19.2 acres of recorded and proposed unrecorded
easements associated with Poggi Creek within the Project
Area including the Recorded Conservation Easement
(9.719 acres), the Proposed Unrecorded Conservation
Easement (5.569 acres), the Proposed Unrecorded Poggi
Creek Easement (4.338 acres). Of the 19.6 acres of
recorded and proposed easements within the Project Area,
approximately 12.53 acres are within the proposed Chula
Vista MSCP boundary. The project will comply with all
requirements in the air quality improvement plan, water
conservation plan and energy conservation plan prepared
for the Project. In addition, the project will comply with all
City of Chula Vista conservation requirements.
Objective LUT 63: Provide efficient multi-modal access and connections to and between activity centers.
LUT 63.1 Provide roads, transit service, bike routes, and
pedestrian pathways that connect activity
centers to their surrounding neighborhoods,
adjacent villages, and each other, such that
access is safe and convenient for residents and
visitors.
The project provides connections to existing roads, bike
lanes and trails. See Figure 1, Aerial Context for the
distance to surrounding public parks, public schools, retail
centers, bus stops and adjacent neighborhoods.
An easement is provided on the Tentative Map, reserving
the right-of-way for a future pedestrian connection to the
adjacent Otay Ranch Village 2 West area.
Objective LUT 69: Create and maintain unique, stable, and well-designed communities that are master planned to guide
development activities
LUT 69.1 The policies and regulations within GDP and
SPA Plans that are specific to each community
shall continue to guide the completion of
development activities.
After marketing the project for over 30 years as an industrial
park, the Applicant entered into a CBA with the City which
provides an opportunity to facilitate economic growth by
providing $8.0 million in funding for development of a
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 732 of 1271
17
OBJECTIVE/
POLICY OBJECTIVE/POLICY TEXT CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Class “A” office building within the SR-125 corridor or the
construction of facilities for academic, institutional, and
innovation-related businesses within the University
Innovation District. The City is interested in facilitating the
creation of high-quality jobs and economic growth within
the City by providing opportunities that target and attract
industries and businesses that contribute to diversification
and stabilization of the local economy. Facilitating such
economic growth by encouraging the development of
spaces that can be used by high technology and
manufacturing businesses within the SR-125 corridor or
academic, institutional, and innovation-related businesses
within the University Innovation District is a potential
solution. The construction of such spaces would provide a
catalyst for development that could generate high -quality
jobs in locations currently suitable for construction.
The proposed Sunbow II, Phase 3 SPA Amendment and
Sunbow GDP amendment include policies and regulations
to guide the development of the Sunbow II, Phase 3 project,
through completion. The Sunbow II, Phase 3 area is
connected to the larger Sunbow Planned Community along
Olympic Parkway, which forms the northern boundary of
the project site. Planned Community design guidelines
specific to this community will guide development quality
and character.
Objective LUT 73: Promote alternative modes of transportation, which are intended to encourage a healthy lifestyle and
reduce reliance on the automobile, and support the viability of transit through land use distribution and design.
LUT 73.1 Provide for walking and biking on streets
designed to link neighborhoods, activity
centers, and community destinations.
The project provides an internal network of pedestrian
walkways and paseos and also connects to the existing
Chula Vista Regional Trail system in Olympic Parkway.
The internal public streets (Streets A & B) are designed to
include an enhanced 6’ sidewalk along one side, with
expanded parkways on both sides, creating a pleasant
pedestrian experience.
See Figure 1, Aerial Context for the relationships between
the Project and surrounding neighborhoods, activity centers
and destinations.
An easement is provided on the Tentative Map, reserv ing
the right-of-way for a future pedestrian connection to the
adjacent Otay Ranch Village 2 West area.
Objective – LUT 74: Accommodate land uses that diversify the economic base within Otay Ranch and the surrounding
south San Diego County region.
LUT 74.1 Provide sufficient land and infrastructure to
accommodate commercial and industrial uses.
The University Innovation District/Regional Technology
Park SPA Plan provides for development of approximately
10.1M square feet of university and regional technologies
uses, while the Eastern Urban Center SPA Plan provides for
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 733 of 1271
18
OBJECTIVE/
POLICY OBJECTIVE/POLICY TEXT CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
development of approximately 3.8M sf of
commercial/mixed use development on 75.9 acres.
The City is interested in facilitating the creation of high-
quality jobs and economic growth within the City by
providing opportunities that target and attract industries and
businesses that contribute to diversification and
stabilization of the local economy. Facilitating such
economic growth by encouraging the development of
spaces that can be used by high technology and
manufacturing businesses within the SR-125 corridor or
academic, institutional, and innovation-related businesses
within the University Innovation District is a potential
solution. The construction of such spaces would provide a
catalyst for development that could generate high -quality
jobs in locations currently suitable for construction.
The Applicant entered into a CBA with the City which
provides an opportunity to facilitate economic growth by
providing $8.0 million in support funding for development
of a Class “A” office building within the SR-125 corridor
or the construction of facilities for academic, institutional,
and innovation-related businesses within the University
Innovation District.
Also see Response to LUT 1.1 above.
LUT 74.2 Promote additional business and higher paid
employment opportunities for residents of
Chula Vista.
The Applicant entered into a CBA with the City which
provides an opportunity to facilitate economic growth by
providing $8.0 million in support funding for development
of a Class “A” office building within the SR-125 corridor
or the construction of facilities for academic, institutional,
and innovation-related businesses within the University
Innovation District. The public benefits derived from
implementation of the CBA will advance the interests and
meet the needs of Chula Vista’s residents and visitors to a
significantly greater extent than the vacant land under the
current entitlements and absent the Community Benefits
Agreement. Implementation of the CBA provisions will
promote additional and higher paid employment
opportunities for residents of Chula Vista, consistent with
GP Objective LUT 74.2
Objective - LUT 79: Establish appropriate land uses adjacent to the Otay Landfill and Wolf Canyon that reflect the unique
land use and landform characteristics of these areas.
LUT 79.5 Limit land uses adjacent to Otay Landfill to
open space and limited industrial uses or
business parks.
The Applicant’s consultant, Dudek, prepared the “Air
Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis Technical
Report for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project,” which also
includes a Landfill Health Risk Assessment (HRA). The
HRA was performed to assess the potential health risks of
the proximate Otay Landfill to future sensitive receptors
(residents) of the Project. The HRA was performed to
estimate the Maximum Individual Cancer Risk, the Chronic
Hazard Index and the Acute Hazard Index for the residential
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 734 of 1271
19
OBJECTIVE/
POLICY OBJECTIVE/POLICY TEXT CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
receptors as a result of emissions impacts from Otay
Landfill operations. As required by the 2019 Title 24
Building Code and the 2019 California Green Building
Standards Code standards, the Project would include
installation of MERV 13-rated air filtration in all HVAC
systems. The MERV 13-rated air filters remove 90% of
particles and therefore would reduce the Maximum
Individual Cancer Risk – Residential to 7.7 in 1 million,
which would be less than the CEQA threshold of 10 in 1
million. These impact level would also be less than the
SDAPCD significance threshold. Further, following
closure of the Otay Landfill in 2030, the cancer risk impact
for the Landfill would be reduced to 6.61 in 1 million and
the chronic health risk and acute health risk would also be
further reduced.
A Nuisance Analysis was also prepared by Dudek for the
Project to evaluate the potential impact of odors and
fugitive dust emitted from the Otay Landfill on future
residents of the Project. AERMOD was used to model odor
and fugitive dust emissions from the landfill, with
methodology consistent with the HRA. The nuisance
analysis found that future residents of the Project would not
experience odors in excess of odor detection thresholds and
are not likely to be impacted by landfill operations.
Similarly, the dust analysis showed that concentrations of
dust from landfill operations would not exceed thresholds
established by the California Occupational Health and
Safety Administration. As such, impacts from odor and dust
to future residents from landfill operations would be less
than significant.
Geosyntec prepared a technical memorandum summarizing
the results of the “limited soil vapor investigation”
conducted on the Project site. The limited soil vapor
investigation included the collection and laboratory
analysis of samples collected. The soil vapor investigation
concluded methane was not detected at measurable
concentrations during the investigation and there is no
apparent unacceptable risk to future residential site
occupants due to methane and/or VOC-impacted soil
vapors.
Also see Response to LUT 1.1 above.
Objective LUT 92: Establish a high-quality business park that is oriented to accommodates high technology businesses
conducting research and light industrial/manufacturing activities that provide job opportunities for residents of Otay
Ranch, Chula Vista, and the greater south San Diego County region.
LUT 92.1 Promote research and development uses
associated with light manufacturing businesses
by adopting GDP and SPA level policies and
Planned Community District regulations that
provide regulations and standards that
See Responses to LUT 1.1 and LUT-74.1 above.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 735 of 1271
20
OBJECTIVE/
POLICY OBJECTIVE/POLICY TEXT CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
encourage the locating of high technology uses
and industries.
LUT 92.3 Allow ancillary professional office and limited
service businesses as secondary uses where
such uses are necessary to support the primary
research and development and light
manufacturing uses. These secondary uses
should not compete with the EUC and
adjoining areas that are intended as the
preferred location for these support uses.
See Responses to LUT 1.1 and LUT-74.1 above.
Objective LUT 93: Provide opportunities to develop new research institutions, industries, and businesses that capitalize
upon the intellectual capital and research activities of the university.
LUT 93.1 Proactively attract the development of
incubator industries and research institutions
that may be induced by the presence of a
university campus.
See Responses to LUT 1.1 and LUT-74 above.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Objective – ED 1: Provide a diverse economic base for the City of Chula Vista.
ED 1.2 Provide sufficient tracts of land at a variety of
sizes available for industrial and commercial
uses in order to provide a stable economic base.
After marketing the Project for over 30 years as an
industrial park, the Applicant entered into a CBA with the
City which provides an opportunity to facilitate economic
growth by providing $8.0 million in support funding for
development of a Class “A” office building within the SR-
125 corridor or the construction of facilities for academ ic,
institutional, and innovation-related businesses within the
University Innovation District. The University Innovation
District/Regional Technology Park SPA Plan provides for
development of approximately 10.1M square feet of
university and regional technologies uses, while the Eastern
Urban Center SPA Plan provides for development of
approximately 3.8M sf of commercial/mixed use
development on 75.9 acres. The City is interested in
facilitating the creation of high-quality jobs and economic
growth within the City by providing opportunities that
target and attract industries and businesses that contribute
to diversification and stabilization of the local economy.
Facilitating such economic growth by encouraging the
development of spaces that can be used by high technology
and manufacturing businesses within the SR-125 corridor
or academic, institutional, and innovation-related
businesses within the University Innovation District is a
potential solution. The construction of such spaces would
provide a catalyst for development that could generate high-
quality jobs in locations currently suitable for construction.
The CBA also anticipated the conversion of the Planning
Area 23 site to residential. The Fiscal Impact Analysis
prepared by the project demonstrates that the project
produces net positive revenue to the City of Chula Vista
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 736 of 1271
21
OBJECTIVE/
POLICY OBJECTIVE/POLICY TEXT CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
over the 20-year timeframe. Revenues range from an
annual fiscal surplus in Years 1 - 20 ($46,461 - $270,928)
and a cumulative fiscal surplus over the first 20 years of
approximately $3,218,323, which supports stable economic
base.
Also see Response to LUT 1.1 above
ED 1.3 Encourage the preservation and expansion of
existing industrial uses in areas designated as
industrial.
See Responses to LUT 1.1 and ED 1.2 above.
ED 1.4 Increase the supply of land for non-retail
employment through the designation of land to
accommodate a regional technology park; a
future business park; industrial or business
park space; and development of a university
campus.
See Response to LUT 1.1 and ED 1.2 above.
ED 1.5 Consider fiscal impact implications of General
Plan amendments that propose changes to
industrial and commercial lands.
A fiscal impact analysis prepared for the project
demonstrates that the project results in net positive revenue
to the City’s General Fund. See Responses to LUT 1.1 and
ED 1.2 above.
Objective ED 2: Maintain a variety of job and housing opportunities to improve Chula Vista's jobs/housing balance.
ED 2.2 Facilitate increased employment densities near
transit stations and routes.
The Project is not located near a transit station or route and
does not include any employment generating land uses.
However, the Applicant entered into a CBA with the City
of Chula Vista which includes the payment of $8M in Job
Enhancement Funds. These funds will facilitate increate
employment densities in either the Eastern Urban Center or
University Innovation District, both served by transit
stations and routes.
Also see Response to LUT 1.1 above.
ED 2.3 Pursue a diverse supply of housing types and
costs, as well as a diverse supply of jobs with
varying income potential, to balance local job
and housing opportunities.
The project provides for-sale multi-family housing in a
range of bedroom typologies for singles, couples and
families and will comply with the City’s Balanced Housing
Policy by preserving off-site affordable housing units
within the Sunbow Planned Community. The Project does
not include low-income affordable housing. However, the
Applicant must comply with the City’s Balanced
Community Affordable Housing Policy. The Applicant
will enter into a Balanced Community Affordable Housing
Agreement and City which will address how the Project
meets its affordable housing obligation.
Objective ED 4: Become a center for applied technology innovation
ED 4.1 Publicize the economic and social benefits of
industry, emphasizing the health of the Chula
Vista economy, the “high-tech” dimensions of
industry, and the community value of well-
paying, high-benefit industrial employment.
The responsibility to meet the intent of ED 4.1 lies with the
City of Chula Vista. However, the Applicant entered into a
CBA with the City of Chula Vista which includes the
payment of $8M in Job Enhancement Funds. The Job
Enhancement Funds may be utilized by the City of Chula
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 737 of 1271
22
OBJECTIVE/
POLICY OBJECTIVE/POLICY TEXT CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Vista to meet the intent of ED 4.1. Also, see Responses to
LUT 1.1 and ED 2.1 above.
ED 4.2 Maintain land sufficient for the long-term
location of an approximately 85-acre Regional
Technology Park in eastern Chula Vista.
The project does not impact the City’s ability to maintain
the land designated in the University Innovation
District/Regional Technology Park (UID/RTP) SPA Plan.
Through implementation of the CBA, the Applicant
enhances the feasibility of constructing office uses within
the UID/RTP.
Also see Response to LUT 1.1 above.
ED 4.4 Continue to recruit and promote the
establishment of a university campus, as well
as research and development facilities that
promote technology.
As the owner of the site identified for a future University,
the City may continue to recruit and promote the
establishment of a university campus and regional
technology park. The payment of $8M for the Job
Enhancement Fund enhances the City’s efforts. See
response to ED 2.1 above.
Objective ED 7: Develop a strong land use and transportation link between the downtown urban core, bayfront,
southwestern, and eastern areas of the City to support economic development throughout.
ED 7.4 Develop activities in eastern Chula Vista that
will attract residents citywide.
The Applicant entered into a CBA which provides for the
payment of a Park Benefit Fee, equal to the PAD fees that
would have otherwise been due pursuant to Chula Vista
Municipal Code (CVMC) Chapter 17.10, of approximately
$11.03 million based on 2019 PAD fees (the final amount
will be determined based on the number of residential units
built and the PAD fee rates in effect as of the effective date
of the Development Agreement). The Park Benefit Fee will
satisfy the Owner’s park obligations for the project and may
be utilized by the City to acquire or develop parkland, as the
City determines appropriate and in the best interest of the
overall City [emphasis added]. The City may utilize these
fees to enhance public parks in eastern Chula Vista and
attract park-users city-wide. The City has the opportunity to
develop activities in eastern Chula Vista that will attract
residents citywide through the Applicant’s payment of the
Park Benefit Fee.
ENVIRONMENTAL
Objective E 1: Conserve Chula Vista’s sensitive biological resources.
E 1.1 Implement the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea
Plan.
The project designates 63.6 acres of Preserve open space
within the project site to be conveyed to the City for
permanent preservation and maintenance, consistent with
the City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan.
Objective E2: Protect and improve water quality within surface water bodies and groundwater resources within and
downstream of Chula Vista.
E 2.4 Ensure compliance with current federal and
state water quality regulations, including the
implementation of applicable NPDES
requirements and the City's Pollution
Prevention Policy.
The wter quality studies prepared for the project comply
with the respective City, federal and state regulations.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 738 of 1271
23
OBJECTIVE/
POLICY OBJECTIVE/POLICY TEXT CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
E 2.5 Encourage and facilitate construction and land
development techniques that minimize water
quality impacts from urban development.
The project is designed with water quality/hydro-
modification basins that mitigation impacts to water quality
to be less than significant.
Objective E 3: Minimize the impacts of growth and development on water supply resources through the efficient use and
conservation of water by residents, businesses, and City government.
E 3.2 Promote the use of low water demand
landscaping and drought tolerant plant
materials in both existing and new
development.
The project utilizes water conserving fixtures and low
water/drought tolerant landscaping.
E 3.3; Where safe and feasible, promote and facilitate
the continued use of recycled water in new
developments, and explore opportunities for
the use of recycled water in redevelopment
projects.
The Overview of Water Service for Sunbow II, Phase 2
analyzed the facilities required and the demand for recycled
water needed to serve the Project. The report estimated that
the Project would utilize approximately 24,510 gallon of
recycled water per day to irrigate open space slope and
recreation areas. The Project design incorporates the
infrastructure to serve the Project with recycled water
Objective – E 6: Improve local air quality by minimizing the production and emission of air pollutants and to xic air
contaminants and limit the exposure of people to such pollutants.
E 6.1 Encourage compact development featuring a
mix of uses that locate residential areas within
reasonable walking distance to jobs, services,
and transit.
The Project is designed to cluster residential land uses
within the development area identified in the adopted
Sunbow II SPA Plan and Sunbow GDP, meeting the intent
of implementing compact development. Sunbow II, Phase
3 was not identified in the General Plan as a suitable
location for mixed use development. The Project is located
approximately ½ mile from an existing MTS local bus stop,
approximately 1 mile from shopping and a public park and
several miles from the closet employment center. See
Figure 1, Aerial Context.
E 6.2 Promote and facilitate transit system
improvements in order to increase transit use
and reduce dependency on the automobile.
The Project does not include a transit stop or station. The
Project includes the TDM measures described in the
response to LUT 17.1 above. These TDM measures are
designed to increase transit use and reduce dependency on
the automobile
E 6.10 The siting of new sensitive receptors within
500 feet of highways resulting from
development or redevelopment projects shall
require the preparation of a health risk
assessment as part of the CEQA review of the
project. Attendant health risks identified in the
Health Risk Assessment (HRA) shall be
feasibly mitigated to the maximum extent
practicable, in accordance with CEQA, in order
to help ensure that applicable federal and state
standards are not exceeded.
The Project is not within 500 feet of a highway; therefore,
a health risk assessment is not needed to assess impacts
associated with a highway. However, A Health Risk
Assessment was prepared for the project based on proximity
to the Otay Landfill. See response to LUT 79.5 above.
Objective E 7: Promote energy conservation through the efficient use of energy and through the development of local, non-
fossil fuel-based renewable sources of energy.
E 7.1 Promote development of regulations and
building design standards that maximize
energy efficiency through appropriate site and
The project will comply with the latest Title 24 Energy
requirements.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 739 of 1271
24
OBJECTIVE/
POLICY OBJECTIVE/POLICY TEXT CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
building design and through the use of energy -
efficient materials, equipment, and appliances.
Objective E 8: Minimize the amount of solid waste generated within the General Plan area that requires landfill disposal.
E 8.1 Promote efforts to reduce waste, minimize the
need for additional landfills, and provide
economically and environmentally sound
resource recovery, management, and disposal
facilities.
The project will comply with all City of Chula Recycling
requirements and recycling will be incorporated into all
components of the project. As discussed in the Air
Quality/Green House Gas Emission Analysis and
associated HRA prepared for the Project, the Otay Landfill
is anticipated to close in 2030. Beyond providing for the
recycling of waste to reduce waste and minimize the need
for additional landfills, the Applicant is not responsible for
development of economically, environmental sound
resource recovery, management, and disposal facilities.
This is a regional issue to be addressed by multi
jurisdictions and is beyond the Applicant’s control
E 8.3 Implement source reduction strategies,
including curbside recycling, use of small
collection facilities for recycling, and
composting
Recycling will be incorporated into all components of the
project.
Objective E 10: Protect important paleontological resources and support and encourage public education and awareness
of such resources.
E 10.1 Continue to assess and mitigate the potential
impacts of private development and public
facilities and infrastructure to paleontological
resources in accordance with the CEQA.
A Cultural/Paleontological Report was prepared for the
project Environmental Impact Report which includes
mitigation measures related to paleontological resources in
accordance with the CEQA.
Objective E 14: Minimize the risk of injury, loss of life, and property damage associated with geologic hazards.
E 14.1 To the maximum extent practicable, protect
against injury, loss of life, and major property
damage through engineering analyses of
potential seismic hazards, appropriate
engineering design, and the stringent
enforcement of all applicable regulations and
standards.
A Geotechnical Investigation Report was prepared for the
project EIR. The project will be designed in compliance
with the latest subdivision and building codes.
E 14.2 Prohibit the subdivision, grading, or
development of lands subject to potential
geologic hazards in the absence of adequate
evidence demonstrating that such development
would not be adversely affected by such
hazards and would not adversely affect
surrounding properties.
The Geotechnical Investigation for Sunbow II, Phase 3 was
prepared by GEOCON, Inc. and determined that the Project
is not located in an area of geological hazards and is suitable
for development. See response to LUT 79.5 regarding the
Soil Vapor Investigation prepared for the Project.
E 14.3 Require site-specific geotechnical
investigations for proposals within areas
subject to potential geologic hazards; and
ensure implementation of all measures deemed
necessary by the City Engineer and/or Building
Official to avoid or adequately mitigate such
hazards.
The Geotechnical Investigation for Sunbow II, Phase 3 was
prepared by GEOCON, Inc. and determined that the Project
is not located in an area of geological hazards and is suitable
for development. See response to LUT 79.5 regarding the
Soil Vapor Investigation prepared for the Project.
Objective E 15 - Minimize the risk of injury and property damage associated with flood hazards.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 740 of 1271
25
OBJECTIVE/
POLICY OBJECTIVE/POLICY TEXT CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
E 15.1 Prohibit proposals to subdivide, grade, or
develop lands that are subject to potential flood
hazards, unless adequate evidence is provided
that demonstrates that such proposals would
not be adversely affected by potential flood
hazards and that such proposals would not
adversely affect surrounding properties.
Require site-specific hydrological
investigations for proposals within areas
subject to potential flood hazards; and
implement all measures deemed necessary by
the City Engineer to avoid or adequately
mitigate potential flood hazards.
The Drainage Study for Sunbow II, Phase 3 TM was
prepared by Hunsaker & Associates. The study analyzed
the pre- and post- development flows and demonstrates that
runoff generated by the Project will not exceed pre-project
peak flow rates, and runoff velocities will be dissipated by
rock rip rap at storm drain outfalls. The Project has been
designed to honor pre-project watershed basins and outfall
locations. Considering the limitations which result from
Subdivision layout and design, minor exchanges in
watershed areas occur but are minimized to the maximum
extent practicable. Since the project site is located outside
any FEMA floodplain zones, there is no requirement for a
Letter of Map Revision. The Study shows there is no
adverse impact from the proposed development after the
attenuation because there is reduction in flows.
Objective E19: Maintain the ability to establish hazardous waste storage, collection, treatment, disposal, and transfer
facilities to serve the needs of Chula Vista industry and businesses within appropriate locations of the City, while ensuring
adequate protection of the community.
E19.1 • A Health Risk Assessment as described in
the Chula Vista Zoning Code
• All facilities shall be a minimum 1,000
feet from any residential zone; residence;
school; hospital; hotel; motel; or other
similar land use.
See response to LUT 79.5 above.
Objective E 21: Protect people from excessive noise through careful land use planning and the incorporation of appropriate
mitigation techniques.
E 21.1 Apply the exterior land use-noise compatibility
guidelines listed in Table 9-2 of this
Environmental Element to new development,
where applicable, and in light of project-
specific considerations.
The Noise Technical Report for Sunbow II, Phase 3 was
prepared as part of the EIR and the Project will implement
the associated recommendations to ensure compliance with
E 21.1.
E 21.2 Where applicable, the assessment and
mitigation of interior noise levels shall adhere
to the applicable requirements of the California
Building Code with local amendments and
other applicable established City standards.
The Project will comply with the requirements of the
building code to reduce interior noise levels to 45db or
lower.
E 21.3 Promote the use of available technologies in
building construction to improve noise
attenuation capacities.
The Project will comply with the requirements of the
building code to reduce interior noise levels to 45db or
lower.
Objective E 22: Protect the community from the effects of transportation noise.
E 22.3 Employ traffic calming measures, where
appropriate, such as narrow roadways and on-
street parking, in commercial and mixed use
districts.
Access to the project is provided at two fully signalized
intersections with Olympic Parkway. two Modified Class
III collectors provide internal access and intersect at a
planned roundabout to slow traffic. On-street parking and
parkway landscaping are planned to function as additional
traffic calming measures.
E 22.4 Encourage walking; biking; carpooling; use of
public transit; and other alternative modes of
The Project includes a TDM which includes ridesharing,
carpooling and school carpooling strategies. In addition,
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 741 of 1271
26
OBJECTIVE/
POLICY OBJECTIVE/POLICY TEXT CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
transportation to minimize vehicular use and
associated traffic noise.
the project includes two fully signalized intersections that
connect to the existing bike lanes and Chula Vista Regional
Trail along Olympic parkway.
See responses to LUT 17.1 and 18.3 above.
E 22.5 Require projects to construct appropriate
mitigation measures in order to attenuate
existing and projected traffic noise levels, in
accordance with applicable standards,
including the exterior land use/noise
compatibility guidelines listed in Table 9-2 of
this Environmental Element.
The Noise Technical Report for Sunbow II, Phase 3 was
prepared as part of the EIR and the Project will implement
the associated recommendations to ensure compliance with
E 22.5.
Objective E 23: Provide fair treatment for people of all races, cultures, and income levels with respect to development,
adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.
E23.3 Do not site industrial facilities/uses that pose a
significant hazard to human health & safety in
proximity to schools or residential dwellings
The Project does not propose to site industrial facilities as
part of the Project. However, due to the proximity to the
Otay Landfill, the Project prepared an HRA and Nuisance
Study. See response to LUT 79.5
E23.4 Build new schools and residential dwellings
with sufficient separation and buffering from
industrial facilities and uses that pose a
significant hazard to human health and safety.
The Project is designed to provide sufficient separation
between the Otay Landfill and future industrial land uses
within Village 2 West through the use of manufactured
slopes, perimeter walls, etc. See response to LUT 79.5 for
additional information regarding the Health Risk
Assessment and Nuisance Analysis prepared for the Project.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT
Objective GM 1: Concurrent public facilities and services.
GM 1.9 Require that all major development projects
prepare a PFFP that articulates infrastructure
and public facilities requirements and costs and
funding mechanisms.
An addendum to the Sunbow PFFP has been prepared for
the project.
Objective GM 2: Provide adequate and sustainable fiscal base.
GM 2.1 Achieve and maintain a balance of land uses
within the City that assures residential
development is complemented by expanded
local employment opportunities, retail and
commercial services, and recreation and
entertainment venues; and that the City-wide
mix of land uses provides fiscal balance
between those that produce revenues and those
that require public expenditures.
A Fiscal Impact Analysis has been prepared which
demonstrates a net positive benefit to the City’s General
Fund. See response to ED 1.2 that demonstrates
compliance with GM 2.1.
GM 2.2 Require a fiscal impact analysis to be
conducted for major development projects that
documents the project’s effects upon the City
operating budget over time.
A Fiscal Impact Analysis has been prepared which
demonstrates a net positive benefit to the City’s General
Fund. See response to ED 1.2 that demonstrates compliance
with GM 2.2.
Objective GM 3: Create and preserve vital neighborhoods.
GM 3.3 Assure that all new and infill development
within existing urban areas pays its
proportional share of the cost for urban
The project is subject to the City’s Development Impact Fee
Program and State requirements to fund educational
facilities.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 742 of 1271
27
OBJECTIVE/
POLICY OBJECTIVE/POLICY TEXT CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
infrastructure and public facilities required to
maintain the Threshold Standards, as adopted
for its area of impact.
GM 3.8 Encourage the creation of vibrant and varied
neighborhoods and a diversity of housing
types, including, housing affordable to a range
of income groups, consistent with housing
element objectives.
The project provides for-sale housing in a range of bedroom
typologies for singles, couples, and families. The Project
does not include low-income affordable housing. However,
the Applicant must comply with the City’s Balanced
Community Affordable Housing Policy. The Applicant
will enter into a Balanced Community Affordable Housing
Agreement with the City which will address how the Project
meets its affordable housing obligation.
HOUSING ELEMENT
Objective H 2: Promote efficient use of water and energy through adopted standards and incentive -based policies to
conserve limited resources and reduce long-term operational costs of housing.
H 2.1 Encourage the efficient use and conservation of
water by residents.
The Project will be subject to the water conservation
requirements of the California Building Code and City of
Chula Vista ordinances.
H 2.2 Promote the efficient use of energy.
The Project will be subject to the energy conservation
requirements of the California Building Code and City of
Chula Vista ordinances.
Objective H 4: Minimize impacts on housing choice within each of the four geographic planning areas, especially to very
low-and low-income residents, that result from conversion or demolition of rental housing units.
H 4.1 Promote an equitable distribution of housing
types (e.g., multi-family rental and owner
occupied housing) based upon identified needs
within the Northwest, Southwest, and East
Planning Areas to provide a range of housing
opportunities for all income levels.
The larger Sunbow Planned Community provides a wide
range of housing types, including single family, multi-
family and affordable housing. The project provides higher
density for-sale housing in a range of bedroom typologies
for singles, couples and families and will comply with the
City’s Balanced Communities Affordable Housing Policy.
The Applicant will enter into a Balanced Community
Affordable Housing Agreement with the City which will
address how the Project meets its affordable housing
obligation.
Objective H 5: Encourage the provision of a wide range of housing choices by location, type of unit, and price level, in
particular the establishment of permanent affordable housing for low-and moderate-income households.
H 5.1 Balanced Communities-Affordable Housing:
Require newly constructed residential
developments to provide a portion of their
development affordable to low-and moderate-
income households.
The project will comply with the City’s Balanced
Communities Affordable Housing Policy. The Applicant
will enter into a Balanced Community Affordable Housing
Agreement with the City which will address how the Project
meets its affordable housing obligation.
H 5.2 Encourage the development of sufficient and
suitable new rental housing opportunities
within each of the City’s four geographic
Planning Areas, particularly for very low -and
low-income households.
The project will comply with the City’s Balanced
Communities Affordable Housing Policy. The Applicant
will enter into a Balanced Community Affordable Housing
Agreement with the City which will address how the Project
meets its affordable housing obligation.
Objective H 7: Facilitate the creation, maintenance, preservation and conservation of affordable housing for lower and
moderate-income households through comprehensive planning documents and processes, and the provision of financial
assistance and other incentives.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 743 of 1271
28
OBJECTIVE/
POLICY OBJECTIVE/POLICY TEXT CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
H 7.1 Ensure Chula Vista’s plans and policies
addressing housing, such as the Zoning
Ordinance, Sectional Planning Area Plans, and
Specific Plans, encourage a variety of housing
product that responds to variations in income
level, the changing live/work patterns of
residents and the needs of the City’s diverse
population.
The Project provides higher density for-sale housing in a
range of bedroom typologies for singles, couples and
families and will comply with the City’s Balanced
Communities Affordable Housing Policy. The Applicant
will enter into a Balanced Community Affordable Housing
Agreement with the City which will address how the Project
meets its affordable housing obligation.
Objective H 8: Ensure the availability of housing opportunities to persons regardless of race, color, ancestry, national
origin, religion, sex, disability, marital status, and familial status, source of income or sexual orientation.
H 8.1 Ensure equal housing opportunities to prevent
housing discrimination in the local housing
market.
The Project is committed to equal opportunity in housing.
PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
Objective – PFS 1: Ensure adequate and reliable water, sewer, and drainage service and facilities.
PFS 1.4 For new development, require on-site detention
of storm water flows such that, where practical,
existing downstream structures will not be
overloaded. Slow runoff and maximize on-site
infiltration of runoff.
The Project has prepared hydrology studies and will
implement the recommendations of the analysis to protect
downstream structures and properties.
Objective PFS 2: Increase efficiencies in water use, wastewater generation and its re-use, and handling of storm water
runoff throughout the City through use of alternative technologies.
PFS 2.2 As part of project construction and design,
assure that drainage facilities in new
development incorporate storm water runoff
and sediment control, including state-of-the-art
technologies, where appropriate.
The Project has prepared hydrology studies and will
implement the recommendations of the analysis to control
sediment and runoff.
PFS 2.3 In designing water, wastewater, and drainage
facilities, limit the disruption of natural
landforms and water bodies. Encourage the
use of natural channels that simulate natural
drainage ways while protecting property.
The Project has prepared hydrology studies and will
implement the recommendations of the analysis to control
sediment and runoff and has been designed to incorporate
the existing Poggi Creek drainage channel.
Objective PFS 5: Maintain sufficient levels of fire protection, emergency medical service and police services to protect
public safety and property.
PFS 5.1 Continue to adequately equip and staff the Fire
Department to ensure that established service
standards for emergency calls are met.
The Project will contribute its fair share to the City
Development Impact Fee Program.
PFS 5.6 Encourage crime watch programs in all
neighborhoods.
The Project will coordinate with the Chula Vista Police
Department to implement a crime watch program.
PFS 5.7 Prior to approval of any discretionary projects,
ensure that construction is phased with
provision of police and fire protection services
such that services are provided prior to or
concurrent with need.
The Project is subject to the City’s Growth Management
Ordinance to ensure adequate City services are available to
serve the development. The Applicant prepared a Fire
Protection Plan to evaluate fire protection services needed
to serve the Project.
Objective PFS 6: Provide adequate fire and police protection services to newly developing and redeveloping areas of the
City.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 744 of 1271
29
OBJECTIVE/
POLICY OBJECTIVE/POLICY TEXT CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
PFS 6.1 Continue to require new development and
redevelopment projects to demonstrate
adequate access for fire and police vehicles.
The Project has been reviewed and complies with the access
requirements for police and fire services.
PFS 6.2 Require new development and redevelopment
projects to demonstrate adequate water
pressure to new buildings.
A water supply study has been reviewed and approved by
the Otay Water District demonstrating adequate supply and
pressure for the proposed uses.
PFS 6.3 Encourage CPTED techniques in new
development and redevelopment projects.
The Project includes physical design to for adequate
lighting, signage, and defensible space.
Objective PFS 15: Provide new park and recreation facilities for residents of new development, City-wide.
PFS 15.1 Continue to pursue a City-wide standard for the
provision of developed parkland for new
development projects of three acres per
estimated one thousand new residents.
The Applicant entered into a CBA which provides for the
payment of a Park Benefit Fee, equal to the PAD fees that
would have otherwise been due pursuant to Chula Vista
Municipal Code (CVMC) Chapter 17.10, of approximately
$11.03 million based on the 2019 PAD fees (the final
amount will be determined based on the number of
residential units built and the PAD fee rates in effect as of
the effective date of the Development Ageement). The Park
Benefit Fee will satisfy the Owner’s park obligations for the
Project and may be utilized by the City to acquire or develop
parkland, as the City determines appropriate and in the best
interest of the overall City.
Objective PFS 19: Provide art and culture programs, childcare facilities and health and human services that enhance the
quality of life in Chula Vista.
PFS 19.10 Continue to require community purpose
facility acreage, in accordance with the
Municipal Code, for the provision of childcare
and other social service facilities.
The SPA Plan includes an approximate 0.9-acre site
designated CPF, planned as a private recreation facilities to
be owned and managed by the Master Homeowners
Association. Consistent with CVMC Section
19.48.040(B)(6), the site meets the minimum size and slope
requirements, is compatible with the surrounding
residential land uses and includes the following required
amenities:
• Swimming Pool
• Club House
• Pool House
• One multi-purpose hard court
• Children play area
• Community gathering place
• An outdoor cooking facility
• Level Lawn area
The proposed 0.9-acre CPF site is consistent with CVMC
Section 19.48.404(b)(6), in that it does not comprise more
than 35 percent of the overall CPF acreage required for the
Project Area (3.2 acres x 35% = 1.1 acres), the CPF site
meets the minimum one-half acre size requirement and
satisfies the minimum development criteria outlined in
CVMC 19.48.025(H).
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 745 of 1271
30
OBJECTIVE/
POLICY OBJECTIVE/POLICY TEXT CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
The Applicant has entered into a Development Agreement
with the City, which addresses how the remaining 2.3 acre
CPF obligation is satisfied.
Objective PFS 20: Develop a cultural arts center in Chula Vista.
PFS 20.3 Encourage the installation of art pieces in
publicly owned spaces and require developers
to pay fees or provide art pieces that serve to
enhance an individual project and contribute to
the appearance and vitality of the development.
The Project does not include any publicly owned spaces.
The City does not have a current fee to support the
installation of public art. However, the intent of PFS-20.3
may be met by the City as they exercise their discretion to
utilize the Park Benefit Fee, of approximately $11.03
million based on 2019 PAD fees (the final amount will be
determined based on the number of residential units built
and the PAD fee rates in effect as of the effective date of the
Development Agreement). The Park Benefit Fee will satisfy
the Owner’s park obligations for the project and may be
utilized by the City to acquire and/or develop parkland, as
the City determines appropriate and in the best interest of
the overall City. The City may utilize these funds to provide
opportunities for public art within public parks.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 746 of 1271
1
Figure 1: Aerial Context
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 747 of 1271
ATTACHMENT B
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN MARKET AND FINANCIAL
ANALYSIS OF INDUSTRIAL USE
(HR&A 2021)
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 748 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 749 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 750 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 751 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 752 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 753 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 754 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 755 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 756 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 757 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 758 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 759 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 760 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 761 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 762 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 763 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 764 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 765 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 766 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 767 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 768 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 769 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 770 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 771 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 772 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 773 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 774 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 775 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 776 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 777 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 778 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 779 of 1271
ATTACHMENT C
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
(DPFG 2021)
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 780 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 781 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 782 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 783 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 784 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 785 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 786 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 787 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 788 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 789 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 790 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 791 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 792 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 793 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 794 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 795 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 796 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 797 of 1271
SUNBOW GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
MAY 2021
Applicant:
ACI Sunbow, LLC
2356 Moore Street
San Diego, CA 92110
Contact: Bill Hamlin
Prepared for:
Lennar Homes of California, Inc.
16465 Via Esprillo, Suite 150
San Diego, CA 92127
Contact: David Shepherd
Prepared by:
RH Consulting Group
Ranie@RHConsultingGroup.com
Contact: Ranie Hunter
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 798 of 1271
SUNBOW
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Prepared for:
City of Chula Vista, California
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California
Property Owners:
Rancho Del Sur
California General Partnership
2643 Fourth Avenue
San Diego, CA 92103
Contact: Tim Kruer
Adopted by:
Chula Vista Resolution No. 15427 on December 5, 1989
Amended by:
Chula Vista Resolution No. __________ on ___________
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 799 of 1271
CONSULTANT TEAM
Land Planner:
Tierra Planning & Design, Inc.
31882 Camino Capistrano, Ste. 108
San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
Contact: Tom Davis
Civil Engineer:
BHA, Inc.
1615 Murray Canyon Road #910
San Diego, CA 92108
Contact: Rod Bradley
Landscape Architect:
Gillespie DeLorenzo
1615 Murray Canyon Road #900
San Diego, CA 92108
Contact: Nick DeLorenzo
Traffic Engineer:
Basmaciyan-Darnell, Inc.
964 Fifth Avenue
San Diego, CA 92101
Contact: Patty Boekamp
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 800 of 1271
PREAMBLE
On January 7, 2020, the Chula Vista City Council approved the Community Benefit Agreement
(by Resolution No. 2020-003) between the City of Chula Vista and ACI Sunbow, LLC (Applicant)
which would allow the Applicant to process entitlements that would involve converting the
designation of an undeveloped 54-acre site, within the General Plan, General Development Plan
and SPA Plan, from Limited Industrial to residential uses. For the City, the Agreement would
provide funding that can be used by the City to direct the construction of either: a Class “A” office
building that would facilitate high quality job enhancement uses along the SR-125 corridor on City
or non-profit owned land or a commercial/academic building that can facilitate either an academic
or private-sector market-rate project to advance the vision of the University Innovation District
(such as enabling the development of an Institute for International Studies), or some other notable
project at the City’s discretion.
ACI Sunbow, LLC (Applicant) filed an application with the City of Chula Vista for a Sunbow
GDP Amendment with the City of Chula Vista on February 26, 2020. The application includes a
proposal to modify the land use designation for the area designated Industrial Park on the GDP
Land Use Plan to Medium-High and High Residential land uses. The Application also includes a
proposed Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan Boundary Adjustment to modify the limits of
development in the Industrial Park and adjacent open space, which results in a 0.09 acre increase
in MSCP Preserve Open Space within the 135.7-acre Project Area.
As the Sunbow Planned Community is nearly built-out, with the exception of the Industrial Park
land use, this Sunbow GDP amendment only includes updates to the statistical land use summary
for the Industrial Park and adjacent open space. Updates associated with the amendment have been
incorporated into the GDP statistical and land use plan tables. The GDP amendment also
eliminates Chapters IV, Planned Community Zoning and V. Landscape Master Plan, as updated
Planned Community District Regulations and Landscape Guidelines are provided in the Sunbow
II, Phase 3 Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Amendment, Chapters 10 to 14.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 801 of 1271
SUNBOW
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
I. INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................1
A. Background and Scope ............................................................................................1
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................3
A. Project Summary ......................................................................................................3
III. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY .............................................................................5
Attachment A – Deleted Chapter IV. PC District Regulations and Chapter V. Landscape Master
Plan
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 802 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 803 of 1271
Introduction
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 804 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 805 of 1271
1
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Background and Scope
This General Development Plan intends to define the basic development parameters for the
Sunbow Planned Community, including the land use mix and density, primary circulation pattern,
open space and recreation concept, and infrastructure requirements. Additionally, the character
and form of the project will be defined through a series of guidelines and development standards
in accordance with the Planned Community section of the Chula Vista Zoning Code.
The purpose of the plan is as follows:
1. Assure a high quality of development, consistent with Developer, City and Community
objectives.
2. Create an economically viable plan that can realistically be implemented within current
and projected economic conditions.
3. Provide for orderly planning and long-range development of the project to ensure
community compatibility.
4. Facilitate adequate provision for community facilities, such as transportation, water, flood
control, sewage disposal, schools and parks and provide adequate assurance to the
Developer that approved development will be allowed in a timely and economically viable
manner.
5. Preserve open space and natural amenities on the property where possible.
6. Establish a planning and development framework which will allow diverse land uses to
exist in harmony with the community.
This General Development Plan (GDP) will serve as a supplement to existing City regulations.
General Development Plan regulations supersede other regulations where there is a conflict; where
a topic is not addressed by this General Development Plan, other City regulations apply.
The GDP represents one step in the development approval process by defining the type and amount
of development permitted within the Sunbow Planned Community. An Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) was prepared in conjunction with the General Development Plan that fulfills the
environmental review requirements for any proposed development on the site, as long as that
development is in substantial conformance with this GDP.
This GDP will be implemented through the adoption of a subsequent, more details Sectional
Planning Area Plan, Tentative Tract Maps, and possibly annexation/Development Agreements.
Therefore, the Sunbow GDP is designed to function as a policy bridge between the General Plan
and Sectional Planning Area Plan which will provide more detailed plans for the development
within the project.
The Sunbow General Development Plan is established in accordance with Sections 65450 through
65553 of the State of California, Government Code (Specific Plans) and Sections 19.07.010
through 19.07.010 through 19.07.030 of the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code and applies to
the property indicated on the Proposed Land Use Plan, Exhibit 1, herein.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 806 of 1271
2
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. Project Summary
The Sunbow General Development Plan (GDP) proposes development of a 604.8 acre Planned
Community in eastern Chula Vista. The adopted GDP Land Use Plan is illustrated on Page 10 and
also depicts the area subject to this GDP Amendment. The overall Planned Community represents
the continuing community building efforts of the comprehensive Sunbow Development program.
The initial neighborhood, Rancho Del Sur, consisted of a 108 acres directly north of the Planned
Community which contains 485 dwelling units. A Precise Plan, Tentative Map and Zoning Change
for Rancho Del Sur was approved by the City on July 8, 1987.
The principal objective of the Sunbow Planning Community is the creation of an efficient, self -
contained village. Through its policies, guidelines and conceptual graphics, the General
Development Plan will set for the framework for a socially, economically and environmentally
sound urban community. Several primary objectives have been developed as part of the Sunbow
planning process:
1. Through an interwoven system of community circulation, commercial, office, residential
and recreational uses, achieve a compatible mix of uses surrounding an Urban Activity
Center.
2. Provide an opportunity to live within a community that includes commercial, cultural and
recreational uses essential to residential.
3. Provide safe, convenient and efficient local circulation system which maximizes access
between residential areas, and community facilities while minimizing travel distance and
reliance on the automobile.
4. Promote a balanced open space system between active, useable recreation areas and the
open space of the Poggi Canyon through the preservation of natural hillside, canyons and
creeks. Further, through the provision of trails, paseos and parkways and by exceeding the
requirement for active community recreation facilities.
5. Promote community diversity and interaction through the establishment of a Village Center
which includes commercial, office, recreational, civic and residential uses.
6. Provide a sensitive land plan which accommodates shifts in residential density without
exceeding stated unit totals or community goals.
Principal uses proposed within the Sunbow Planned Community are as follows:
1. Residential: A wide variety of housing type is provided, including single-family detached
on approximately 4,000 S.F., 5,000 S.F., 6,000 S.F., 7,000 SF lots and a variety of multi-
family housing.
2. Commercial: A Village Center Commercial Area occupying approximately 12.7 acres is
located in the central portion of the Planned Community, south of the Medical Center.
There will be approximately 108,900 S.F. of commercial and medical office space 1which
will generate approximately 272 employment opportunities2.
1 Based on .25 F.A.R.
2 Based on 2.5 +/- people/1000 s.f.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 807 of 1271
3
3. Community Recreation: An approximately 10.7-acre Community Recreation Area,
providing active and passive recreation facilities is located in the center of the Planned
Community, along Palomar Road, and adjacent to the Village Center.
4. Open Space/Trails: An integrated system of open space, trails and parkways will
accommodate pedestrian and bicycle traffic within the Planned Community and further
enhance the Sunbow Community character.
.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 808 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 809 of 1271
5
III. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
In October 1986, the City of Chula Vista initiated an update to the General Plan to respond to
current pressures of development throughout the City and corresponding sphere of influence. The
Sunbow Planned Community-General Development Plan adopted in 1989 was prepared
concurrently with the development of the Draft General Plan over the same period of time in order
to yield a Sunbow General Development Plan consistent with the Draft General Plan and, more
importantly to implement the intent and purpose of the General Plan Update within the Sunbow
Planned Community project area in a timely fashion. The City of Chula Vista adopted an updated
General Plan in 1989 and most recently adopted the Chula Vista General Plan Update in 2005.
The areas designated for development within the Project Area remained Limited Development in
the 2005 update. With approval of proposed GDP amendment and companion Chula Vista General
Plan amendment, the GDP and Chula Vista General Plan will remain consistent.
A. Objectives and Policies
The following demonstrates this document’s consistency with the 2005 Chula Vista General Plan:
OBJECTIVE/
POLICY OBJECTIVE/POLICY TEXT CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION
Objective – LUT 1: Provide a balance of residential and non-residential development throughout the City that achieves a
vibrant development pattern, enhances the character of the City, and meets the present and future needs of all residents
and businesses.
LUT 1.1 Ensure that land uses develop in accordance
with the Land Use Diagram and Zoning Code
in an effort to attain land use compatibility.
The Sunbow GDP and Chula Vista General Plan designate
Sunbow II, Phase 3 as Limited Industrial and Open Space.
Further, the Sunbow SPA Plan adopted in 1990 also
designated Planning Area 23 as an Industrial Park. The
Sunbow Planned Community is built-out, with the
exception of Planning Area 23. The Applicant
unsuccessfully marketed Planning Area 23 as an Industrial
Park. In response to the Applicant’s request for a General
Plan Amendment Authorization, the Applicant and the City
entered into a Community Benefits Agreement on January
7, 2020 (Adopted by Resolution No. 2020-003) which
provided economic benefits to the City and also allowed the
Applicant to process an application to change the land use
designation to High and Medium-High Residential Upon
approval of the Sunbow SPA Amendment and PC District
Regulations and establishes zoning districts would be in
accordance with the amended General Plan Land Use
Diagram.
The City of Chula Vista contracted with HR&A Advisors,
Inc. to prepare the Sunbow II Phase 3 Market and Financial
Analysis of Industrial Use (March 26, 2021) (HR&A
Analysis), that analyzes the potential implications of
rezoning Planning Area 23 from industrial to residential
land uses (HR&A Analysis, provided as an attachment to
the Fiscal Impact Analysis). The HR&A Analysis also
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 810 of 1271
6
OBJECTIVE/
POLICY OBJECTIVE/POLICY TEXT CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
analyzed the feasibility of developing Planning Area 23
portion of Sunbow II, Phase 3 as an Industrial Park. The
HR&A Analysis concluded that the City would need
approximately 118 to 239 acres of industrially zoned land
to meet the calculated demand for 1.9 million to 3.8 million
square feet of industrial space in Chula Vista by 2050.
Given that the City’s inventory of industrially zoned land is
estimated at approximately 428 acres, the HR&A Analysis
concluded that, if the proposed project is approved, the City
would have between 190 and 311 acres of vacant
industrially zoned land remaining after 2050.
The HR&A Analysis analyzed the feasibility of developing
Planning Area 23 as a industrial site and concluded that, due
to the high cost to develop Planning Area 23, industrial
development is “unlikely to be financially feasible.”
The current proposal for a residential enclave is compatible
with the existing Sunbow residential development north of
Olympic Parkway. (See Sunbow II, Phase 3 Land Use
Context Exhibit).
LUT 1.2 Coordinate planning and redevelopment
activities and resources to balance land uses,
amenities, and civic facilities in order to sustain
or improve the quality of life.
The project will offer residential, a private recreation
facility and shared passive open space areas designed to
meet the daily recreational needs of residents.
LUT 1.4 Seek to achieve an improved balance between
jobs and housing in Chula Vista.
The project provides housing in close proximity to the
major employment centers in Chula Vista, Otay Mesa and
downtown San Diego.
LUT 1.5 Endeavor to create a mixture of employment
opportunities for citizens at all economic
levels.
As provided for in the Community Benefits Agreement
(CBA) and the Development Agreement (DA) between the
Applicant and the City of Chula Vista the Applicant would
deposit $8M with the City “Job Enhancement Funds” to be
utilized as seed funding for the construction of either: a
Class “A” office building that would facilitate high quality
job enhancement uses along the SR-125 corridor or a
commercial/academic building that can facilitate either an
academic or private-sector market-rate project to advance
the vision of the University Innovation District Master Plan
(such as enabling the development of an Institute for
International Studies), or some other notable project at the
City’s discretion which will create high value jobs for all
income levels.
LUT 1.6 Attract and maintain land uses that generate
revenue for the City of Chula Vista, while
maintaining a balance of other community
needs, such as housing, jobs, open space, and
public facilities.
The Sunbow II, Phase 3 Fiscal Impact Analysis prepared for
the Project demonstrates that the Project complies with
LUT 1.6 and CVMC Section 19.09.040.H.3 in that it
produces net positive revenue to the City of Chula Vista
over the 20-year timeframe. Revenues range from an
annual fiscal surplus in Years 1 - 20 ($46,461 - $270,928)
and a $3,218,323 cumulative fiscal surplus over the first 20
years of approximately. The project provides a balance of
residential development and the preservation of 63.6 acres
of land designated as part of the City’s MSCP Preserve.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 811 of 1271
7
OBJECTIVE/
POLICY OBJECTIVE/POLICY TEXT CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
The Community Benefits Agreement and the Development
Agreement provides the City with an opportunity to
facilitate economic growth by the Applicant providing $8.0
million (“Job Enhancement Funds”) in support funding for
the development of a Class “A” office building within the
SR-125 corridor. The construction of such office spaces
would provide a catalyst for development that could
generate high-quality jobs in locations currently suitable for
construction. In addition to payment of the $8.0 million Job
Enhancement Funds, the City would also receive Park
Benefit Fees (approximately $11.03 million) for park and
recreation amenities that can be used by the City to acquire
and/or develop parkland, as the City determines appropriate
and in the best interest of the City.
The Project includes an MSCP Boundary adjustment that
would result in an increase of 0.09 acres of MSCP Open
Space Preserve areas for a total of 63.6 acres of MSCP Open
Space Preserve within the Project Area.
Also see Response to LUT 1.1 above.
LUT 1.7 Provide high-quality public facilities, services,
and other amenities within close proximity to
residents.
The project proposes a community recreation area centrally
located to serve Project residents. The facility includes a
swimming pool, multi-use hardcourt area, level lawn area,
outdoor gathering and dining space, a children’s play area
and clubhouse. In addition, the Project distributes small
active and passive recreation areas throughout the
community conveniently located to serve the residents. The
Project provides an enhanced pedestrian walkway along the
on-site public streets to connect to the Chula Vista Regional
Trail located along Olympic Parkway as well as the
dedicated bike lanes along Olympic Parkway.
The CBA provides for the payment of a Park Benefit Fee,
equal to the PAD fees that would have otherwise been due
pursuant to Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC) Chapter
17.10, of approximately $11.03 million based on 2019 PAD
fees (the final amount will be determined based on the
number of residential units built and the PAD fee rates in
effect as of the effective date of the Development
Agreement). The Park Benefit Fee will satisfy the Owner’s
park obligations for the project and may be utilized by the
City to acquire or develop parkland, as the City determines
appropriate and in the best interest of the overall City.
LUT 1.8 Pursue higher density residential categories
and retail demand that are not being met within
the City.
The Project’s residential land uses are in the ‘High” and
“Medium-High” residential category consistent with this
objective. The existing The Plaza at Sunbow commercial
center includes a full-service grocery store, drug store,
banks, a gas station, restaurants, and other commercial uses
intended to serve the entire Sunbow Planned Community.
There were no other retail uses anticipated in the Chula
Vista General Plan, Sunbow GDP or the Sunbow SPA Plan.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 812 of 1271
8
OBJECTIVE/
POLICY OBJECTIVE/POLICY TEXT CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Though the Project does include retail land uses, it is
planned to provide much needed housing and help meet the
City’s housing demands identified in the SANDAG
Housing Needs Assessment Report. In addition, through
payment of the Job Enhancement Funds, the project
provides economic stimulus funding per the CBA that
benefits the entire City of Chula Vista.
LUT 1.9 Provide opportunities for development of
housing that respond to diverse community
needs in terms of density, size, location, and
cost.
The Project provides for-sale housing to meet the needs of
a diverse community. Densities range from 13.3 to 24.1
units per acre and products provide a range of bedroom
typologies for singles, couples, and families. Some homes
will have private rear yards, while the highest density
product type will have a private balcony. Product types are
focused on providing attainable housing as well as meeting
the need for move-up home buyers. Though the Project will
not include any on-site affordable housing, it will include a
Chula Vista Balanced Affordable Housing Agreement in
conformance with the City’s Balanced Community
Affordable Housing policy.
LUT 1.10 Maintain an adequate supply of land
designated and zoned for residential use at
appropriate densities to meet housing needs,
consistent with the objective of maintaining a
balance of land uses.
The Project supports the creation of new housing as
articulated in the Housing Element. The Project will
provide 718 new housing units for the current and future
residents of Chula Vista which, combined with the CBA Job
Enhancement Funds financial stimulus, ensures a
jobs/housing balance in the City of Chula Vista.
LUT 1.13 Maintain neighborhood and community
shopping centers of sizes and at locations that
offer both choice and convenience for shoppers
and residents, while sustaining a strong retail
base for the City.
Retail uses are provided within the Sunbow Planned
Community and other proximate sites. The existing “Plaza
at Sunbow” commercial/retail center includes a full-service
grocery store, drug store, banks, a gas station, restaurants,
and other commercial uses intended to serve the entire
Sunbow Planned Community. There were no other retail
uses anticipated in the Chula Vista General Plan, Sunbow
GDP or the Sunbow SPA Plan for the Sunbow Planned
Community. The project will not impact the availability or
sustainability of existing retail shopping centers. In fact, the
increased population resulting from the Project will
increase use of the existing Plaza at Sunbow Shopping
Center, thereby enhancing the viability of this existing
neighborhood shopping center.
LUT 1.15 Allow office uses that are associated with
complementary commercial service businesses
in commercial service areas.
The Applicant’s contribution of the $8M Job Enhancement
Fund financial stimulus will increase the ability of the City
to assist and attract employers to grow their operations in
the City of Chula Vista thus resulting in varied office and
commercial uses and future job creation. These public
benefits will advance the interests and meet the needs of
Chula Vista’s residents and visitors to a significantly greater
extent than the vacant land under the current entitlements
and absent the Community Benefits Agreement.
LUT 1.17 Encourage the development of cultural and
performing arts nodes in different areas
throughout the City, each with a specific non -
competing focus, such as viewing
In conjunction with the CBA, the project will provide Park
Benefit Fees which may be utilized by the City to support
programming within the City’s public park system to
encourage a diversity of uses, which may include art shows
and cultural festivals.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 813 of 1271
9
OBJECTIVE/
POLICY OBJECTIVE/POLICY TEXT CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
performances or works of art, and learning
about, creating, or purchasing art.
Objective – LUT 3: Direct the urban design and form of new development and redevelopment in a manner that blends
with and enhances Chula Vista’s character and qualities, both physical and social.
LUT 3.1 Adopt urban design guidelines and/or other
development regulations for all Districts or
Focused Areas of Change as presented in
Sections LUT 8.0 - 10.0 of the Land Use and
Transportation Element, as necessary, to
ensure that new development or redevelopment
recognizes and enhances the character and
identity of adjacent areas, consistent with this
General Plan’s Vision.
The Sunbow II, Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment includes
Planned Community District Regulations as well as
Landscape and Design Guidelines to ensure new
development recognizes and enhances the character and
identity of adjacent areas. The architectural theme for the
Project is a modern interpretation of the existing
architecture within the Sunbow Planned Community. In
addition, the proposed Planned Community District
Regulations are equal to or greater than the existing Sunbow
SPA regulations design guidelines and will be appropriately
implemented to ensure the proposed residential enclave has
its own identity.
LUT 3.2 Any such urban design guidelines and/or other
development regulations shall be consistent
with other, related policies and provisions in
this General Plan, including Sections 7.3
through 7.6.
The Sunbow SPA Plan Amendment includes Planned
Community District Regulations as well as Landscape and
Design Guidelines consistent with the policies and
provisions of the General Plan.
Objective – LUT 5: Designate opportunities for mixed use areas with higher density housing that is near shopping, jobs,
and transit in appropriate locations throughout the City.
LUT 5.1 Promote mixed use development, where
appropriate, to ensure a pedestrian-friendly
environment that has opportunities for housing;
jobs; childcare; shopping; entertainment;
parks; and recreation in close proximity to one
another.
Because of its location, the Project is not an appropriate
location for mixed use development and is not designated
for mixed use development in the General Plan. However,
the existing Sunbow Planned Community provides a variety
of land uses, including housing, childcare, a school, public
parks and shopping areas. See Figure 1, Aerial Context.
LUT 5.2 Encourage new development that is organized
around compact, walkable, mixed use
neighborhoods and districts in order to
conserve open space resources, minimize
infrastructure costs, and reduce reliance on the
automobile.
Based on the Project specific VMT analysis using a proxy
site, the Project would exceed the VMT threshold. Several
quantifiable Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
strategies can be used to mitigate a project’s VMT impacts.
TDM strategies can be quantified using methodologies
described in Quantifying Green House Gas Mitigation
Measures published by the California Air Pollution Control
Officers Association (CAPCOA) in 2010. While many of
the CAPCOA Measures were considered applicable to the
Project, the “Land Use / Location – Increased Density”
measure was selected to reduce the Project’s VMT impact.
The calculations provided in the CAPCOA methodology
for the recommended measure produces a VMT reduction
based on the number of dwelling units per acre. Based on
the Project’s proposed density of 16.3 units per acre, the
VMT reduction is 8.0%. This measure exceeds the Project’s
1.4% VMT impact and is therefore considered sufficient to
reduce the Project’s VMT and avoid a significant impa ct.
The following strategies are recommended to further reduce
the number of automobile trips generated by residents of the
Project and the distance that the residents drive:
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 814 of 1271
10
OBJECTIVE/
POLICY OBJECTIVE/POLICY TEXT CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
• Provide Ride Share coordination services thru the
Project’s Home Owner’s Association to match
residents interested in carpooling.
• Coordinate with near-by schools and / or the Project’s
Home Owner’s Association to match residents
interested in carpooling to / from schools.
• Provide on-site transit opportunities information.
• Encourage bicycling by providing on-site bicycle
infrastructure such as bike racks.
LUT 5.3 Authorize and encourage mixed use
development in focus areas, including high-
density residential housing, neighborhood-
serving commercial, and office uses.
The CVGP did not identify Sunbow II, Phase 3 as an area
that could support mixed use development. The project
features high and medium-high density residential
development; however, mixed-use development is not
feasible in this location. The Sunbow Planned Community
includes a mix of housing, neighborhood-serving
commercial and office uses intended to serve the entire
Sunbow Planned Community, including the Sunbow II,
Phase 3 development area.
The Applicant’s contribution of the $8M Job Enhancement
Fund financial stimulus will increase the ability of the City
to assist and attract employers to grow their operations in
the City of Chula Vista thus resulting in varied office and
commercial uses and future job creation. These public
benefits will advance the interests and meet the needs of
Chula Vista’s residents and visitors to a significantly greater
extent than the vacant land under the current entitlements
and absent the Community Benefits Agreement
LUT 5.4 Develop the following areas as mixed use
centers: Urban Core; Palomar Trolley Station;
EUC; and Otay Ranch Village Cores and Town
Centers.
The Sunbow II, Phase 3 project is not within the Urban
Core, Palomar Trolley Station, EUC or Otay Ranch Village
Cores and Town Centers identified in the General Plan for
mixed use development and therefore is not subject to LUT
5.4.
However, the Applicant entered into a CBA with the City
which provides an opportunity to facilitate economic
growth by providing $8.0 million in funding for
development of a Class “A” office building within the SR-
125 corridor or the construction of facilities for academic,
institutional, and innovation-related businesses within the
University Innovation District. The City is interested in
facilitating the creation of high-quality jobs and economic
growth within the City by providing opportunities that
target and attract industries and businesses that contribute
to diversification and stabilization of the local economy.
Facilitating such economic growth by encouraging the
development of spaces that can be used by high technology
and manufacturing businesses within the SR-125 corridor
or academic, institutional, and innovation-related
businesses within the University Innovation District is a
potential solution. The construction of such spaces would
provide a catalyst for development that could generate high-
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 815 of 1271
11
OBJECTIVE/
POLICY OBJECTIVE/POLICY TEXT CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
quality jobs in locations currently suitable for construction.
Through implementation of the CBA, the office uses
typically found in an urban mixed-use setting can be
realized.
LUT 5.11 Endeavor to reduce the number of peak hour
automobile trips by supporting increased
services near workplaces.
The project includes Transportation Demand Management
features including:
▪ Provide Ride Share coordination services thru the
Project’s Home Owner’s Association to match
residents interested in carpooling.
▪ Coordinate with near-by schools and / or the Project’s
Home Owner’s Association to match residents
interested in carpooling to / from schools.
▪ Provide on-site transit opportunities information.
▪ Encourage bicycling by providing on-site bicycle
infrastructure such as bike racks.
LUT 5.13 Higher density residential and mixed use
residential/commercial development should be
designed to: create a pleasant walking
environment to encourage pedestrian activity;
maximize transit usage; provide opportunities
for residents to conduct routine errands close to
their residence; integrate with surrounding uses
to become a part of the neighborhood rather
than an isolated project; use architectural
elements or themes from the surrounding
neighborhood; and provide appropriate
transition between land use designations to
minimize neighbor compatibility conflicts
The project is not identified in the General Plan for mixed
use residential/commercial development. The architectural
theme for the Project is a modern interpretation of the
existing architecture within the Sunbow Planned
Community. In addition, the proposed Planned Community
District Regulations are equal to or greater than the existing
Sunbow SPA regulations and design guidelines and will be
appropriately implemented to ensure the proposed
residential enclave has its own identity. The project is set
back from Olympic Parkway approximately 500’ and
provides additional buffers to surrounding land uses at the
project perimeter. Given the project is intended to provide
housing at attainable levels for various employment sectors,
the provision of a shuttle service by the project is not
feasible.
The project is designed to provide a pedestrian network of
walkways connecting neighborhoods and the centrally
located private recreation site. In addition, the project
provides two direct connections to the existing Chula Vista
Regional Trail and bike lanes along Olympic Parkway at
two fully signalized intersections. The internal public
streets (Streets A & B) are designed to include an enhanced
6’ sidewalk along one side, with expanded landscaped
parkways on both sides.
Objective- LUT 6: Ensure adjacent land uses are compatible with one another.
LUT 6.1 Ensure, through adherence to design guidelines
and zoning standards, that the design review
process guarantees excellence in design and
that new construction and alterations to
existing buildings are compatible with the best
character elements of the area.
The Sunbow SPA Plan Amendment includes Planned
Community District Regulations as well as Landscape and
Residential Design Guidelines to ensure new development
recognizes and enhances the character and identity of
adjacent areas. All residential development is subject to the
City’s Design Review process.
LUT 6.2 Require that proposed development plans and
projects consider and minimize project impacts
upon surrounding neighborhoods.
The project includes PC District Regulations and
Landscape and Residential Design Guidelines to ensure the
project is compatible with surrounding residential
development. The project is set back from Olympic
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 816 of 1271
12
OBJECTIVE/
POLICY OBJECTIVE/POLICY TEXT CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Parkway approximately 500’ and provides additional
buffers between surrounding land uses.
LUT 6.3 Require that the design of new residential,
commercial, or public developments is
sensitive to the character of existing
neighborhoods through consideration of
access, compatible building design and
massing, and building height transitions, while
maintaining the goals and values set forth in the
General Plan. Within transit focus areas,
design provisions should include requirements
for a minimum building step back of 15 feet for
every 35 feet in height, for edges abutting
residential uses.
The project is on an undeveloped site with no abutting
residential development. The project includes PC District
Regulations and Landscape and Residential Design
Guidelines to ensure the project is compatible with future
residential development planned east of the site. The
project is set back from Olympic Parkway approximately
500’ and provides additional buffers between surrounding
land uses. All homes will have a separation from the
landfill. The landfill operation is significantly below the top
of the slope on the southern project boundary. Fuel
modification zones, slope landscaping and wall designs will
ensure the homes closest to the landfill property are
buffered sufficiently.
Objective LUT 7: Appropriate transitions should be provided between land uses.
LUT 7.2 Require new or expanded uses to provide
mitigation or buffers between existing uses
where significant adverse impacts could occur.
The project is buffered from existing development on the
west and north by over 63.6 acres of MSCP open space and
Olympic Parkway and the east and south by a planned
buffer/fuel modification area. In addition, home sites within
Planning Areas 23 are 50-feet below the adjacent landfill.
See above response to LUT 6.3.
LUT 7.4 Require landscape and/or open space buffers to
maintain a naturalized or softer edge for
proposed private development directly
adjacent to natural and public open space areas.
The project includes a series of graded and revegetated
slopes and water quality basins at the edge of development
designed to buffer development from the adjacent MSCP
Preserve areas, while maintaining a softer edge between the
land uses.
Objective – LUT 8: Strengthen and sustain Chula Vista's image as a unique place by maintaining, enhancing, and creating
physical features that distinguish Chula Vista's neighborhoods, communities, and public spaces, and enhance its image as
a pedestrian-oriented and livable community.
LUT 8.1 Develop a program to enhance the identity of
special districts and neighborhoods to create
variety and interest in the built environment,
including such items as signage, monuments,
landscaping, and street improvements.
Sunbow II, Phase 3 is a residential enclave featuring
contemporary architectural styles. The community is
planned to include four unique multi-family attached
product types with 15 distinct floor plans. Architecture will
include a variety of distinct and unique combinations of
elevations and colors. The Sunbow SPA Plan Amendment
includes Planned Community District Regulations as well
as Landscape and Residential Design Guidelines which
provide guidance for the development of high-quality
architecture, landscape, and street improvements.
LUT 8.2 Emphasize certain land uses and activities,
such as cultural arts; entertainment; specialty
retail; or commercial recreation, to enhance or
create the identity of specialized districts or
Focus Areas in the City.
The project does not include the land uses identified in LUT
8.2; however, by providing the Park Benefit Fees, the
project supports programming within the City’s public park
system to encourage a diversity of uses, which may include
art shows and cultural festivals as well as commercial
recreation opportunities.
LUT 8.3 Ensure that buildings are appropriate to their
context and designed to be compatible with
surrounding uses and enhance the desired
character of their District.
The Sunbow SPA Amendment includes residential
architectural guidelines and establishes an architectural
theme to be implemented within Sunbow II, Phase 3. All
residential development within the project is subject to the
City’s Design Review process.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 817 of 1271
13
OBJECTIVE/
POLICY OBJECTIVE/POLICY TEXT CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
LUT 8.4 Encourage and require, where feasible, the
incorporation of publicly accessible urban open
spaces, including: parks; courtyards; water
features; gardens; passageways; paseos; and
plazas, into public improvements and private
projects.
The Community Benefit Agreement between the City and
the Applicant includes a provision for the waiver of the
Project PAD fees and the payment of a Park Benefit Fee,
equal to the PAD fees that would otherwise have been due
pursuant to Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC) Chapter
17.10. As of the writing of this report, the Park Benefit Fee
is anticipated to total $11.03 million. The final Park Benefit
Fee amount will be determined based on the number of
residential units constructed and the PAD fee rates in effect
as of the effective date of the Development Agreement. The
Park Benefit Fee will satisfy the Project’s park obligations.
The Park Benefit Fees may be utilized by the City to acquire
and/or develop parkland, as the City determines appropriate
and in the best interest of the City.
LUT 8.5 Prepare urban design guidelines that help to
create pedestrian-oriented development by
providing:
• Varied and articulated building facades;
• Visual (first floor clear glass windows) and
physical access for pedestrians;
• Pedestrian circulation among parcels; uses;
transit stops; and public or publicly
accessible spaces;
• Human scale design elements;
• Ground floor residential and commercial
entries that face and engage the street; and
• Pedestrian-oriented streetscape amenities.
The Sunbow II, Phase 3 SPA Amendment is not designed
in an urban setting to warrant the preparation of “urban
design guidelines;” however the SPA Plan amendment
includes residential architectural and landscape guidelines
and establishes an architectural theme to be implemented
within Sunbow II, Phase 3.
The project does not include mixed-use development and
therefore several of the guidelines in LUT 8.5 are not
applicable to the project.
LUT 8.6 Develop a master plan for artwork in public
places that would identify the types of art
desired and establish appropriate settings for
the display of art, including within public
rights-of-way and landscape medians.
LUT 8.6 is a City-wide objective; however, by providing
the Park Benefit Fees, the project supports programming
within the City’s public park which may include public art
displays.
LUT 8.7 Ensure that vacant parcels and parcels with
unsightly storage uses, such as auto salvage
yards, are appropriately screened from the
street to reduce their negative visual effects.
Because of its location and natural open spaces that buffer
the project from Olympic Parkway, negative visual impacts
are minimal. The EIR for the project includes a visual
simulation that demonstrates the project is not be impacted
by unsightly uses on adjacent parcels. The visual
simulation clearly demonstrates the slope landscaping and
walls adequately buffer the project from any negative visual
effects.
Objective – LUT 10: Create attractive street environments that complement private and public properties, create attractive
public rights-of-way, and provide visual interest for residents and visitors.
LUT 10.2 Landscape designs and standards shall include
a coordinated street furniture palette, including
waste containers and benches, to be
implemented throughout the community at
appropriate locations.
The Sunbow II, Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment includes
Landscape Design Guidelines which will ensure
implementation of a coordinated design for the community.
The design and location of street furniture, if any, will be
determined during preparation of the Landscape Master
Plan and further refined during the Design Review Process,
when the passive and active recreation designs are prepared.
The Project does not propose sheltered seating; however,
the TIA for the project includes TDM strategies to
encourage ridesharing and carpooling amongst residents.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 818 of 1271
14
OBJECTIVE/
POLICY OBJECTIVE/POLICY TEXT CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
LUT 10.3 Provide well-designed, comfortable bus stops
throughout the City.
See Figure 1, Aerial Context for the location of existing bus
stops near the Project. The Applicant will work with the
City and MTS to encourage the establishment of a local bus
stop closer to the Project; however, the Applicant has no
control over the location, timing or feasibility of adding a
local bus stop. If bus stops are added, bus shelters would be
designed consistent with MTS and City of Chula Vista
standards.
LUT 10.4 Prior to the approval of projects that include
walls that back onto roadways, the city shall
require that the design achieves a uniform
appearance from the street. The walls shall be
uniform in height, use of materials, and color,
but also incorporate elements, such as pilasters,
that add visual interest.
A Fence and Wall Plan will be provided as part of the
Project’s Landscape Master Plan, consistent with City
policies.
LUT 10.5 Require under grounding of utilities on private
property and develop a priority based program
of utility under grounding along public rights-
of-way.
All new utilities will be undergrounded, consistent with this
objective, except as required by utility providers. However,
the Applicant will coordinate with the City and utility
providers to place above-ground appurtenances in the least
intrusive locations.
LUT 10.6 Study the locational requirements of utility,
traffic control, and other cabinets and hardware
located in the public rights-of-way to
determine alternative locations for these items
in less obtrusive areas of the street
environment.
The location of utility facilities in the public realm is
designed to minimize intrusion into the street environment
and avoid conflicts with entry monuments and landscaping,
to the greatest extent feasible. The Applicant is not
proposing any entry monuments at this time. See response
to LUT 10.5 regarding coordinating utility appurtenance
locations.
Objective – LUT 11: Ensure that buildings and related site improvements for public and private development are well -
designed and compatible with surrounding properties and districts.
LUT 11.1 Promote development that creates and
enhances positive spatial attributes of major
public streets, open spaces, cityscape,
mountain and bay sight lines, and important
gateways into the City.
The project maintains and is sensitive to the design
elements of Olympic Parkway and the East Orange Avenue
Master Plan.
LUT 11.2 Promote and place a high priority on quality
architecture, landscape, and site design to
enhance the image of Chula Vista, and create a
vital and attractive environment for businesses,
residents, and visitors.
Sunbow II, Phase 3 is a residential enclave featuring
contemporary architectural styles. Architecture will include
a variety of distinct and unique combinations of elevations
and colors. The Sunbow SPA Plan Amendment includes
Planned Community District Regulations as well as
Landscape and Residential Design Guidelines which
provide guidance for the development of high-quality
architecture, landscape, and street improvements.
LUT 11.4 Actively promote architectural and design
excellence in buildings, open space, and urban
design.
Sunbow II, Phase 3 is a residential enclave featuring
contemporary architectural styles. Architecture will include
a variety of distinct and unique combinations of elevations
and colors designed by respected and creative architects and
design professionals.
LUT 11.5 Require a design review process for all public
and private discretionary projects (which
includes architectural, site plan, landscape and
signage design) to review and evaluate projects
prior to issuance of building permits to
Design Review is required in the Sunbow II, Phase 3 SPA
Plan Amendment.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 819 of 1271
15
OBJECTIVE/
POLICY OBJECTIVE/POLICY TEXT CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
determine their compliance with the objectives
and specific requirements of the City's Design
Manual, General Plan, and appropriate zone or
Area Development Plans.
Objective – LUT 16: Integrate land use and transportation planning and related facilities.
LUT 16.1 Promote the development of well-planned
communities that will tend to be self-
supportive and, thus, reduce the length of
vehicular trips, reduce dependency on the
automobile, and encourage the use of other
modes of travel.
The project includes Transportation Demand Management
features, including:
▪ Provide Ride Share coordination services thru the
Project’s Home Owner’s Association to match
residents interested in carpooling.
▪ Coordinate with near-by schools and / or the Project’s
Home Owner’s Association to match residents
interested in carpooling to / from schools.
▪ Provide on-site transit opportunities information.
▪ Encourage bicycling by providing on-site bicycle
infrastructure such as bike racks.
However, the TIA conservatively did not apply any VMT
reductions with implementation of the TDM measures.
The project also provides direct connections to the existing
Chula Vista Regional Trail and bike lanes along Olympic
Parkway.
In addition to the TDM measures described above, the
project will provide connections to the Chula Vista regional
trail and bike lane.
LUT 16.2 Ensure that new development and community
activity centers have adequate transportation
and pedestrian facilities.
The project is designed to provide a pedestrian connection
between neighborhoods and the centrally located private
recreation site. The internal public streets (Streets A & B)
are designed to include an enhanced 6’ sidewalk along one
side, with expanded landscaped parkways on both sides. In
addition, the project provides direct connections to the
existing Chula Vista Regional Trail and bike lanes along
Olympic Parkway at two fully signalized intersections. The
project will pay its fair share of the Eastern TDIF Fees as
required to fund transportation and pedestrian facilities that
are part of the TDIF program.
LUT 16.3 Provide direct and convenient access to public
transit stops within residential, commercial,
and industrial areas.
The project provides direct connections to the existing
Chula Vista Regional Trail and bike lanes along Olympic
Parkway as well as the MTS transit stop located at Olympic
Parkway and Brandywine Avenue approximately ½ mile
west of the project (Refer to Figure 1, Aerial Context).
Objective – LUT 17: Plan and coordinate development to be compatible and supportive of planned transit.
LUT 17.1 Designate sufficient land at appropriate
densities to support planned transit and require
that development be transit-oriented, as
appropriate to its proximity to transit facilities.
The project is not a transit-oriented development. However,
the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the Project
included several quantifiable Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) strategies which can be used to
mitigate a project’s VMT impacts. TDM strategies can be
quantified using methodologies described in Quantifying
Green House Gas Mitigation Measures published by the
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association
(CAPCOA) in 2010, including increased density and a
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 820 of 1271
16
OBJECTIVE/
POLICY OBJECTIVE/POLICY TEXT CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
VMT Reduction Analysis. In addition, the following
strategies are recommended to further reduce the number of
automobile trips generated by residents of the Project and
the distance that the residents drive:
▪ Provide Ride Share coordination services thru the
Project’s Home Owner’s Association to match
residents interested in carpooling.
▪ Coordinate with near-by schools and / or the Project’s
Home Owner’s Association to match residents
interested in carpooling to / from schools.
▪ Provide on-site transit opportunities information.
▪ Encourage bicycling by providing on-site bicycle
infrastructure such as bike racks.
The Applicant will work with the City and MTS to
encourage the establishment of a local bus stop closer to the
Project; however, the Applicant has no control over the
location, timing, or feasibility of adding a local bus stop.
LUT 17.4 Require developers to consult and coordinate
with SANDAG and the City to ensure that
development is compatible with and supports
the planned implementation of public transit.
The Applicant will work with the City and MTS to
encourage the establishment of a local bus stop closer to the
Project and/or a future MTS transit shuttle; however, the
Applicant has no control over the location, timing or
feasibility of adding a local bus stop or providing an MTS
shuttle to serve the Project.
Objective LUT 18: Reduce traffic demand through Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies, increased use
of transit, bicycles, walking, and other trip reduction measures.
LUT 18.1 Support and encourage the use of public transit. The project includes Transportation Demand Management
measures to facilitate ride sharing, transit ridership, school
carpooling to reduce reliance on the automobile and peak
hour trips. See response to LUT 17.1 above.
The project also provides direct connections to the existing
Chula Vista Regional Trail along and bike lanes along
Olympic Parkway at two fully signalized intersections
LUT 18.2 Provide an efficient and effective paratransit
service for elderly and handicapped persons
unable to use conventional transit service.
This is the responsibility of MTS, the public transit service
provider. See Figure 1, Aerial Context for the locations of
MTS local bus stops.
LUT 18.3 Provide and enhance all feasible alternatives to
the automobile, such as bicycling and walking,
and encourage public transit ridership on
existing and future transit routes.
The project is located to take advantage of transit, walking
and cycling to reduce vehicular trips. The internal public
streets (Streets A & B) are designed to include an enhanced
6’ sidewalk along one side, with expanded landscaped
parkways on both sides. In addition, the project provides
direct connections to the existing Chula Vista Regional
Trail and bike lanes along Olympic Parkway at two fully
signalized intersections.
The MTS local bus stop is located at Olympic Parkway and
Brandywine Avenue approximately ½ mile west of the
project (Refer to Figure 1, Aerial Context).
See response to LUT 17.1 above for TDM measures
included in the Traffic Impact Analysis.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 821 of 1271
17
OBJECTIVE/
POLICY OBJECTIVE/POLICY TEXT CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
LUT 18.4 Use master planning techniques in new
development and redevelopment projects to
enable effective use of public transit.
The project includes Transportation Demand Management
measures to facilitate ride sharing, transit ridership, school
carpooling to reduce reliance on the automobile and peak
hour trips. The project also provides direct connections to
the existing Chula Vista Regional Trail along and bike lanes
along Olympic Parkway at two fully signalized
intersections. See response to LUT 17.1 above for TDM
measures included in the Traffic Impact Analysis.
LUT 18.5 Implement TDM strategies, such as carpooling,
vanpooling, and flexible work hours that
encourage alternatives to driving alone during
peak periods.
The Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the Project
included several quantifiable Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) strategies which can be used to
mitigate a project’s VMT impacts. response to LUT 17.1
above for TDM measures included in the Traffic Impact
Analysis.
LUT 18.6 Encourage employer-based TDM strategies,
such as: employee transportation allowances;
preferential parking for rideshare vehicles;
workplace-based carpool programs; and shuttle
services.
The Project does not include any employment land uses that
would facilities implementation of the measures identified
in LUT 18.6. However, the Traffic Impact Analysis
prepared for the Project included several quantifiable
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies
which can be used to mitigate a project’s VMT impacts.
response to LUT 17.1 above for TDM measures.
LUT 18.7 Support the location of private “telework”
centers.
The Project includes a private club house as a part of the
common recreation area for the resident’s use, as designated
in the Sunbow II, Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment. This
facility could be utilized for a private telework center if the
residents express an interest in such a facility. The
feasibility and interest to be determined by the Homeowners
Association.
LUT 18.8 Encourage establishment of park-and-ride
facilities near or at transit stations, as
appropriate to the area's character and
surrounding land uses.
The Project is not “near” or “at transit stations,” therefore,
LUT 18.8 does not apply to the Project. However, the
Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the Project included
several quantifiable Transportation Demand Management
(TDM) strategies which can be used to mitigate a project’s
VMT impacts. response to LUT 17.1 above for TDM
measures included in the Traffic Impact Analysis
Objective LUT 20: Make transit-friendly roads a top consideration in land use and development design.
LUT 20.1 Incorporate transit-friendly and pedestrian-
friendly elements into roadway design
standards, such as signal priority for transit and
adequate sidewalk widths for pedestrians.
The Project does not include any transit routes or roadways
that accommodate transit. However, the project includes a
network of sidewalks connecting residential neighborhoods
to the existing Chula Vista Regional Trail located adjacent
to Olympic Parkway and the MTS local bus stop located
west of the project.
Objective LUT 23: Promote the use of non-polluting and renewable alternatives for mobility through a system of bicycle
and pedestrian paths and trails that are safe, attractive and convenient forms of transportation.
LUT 23.1 Encourage the use of bicycles and walking as
alternatives to driving.
The project provides a system of pedestrian walkways and
paseos connecting the residential neighborhoods to two
connections to the existing Chula Vista Regional Trail and
bike lanes along Olympic Parkway. See response to LUT-
18.3 above.
LUT 23.2 Foster the development of a system of inter-
connecting bicycle routes throughout the City
and region.
The project provides a system of pedestrian walkways and
paseos connecting the residential neighborhoods to two
connections to the existing Chula Vista Greenbelt Trail and
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 822 of 1271
18
OBJECTIVE/
POLICY OBJECTIVE/POLICY TEXT CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
bike lanes along Olympic Parkway, which connects to the
City’s network of bike lanes.
LUT 23.3 Preserve, restore, or provide the opportunity
for a cyclist to ride a bicycle to virtually any
chosen destination, in order to make the bicycle
a viable transportation alternative.
The project provides a system of pedestrian walkways and
paseos connecting the residential neighborhoods to two
connections to the existing Chula Vista Regional Trail and
bike lanes along Olympic Parkway, which connects to the
City’s network of bike lanes.
LUT 23.4 Link major residential areas with principal trip
destinations, such as schools; parks;
community centers; and shopping centers.
The project is part of the larger Sunbow Planned
Community that provides parks, shopping, and an
elementary school close to the project. Refer to Figure 1,
Aerial Context, for the locations and travel times from the
project to schools, shopping, and public parks in the vicinity
of the Project.
LUT 23.5 Provide linkages between bicycle facilities that
utilize circulation element alignments and open
space corridors.
The project connects to the existing bike lanes along
Olympic Parkway, designated a Scenic Corridor in the
General Plan.
LUT 23.6 In addition to using open space corridors, off-
street bicycle trails should use flood control
and utility easements. The trails shall be
designed to minimize interaction with
automobile cross traffic.
The Project does not include any of the features described
in LUT 23.6. However, the Project provides two points of
access to the bike lanes along Olympic Parkway that are
designated “Cycle Track (Class IV)” in the City’s Active
Transportation Plan. This Plan includes both on- and off-
street trails.
LUT 23.7 Provide bicycle support facilities at all major
bicycle usage locations.
The Project does not include a “major bicycle usage
location;” however, the Project will include bicycle storage
at the common recreation area. All homes within the
Project will include 2-car garages which could also be
utilized by homeowners for bicycle storage.
LUT 23.10 Promote the system of trails envisioned within
the Chula Vista Greenbelt.
The project connects to the existing Chula Vista Regional
Trail along Olympic Parkway which connects to the Chula
Vista Greenbelt Trail system.
LUT 23.11 Implement recommendations of the City's
Bikeway Master Plan and Greenbelt Master
Plan.
See response to LUT 23.6 above regarding the City’s Active
Transportation Plan. The Project provides two pedestrian
connections to the existing Chula Vista Regional Trail, as
recommended by the City’s Greenbelt Master Plan. These
connections link the Project to the City-wide system of
trails and bike facilities.
LUT 23.12 Provide opportunities for use of personal
mobility devices.
The walkways and paseo planned within the Project area
adequately sized to accommodate personal mobility
devices.
LUT 23.13 New overpasses and interchanges should be
designed to accommodate bicycles and
pedestrians.
No new overpasses, interchanges or pedestrian bridges are
planned for the Project. The Project will contribute its fair
share through the payment of the Eastern TDIF to fund
transportation facilities included in the TDIF program,
which may include both pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
LUT 23.14 Require new development projects to provide
internal bikeway systems with connections to
the citywide bicycle networks.
Bicycles share the roadway with automobiles on the internal
streets, which have very low traffic volumes. The Project
is designed to provide connections to the existing bike lanes
in Olympic Parkway at two signalized intersections. The
internal streets (Streets A & B) are designed as Modified
Class III Collectors, which, per City standards, do not
require dedicated bike lanes.
Objective LUT 61: Create balanced communities that can provide a high quality of life for residents.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 823 of 1271
19
OBJECTIVE/
POLICY OBJECTIVE/POLICY TEXT CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
LUT 61.1 Adhere to the regulations established in
existing GDPs and SPAs.
The propose includes a proposal to amend the Sunbow GDP
and Sunbow SPA Plan to address the proposed land use
change for Planning Area 23. Therefore, the proposed
project is not consistent with the regulations established in
the existing GDPs and SPAs. The proposed amendments
would establish regulations which would guide
development of the Sunbow II, Phase 3 area and upon
approval by the City Council, the Project would adhere to
the amended regulations and meet the intent of LUT 61.1.
The Applicant entered into a Community Benefit
Agreement which provides the City with an opportunity to
facilitate economic growth by the Applicant providing $8.0
million (“Job Enhancement Funds”) in support funding for
the development of a Class “A” office building within the
SR-125 corridor. The construction of such office spaces
may occur within the Eastern Urban Center or within the
University Innovation District/Regional Technology Park
and would provide a catalyst for development that could
generate high-quality jobs in locations currently suitable for
construction.
LUT 61.2 Future SPAs shall focus on creating a vibrant
sense of community, a vigorous economy, and
a healthy environment.
Sunbow II, Phase 3 is a residential enclave featuring
contemporary architectural styles. The Sunbow II, Phase 3
SPA Plan Amendment includes Planned Community
District Regulations as well as Landscape and Residential
Design Guidelines which provide guidance for the
development of a vibrant community with high-quality
architecture, landscape, and street improvements. Streets
are designed to encourage walking within the
neighborhoods. Connections to the existing Chula Vista
Regional Trail and bike lanes in Olympic Parkway are
provided via two signalized intersections promote walking
and biking. The Project is designed to promote health and
wellness with a well-designed common recreation area
designed to meet the active recreation needs of the
residents, as it includes a pool, children’s playground,
multi-use hard court facility, turf area for open play and
areas for social gathering. In addition, active and passive
recreation areas are distributed throughout the community
to provide for casual play and gathering.
The Fiscal Impact Analysis prepared by the project
demonstrates that the project produces net positive revenue
to the City of Chula Vista over the 20-year timeframe.
Revenues range from an annual fiscal surplus in Years 1 -
20 ($46.461 - $270,928) and a cumulative fiscal surplus
over the first 20 years of approximately $3,218,323. This
fiscal surplus supports ongoing funding for municipal
services, ensuring a safe and healthy community. The
additional residents generated from the Project will support
local business and invigorate the local economy.
Also see Response to LUT 1.1 above.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 824 of 1271
20
OBJECTIVE/
POLICY OBJECTIVE/POLICY TEXT CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
LUT 61.3 Require all future community identification
signs and monuments to recognize
communities as part of the City of Chula Vista.
The project does not currently include monument
identification signs. However, if there is an opportunity to
include a monument sign at the entrances to the Project,
then the Applicant will include such a proposal on the
Landscape Master Plan.
Objective LUT 62: Require development to consider and plan for careful use of natural and man -made resources and
services, and maximize opportunities for conservation while minimizing waste.
LUT 62.1 Require developments within the East Planning
Area to provide resource management plans for
water; air quality; recycling; solid waste
management; and energy.
The project is not within the General Plan East Planning
Area; however, the project includes a Water Conservation
Plan and Air Quality Improvement Plan, must comply with
the City’s Landscape Water Ordinance, and sets aside 63.6
acres in permanent open space within the project area. The
project must also comply with all required recycling
programs implemented in the City.
The Project includes approximately 63.6 acres designated
MSCP Open Space Preserve in the City’s MSCP Plan.
There are 19.2 acres of recorded and proposed unrecorded
easements associated with Poggi Creek within the Project
Area including the Recorded Conservation Easement
(9.719 acres), the Proposed Unrecorded Conservation
Easement (5.569 acres), the Proposed Unrecorded Poggi
Creek Easement (4.338 acres). Of the 19.6 acres of
recorded and proposed easements within the Project Area,
approximately 12.53 acres are within the proposed Chula
Vista MSCP boundary. The project will comply with all
requirements in the air quality improvement plan, water
conservation plan and energy conservation plan prepared
for the Project. In addition, the project will comply with all
City of Chula Vista conservation requirements.
Objective LUT 63: Provide efficient multi-modal access and connections to and between activity centers.
LUT 63.1 Provide roads, transit service, bike routes, and
pedestrian pathways that connect activity
centers to their surrounding neighborhoods,
adjacent villages, and each other, such that
access is safe and convenient for residents and
visitors.
The project provides connections to existing roads, bike
lanes and trails. See Figure 1, Aerial Context for the
distance to surrounding public parks, public schools, retail
centers, bus stops and adjacent neighborhoods.
An easement is provided on the Tentative Map, reserving
the right-of-way for a future pedestrian connection to the
adjacent Otay Ranch Village 2 West area.
Objective LUT 69: Create and maintain unique, stable, and well -designed communities that are master planned to guide
development activities
LUT 69.1 The policies and regulations within GDP and
SPA Plans that are specific to each community
shall continue to guide the completion of
development activities.
After marketing the project for over 30 years as an industrial
park, the Applicant entered into a CBA with the City which
provides an opportunity to facilitate economic growth by
providing $8.0 million in funding for development of a
Class “A” office building within the SR-125 corridor or the
construction of facilities for academic, institutional, and
innovation-related businesses within the University
Innovation District. The City is interested in facilitating the
creation of high-quality jobs and economic growth within
the City by providing opportunities that target and attract
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 825 of 1271
21
OBJECTIVE/
POLICY OBJECTIVE/POLICY TEXT CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
industries and businesses that contribute to diversification
and stabilization of the local economy. Facilitating such
economic growth by encouraging the development of
spaces that can be used by high technology and
manufacturing businesses within the SR-125 corridor or
academic, institutional, and innovation-related businesses
within the University Innovation District is a potential
solution. The construction of such spaces would pr ovide a
catalyst for development that could generate high -quality
jobs in locations currently suitable for construction.
The proposed Sunbow II, Phase 3 SPA Amendment and
Sunbow GDP amendment include policies and regulations
to guide the development of the Sunbow II, Phase 3 project,
through completion. The Sunbow II, Phase 3 area is
connected to the larger Sunbow Planned Community along
Olympic Parkway, which forms the northern boundary of
the project site. Planned Community design guidelines
specific to this community will guide development quality
and character.
Objective LUT 73: Promote alternative modes of transportation, which are intended to encourage a healthy lifestyle and
reduce reliance on the automobile, and support the viability of transit t hrough land use distribution and design.
LUT 73.1 Provide for walking and biking on streets
designed to link neighborhoods, activity
centers, and community destinations.
The project provides an internal network of pedestrian
walkways and paseos and also connects to the existing
Chula Vista Regional Trail system in Olympic Parkway.
The internal public streets (Streets A & B) are designed to
include an enhanced 6’ sidewalk along one side, with
expanded parkways on both sides, creating a pleasant
pedestrian experience.
See Figure 1, Aerial Context for the relationships between
the Project and surrounding neighborhoods, activity centers
and destinations.
An easement is provided on the Tentative Map, reserving
the right-of-way for a future pedestrian connection to the
adjacent Otay Ranch Village 2 West area.
Objective – LUT 74: Accommodate land uses that diversify the economic base within Otay Ranch and the surrounding
south San Diego County region.
LUT 74.1 Provide sufficient land and infrastructure to
accommodate commercial and industrial uses.
The University Innovation District/Regional Technology
Park SPA Plan provides for development of approximately
10.1M square feet of university and regional technologies
uses, while the Eastern Urban Center SPA Plan provides for
development of approximately 3.8M sf of
commercial/mixed use development on 75.9 acres.
The City is interested in facilitating the creation of high-
quality jobs and economic growth within the City by
providing opportunities that target and attract industries and
businesses that contribute to diversification and
stabilization of the local economy. Facilitating such
economic growth by encouraging the development of
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 826 of 1271
22
OBJECTIVE/
POLICY OBJECTIVE/POLICY TEXT CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
spaces that can be used by high technology and
manufacturing businesses within the SR-125 corridor or
academic, institutional, and innovation-related businesses
within the University Innovation District is a potential
solution. The construction of such spaces would provide a
catalyst for development that could generate high -quality
jobs in locations currently suitable for construction.
The Applicant entered into a CBA with the City which
provides an opportunity to facilitate economic growth by
providing $8.0 million in support funding for development
of a Class “A” office building within the SR-125 corridor
or the construction of facilities for academic, institutional,
and innovation-related businesses within the University
Innovation District.
Also see Response to LUT 1.1 above.
LUT 74.2 Promote additional business and higher paid
employment opportunities for residents of
Chula Vista.
The Applicant entered into a CBA with the City which
provides an opportunity to facilitate economic growth by
providing $8.0 million in support funding for development
of a Class “A” office building within the SR-125 corridor
or the construction of facilities for academic, institutional,
and innovation-related businesses within the University
Innovation District. The public benefits derived from
implementation of the CBA will advance the interests and
meet the needs of Chula Vista’s residents and visitors to a
significantly greater extent than the vacant land under the
current entitlements and absent the Community Benefits
Agreement. Implementation of the CBA provisions will
promote additional and higher paid employment
opportunities for residents of Chula Vista, consistent with
GP Objective LUT 74.2
Objective - LUT 79: Establish appropriate land uses adjacent to the Otay Landfill and Wolf Canyon that reflect the unique
land use and landform characteristics of these areas.
LUT 79.5 Limit land uses adjacent to Otay Landfill to
open space and limited industrial uses or
business parks.
The Applicant’s consultant, Dudek, prepared the “Air
Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis Technical
Report for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project,” which also
includes a Landfill Health Risk Assessment (HRA). The
HRA was performed to assess the potential health risks of
the proximate Otay Landfill to future sensitive receptors
(residents) of the Project. The HRA was performed to
estimate the Maximum Individual Cancer Risk, the Chronic
Hazard Index and the Acute Hazard Index for the residential
receptors as a result of emissions impacts from Otay
Landfill operations. As required by the 2019 Title 24
Building Code and the 2019 California Green Building
Standards Code standards, the Project would include
installation of MERV 13-rated air filtration in all HVAC
systems. The MERV 13-rated air filters remove 90% of
particles and therefore would reduce the Maximum
Individual Cancer Risk – Residential to 7.7 in 1 million,
which would be less than the CEQA threshold of 10 in 1
million. These impact level would also be less than the
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 827 of 1271
23
OBJECTIVE/
POLICY OBJECTIVE/POLICY TEXT CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
SDAPCD significance threshold. Further, following
closure of the Otay Landfill in 2030, the cancer risk impact
for the Landfill would be reduced to 6.61 in 1 million and
the chronic health risk and acute health risk would also be
further reduced.
A Nuisance Analysis was also prepared by Dudek for the
Project to evaluate the potential impact of odors and
fugitive dust emitted from the Otay Landfill on future
residents of the Project. AERMOD was used to model odor
and fugitive dust emissions from the landfill, with
methodology consistent with the HRA. The nuisance
analysis found that future residents of the Project would not
experience odors in excess of odor detection thresholds and
are not likely to be impacted by landfill operations.
Similarly, the dust analysis showed that concentrations of
dust from landfill operations would not exceed thresholds
established by the California Occupational Health and
Safety Administration. As such, impacts from odor and dust
to future residents from landfill operations would be less
than significant.
Geosyntec prepared a technical memorandum summarizing
the results of the “limited soil vapor investigation”
conducted on the Project site. The limited soil vapor
investigation included the collection and laboratory
analysis of samples collected. The soil vapor investigation
concluded methane was not detected at measurable
concentrations during the investigation and there is no
apparent unacceptable risk to future residential site
occupants due to methane and/or VOC-impacted soil
vapors.
Also see Response to LUT 1.1 above.
Objective LUT 92: Establish a high-quality business park that is oriented to accommodates high technology businesses
conducting research and light industrial/manufacturing activities that provide job opportunities for residents of Otay
Ranch, Chula Vista, and the greater south San Diego County region.
LUT 92.1 Promote research and development uses
associated with light manufacturing businesses
by adopting GDP and SPA level policies and
Planned Community District regulations that
provide regulations and standards that
encourage the locating of high technology uses
and industries.
See Responses to LUT 1.1 and LUT-74.1 above.
LUT 92.3 Allow ancillary professional office and limited
service businesses as secondary uses where
such uses are necessary to support the primary
research and development and light
manufacturing uses. These secondary uses
should not compete with the EUC and
adjoining areas that are intended as the
preferred location for these support uses.
See Responses to LUT 1.1 and LUT-74.1 above.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 828 of 1271
24
OBJECTIVE/
POLICY OBJECTIVE/POLICY TEXT CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Objective LUT 93: Provide opportunities to develop new research institutions, industries, and businesses that capitalize
upon the intellectual capital and research activities of the university.
LUT 93.1 Proactively attract the development of
incubator industries and research institutions
that may be induced by the presence of a
university campus.
See Responses to LUT 1.1 and LUT-74 above.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Objective – ED 1: Provide a diverse economic base for the City of Chula Vista.
ED 1.2 Provide sufficient tracts of land at a variety of
sizes available for industrial and commercial
uses in order to provide a stable economic base.
After marketing the Project for over 30 years as an
industrial park, the Applicant entered into a CBA with the
City which provides an opportunity to facilitate economic
growth by providing $8.0 million in support funding for
development of a Class “A” office building within the SR-
125 corridor or the construction of facilities for academic,
institutional, and innovation-related businesses within the
University Innovation District. The University Innovation
District/Regional Technology Park SPA Plan provides for
development of approximately 10.1M square feet of
university and regional technologies uses, while the Eastern
Urban Center SPA Plan provides for development of
approximately 3.8M sf of commercial/mixed use
development on 75.9 acres. The City is interested in
facilitating the creation of high-quality jobs and economic
growth within the City by providing opportunities that
target and attract industries and businesses that contribute
to diversification and stabilization of the local economy.
Facilitating such economic growth by encouraging the
development of spaces that can be used by high technology
and manufacturing businesses within the SR-125 corridor
or academic, institutional, and innovation-related
businesses within the University Innovation District is a
potential solution. The construction of such spaces would
provide a catalyst for development that could generate high-
quality jobs in locations currently suitable for construction.
The CBA also anticipated the conversion of the Planning
Area 23 site to residential. The Fiscal Impact Analysis
prepared by the project demonstrates that the project
produces net positive revenue to the City of Chula Vista
over the 20-year timeframe. Revenues range from an
annual fiscal surplus in Years 1 - 20 ($46,461 - $270,928)
and a cumulative fiscal surplus over the first 20 years of
approximately $3,218,323, which supports stable economic
base.
Also see Response to LUT 1.1 above
ED 1.3 Encourage the preservation and expansion of
existing industrial uses in areas designated as
industrial.
See Responses to LUT 1.1 and ED 1.2 above.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 829 of 1271
25
OBJECTIVE/
POLICY OBJECTIVE/POLICY TEXT CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
ED 1.4 Increase the supply of land for non-retail
employment through the designation of land to
accommodate a regional technology park; a
future business park; industrial or business
park space; and development of a university
campus.
See Response to LUT 1.1 and ED 1.2 above.
ED 1.5 Consider fiscal impact implications of General
Plan amendments that propose changes to
industrial and commercial lands.
A fiscal impact analysis prepared for the project
demonstrates that the project results in net positive revenue
to the City’s General Fund. See Responses to LUT 1.1 and
ED 1.2 above.
Objective ED 2: Maintain a variety of job and housing opportunities to improve Chula Vista's jobs/housing balance.
ED 2.2 Facilitate increased employment densities near
transit stations and routes.
The Project is not located near a transit station or route and
does not include any employment generating land uses.
However, the Applicant entered into a CBA with the City
of Chula Vista which includes the payment of $8M in Job
Enhancement Funds. These funds will facilitate increate
employment densities in either the Eastern Urban Center or
University Innovation District, both served by transit
stations and routes.
Also see Response to LUT 1.1 above.
ED 2.3 Pursue a diverse supply of housing types and
costs, as well as a diverse supply of jobs with
varying income potential, to balance local job
and housing opportunities.
The project provides for-sale multi-family housing in a
range of bedroom typologies for singles, couples and
families and will comply with the City’s Balanced Housing
Policy by preserving off-site affordable housing units
within the Sunbow Planned Community. The Project does
not include low-income affordable housing. However, the
Applicant must comply with the City’s Balanced
Community Affordable Housing Policy. The Applicant
will enter into a Balanced Community Affordable Housing
Agreement and City which will address how the Project
meets its affordable housing obligation.
Objective ED 4: Become a center for applied technology innovation
ED 4.1 Publicize the economic and social benefits of
industry, emphasizing the health of the Chula
Vista economy, the “high-tech” dimensions of
industry, and the community value of well-
paying, high-benefit industrial employment.
The responsibility to meet the intent of ED 4.1 lies with the
City of Chula Vista. However, the Applicant entered into a
CBA with the City of Chula Vista which includes the
payment of $8M in Job Enhancement Funds. The Job
Enhancement Funds may be utilized by the City of Chula
Vista to meet the intent of ED 4.1. Also, see Responses to
LUT 1.1 and ED 2.1 above.
ED 4.2 Maintain land sufficient for the long-term
location of an approximately 85-acre Regional
Technology Park in eastern Chula Vista.
The project does not impact the City’s ability to maintain
the land designated in the University Innovation
District/Regional Technology Park (UID/RTP) SPA Plan.
Through implementation of the CBA, the Applicant
enhances the feasibility of constructing office uses within
the UID/RTP.
Also see Response to LUT 1.1 above.
ED 4.4 Continue to recruit and promote the
establishment of a university campus, as well
as research and development facilities that
promote technology.
As the owner of the site identified for a future University,
the City may continue to recruit and promote the
establishment of a university campus and regional
technology park. The payment of $8M for the Job
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 830 of 1271
26
OBJECTIVE/
POLICY OBJECTIVE/POLICY TEXT CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Enhancement Fund enhances the City’s efforts. See
response to ED 2.1 above.
Objective ED 7: Develop a strong land use and transportation link between the downtown urban core, bayfront,
southwestern, and eastern areas of the City to support economic development throughout.
ED 7.4 Develop activities in eastern Chula Vista that
will attract residents citywide.
The Applicant entered into a CBA which provides for the
payment of a Park Benefit Fee, equal to the PAD fees that
would have otherwise been due pursuant to Chula Vista
Municipal Code (CVMC) Chapter 17.10, of approximately
$11.03 million based on 2019 PAD fees (the final amount
will be determined based on the number of residential units
built and the PAD fee rates in effect as of the effective date
of the Development Agreement). The Park Benefit Fee will
satisfy the Owner’s park obligations for the project and may
be utilized by the City to acquire or develop parkland, as the
City determines appropriate and in the best interest of the
overall City [emphasis added]. The City may utilize these
fees to enhance public parks in eastern Chula Vista and
attract park-users city-wide. The City has the opportunity to
develop activities in eastern Chula Vista that will attract
residents citywide through the Applicant’s payment of the
Park Benefit Fee.
ENVIRONMENTAL
Objective E 1: Conserve Chula Vista’s sensitive biological resources.
E 1.1 Implement the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea
Plan.
The project designates 63.6 acres of Preserve open space
within the project site to be conveyed to the City for
permanent preservation and maintenance, consistent with
the City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan.
Objective E2: Protect and improve water quality within surface water bodies and groundwater resources within and
downstream of Chula Vista.
E 2.4 Ensure compliance with current federal and
state water quality regulations, including the
implementation of applicable NPDES
requirements and the City's Pollution
Prevention Policy.
The wter quality studies prepared for the project comply
with the respective City, federal and state regulations.
E 2.5 Encourage and facilitate construction and land
development techniques that minimize water
quality impacts from urban development.
The project is designed with water quality/hydro-
modification basins that mitigation impacts to water quality
to be less than significant.
Objective E 3: Minimize the impacts of growth and development on water supply resou rces through the efficient use and
conservation of water by residents, businesses, and City government.
E 3.2 Promote the use of low water demand
landscaping and drought tolerant plant
materials in both existing and new
development.
The project utilizes water conserving fixtures and low
water/drought tolerant landscaping.
E 3.3; Where safe and feasible, promote and facilitate
the continued use of recycled water in new
developments, and explore opportunities for
the use of recycled water in redevelopment
projects.
The Overview of Water Service for Sunbow II, Phase 2
analyzed the facilities required and the demand for recycled
water needed to serve the Project. The report estimated that
the Project would utilize approximately 24,510 gallon of
recycled water per day to irrigate open space slope and
recreation areas. The Project design incorporates the
infrastructure to serve the Project with recycled water
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 831 of 1271
27
OBJECTIVE/
POLICY OBJECTIVE/POLICY TEXT CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Objective – E 6: Improve local air quality by minimizing the production and emission of air pollutants and toxic air
contaminants and limit the exposure of people to such pollutants.
E 6.1 Encourage compact development featuring a
mix of uses that locate residential areas within
reasonable walking distance to jobs, services,
and transit.
The Project is designed to cluster residential land uses
within the development area identified in the adopted
Sunbow II SPA Plan and Sunbow GDP, meeting the intent
of implementing compact development. Sunbow II, Phase
3 was not identified in the General Plan as a suitable
location for mixed use development. The Project is located
approximately ½ mile from an existing MTS local bus stop,
approximately 1 mile from shopping and a public park and
several miles from the closet employment center. See
Figure 1, Aerial Context.
E 6.2 Promote and facilitate transit system
improvements in order to increase transit use
and reduce dependency on the automobile.
The Project does not include a transit stop or station. The
Project includes the TDM measures described in the
response to LUT 17.1 above. These TDM measures are
designed to increase transit use and reduce dependency on
the automobile
E 6.10 The siting of new sensitive receptors within
500 feet of highways resulting from
development or redevelopment projects shall
require the preparation of a health risk
assessment as part of the CEQA review of the
project. Attendant health risks identified in the
Health Risk Assessment (HRA) shall be
feasibly mitigated to the maximum extent
practicable, in accordance with CEQA, in order
to help ensure that applicable federal and state
standards are not exceeded.
The Project is not within 500 feet of a highway; therefore,
a health risk assessment is not needed to assess impacts
associated with a highway. However, A Health Risk
Assessment was prepared for the project based on proximity
to the Otay Landfill. See response to LUT 79.5 above.
Objective E 7: Promote energy conservation through the efficient use of energy and through the development of local, non -
fossil fuel-based renewable sources of energy.
E 7.1 Promote development of regulations and
building design standards that maximize
energy efficiency through appropriate site and
building design and through the use of energy -
efficient materials, equipment, and appliances.
The project will comply with the latest Title 24 Energy
requirements.
Objective E 8: Minimize the amount of solid waste generated within the General Plan area that requires landfill disposal.
E 8.1 Promote efforts to reduce waste, minimize the
need for additional landfills, and provide
economically and environmentally sound
resource recovery, management, and disposal
facilities.
The project will comply with all City of Chula Recycling
requirements and recycling will be incorporated into all
components of the project. As discussed in the Air
Quality/Green House Gas Emission Analysis and
associated HRA prepared for the Project, the Otay Landfill
is anticipated to close in 2030. Beyond providing for the
recycling of waste to reduce waste and minimize the need
for additional landfills, the Applicant is not responsible for
development of economically, environmental sound
resource recovery, management, and disposal facilities.
This is a regional issue to be addressed by multi
jurisdictions and is beyond the Applicant’s control
E 8.3 Implement source reduction strategies,
including curbside recycling, use of small
Recycling will be incorporated into all components of the
project.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 832 of 1271
28
OBJECTIVE/
POLICY OBJECTIVE/POLICY TEXT CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
collection facilities for recycling, and
composting
Objective E 10: Protect important paleontological resources and support and encourage public education and awareness
of such resources.
E 10.1 Continue to assess and mitigate the potential
impacts of private development and public
facilities and infrastructure to paleontological
resources in accordance with the CEQA.
A Cultural/Paleontological Report was prepared for the
project Environmental Impact Report which includes
mitigation measures related to paleontological resources in
accordance with the CEQA.
Objective E 14: Minimize the risk of injury, loss of life, and property damage associated with geologic hazards.
E 14.1 To the maximum extent practicable, protect
against injury, loss of life, and major property
damage through engineering analyses of
potential seismic hazards, appropriate
engineering design, and the stringent
enforcement of all applicable regulations and
standards.
A Geotechnical Investigation Report was prepared for the
project EIR. The project will be designed in compliance
with the latest subdivision and building codes.
E 14.2 Prohibit the subdivision, grading, or
development of lands subject to potential
geologic hazards in the absence of adequate
evidence demonstrating that such development
would not be adversely affected by such
hazards and would not adversely affect
surrounding properties.
The Geotechnical Investigation for Sunbow II, Phase 3 was
prepared by GEOCON, Inc. and determined that the Project
is not located in an area of geological hazards and is suitable
for development. See response to LUT 79.5 regarding the
Soil Vapor Investigation prepared for the Project.
E 14.3 Require site-specific geotechnical
investigations for proposals within areas
subject to potential geologic hazards; and
ensure implementation of all measures deemed
necessary by the City Engineer and/or Building
Official to avoid or adequately mitigate such
hazards.
The Geotechnical Investigation for Sunbow II, Phase 3 was
prepared by GEOCON, Inc. and determined that the Project
is not located in an area of geological hazards and is suitable
for development. See response to LUT 79.5 regarding the
Soil Vapor Investigation prepared for the Project.
Objective E 15 - Minimize the risk of injury and property damage associated with flood hazards.
E 15.1 Prohibit proposals to subdivide, grade, or
develop lands that are subject to potential flood
hazards, unless adequate evidence is provided
that demonstrates that such proposals would
not be adversely affected by potential flood
hazards and that such proposals would not
adversely affect surrounding properties.
Require site-specific hydrological
investigations for proposals within areas
subject to potential flood hazards; and
implement all measures deemed necessary by
the City Engineer to avoid or adequately
mitigate potential flood hazards.
The Drainage Study for Sunbow II, Phase 3 TM was
prepared by Hunsaker & Associates. The study analyzed
the pre- and post- development flows and demonstrates that
runoff generated by the Project will not exceed pre-project
peak flow rates, and runoff velocities will be dissipated by
rock rip rap at storm drain outfalls. The Project has been
designed to honor pre-project watershed basins and outfall
locations. Considering the limitations which result from
Subdivision layout and design, minor exchanges in
watershed areas occur but are minimized to the maximum
extent practicable. Since the project site is located outside
any FEMA floodplain zones, there is no requirement for a
Letter of Map Revision. The Study shows there is no
adverse impact from the proposed development after the
attenuation because there is reduction in flows.
Objective E19: Maintain the ability to establish hazardous waste storage, collection, treatment, disposal, and transfer
facilities to serve the needs of Chula Vista industry and businesses within appropriate locations of the City, while ensuring
adequate protection of the community.
E19.1 • A Health Risk Assessment as described in
the Chula Vista Zoning Code
See response to LUT 79.5 above.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 833 of 1271
29
OBJECTIVE/
POLICY OBJECTIVE/POLICY TEXT CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
• All facilities shall be a minimum 1,000 feet
from any residential zone; residence;
school; hospital; hotel; motel; or other
similar land use.
Objective E 21: Protect people from excessive noise through careful land use planning and the incorporation of appropriate
mitigation techniques.
E 21.1 Apply the exterior land use-noise compatibility
guidelines listed in Table 9-2 of this
Environmental Element to new development,
where applicable, and in light of project-
specific considerations.
The Noise Technical Report for Sunbow II, Phase 3 was
prepared as part of the EIR and the Project will implement
the associated recommendations to ensure compliance with
E 21.1.
E 21.2 Where applicable, the assessment and
mitigation of interior noise levels shall adhere
to the applicable requirements of the California
Building Code with local amendments and
other applicable established City standards.
The Project will comply with the requirements of the
building code to reduce interior noise levels to 45db or
lower.
E 21.3 Promote the use of available technologies in
building construction to improve noise
attenuation capacities.
The Project will comply with the requirements of the
building code to reduce interior noise levels to 45db or
lower.
Objective E 22: Protect the community from the effects of transportation noise.
E 22.3 Employ traffic calming measures, where
appropriate, such as narrow roadways and on-
street parking, in commercial and mixed use
districts.
Access to the project is provided at two fully signalized
intersections with Olympic Parkway. two Modified Class
III collectors provide internal access and intersect at a
planned roundabout to slow traffic. On-street parking and
parkway landscaping are planned to function as additional
traffic calming measures.
E 22.4 Encourage walking; biking; carpooling; use of
public transit; and other alternative modes of
transportation to minimize vehicular use and
associated traffic noise.
The Project includes a TDM which includes ridesharing,
carpooling and school carpooling strategies. In addition,
the project includes two fully signalized intersections that
connect to the existing bike lanes and Chula Vista Regional
Trail along Olympic parkway.
See responses to LUT 17.1 and 18.3 above.
E 22.5 Require projects to construct appropriate
mitigation measures in order to attenuate
existing and projected traffic noise levels, in
accordance with applicable standards,
including the exterior land use/noise
compatibility guidelines listed in Table 9-2 of
this Environmental Element.
The Noise Technical Report for Sunbow II, Phase 3 was
prepared as part of the EIR and the Project will implement
the associated recommendations to ensure compliance with
E 22.5.
Objective E 23: Provide fair treatment for people of all races, cultures, and income levels with respect to development,
adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.
E23.3 Do not site industrial facilities/uses that pose a
significant hazard to human health & safety in
proximity to schools or residential dwellings
The Project does not propose to site industrial facilities as
part of the Project. However, due to the proximity to the
Otay Landfill, the Project prepared an HRA and Nuisance
Study. See response to LUT 79.5
E23.4 Build new schools and residential dwellings
with sufficient separation and buffering from
industrial facilities and uses that pose a
significant hazard to human health and safety.
The Project is designed to provide sufficient separation
between the Otay Landfill and future industrial land uses
within Village 2 West through the use of manufactured
slopes, perimeter walls, etc. See response to LUT 79.5 for
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 834 of 1271
30
OBJECTIVE/
POLICY OBJECTIVE/POLICY TEXT CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
additional information regarding the Health Risk
Assessment and Nuisance Analysis prepared for the Project.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT
Objective GM 1: Concurrent public facilities and services.
GM 1.9 Require that all major development projects
prepare a PFFP that articulates infrastructure
and public facilities requirements and costs and
funding mechanisms.
An addendum to the Sunbow PFFP has been prepared for
the project.
Objective GM 2: Provide adequate and sustainable fiscal base.
GM 2.1 Achieve and maintain a balance of land uses
within the City that assures residential
development is complemented by expanded
local employment opportunities, retail and
commercial services, and recreation and
entertainment venues; and that the City-wide
mix of land uses provides fiscal balance
between those that produce revenues and those
that require public expenditures.
A Fiscal Impact Analysis has been prepared which
demonstrates a net positive benefit to the City’s General
Fund. See response to ED 1.2 that demonstrates
compliance with GM 2.1.
GM 2.2 Require a fiscal impact analysis to be
conducted for major development projects that
documents the project’s effects upon the City
operating budget over time.
A Fiscal Impact Analysis has been prepared which
demonstrates a net positive benefit to the City’s General
Fund. See response to ED 1.2 that demonstrates compliance
with GM 2.2.
Objective GM 3: Create and preserve vital neighborhoods.
GM 3.3 Assure that all new and infill development
within existing urban areas pays its
proportional share of the cost for urban
infrastructure and public facilities required to
maintain the Threshold Standards, as adopted
for its area of impact.
The project is subject to the City’s Development Impact Fee
Program and State requirements to fund educational
facilities.
GM 3.8 Encourage the creation of vibrant and varied
neighborhoods and a diversity of housing
types, including, housing affordable to a range
of income groups, consistent with housing
element objectives.
The project provides for-sale housing in a range of bedroom
typologies for singles, couples, and families. The Project
does not include low-income affordable housing. However,
the Applicant must comply with the City’s Balanced
Community Affordable Housing Policy. The Applicant
will enter into a Balanced Community Affordable Housing
Agreement with the City which will address how the Project
meets its affordable housing obligation.
HOUSING ELEMENT
Objective H 2: Promote efficient use of water and energy through adopted standards and incentive -based policies to
conserve limited resources and reduce long-term operational costs of housing.
H 2.1 Encourage the efficient use and conservation of
water by residents.
The Project will be subject to the water conservation
requirements of the California Building Code and City of
Chula Vista ordinances.
H 2.2 Promote the efficient use of energy.
The Project will be subject to the energy conservation
requirements of the California Building Code and City of
Chula Vista ordinances.
Objective H 4: Minimize impacts on housing choice within each of the four geographic planning areas, especially to very
low-and low-income residents, that result from conversion or demolition of rental housing units.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 835 of 1271
31
OBJECTIVE/
POLICY OBJECTIVE/POLICY TEXT CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
H 4.1 Promote an equitable distribution of housing
types (e.g., multi-family rental and owner
occupied housing) based upon identified needs
within the Northwest, Southwest, and East
Planning Areas to provide a range of housing
opportunities for all income levels.
The larger Sunbow Planned Community provides a wide
range of housing types, including single family, multi-
family and affordable housing. The project provides higher
density for-sale housing in a range of bedroom typologies
for singles, couples and families and will comply with the
City’s Balanced Communities Affordable Housing Policy.
The Applicant will enter into a Balanced Community
Affordable Housing Agreement with the City which will
address how the Project meets its affordable housing
obligation.
Objective H 5: Encourage the provision of a wide range of housing choices by location, type of unit, and price level, in
particular the establishment of permanent affordable housing for low-and moderate-income households.
H 5.1 Balanced Communities-Affordable Housing:
Require newly constructed residential
developments to provide a portion of their
development affordable to low-and moderate-
income households.
The project will comply with the City’s Balanced
Communities Affordable Housing Policy. The Applicant
will enter into a Balanced Community Affordable Housing
Agreement with the City which will address how the Project
meets its affordable housing obligation.
H 5.2 Encourage the development of sufficient and
suitable new rental housing opportunities
within each of the City’s four geographic
Planning Areas, particularly for very low -and
low-income households.
The project will comply with the City’s Balanced
Communities Affordable Housing Policy. The Applicant
will enter into a Balanced Community Affordable Housing
Agreement with the City which will address how the Project
meets its affordable housing obligation.
Objective H 7: Facilitate the creation, maintenance, preservation and conservation of affordable housing for lower and
moderate-income households through comprehensive planning documents and processes, and the provision of financial
assistance and other incentives.
H 7.1 Ensure Chula Vista’s plans and policies
addressing housing, such as the Zoning
Ordinance, Sectional Planning Area Plans, and
Specific Plans, encourage a variety of housing
product that responds to variations in income
level, the changing live/work patterns of
residents and the needs of the City’s diverse
population.
The Project provides higher density for-sale housing in a
range of bedroom typologies for singles, couples and
families and will comply with the City’s Balanced
Communities Affordable Housing Policy. The Applicant
will enter into a Balanced Community Affordable Housing
Agreement with the City which will address how the Project
meets its affordable housing obligation.
Objective H 8: Ensure the availability of housing opportunities to persons re gardless of race, color, ancestry, national
origin, religion, sex, disability, marital status, and familial status, source of income or sexual orientation.
H 8.1 Ensure equal housing opportunities to prevent
housing discrimination in the local housing
market.
The Project is committed to equal opportunity in housing.
PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
Objective – PFS 1: Ensure adequate and reliable water, sewer, and drainage service and facilities.
PFS 1.4 For new development, require on-site detention
of storm water flows such that, where practical,
existing downstream structures will not be
overloaded. Slow runoff and maximize on-site
infiltration of runoff.
The Project has prepared hydrology studies and will
implement the recommendations of the analysis to protect
downstream structures and properties.
Objective PFS 2: Increase efficiencies in water use, wastewater generation and its re -use, and handling of storm water
runoff throughout the City through use of alternative technologies.
PFS 2.2 As part of project construction and design,
assure that drainage facilities in new
development incorporate storm water runoff
The Project has prepared hydrology studies and will
implement the recommendations of the analysis to control
sediment and runoff.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 836 of 1271
32
OBJECTIVE/
POLICY OBJECTIVE/POLICY TEXT CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
and sediment control, including state-of-the-art
technologies, where appropriate.
PFS 2.3 In designing water, wastewater, and drainage
facilities, limit the disruption of natural
landforms and water bodies. Encourage the
use of natural channels that simulate natural
drainage ways while protecting property.
The Project has prepared hydrology studies and will
implement the recommendations of the analysis to control
sediment and runoff and has been designed to incorporate
the existing Poggi Creek drainage channel.
Objective PFS 5: Maintain sufficient levels of fire protection, emergency medical service and police services to protect
public safety and property.
PFS 5.1 Continue to adequately equip and staff the Fire
Department to ensure that established service
standards for emergency calls are met.
The Project will contribute its fair share to the City
Development Impact Fee Program.
PFS 5.6 Encourage crime watch programs in all
neighborhoods.
The Project will coordinate with the Chula Vista Police
Department to implement a crime watch program.
PFS 5.7 Prior to approval of any discretionary projects,
ensure that construction is phased with
provision of police and fire protection services
such that services are provided prior to or
concurrent with need.
The Project is subject to the City’s Growth Management
Ordinance to ensure adequate City services are available to
serve the development. The Applicant prepared a Fire
Protection Plan to evaluate fire protection services needed
to serve the Project.
Objective PFS 6: Provide adequate fire and police protection services to newly developing and redeveloping areas of the
City.
PFS 6.1 Continue to require new development and
redevelopment projects to demonstrate
adequate access for fire and police vehicles.
The Project has been reviewed and complies with the access
requirements for police and fire services.
PFS 6.2 Require new development and redevelopment
projects to demonstrate adequate water
pressure to new buildings.
A water supply study has been reviewed and approved by
the Otay Water District demonstrating adequate supply and
pressure for the proposed uses.
PFS 6.3 Encourage CPTED techniques in new
development and redevelopment projects.
The Project includes physical design to for adequate
lighting, signage, and defensible space.
Objective PFS 15: Provide new park and recreation facilities for residents of new development, City-wide.
PFS 15.1 Continue to pursue a City-wide standard for the
provision of developed parkland for new
development projects of three acres per
estimated one thousand new residents.
The Applicant entered into a CBA which provides for the
payment of a Park Benefit Fee, equal to the PAD fees that
would have otherwise been due pursuant to Chula Vista
Municipal Code (CVMC) Chapter 17.10, of approximately
$11.03 million based on the 2019 PAD fees (the final
amount will be determined based on the number of
residential units built and the PAD fee rates in effect as of
the effective date of the Development Agreement). The
Park Benefit Fee will satisfy the Owner’s park obligations
for the Project and may be utilized by the City to acquire or
develop parkland, as the City determines appropriate and in
the best interest of the overall City.
Objective PFS 19: Provide art and culture programs, childcare facilities and health and human services that enhance the
quality of life in Chula Vista.
PFS 19.10 Continue to require community purpose
facility acreage, in accordance with the
Municipal Code, for the provision of childcare
and other social service facilities.
The SPA Plan includes an approximate 0.9-acre site
designated CPF, planned as a private recreation facilities to
be owned and managed by the Master Homeowners
Association. Consistent with CVMC Section
19.48.040(B)(6), the site meets the minimum size and slope
requirements, is compatible with the surrounding
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 837 of 1271
33
OBJECTIVE/
POLICY OBJECTIVE/POLICY TEXT CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
residential land uses and includes the following required
amenities:
• Swimming Pool
• Club House
• Pool House
• One multi-purpose hard court
• Children play area
• Community gathering place
• An outdoor cooking facility
• Level Lawn area
The proposed 0.9-acre CPF site is consistent with CVMC
Section 19.48.404(b)(6), in that it does not comprise more
than 35 percent of the overall CPF acreage required for the
Project Area (3.2 acres x 35% = 1.1 acres), the CPF site
meets the minimum one-half acre size requirement and
satisfies the minimum development criteria outlined in
CVMC 19.48.025(H).
The Applicant has entered into a Development Agreement
with the City, which addresses how the remaining 2.3 acre
CPF obligation is satisfied.
Objective PFS 20: Develop a cultural arts center in Chula Vista.
PFS 20.3 Encourage the installation of art pieces in
publicly owned spaces and require developers
to pay fees or provide art pieces that serve to
enhance an individual project and contribute to
the appearance and vitality of the development.
The Project does not include any publicly owned spaces.
The City does not have a current fee to support the
installation of public art. However, the intent of PFS-20.3
may be met by the City as they exercise their discretion to
utilize the Park Benefit Fee, of approximately $11.03
million based on 2019 PAD fees (the final amount will be
determined based on the number of residential units built
and the PAD fee rates in effect as of the effective date of the
Development Agreement). The Park Benefit Fee will satisfy
the Owner’s park obligations for the project and may be
utilized by the City to acquire and/or develop parkland, as
the City determines appropriate and in the best interest of
the overall City. The City may utilize these funds to provide
opportunities for public art within public parks.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 838 of 1271
34
B. Land Use
The Chula Vista General Plan Land Use Plan (as amended) depicts the following mix of Land
Uses on the Sunbow project area:
ACRES TARGET UNITS
LOW MEDIUM (3.0-6.0 DU/AC) 227.7 1,035
MEDIUM (6.0-11.0 DU/AC) 70.7 911
MEDIUM HIGH (11.0-18.0 DU/AC) 44.0 534
HIGH (18.0-27.0 DU/AC) 13.0 184
SUBTOTAL 355.4 2,664
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL 12.7
SCHOOL 10.6
RECREATION 10.7
OPEN SPACE AND TRANS. CORRIDORS 215.4
TOTAL 604.8 AC 2,664 DU
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 839 of 1271
35
ESTIMATED POTENTIAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
The potential development area for Sunbow Planned Community has been verified through the
calculation as called for in the Draft General Development Plan figure 1-3, page I-25. The GDP
Amendment proposes to modify the land use designation within the Project Area from Industrial
Park to residential development as follows:
1. Gross Property Area 604.8 ac.
2. Transportation Corridors 49.0
Open Space Greenbelt 166.4
215.4 (215.4) ac.
3. Urban Development 389.4 ac.
4. Non-Residential Land Use
4.1 Retail Commercial 12.7
12.7 (12.7) ac.
5. Residential Development 376.7 ac
6. Potential Residential Land Use
6.1 Elementary School 10.6
6.2 Recreation 10.7
21.3
7. Net Residential Development Area 355.4 ac.
(as depicted on the Draft General Plan Land Use
Plan)
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 840 of 1271
36
The Sunbow General Development Plan calls for the following corresponding mix of Land Uses
(refer to the “Proposed Sunbow GDP Land Use Plan” for additional information:
ACRES UNITS
LOW MEDIUM 227.7 1035
MEDIUM 70.7 911
MEDIUM HIGH 44.03 534
HIGH 13.04 184
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 10.6
COMMUNITY RECREATION
10.7
SUBTOTAL 376.7 2,664
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL 12.7
OPEN SPACE AND TRANS. CORRIDORS 215.4
TOTAL 604.8 AC 2,664 DU
Note: The Open Space Land Use Category within Sunbow II, Phase 3 is comprised of MSCP Preserve Open Space,
Poggi Creek Conservation Easement areas, a Conserved Wetland Resource Area and Manufactured Slopes/Basins.
The Medium High Residential and High Residential Land Use Categories are comprised of Residential and
Manufactured Open Space/Basins. Please see the Sunbow II, Phase 3 SPA Amendment and Sunbow II, Phase 3
Tentative Map CVT No. 20-0002 for additional details.
In summary, the SUNBOW General Development Plan is consistent with the Chula Vista Scenario
Four General Plan Update in that it:
1. Meets the policy goals and objectives
2. Matches the Potential Development area depicted on the General Plan – Land Use Plan
(Scenario Four)
3. Meets or exceeds criteria set forth for Potential Residential Development, Open Space,
Parks and Schools.
4. Provides a Dwelling Unit total that is within the Target Density range as called for in the
Chula Vista General Plan, as amended.
3 Acreage includes adjacent manufactured open space and water quality basin.
4 Acreage includes adjacent manufactured slopes
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 841 of 1271
37
Existing Sunbow General Development Plan Land Use Plan
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 842 of 1271
38
Proposed Sunbow General Development Plan Land Use Plan (Sunbow II, Phase 3)
Note: The Open Space Land Use Category within Sunbow II, Phase 3 is comprised of MSCP Preserve
Open Space, Poggi Creek Conservation Easement areas, a Conserved Wetland Resource Area and
Manufactured Slopes/Basins. The Medium High Residential and High Residential Land Use Categories
are comprised of Residential and Manufactured Open Space/Basins. Please see the Sunbow II, Phase 3
SPA Amendment and Sunbow II, Phase 3 Tentative Map CVT No. 20-0002 for additional details.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 843 of 1271
ATTACHMENT A
SUNBOW GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT
IV. PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS
V. LANDSCAPE MASTER PLAN
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 844 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 845 of 1271
10
Existing Sunbow General Development Plan Land Use Plan
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 846 of 1271
11
Proposed General Development Plan Land Use Plan (Planning Area 23 & Preserve)
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 847 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 848 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 849 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 850 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 851 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 852 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 853 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 854 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 855 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 856 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 857 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 858 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 859 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 860 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 861 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 862 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 863 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 864 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 865 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 866 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 867 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 868 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 869 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 870 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 871 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 872 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 873 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 874 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 875 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 876 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 877 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 878 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 879 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 880 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 881 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 882 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 883 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 884 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 885 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 886 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 887 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 888 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 889 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 890 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 891 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 892 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3
SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN AMENDMENT
(MPA20-0006)
MARCH 2021
Applicant:
ACI Sunbow, LLC
Attn: Bill Hamlin
2356 Moore Street
San Diego, CA 92110
619-544-9100
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 893 of 1271
PREPARED FOR:
Lennar Homes of California, Inc.
Contact: David Shepherd
16465 Via Esprillo, Suite 150
San Diego, CA 92127
PREPARED BY:
RH Consulting Group, LLC
Contact: Ranie Hunter
Ranie@RHConsultingGroup.com
619-823-1494
Hunsaker & Associates
Contact: Chuck Cater
CCater@HunsakerSD.com
6858-558-4500
Schmidt Design Group
Contact: Chris Tiffany
CTiffany@Schmidtdesign.com
619-236-1462 x 125
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 894 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN AMENDMENT
PREAMBLE MARCH 2021
i
Background
The City of Chula Vista authorized development of the 604.8 acre Sunbow Planned Community
upon approval of the following:
• Sunbow II General Development Plan (GDP) approved by Resolution No. 15427 on
December 5, 1989;
• Sunbow II Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP) approved by Resolution No. 15525 on
January 24, 1990;
• Sunbow II Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan approved by Resolution No. 15524 on
February 20, 1990;
• Sunbow II Planned Community District Regulations and Land Use District Map approved
by Ordinance No. 2361 on February 27, 1990;
• Sunbow II Design Guidelines approved by Resolution No. 15640 on May 22, 1990;
• Sunbow II Tentative Subdivision Map (TSM 90-07) approved by Resolution No. 115640
on May 22, 1990; and
• Sunbow II Affordable Housing Agreement approved by Resolution No. 18662 on May 13,
1997.
The adopted Sunbow II SPA Plan established the land use districts, special uses and conditions,
comprehensive sign regulations, off-street parking requirements and administrative procedures for
development and implementation of the Sunbow community. Sunbow II, Phase 3 was identified
as a 46.0-acre Industrial Park in the adopted Sunbow II SPA Plan.
In February 2003, the City of Chula Vista adopted the City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Pl an.
At that time, development of the approved Sunbow II project was underway. When the City
adopted the MSCP Plan, the Sunbow II community was not identified as a “covered project;”
however, the MSCP Plan established a hardline MSCP Preserve Boundary adjacent to the Sunbow
II, Phase 3 development area. Based upon the City’s MSCP Boundary data, the Applicant’s
Engineer determined that within the 135.7-acre Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project Area, there are
approximately 63.6 acres of land designated MSCP Preserve, the 4.3-acre Poggi Creek
Conservation Easement area and approximately 67.5 acres of development area.
As depicted on the following exhibit, there are 19.626 acres of recorded and proposed unrecorded
easements associated with Poggi Creek within the Project Area including the Recorded
Conservation Easement (9.719 acres), the Unrecorded Conservation Easement (5.569 acres), the
Unrecorded Poggi Creek Easement (4.338 acres). Of the 19.626 acres of recorded and proposed
easements within the Project Area, approximately 12.53 acres are within the proposed Chula Vista
MSCP boundary.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 895 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN AMENDMENT
PREAMBLE MARCH 2021
ii
On January 7, 2020, the Chula Vista City Council approved the Community Benefit Agreement
(by Resolution No. 2020-003) between the City of Chula Vista and ACI Sunbow, LLC (Applicant)
which would allow the Applicant to process entitlements that would involve converting the
designation of an undeveloped 54-acre site, within the General Plan, General Development Plan
and SPA Plan, from Limited Industrial to residential uses. For the City, the Agreement would
provide funding that can be used by the City to direct the construction of either: a Class “A” office
building that would facilitate high quality job enhancement uses along the SR-125 corridor on City
or non-profit owned land or a commercial/academic building that can facilitate either an academic
or private-sector market-rate project to advance the vision of the University Innovation District
(such as enabling the development of an Institute for International Studies), or some other notable
project at the City’s discretion.
On February 26, 2020, ACI Sunbow, LLC (Applicant) filed an application with the City of Chula
Vista for the Sunbow II SPA Plan Amendment within the Sunbow II, Phase 3 area comprised of
135.7 acres (Project Area). The application included the discretionary actions necessary to
implement a proposal to: 1) rezone the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Industrial Park and associated
development area to residential, Community Purpose Facility and other related land uses and 2) a
minor MSCP Boundary adjustment between the development area and the adjacent Chula Vista
MSCP Preserve area north and west of Planning Area 23, resulting in an increase of 0.09 acres of
Preserve Open Space within the Project Area. The Project includes the following:
• Chula Vista General Plan Amendment
• Sunbow II General Development Plan Amendment
• Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan Boundary Adjustment
• Sunbow II SPA Plan Amendment
• Rezone
• Tentative Map
• MSCP Minor Amendment (off-site grading)
• Development Agreement
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 896 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN AMENDMENT
PREAMBLE MARCH 2021
iii
The scope of the Project encompasses Sunbow II, Phase 3. Based upon a more precise level of
engineering information currently available, including GIS mapping, the Sunbow II, Phase 3
development area acreage has been refined and encompasses 67.5 acres, which includes
approximately 44.2 acres of residential, a 0.9-acre Community Purpose Facility (CPF) site, 5.9
acres of public streets and 16.5 acres of manufactured slopes and basins. Approximately 4.3 acres
of proposed Poggi Canyon Easement areas, a 0.3 acre conserved wetland resource area and 63.61
acres of adjacent MSCP Preserve areas are also within the Project Area. The Project includes a
proposed MSCP Boundary Adjustment, which would modify the limits of the Sunbow II, Phase 3
development area and increase the MSCP Preserve area by approximately 0.09 acres.
Sunbow II, Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment (Chapter 10.0) Purpose and Scope
The purpose of Sunbow II, Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment, Chapters 10.0 to 17.0, is to describe
and define the amended land uses for the Sunbow II, Phase 3. In addition, this chapter provides
the development regulations and design guidelines for the Project. The Project also includes
revisions to planning documents associated with the 1990 Sunbow II SPA Plan as well as
additional plans and studies currently required by the City of Chula Vista. Updated or new
information supersedes the corresponding sections in the 1990 Sunbow SPA Plan and can be found
either within the following Sunbow II, Phase SPA Plan Amendment chapter or within the
Appendices to the Sunbow II SPA Plan:
1 The MSCP Preserve area includes 1.31 in mapping correction areas.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 897 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN AMENDMENT
PREAMBLE MARCH 2021
iv
1990 Sunbow SPA Plan Sunbow II, Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
Site Utilization See Section 10.8
Recreation and Open Space Master Plan See Section 11.0
Community Purpose Facility Master Plan – Section 12.0
Public Facilities See Section 13.0
Planned Community District Regulations See Section 14.0
Residential Design Criteria See Residential Design Guidelines – Section 15.0
See PC District Regulations – Section 14.0
Landscape Master Plan See Landscape Design Guidelines – Section 16.0
See Affordable Housing Plan – Section 17.0
Sunbow Signage Guidelines There are no monuments signs proposed. Temporary
marketing signs to comply with CVMC Section
19.58.320
Landscape Palette – Appendix A
Public Facilities Financing Plan See Supplemental PFFP – Appendix B
See Air Quality Improvement Plan – Appendix C
See Fire Protection Plan – Appendix D
Water Conservation Plan See Water Conservation Plan Update – Appendix E
Purpose and Government Authority
The Sunbow II, Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment provides the basis for the preparation of
implementing subdivision and improvement plans and specifies permitted land uses, densities,
maximum units, and required public facilities as allowed by California Government Code §65450.
The SPA Plan will implement and comply with the applicable goals and objectives of the Chula
Vista General Plan and the Sunbow II General Development Plan, as amended as part of the
Project. It is anticipated that minor refinements to the Project will occur during development of
the implementing subdivision and/or Site Plan. Such refinements, with the approval of the
Director of Development Services (DDS), will not require amendments to this SPA Plan, provided
the number of residential dwelling units is not exceeded and the overall character of Sunbow II,
Phase 3 is maintained.
Any matter or issue not specifically covered by the amended Sunbow II SPA Plan shall be subject
to the regulations and procedures of the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC). In the case
of a conflict between this SPA Plan and the CVMC, this SPA Plan shall take precedence.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 898 of 1271
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Sunbow II, Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment Preamble
10.0 Sunbow II, Phase 3 SPA Amendment .......................................................................... 69
10.1 Background ............................................................................................. 69
10.3 Project Overview ..................................................................................... 70
10.4 Supporting Documents ............................................................................ 71
10.5 Technical Reports .................................................................................... 72
10.6 Development Concept ............................................................................. 72
10.7 Site Utilization Plan ................................................................................. 74
10.8 Mapping Refinements and Unit Transfers .............................................. 75
10.9 Circulation ............................................................................................... 76
10.9.1 Vehicular Circulation .............................................................................. 76
10.9.2. Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation ......................................................... 82
10.10 Grading .................................................................................................... 83
11.0 Recreation and Open Space Master Plan ..................................................................... 84
11.1 Regulatory Framework ............................................................................ 84
11.2 Park Requirements .................................................................................. 84
12.0 Community Purpose Facility (CPF) Master Plan ......................................................... 85
12.1 Regulatory Framework ............................................................................ 85
12.2 Community Purpose Facility Requirement ............................................. 85
12.3 Community Purpose Facility Implementation ........................................ 86
13.0 Public Facilities ....................................................................................... 86
13.1 Water Service .......................................................................................... 86
13.2 Sewer Service .......................................................................................... 88
13.3 Drainage Facilities ................................................................................... 89
14.0 Planned Community District Regulations .................................................................... 91
14.1 Purpose & Scope ..................................................................................... 91
14.2 Private Agreements ................................................................................. 91
14.3 Conflicting Ordinances ............................................................................ 91
14.4 Establishment of Land Use Districts ....................................................... 91
14.5 Adoption of Land Use Districts Maps ..................................................... 92
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 899 of 1271
vi
14.6 Residential Land Use Districts ................................................................ 93
14.6.1 Purpose ................................................................................................... 93
14.6.2 Residential Land Use Districts Intent .................................................... 94
14.6.7 Residential Design Review .................................................................... 98
14.6.3 Permitted and Conditional Uses............................................................. 94
14.6.4 Residential Property Development Standards ....................................... 95
14.6.5 Common and Private Useable Open Space Requirements .................... 97
14.6.6 Parking Space Requirements ................................................................. 98
14.7 Community Purpose Facility Land Use District ..................................... 98
14.8 Open Space Land Use Districts ............................................................... 98
14.8.1 Purpose and Intent.................................................................................. 98
14.8.2 Permitted & Conditional Uses ............................................................... 99
14.8.3 Development Standards ....................................................................... 100
15.0 Residential Design Guidelines ................................................................................... 100
15.1 Architecture ........................................................................................... 100
15.2 Site Planning and Building Plotting ...................................................... 102
16.0 Landscape Design Guidelines ............................................................... 106
16.1 Landscape Concept ................................................................................ 107
17.0 Affordable Housing Plan ............................................................................................ 113
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1: SPA Plan Site Utilization Plan (Sunbow SPA Plan 1990) ......................................... 70
Exhibit 2: Aerial Surrounding Land Use Map ............................................................................. 71
Exhibit 3: Sunbow II, Phase 3 Land Use Plan ............................................................................. 73
Exhibit 4: Sunbow II, Phase 3 Site Utilization Plan .................................................................... 74
Exhibit 5: On-Site Circulation Plan ............................................................................................. 76
Exhibit 6: Existing Olympic Parkway ......................................................................................... 77
Exhibit 7a: Modified Class III Collector (Public)........................................................................ 78
Exhibit 7b: Modified Class III Collector (Public) ....................................................................... 78
Exhibit 7c: Conceptual Roundabout Detail ................................................................................. 79
Exhibit 8: Private Neighborhood Collector ................................................................................. 80
Exhibit 9: Private Residential Street w/Parking........................................................................... 80
Exhibit 10: Private Residential Drives ......................................................................................... 81
Exhibit 11: Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation Plan ................................................................... 82
Exhibit 12: Conceptual Grading Plan .......................................................................................... 83
Exhibit 13: Conceptual Water & Recycled Water Plan ............................................................... 88
Exhibit 14: Conceptual Sewer Plan ............................................................................................. 89
Exhibit 15: Conceptual Drainage Plan ......................................................................................... 90
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 900 of 1271
vii
Exhibit 16: Sunbow II, Phase 3 Land Use District Map .............................................................. 93
Exhibit 17: Conceptual Architectural Styles.............................................................................. 101
Exhibit 18: Conceptual 3-Story Row Townhomes (RC District) .............................................. 102
Exhibit 19: Conceptual 2-Story Row Townhomes (RM District) ............................................. 103
Exhibit 20 Conceptual 3-Story Row Townhomes (RM District) .............................................. 104
Exhibit 21: Conceptual 2-Story Triplex Homes (RM District) ................................................. 105
Exhibit 22: Conceptual Illustrative Plan .................................................................................... 106
Exhibit 23: Conceptual Community Recreation Area ............................................................... 108
Exhibit 24: Site Conditions Key Map ........................................................................................ 109
Exhibit 25: Conceptual Landscape Design – Streets “A” and “B” ............................................ 110
Exhibit 26: Perimeter Edge Condition @ R-1 ........................................................................... 111
Exhibit 27: Interior Condition @ R-2/Street “B” ...................................................................... 112
Exhibit 28: Internal Condition @ R-1 & R-4 ............................................................................ 112
Exhibit 29: South Perimeter Condition @ R-6 .......................................................................... 113
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Sunbow II, Phase 3 Site Utilization Table ..................................................................... 75
Table 2: Estimated Required Park Land Dedication .................................................................... 84
Table 3: Land Use Districts Definitions ...................................................................................... 92
Table 4: Permitted Use Matrix – Residential Districts ................................................................ 95
Table 5: Property Development Standards – Residential Districts .............................................. 96
Table 6: Permitted Use Matrix – Open Space Districts ............................................................... 99
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Sunbow II, Phase 3 Plant Palette
Appendix B: Supplemental Public Facilities Financing Plan
Appendix C: Air Quality Improvement Plan
Appendix D: Fire Protection Plan
Appendix E: Water Conservation Plan Update
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 901 of 1271
viii
INTENTIONALLY BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 902 of 1271
SUNBOW II SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
March 2021 Page 69
10.0 SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA AMENDMENT
10.1 Background
The City of Chula Vista approved the Sunbow General Development Plan (GDP) in 1989 and
Sunbow II Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan in 1990, which included Sunbow II, Phase 3. The
1990 Sunbow II SPA Plan established the land use districts, special uses and conditions,
comprehensive sign regulations, off-street parking requirements and administrative procedures for
the Sunbow community. The City also approved Design Guidelines and Planned Community (PC)
District Regulations for the Sunbow community. The Sunbow community is built out, with the
exception of Sunbow II, Phase 3, currently designated a 46-acre industrial park on the 1990
Sunbow II SPA Plan Site Utilization Plan, which has subsequently been refined as a 69.0 acre
development area.
10.2 Purpose and Scope
The purpose of the Sunbow II, Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment is to describe and define the
amended land uses for the Project. In addition, this amendment establishes the development
regulations and design guidelines for Sunbow II, Phase 3. The Project includes Chula Vista
General Plan (CVGP), Sunbow General Development Plan (GDP) amendments, a Rezone, and
Tentative Map which are necessary to implement the Project.
Approval of the proposed SPA Plan Amendment will include the text and exhibits which establish
conformance of Sunbow II, Phase 3 and the surrounding MSCP Preserve areas with the amended
Chula Vista General Plan and Sunbow GDP and a land use plan which designates the permitted
land uses for the Project. Sunbow II, Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment, Chapters 10.0 to 17.0 only
apply to the Sunbow II, Phase 3. All other provisions of the 1990 Sunbow II SPA Plan remain in
effect for all other areas within Sunbow.
Sunbow II, Phase 3 encompasses approximately 135.72 acres and includes a 67.5-acre
development area comprised of 44.2 acres of residential, a 0.9-acre Community Purpose Facility
(CPF) site, 5.9 acres of public streets, 16.5 manufactured slopes and basins. Approximately 4.3
acres of Poggi Creek Conservation Easement areas, a 0.3-acre conserved wetland resource area
and 63.6 acres of adjacent MSCP Preserve area are also within the Project Area (Sunbow II, Phase
3 SPA Plan Amendment area). Refer to Exhibit 1: SPA Plan Site Utilization Plan (Sunbow II SPA
Plan 1990) for existing land uses within Sunbow II as well as a reference to the location of the
135.7-acre Sunbow II, Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment area subject to this SPA Amendment.
2 Acreages are rounded to the nearest 1/10th acre and may vary slightly from calculated total.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 903 of 1271
SUNBOW II SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
March 2021 Page 70
Exhibit 1: SPA Plan Site Utilization Plan (Sunbow II SPA Plan 1990)
10.3 Project Overview
The Sunbow II, Phase 3 SPA Amendment area encompasses 135.7 acres located south of Olympic
Parkway, north of the Otay Landfill and City of Chula Vista property, east of Brandywine Avenue
and west of the future Otay Ranch Village 2 development area. Refer to Exhibit 2: Aerial
Surrounding Land Uses Map.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 904 of 1271
SUNBOW II SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
March 2021 Page 71
Exhibit 2: Aerial Surrounding Land Uses Map
The Project includes 718 multi-family units on approximately 44.2 acres within the 135.7-acre
Project Area. The Project includes six residential neighborhoods planned to provide four unique
multi-family attached residential product types. A 0.9-acre Community Purpose Facility site is
centrally located and planned as a Community Recreation Area. Two planned on-site modified
Class III Collector public streets (approximately 5.9 acres) provide access to the Project via two
fully signalized intersections at Olympic Parkway, in the locations designated in the 1990 Sunbow
II SPA Plan. Residential neighborhoods are served by private streets and driveways. The Project
also includes approximately 16.5 acres of open space (two water quality/hydromodification basins,
manufactured slope/fuel modification areas), a 0.3-acre conserved wetland resource and associated
buffer area, 4.3 acres of Poggi Creek Conservation Easement areas and 63.6 acres designated
MSCP Preserve open space. Refer to Exhibit 3: Sunbow II, Phase 3 Land Use Plan.
10.4 Supporting Documents
The following additional documents were prepared as part of the Sunbow II, Phase 3 SPA
Amendment:
• Supplemental Public Facilities Financing Plan Addendum (Appendix B)
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 905 of 1271
SUNBOW II SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
March 2021 Page 72
• Air Quality Improvement Plan (Appendix C)
• Fire Protection Plan (Appendix D)
• Water Conservation Plan Update (Appendix E)
• Fiscal Impact Analysis
10.5 Technical Reports
The following technical reports were prepared for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Environmental Impact
Report (EIR):
• Sunbow II, Phase 3 – Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis. Nuisance Analysis
Memorandum (Appendix B) and Health Risk Assessment (Dudek 2020)
• Sunbow II, Phase 3 – Noise Impact Analysis (Dudek 2020)
• Sunbow II, Phase 3 SPA Amendment – Biological Impact Analysis Report (Merkel
2021)
• Sunbow II, Phase 3 SPA Amendment - Functional Equivalency Analysis for MSCP
Boundary Line Adjustment and Facility Siting Criteria Report (Merkel 2021)
• Habitat Restoration and Sensitive Species Mitigation Plan for the Sunbow II, Phase 3
SPA Plan Amendment (Merkel 2021)
• Sunbow II, Phase 3 Geotechnical Investigation (GEOCON, Inc. 2020)
• Priority Development Project (PDP) Storm Water Quality Management Plan for the
Sunbow II, Phase 3 Tentative Map (Hunsaker 2021)
• Drainage Study for Sunbow II, Phase 3 (Hunsaker 2021)
• Transportation Impact Analysis for Sunbow II, Phase 3 (Linscott, Law & Greenspan
2021)
• Overview of Water Service for Sunbow II, Phase 3 (Dexter Wilson Engineering 2020)
• Sewer System Evaluation for Sunbow II, Phase 3 (Dexter Wilson Engineering 2020)
• Sunbow II, Phase 3 SPA Amendment Water Conservation Plan Updated (SPA Plan
Appendix E) (Dexter Wilson Engineering 2020)
• Cultural and Paleontological Resources Report for Sunbow II, Phase 3 (Dudek 2020)
10.6 Development Concept
A residential enclave is planned within Sunbow II, Phase 3 with well-designed multi-family
attached homes featuring enhanced architecture, garages accessed from internal private drives,
front door access along landscaped paseos, undulating building massing, varied roof pitches and
directions, useable private rear yards, courtyards and balconies and a connected network of internal
pedestrian walkways. A tree planting program will provide for an enhanced pedestrian experience
throughout the residential neighborhoods. A roundabout planned at the intersection of Streets “A”
and “B” creates a gateway into the community, with enhanced landscaping features in the center.
The Community Purpose Facility (CPF) site is located in the heart of the community and will
create an activity center for the residents.
Neighborhoods are conveniently connected along a network of pedestrian walkways. The land
plan respects the areas designated as part of the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan Preserve and
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 906 of 1271
SUNBOW II SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
March 2021 Page 73
limits grading impacts for entry streets based on previously approved alignments and Poggi Creek
crossing improvements. Two on-site water quality/hydromodification basins are provided to treat
run-off from the Project Area prior to discharging into Poggi Creek. Fuel Modification Zones are
planned at the Project perimeter as discussed further in the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Fire Protection
Plan. Refer to Exhibit 3: Sunbow II, Phase 3 Land Use Plan.
The Project also includes areas designated MSCP Preserve Open Space in the Chula Vista MSCP
Subarea Plan. The Project includes a proposal for an MSCP Boundary Adjustment which would
modify the limits of development within Sunbow II, Phase 3 and the adjacent open space and
preserved open space, resulting in an increase of 0.09 acres of MSCP Preserve Open Space within
the Project Area.
Exhibit 3: Sunbow II, Phase 3 Land Use Plan
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 907 of 1271
SUNBOW II SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
March 2021 Page 74
10.7 Site Utilization Plan3
The Sunbow II, Phase 3 Site Utilization Plan (Exhibit 4) and the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Site
Utilization Table (Table 1) establish the land uses, dwelling unit allocation and density within the
Project. Refer to Section 14.0 Planned District Regulations for the land use definitions
implemented within Sunbow II, Phase 3.
Exhibit 4: Sunbow II, Phase 3 Site Utilization Plan
3 Chapter 10.7 Sunbow II, Phase 3 Site Utilization Plan applies to the Sunbow II, Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment area
only. The 1990 Sunbow II SPA Plan Site Utilization shall remain in effect for all other areas.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 908 of 1271
SUNBOW II SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
March 2021 Page 75
Table 1: Sunbow II, Phase 3 Site Utilization Table4
Sunbow II, Phase 3 Land Use
District Acres5 Units Density
Multi-Family Residential
R-1 RM 8.5 131 15.4
R-2 RM 4.6 73 16.0
R-3 RM 8.1 108 13.3
R-4 RM 8.2 118 14.4
R-5 RM 7.1 104 14.7
R-6 RC 7.6 184 24.1
Subtotal Residential 44.2 718 16.3
Other
Community Purpose Facility CPF 0.9
MSCP Preserve Open Space
(OS-1, 2, 3 and 9b) OSP 63.6
Poggi Creek Conservation Easement
(OS-4, 5, 6a and 6b) OS 4.3
Manufactured Slopes/Basins
(OS-7, 8, 9a, 10 - 13) OS 16.5
Conserved Wetland Resource Area
(OS-14) OS 0.3
Public Streets Circulation 5.9
Subtotal Other 91.5
TOTAL 135.7 718 16.3
10.8 Mapping Refinements and Unit Transfers
The SPA Plan provides guidance for development at the subdivision and improvement levels and
is the basic reference for determining permitted land uses, densities, total units and required public
facilities. The SPA Plan does not intend to be used in a manner that predetermines the development
solution for each and every parcel. It is intended to reflect the City’s intent for determining the
intensity, design and desired character of use for the Project Area. The development parcels and
internal circulation indicated on the Site Utilization Plan are conceptual. Minor modifications to
these configurations may occur as part of the tentative map and final map approval process.
Modifications to the SPA Plan exhibits and text, to reflect adjustments based on an approved
tentative or final map, may be accomplished without a formal SPA Amendment, through the
4 Table 1: Sunbow II, Phase 3 Site Utilization Table presents the land uses within the Sunbow II, Phase 3 SPA Plan
Amendment area. The 1990 Sunbow II SPA Plan Site Utilization Plan remains in effect for all other areas within
Sunbow.
5 Acreages rounded to nearest 1/10th acre and may vary slightly from the calculated total.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 909 of 1271
SUNBOW II SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
March 2021 Page 76
substantial conformance procedure established in Planned Community (PC) District Regulations
found in Section 14.0 of this SPA Plan Amendment.
Further, the SPA Plan is not a guarantee that a certain dwelling unit yield will be achieved on each
parcel; however, the maximum density specified in the land use district designation for each parcel
shall not be exceeded. Final dwelling unit yield shall be determined by field conditions, site plan
and architectural review and a number of external factors that influence the design and density of
individual projects.
Dwelling unit transfers from one parcel to another may be permitted so long as the total dwelling
units authorized (718 DUs) in Sunbow II, Phase 3 is not exceeded and the transfer and receiving
parcels remain consistent with the Residential Land Use District applied to each parcel on the
Sunbow II, Phase 3 Land Use District Map. Said transfer shall be subject to approval of the
Development Services Director.
10.9 Circulation
Vehicular access to the Project would be provided from existing Olympic Parkway. Two points of
access were planned in the 1990 Sunbow II SPA Plan and two crossings of Poggi Creek were
constructed with Poggi Creek and Olympic Parkway improvements. Internal circulation is planned
along two Modified Class III Collector Streets and a series of Private Neighborhood Collectors,
Streets and Drives. Private street locations to be determined during the Design Review Process.
Exhibit 5: On-Site Circulation Plan
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 910 of 1271
SUNBOW II SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
March 2021 Page 77
10.9.1 Vehicular Circulation
Existing Circulation Element Roadway:
Vehicular access to the Project would be provided from existing Olympic Parkway. Two points of
access were planned in the 1990 Sunbow II SPA Plan and two crossings of Poggi Creek were
constructed with Poggi Creek and Olympic Parkway improvements.
Olympic Parkway is an existing 6-Lane Prime Arterial which forms the Project’s northern
boundary. Olympic Parkway provides access to I-805 to the west and SR-125 to the east. Olympic
Parkway is comprised of three travel lanes on both sides, a landscaped median, Class 2 bike lanes,
the 10-foot Chula Vista Regional Trail on the north side and a sidewalk and parkway within a 20’
landscape buffer on the south side. (Refer to Exhibit 6: Existing Olympic Parkway (6-Lane Prime
Arterial)
Exhibit 6: Existing Olympic Parkway (6-Lane Prime Arterial)6
Public Streets:
Internal circulation includes two public streets (Streets “A” and “B”) providing access from
Olympic Parkway. Streets “A” and “B” are planned as two unique street sections to serve Sunbow
II, Phase 3. The Modified Class III Collector with a 55-foot right-of way (refer to Exhibit 7a)
includes two 13-foot travel lanes, two 7.5-foot landscape parkways and a 6-foot sidewalk and
parking on one side of the street. These improvements would be implemented in the segment of
Street “A” from Olympic Parkway to the entrance to neighborhoods R-1/R-3 and Street “B”
between Olympic Parkway and the intersection at Street “A”.
The Modified Class II Collector with a 61-foot right-of-way (refer to Exhibit 7b) includes two 11-
foot travel lanes a 5-foot sidewalk and a 7.5-foot landscaped parkway on both sides and parking
on one side. Bicycles will share the road with vehicles. During preparation of Site Plans for
6 Cross Section for existing Olympic Parkway provided for reference only.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 911 of 1271
SUNBOW II SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
March 2021 Page 78
Design Review, pedestrian connections from the end of the Private Drives to walkways within
individual neighborhoods to be provided where feasible.
Exhibit 7a: Modified Class III Collector – 55’ ROW (Public)
Exhibit 7b: Modified Class III Collector - 61’ ROW (Public)
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 912 of 1271
SUNBOW II SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
March 2021 Page 79
Roundabout:
A roundabout is planned at the intersection of Streets “A” and “B.” The roundabout is designed
to identify the main entrance into the community as well as provide traffic calming. The center of
the roundabout may include low landscaping and enhanced paving. Refer to Exhibit 7c:
Conceptual Roundabout Detail.
Exhibit 7c: Conceptual Roundabout Detail
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 913 of 1271
SUNBOW II SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
March 2021 Page 80
Private Streets:
Private Neighborhood Collector streets are planned within the residential neighborhoods. The
Private Neighborhood Collector is comprised of two 12-foot travel lanes and 5-foot sidewalks and
5.5-foot landscaped parkways on both sides. Refer to Exhibit 8: Private Neighborhood Collector.
Exhibit 8: Private Neighborhood Collector
Private Residential Streets with parking are planned in the residential neighborhoods and include
two 12-foot travel lanes, 8-foot parallel or 18-foot perpendicular parking lane and a contiguous
sidewalk on one side and a 5-foot landscaped parkway on the opposite side. Refer to Exhibit 9:
Private Residential Street w/Parking.
Exhibit 9: Private Residential Street w/Parking
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 914 of 1271
SUNBOW II SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
March 2021 Page 81
Private Residential Drives are planned throughout the residential neighborhoods. Improvements
include two 12-foot travel lanes and may include a 5-foot sidewalk and a 5-foot landscaped
parkway, a 5-foot contiguous sidewalk or be limited to two 12-foot travel lanes with either curb
and gutter or rolled curbs. Parking is prohibited on all Private Residential Drives. During
preparation of Site Plans for Design Review, pedestrian connections from the end of the Private
Drives to walkways within individual neighborhoods to be provided where feasible. Refer to
Exhibit 10: Private Residential Drives.
Private Drive with Landscaped Parkways and Sidewalk
Private Drive with Contiguous Sidewalk
Exhibit 10: Private Residential Drives
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 915 of 1271
SUNBOW II SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
March 2021 Page 82
Private Drive with 0” Rolled Curb
Exhibit 10: Private Residential Drives (Cont’d)
10.9.2. Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation
The Project provides a pedestrian connection to the existing Chula Vista Regional Trail along both
Streets “A” and “B.” Internal pedestrian circulation is provided via a network of sidewalks and
paseo connections between neighborhoods and the public streets.
Bicycles would share the roadway with vehicles along Streets “A” and “B,” providing direct
connections to the existing Class 2 bike lanes on Olympic Parkway and the MTS transit stop
located at Olympic Parkway and Brandywine Avenue. Refer to Exhibit 11: Pedestrian and Bicycle
Circulation Plan.
Exhibit 11: Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation Plan
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 916 of 1271
SUNBOW II SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
March 2021 Page 83
10.10 Grading
The Chula Vista General Plan, Land Use and Transportation Element, states that mesas, hilltops
and gently rolling topography offer the best conditions for development. As anticipated in the
1990 Sunbow II SPA Plan, the southeastern portion of the Project Area is suitable for development,
while the northern and western areas are preserved as part of the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan
Preserve.
A geotechnical investigation was prepared for the Project that determined that the site as being
suitable for development. The proposed raw grading quantities for Sunbow II, Phase 3 are
approximately 1.2 million cubic yards of balanced cut and fill material. Refer to Exhibit 12:
Conceptual Grading Plan
Exhibit 12: Conceptual Grading Plan
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 917 of 1271
SUNBOW II SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
March 2021 Page 84
11.0 RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN
11.1 Regulatory Framework
The provision and implementation of parks and open space in the Project Area is regulated by the
following:
Chula Vista Municipal Code – SPA Plans
Section 19.48.090) (P-C Planned Community Zone) of the Chula Vista Municipal Code establishes
SPA Plan requires the following information be contained in a SPA site utilization Plan:
• Land Uses
• Parks
• Open Space
Chula Vista Municipal Code – Park Lands and Public Facilities
Chapter 17.10 (Park Lands and Public Facilities) of the Chula Vista Municipal Code establishes
the requirements for dedication of land, development of improvements, parkland criteria, in-lieu
fees for land dedication and development improvements, commencement of park development and
collection and distribution of park fees.
11.2 Park Requirements
The Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC) Chapter 17.10. Parklands and Public Facilities,
establishes the method by which actual park acreage is to be calculated, based on the number and
type of residential units determined at the Final Map level. The City’s 2016 Park Acquisition and
Development Fee (PAD Fee) Update determined that each multi-family unit generates the need
for 341 square feet of development parkland. The 718 multi-family units authorized within
Sunbow II, Phase 3 generates a parkland obligation of 5.6 acres.
Table 2: Sunbow II, Phase 3 Estimated Required Park Land Dedication
Unit Type Units Park SF/Unit Total Park SF Total Park Acres
Multi-Family 718 341 244,838 5.6
The Community Benefit Agreement between the City and the Applicant includes a provision for
payment of a Park Benefit Fee, equal to the PAD fees that would otherwise have been due pursuant
to Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC) Chapter 17.10, of approximately $11.03 million based
on 2019 PAD fees which may be revised by the City from time to time. The final Park Benefit Fee
amount will be determined based on the number of residential units constructed and the PAD fee
rates in effect as of the effective date of the Development Agreement. To create this Park Benefit
Fee, the City will waive the parkland dedication and development requirements set forth in CVMC
Chapter 17.10 (including the Parkland Acquisition and Public Facilities Development
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 918 of 1271
SUNBOW II SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
March 2021 Page 85
Fees/Quimby Fees). Payment of the Park Benefit Fee will satisfy the Project’s park obligations.
The Park Benefit Fees may be utilized by the City to acquire or develop parkland, as the City
determines appropriate and in the best interest of the City.
12.0 COMMUNITY PURPOSE FACILITY (CPF) MASTER PLAN
12.1 Regulatory Framework
The City of Chula Vista Municipal Code, Chapter 19.48 (P-C Planned Community Zone) requires
1.39 acres of Community Purpose Facility land per 1,000 persons be provided. Pursuant to the
Code, CPF means “a land use designation in a planned community intended for non-profit and
certain for-profit land uses…”
The following uses are permitted within the CPF Land Use District, and may be subject to approval
of a conditional use permit:
• Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, and other similar organizations
• Social and human services activities, such as Alcoholics Anonymous
• Services for the homeless
• Services for military personnel during the holidays
• Senior care and recreation
• Worship, spiritual growth and development and teaching of traditional family values
• Non-profit or for-profit day care facilities that are ancillary to any of the above or as a
primary use. For-profit facilities as a primary use are subject to further requirements and
additional criteria as outlined in CVMC 19.48, Section F.
• Private schools that are ancillary to any of the other permitted uses
• Interim uses, subject to the finding in CVMC 19.48, Section F.
• Recreational facilities, such as ball fields, for non-profit organizations (including
homeowner associations) serving the local community, subject to the requirements
outlined in CVMC Section 19.48.040(B)(6) and subject to the findings outlined in CVMC
19.48.025(H), Community Purpose Facilities – Minimum Acreage Required – Permitted
Uses
12.2 Community Purpose Facility Requirement
The proposed 718 multi-family units within Sunbow II, Phase 3 generate a population of 2,334
persons (based on 3.257 persons per residential unit), resulting in an obligation to provide
approximately 3.2 acres of CPF land.
7 Source: California Department of Finance (January 1, 2020).
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 919 of 1271
SUNBOW II SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
March 2021 Page 86
12.3 Community Purpose Facility Implementation
The SPA Plan includes an approximate 0.9-acre site designated CPF, planned as a private
recreation facilities to be owned and managed by the Master Homeowners Association (Refer to
Exhibit 23: Conceptual Community Recreation Area). Consistent with CVMC Section
19.48.040(B)(6), the site meets the minimum size and slope requirements, is compatible with the
surrounding residential land uses and includes the following required amenities:
• Swimming Pool
• Club House
• Pool House
• One multi-purpose hard court
• Children play area
• Community gathering place
• An outdoor cooking facility
• Level Lawn area
The proposed 0.9-acre CPF site is consistent with CVMC Section 19.48.404(b)(6), in that it does
not comprise more than 35 percent of the overall CPF acreage required for the Project Area (3.2
acres x 35% = 1.1 acres), the CPF site meets the minimum one-half acre size requirement and
satisfies the minimum development criteria outlined in CVMC 19.48.025(H) as described above.
The Development Agreement between the Applicant and the City includes provisions that address
how the Applicant will satisfy the remaining 2.3-acre CPF obligation through payment of a
Community Purpose Facilities Benefit Fund to the City in the amount $1,759,134. The CPF
Benefit Fund collected from the Project may be utilized by the City at its discretion to provide a
community serving facility located in the City’s western territories.
13.0 Public Facilities
This section summarizes the public facilities required to serve the Project in compliance with the
City’s goal that new development provides all necessary infrastructure. The public facilities
outlined in this section have been determined based upon projected land uses and their distribution
as shown on the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Site Utilization Plan (Exhibit 4). The Project will connect to
existing sewer, potable water, and recycled water lines within Olympic Parkway. The Project will
be served by the Otay Water District (potable and recycled water) and the City of Chula Vista via
the existing Poggi Canyon sewer system.
13.1 Water Service
The Overview of Water Service for Sunbow II, Phase 3 (Dexter Wilson Engineering, 2020) was
prepared for the Project. Below is a summary of potable water and recycled water services
necessary to serve the project. The Sunbow II, Phase 3 SPA Amendment Water Conservation Plan
(Dexter Wilson Engineering, 2020) described both mandatory and non-mandatory water
conservation measures. Refer to Exhibit 13: Conceptual Water & Recycled Water Plan.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 920 of 1271
SUNBOW II SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
March 2021 Page 87
Potable Water:
The Sunbow II, Phase 3 site is within the boundaries of the Otay Water District (OWD) for water
service. The OWD relies solely on the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA), a member
of the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) for potable water. The OWD has existing and planned
facilities in the vicinity of the Project and water service can be provided by expanding the existing
system. Water service will be provided by the 624 Pressure Zone (624 Zone) within the Central
Area System of the OWD. The 624 Zone is fed from SDCWA aqueduct connections that supply
the 624 Zone Reservoirs. The OWD has three existing reservoirs in the 624 Zone.
Sunbow II, Phase 3 will receive water service by expanding the existing 624 system by making
two domestic service connections and two fire service connections to the existing 624 Zone
transmission line in Olympic Parkway. 12” public potable water lines within Streets “A” and “B”
will connect to an onsite private loop for the domestic water system and 8” private fire waterlines
will serve the fire protection system. The projected potable water demand for Sunbow II, Phase 3
is approximately 122,060 gallons per day (GPD).
Recycled Water:
Recycled water is proposed to be utilized to irrigate all common landscape areas as well as the on-
site open space areas and the CPF site. There is an existing 680 Zone recycled water line in
Olympic Parkway adjacent to the Project. A 6” private recycled line is planned outside the right
of way of Streets “A” and “B” to serve the Project. The projected recycled water demand for
Sunbow II, Phase 3 is approximately 24,510 GPD.
Water Conservation:
State and local governments have mandated a number of water conservation measures. Water
conservation measures mandated by the State of California through the 2019 California Green
Building Code Standards include: showerheads, lavatory faucets, sink faucets, metering faucets in
public restrooms, residential water closets, flushometer valves, commercial water closets and
urinals.
The Otay Water District and Chula Vista Landscape Manual require the use of recycled water for
irrigated open space slopes and common landscaped areas, wherever feasible. The Landscape
Manual also requires some drought tolerant plant selection in landscaping and the use of
evapotranspiration controllers in common landscaped areas. All landscaping shall comply with
the requirements of the Landscape Water Conservation Ordinance (CVMC Section 20.12)
The Chula Vista Water Conservation Plan Guidelines require hot water pipe insulation, pressure
reducing valves and water efficient dishwashers for all residential construction. Non-residential
measures include hot water pipe insulation, compliance with Division 5.3 of the CalGreen Building
Code and pressure reducing valves. In addition to complying with the City’s required water
conservation measures, the City also requires a developer to select at least one additional outdoor
and one additional indoor or outdoor water conservation measure. The water savings associated
with water conservation measures are estimated at 17,461 GPD. The combination of recycled
water use and water conservation measures would reduce potable water usage by 41,971 GPD, or
28.6 percent.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 921 of 1271
SUNBOW II SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
March 2021 Page 88
Exhibit 13: Conceptual Water & Recycled Water Plan
13.2 Sewer Service
The Sewer System Evaluation for Sunbow II, Phase 3 (Dexter Wilson Engineering, Inc.,
2/24/2020) evaluated the impact the proposed change in land use from Industrial to Residential
would have on the local and regional sewer system. The proposed onsite sewer system planned to
serve Sunbow II, Phase 3 consists of gravity sewer lines that will convey flow from Sunbow II,
Phase 3 to the existing Poggi Canyon Interceptor in Olympic Parkway. Based on the estimated
average flow of 131,858GPD, an 8-inch gravity line is adequate to convey the total projected flow.
It is anticipated that an 8-inch public sewer line would be constructed onsite to convey flows to
the point of connection in the Poggi Canyon Interceptor. Private sewer lines will be connected to
this new 8-inch public sewer line and extended to the proposed building sewer laterals. (Refer to
Exhibit 14: Conceptual Sewer Plan.
The available capacity of the Poggi Canyon Interceptor was evaluated in the April 2009 Poggi
Canyon Basin Gravity Sewer Development Impact Fee Updated prepared by PMC. Available
capacity in the interceptor has been updated several times in recent years as development with the
Poggi Canyon Basin has occurred. All previous studies have been based on the adopted Industrial
land use for Sunbow II, Phase 3 per the 1990 Sunbow II SPA Plan. Since the project flows from
the site based on proposed the proposed land uses (residential) are lower than the industrial land
use, no new Poggi Canyon Interceptor improvements are needed to serve the Project.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 922 of 1271
SUNBOW II SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
March 2021 Page 89
Note: The internal private gravity sewer layout is conceptual. Final layout to be determined during preparation of
private utility plans.
Exhibit 14: Conceptual Sewer Plan
13.3 Drainage Facilities
Stormwater will be collected using low impact development (LID) techniques and best
management practices (BMP) near the source to ensure that runoff from the Sunbow II, Phase 3
development area is treated for pollutant removal prior to discharging into the natural watershed.
All storm water will be treated in compliance with the applicable San Diego Regional Water
Quality Control Board requirements.
The drainage system will collect stormwater through a series of swales, catch basins, inl ets, and
culverts that direct stormwater flows to two onsite basins for purposes of water quality and
hydromodification. This system will allow biofiltration, evapotranspiration and filtering of the
stormwater to remove microscopic organisms, suspended solids, organic material, nitrogen and
phosphorous. Treated stormwater from the basins will drain into Poggi Creek. Most of the offsite
flows that drain naturally to the proposed development footprint will be piped directly to Poggi
Creek, bypassing the basins and treatment. Refer to Exhibit 15: Conceptual Drainage Plan for
storm drain pipe locations and sizes and the location of the two onsite basins.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 923 of 1271
SUNBOW II SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
March 2021 Page 90
Note: Pipe sizes are 18” unless noted on Exhibit 15.
Exhibit 15: Conceptual Drainage Plan
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 924 of 1271
SUNBOW II SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
March 2021 Page 91
14.0 SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS
14.1 Purpose & Scope
The Planned Community District Regulations apply specifically to Sunbow II, Phase 38 and are
intended to:
• Protect and promote the public health, safety, and welfare of the people of the City of Chula
Vista.
• Safeguard and enhance the appearance and quality of development in the Sunbow II, Phase
3 SPA Amendment area.
• Provide the social, physical, and economic advantages resulting from comprehensive and
orderly planned use of land resources.
• Ensure the Sunbow II, Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment is prepared and implemented in
accordance with the Sunbow GDP.
• Implement the Chula Vista General Plan within Sunbow II, Phase 3.
• Establish conditions which will enable the Sunbow II, Phase 3 to exist in harmony within the
larger Sunbow Planned Community.
14.2 Private Agreements
The provisions of this ordinance are not intended to abrogate any easements, covenants, or other
existing agreements which are more restrictive than the provisions contained within this ordinance.
14.3 Conflicting Ordinances
Whenever the provisions of this ordinance impose more, or less, restrictive regulations upon
construction or use of buildings and structures, or the use of lands/premises than are imposed or
required by other ordinances previously adopted, the provisions of this ordinance or regulations
promulgated hereunder shall apply to Sunbow II, Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment area.
14.4 Establishment of Land Use Districts
In order to classify, regulate, restrict, and separate the use of land, buildings and structures, to
regulate and limit the type, height and bulk of buildings and structures in the various districts, to
establish the areas of yards and other open space areas abutting and between buildings and
8 Chapter 10.0 Sunbow II, Phase 3 Planned Community District Regulations apply to Sunbow II, Phase 3 SPA Plan
Amendment area only. The Planned Community District Regulations established in the 1990 Sunbow II SPA shall
remain in effect for all other areas within Sunbow.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 925 of 1271
SUNBOW II SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
March 2021 Page 92
structures, and to regulate the density of population, Sunbow II, Phase 3 is hereby divided into the
following Sunbow II, Phase 3 Land Use Districts:
Table 3: Sunbow II, Phase 3 Land Use Districts Definitions
SYMBOL GENERAL DESCRIPTION
RM
Residential Multi-Family: District which permits housing ranging
from 11 to 18 units/acre including triplex, townhouse, row house, and
stacked flats product types.
RC
Residential Condominium: District which permits attached housing
including row townhomes and stacked flats at densities 18-27
units/acre.
CPF
Community Purpose Facility: District which permits uses established
pursuant to the Community Purpose Facilities requirements of the P-C
Planned Community Zone.
OSP
Open Space Preserve: District which permits natural, undisturbed
and/or restored open space which is part of the Chula Vista MSCP
Subarea Plan Preserve.
OS
Open Space: District which permits developed or usable open space,
manufactured slopes, fuel modification zones, water
quality/hydromodification basins, maintenance easements, wetland
resource and associated buffer areas, and may include naturalized open
space.
14.5 Adoption of Sunbow II, Phase 3 Land Use Districts Map
Land Use Districts and boundaries are established and adopted as shown, delineated, and
designated on the Exhibit 16: Sunbow II, Phase 3 Land Use District Map. This map, together with
all notations, references, data, district boundaries and other information thereon, are made a part
of the Sunbow II, Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment and adopted concurrently herewith and only
apply to the Sunbow II, Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment area. The boundaries are intended to align
with physical and legal features such as property boundaries, top or toe of slopes, and streets.
Refinements to these boundaries are expected during the detail planning and design phases and
will not require an amendment providing the refinement does not alter the intent.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 926 of 1271
SUNBOW II SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
March 2021 Page 93
Exhibit 16: Sunbow II, Phase 3 Land Use District Map9
14.6 Sunbow II, Phase 3 Residential Land Use Districts10
14.6.1 Purpose
The purpose of the Residential Land Use Districts is to achieve the following:
• To reserve appropriately located areas for family living at a range of dwelling unit
densities consistent with the Sunbow GDP and with sound standards of public
health, safety and welfare.
• To ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling unit.
• To minimize the effects of congestion and to avoid the overloading of public
services and utilities by phasing construction of buildings in relation to the
surrounding land area and available infrastructure.
• To protect residential properties from noise, illumination, unsightliness, odors,
smoke and other objectionable influences.
9 Land Use Districts shown on Exhibit 16 apply only to Sunbow II, Phase 3. Land Us e Districts established in the
1990 Sunbow II SPA Plan remain in effect for all other areas within Sunbow.
10 Chapter 14.6 Sunbow II, Phase 3 Residential Land Use Districts apply to Sunbow II, Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
area only. The Residential Districts established in the 1990 Sunbow II SPA Plan Planned Community District
Regulations shall remain in effect for all other areas within Sunbow.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 927 of 1271
SUNBOW II SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
March 2021 Page 94
• To facilitate the provision of utility service and other public facilities
commensurate with anticipated population, dwelling unit densities and service
requirements.
14.6.2 Residential Land Use Districts Intent
Two residential unit types are anticipated within Sunbow II, Phase 3: The Residential
Multi-Family (RM) and Residential Condominium (RC) districts. The RM district is
intended to accommodate attached multi-family row townhomes and triplex products, in
the range of 11 to 18 dwelling units per acre (DUs/AC). The typical multi-family housing
product in the RC district is planned to include three-story row townhomes which would
be expected at densities in the range of 18 to 27 DUs/AC.
14.6.3 Permitted and Conditional Uses
The matrix of land uses on the following pages indicates the relative permissive status
using the following symbols:
"P" = Permitted.
"C" = Permitted subject to Conditional Use Permit.
"A" = Permitted subject to Administrative Approval.
"N" = Use Not Permitted.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 928 of 1271
SUNBOW II SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
March 2021 Page 95
Table 4: Sunbow II, Phase 3 Permitted Use Matrix – Residential Districts
Residential Uses: RM RC
Multiple dwellings (3 units and above) P P
Townhouse dwellings P P
Accessory Dwelling Unit (pursuant to CVMC
19.58.022)) P P
Accessory Buildings and Structures (pursuant to
CVMC 19.58.202 A A
Community garden A A
Family daycare home, large (subject to Section
19.58.147 CVMC – Uses: Family Daycare Homes,
Large)
A A
Public utility and public service sub-stations,
reservoirs, pumping plants and similar installations P P
Recreation facility less than 2 acres in size A A
Private or Common Useable Open Space
/Recreation Facility P P
Temporary tract offices and tract signs (subject to
Temporary Uses Section) A A
Unclassified uses (subject to Chapter 19.54 CVMC
– Unclassified Uses) C C
14.6.4 Residential Property Development Standards
Design Goals, Principles, and Guidelines
The residential property development standards are intended to implement the Sunbow GDP. The
intent is to produce a community that encourages and fosters interaction amongst residents. To
implement this intent, the land use policies encourage a friendly, well designed environment.
Within multi-family neighborhoods create a “walkable,” inviting environment, within the
boundaries of the development.
Pedestrian-oriented features include orienting the front doors toward the streets, plotting the
buildings so garages are not visible from the public or commonly used streets; integrating strong,
well designed pedestrian connections to the streets, paseos and adjacent trail systems; providing
well designed, inviting common usable open space areas and unique, yet compatible, architecture.
General Standards: The following general standards apply to both residential districts.
• Where the Specific Standards listed below are silent on an issue, the Zoning Administrator
is authorized to define a standard based on the Chula Vista’s General Plan, Zoning
Ordinance, Design Manual and/or Landscape Manual, as may be appropriate.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 929 of 1271
SUNBOW II SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
March 2021 Page 96
• Site planning for multi-family neighborhoods adjacent to the Preserve are subject to MSCP
adjacency guidelines and Fire Protection Plan.
Specific Standards: The following Property Development Standards shall apply to all land and
buildings, other than accessory buildings, permitted in their respective residential land use district.
The use of the symbol "DR" indicates that the standard is established through Zoning
Administrator (ZA) approval or the Design Review process.
Dimensions and standards are minimums, and minor variations may be permitted subject to
Administrative Design Review or tract map approval.
11 See Section 14.6.6 for parking space dimensions.
Table 5:
Sunbow II, Phase 3 Property Development Standards – Residential Districts
Land Use Districts
RM RC Notes
Building Heights
Maximum Building Height
(feet)
35
3-story max
35
3-story
max
Yards & Setbacks
Between Buildings @ Paseo DR DR
Minimum Side Yard Setback (Feet)
To adjacent building 5 min 5 min
To Private Street or Drive 5 min 5 min
Minimum Rear Yard Setback (Feet)
To main residence DR DR
To garage off of Private Street
or Drive 3 min 3 min Second story (and above) may project
2 feet into rear yard setback.
Parking Spaces per Unit11
Garage Spaces/Unit 2 2
Within the RC District: tandem 2-car
garages are permitted. 2 assigned
spaces are required (1 covered and 1
uncovered space).
Guest Spaces/Unit 0.33 0.33
All required guest spaces permitted on-
public streets (Class III Collector) and
private streets (Private Residential
Street w/Parking)
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 930 of 1271
SUNBOW II SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
March 2021 Page 97
14.6.5 Common and Private Useable Open Space Requirements
Residential development proposals within the RM and RC Land Use Districts shall be subject to
the following open space requirements.
Private Useable Open Space (PUOS): Within the RM Land Use District, the minimum Private
Useable Open Space requirement shall be provided as follows:
• 60 square feet for each 1-bedroom unit
• 80 square feet for each 2-bedroom unit
• 120 square feet for each 3-bedroom unit
• 20 additional square feet for each additional bedroom over 3
Within the RC Land Use District, each multi-family unit shall include a minimum of 60 square
feet of Private Useable Open Space.
PUOS areas are intended to provide private outdoor space for individual multi-family units and
must meet the following requirements:
• Porches and balconies with minimum dimension of 6 feet and a minimum area of 60 square
feet.
• Private fenced yards with no dimension less than 10 feet (side yard, rear yard or front
courtyard locations permitted)
• Area is generally level (<5% grade)
• Landscaped front yards
• Yard areas with minimum dimensions less than 6 feet, driveways and pedestrian paths do
not qualify.
Common Useable Open Space (CUOS): Common Useable Open Space is intended to be used
by multiple homeowners/residents within a community and shall be provided as follows:
• A minimum of 300 square feet per unit within the RM Land Use District
• A minimum of 200 square feet per unit within the RC Land Use District
Common Useable Open Space areas are amenities to available to the entire community. Required
CUOS may be combined into conveniently located open space areas and shall meet the following
criteria:
• Consist of large meaningful areas that are not fragmented by unrelated uses or
improvements
• Developed with recreational uses, including both passive (landscaping) and active
amenities (tot lots, picnic areas, etc.)
• No dimension less than 10 feet
• Area is generally level (<5% grade)
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 931 of 1271
SUNBOW II SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
March 2021 Page 98
14.6.6 Parking Space Requirements
Parking shall meet the following minimum standards:
• Standard spaces:
o Covered in a garage or carport – 10’ x 20’ each space
o Uncovered – 9’ x 19’ each space
• Wherever a 2-foot overhang occurs, a minimum 48” pedestrian walkway shall be
maintained with minimal impacts to adjacent planting areas.
• Wherever adjacent to a landscaped planter area, a minimum 18” concrete or hardscape step
out area along the length of the driver and passenger side of the vehicle shall be provided.
14.6.7 Residential Design Review
Development proposals within the RM and RC Land Use Districts shall be subject to the City of
Chula Vista Design Review Process as set forth in the CVMC Section 19.14.581 through
19.14.600, except that the Zoning Administrator shall have the authority for review and approval
of any application/parcel with 200 or fewer multi-family residential units, but shall have, at his
sole discretion, the right to refer such Design Review application to the Planning Commission for
their action. In lieu of Development Services staff review, the Zoning Administrator shall have the
authority to retain an on-call design professional to assist in the review, at the expense of the
Applicant, if he elects to review and approve an application.
14.7 Sunbow II, Phase 3 Community Purpose Facility Land Use District
The Community Purpose Facility (CPF) Land Use District is intended to comply with and shall be
developed pursuant to CVMC Section 19.48.025. All proposed uses shall be consistent with
CVMC Section 19.48.025 C. and shall be subject to Zoning Administrator Design Review
approval. Property development standards for CPF sites shall be determined during the design
review process.
14.8 Sunbow II, Phase 3 Open Space Land Use Districts12
14.8.1 Purpose and Intent
The two Sunbow II, Phase 3 Open Space Land Use Districts are intended for developed and natural
open space areas and landscaping. Only those additional uses which are complementary to and
can exist in harmony with open space and recreation uses are permitted. There are no lot size
limitations within the Open Space Land Use Districts, and it is intended that these districts may be
12 Chapter 14.8 Sunbow II, Phase Open Space Zoning Districts apply to the Sunbow II, Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment
area only. Open Space Districts established in the 1990 Sunbow II SPA Plan Planned Community District Regulations
shall remain in effect for all other areas within Sunbow.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 932 of 1271
SUNBOW II SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
March 2021 Page 99
applied to a portion of a lot, provided the remainder of the lot meets the requirements for the land
use district which it is designated.
Open Space Land Use Districts are included in the Planned Community District Regulations to
achieve the following purposes:
• Provide focal points for community and neighborhood gathering activities
• Provide for necessary water quality features
• Preserve, enhance, and restore natural resources
• Preserve vistas and conserve viewpoint areas
• Establish edges to help define communities and neighborhoods
• Provide for fuel modification zones and buffers from adjacent land uses
Two Open Space Districts are planned within Sunbow II, Phase 3: Open Space One (OS) and
Open Space Two (OSP). The OS District is intended to accommodate manufactured slopes, water
quality/hydromodification basins, utilities, maintenance areas, fuel modification zones and
wetland resources and buffer area. The OSP District includes both natural and restored open space
areas as part of the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan Preserve. Any proposed use within the OS P
is subject to Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan requirements.
14.8.2 Permitted & Conditional Uses
The matrix of land uses below indicates the relative permissive status using the
following symbols:
“P” = Permitted
“C” = Permitted subject to Conditional Use Permit
“A” = Permitted subject to Administrative approval
“N” Use Not Permitted
Table 6:
Sunbow II, Phase 3 Permitted Use Matrix - Open Space Land Use
Districts
LAND USE
DISTRICT
OS OSP
All types of horticulture A N
Arboreta - horticultural garden A N
Bicycle and Pedestrian Trails and Associated Signage P A
Community gardens A N
Water Quality Basins and associated stormwater treatment
facilities P P*
Slope Restoration P P*
Wetland resource and buffer area P P
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 933 of 1271
SUNBOW II SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
March 2021 Page 100
*Planned and Future Facilities and Slope restoration areas permitted subject to Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan site and adjacency
requirements.
14.8.3 Development Standards
Site Planning: All development proposals in the Open Space Land Use Districts shall be subject
to the following:
• Development proposals shall be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to determine
appropriate buffering and setbacks.
• All permanent signs, including any required signs (such as monument signage,
etc.), shall be identified at the Design Review stage.
Landscaping:
• All landscaping shall meet the requirements of the City of Chula Vista Landscape Manual
and the Chula Vista Landscape Water Conservation Ordinance (CVMC 20.12) and the
approved Sunbow II, Phase 3 Landscape Master Plan.
15.0 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES13
The following guidelines are provided for architecture, site planning and building plotting,
pedestrian connectivity, and landscape, with a focus on creating a well-designed, high quality
residential community.
15.1 Architecture
Sunbow II, Phase 3 is a residential enclave featuring contemporary architectural styles. The
community is planned to include four unique multi-family attached product types with 15 distinct
floor plans. Architecture will include a variety of distinct and unique combinations of elevations
and colors. With a strong focus on creating an interesting and varied street scene, garages are
accessed off private driveways, while front doors and balconies face streets and communal open
space area. Architecture guidelines include:
• Provide variation in architectural style and elements.
• Undulate building massing and roof planes.
• Incorporate vertical and horizontal stepped massing.
• Visually minimize garage doors.
• Design entry features to emphasize front doors.
13 Chapter 15.0 Residential Design Guidelines apply to the Sunbow II, Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment area only.
Residential Design Criteria established in the 1990 Sunbow II SPA Plan remain in effect for all other areas within
Sunbow.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 934 of 1271
SUNBOW II SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
March 2021 Page 101
• Articulate facades visible from public view areas (open space/public streets) to avoid
monotony with elements such as wall off-sets, balconies and windows appropriate to the
architectural style.
• Incorporate a range of scale-defining elements that relate larger building masses to the
pedestrian scale. Elements may include trellises, columns, archways, doorways, patios and
upper floor balconies and windows.
The following conceptual architectural renderings are provided for context. The final architectural
design shall be determined at Design Review.
Product A (R-6)
Product B (R-1 and R-5)
Product C (R-2 and R-4)
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 935 of 1271
SUNBOW II SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
March 2021 Page 102
Product D (R-3)
Exhibit 17: Conceptual Architectural Styles
15.2 Site Planning and Building Plotting
The site planning and plotting of multi-family buildings will focus on creating a cohesive
community with green spaces, variety along public street frontages and strong pedestrian
connectivity. Site planning and building plotting guidelines include:
• Building to be oriented to increase exposure to natural light and views
• Building orientation to consider indoor and outdoor privacy, noise, solar access and overall
aesthetic experience
• Optimize architecture along the street frontage
• Garages to be located in alleys, shared parking courts, private driveways
• Internal residential units to be connected to internal streets via courtyards, paseos or
landscaped walkways wherever possible
• Utilitarian areas, including parking, loading, mechanical equipment, etc. shall be screened
from public views to the greatest extent possible.
• Design a connected system of pedestrian walkways between individual neighborhoods,
common open spaces, and community recreation areas, where feasible.
The following conceptual site plans are intended to provide guidance for the future Design Review
of individual parcels within the RM and RC Districts. (Refer to Exhibits 17-20: Conceptual Site
Plans). The final site plans to be prepared during the Design Review phase of the project.
Product A (R-6): 3-Story Townhomes with a communal inner court, connecting walkways and open space
Exhibit 18: Conceptual 3-Story Row Townhomes (RC Residential Land Use District)
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 936 of 1271
SUNBOW II SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
March 2021 Page 103
Product B (R-1 and R-5): 2-story townhomes private entrances and patios
Exhibit 19: Conceptual 2-Story Row Townhomes (RM Residential Land Use District)
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 937 of 1271
SUNBOW II SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
March 2021 Page 104
Product C (R-2 and R-4): 3-story row townhomes with private front courtyards and private balconies
Exhibit 20: Conceptual 3-Story Row Townhomes (RM Residential Land Use District)
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 938 of 1271
SUNBOW II SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
March 2021 Page 105
Product D (R-3): Attached 2-story homes in a triplex design with balconies and private rear yards
Exhibit 21: Conceptual -Story Triplex Homes (RM Residential Land Use District)
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 939 of 1271
SUNBOW II SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
March 2021 Page 106
16.0 Landscape Design Guidelines14
The design for Sunbow II, Phase 3 is influenced by its location adjacent to large natural open space
areas and Poggi Creek as well as proximity to future development within the adjacent Otay Ranch.
The Community is surrounded by large, landscaped slope areas which provide a buffer between
development and adjacent Preserve areas and provide fuel modification zones. The centrally
located CPF site (Community Recreation Area) is planned to provide an activity center for the
community. Additional passive and active recreation open space areas are distributed throughout
the community to provide recreational opportunities within walking distance of most homes. Refer
to Exhibit 22: Conceptual Illustrative Plan.
Note: The site plan and building placement shown on the Conceptual Illustrative Plan is conceptual. Final design to
be determined during Design Review.
Exhibit 22: Conceptual Illustrative Plan
14 Chapter 16.0 Landscape Design Guidelines apply to the Sunbow II, Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment area only. The
1990 Sunbow II SPA Plan Landscape Master Plan remains in effect for all other areas within Sunbow.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 940 of 1271
SUNBOW II SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
March 2021 Page 107
16.1 Landscape Concept
The landscape design compliments the contemporary architectural styling of the community while
providing a series of open space amenities to serve the recreational needs of the residents. The
landscape evolves from a naturalized aesthetic at the project edges to a drought tolerant
gardenesque styling in the community's central streetscape and green spaces. Pedestrian pathways
connect a series of passive and active recreational spaces provided to serve the residents. Active
recreation areas will include the community recreation area (refer to Exhibit 23: Community
Recreation Area) and may include children play areas, bocce ball court, a fenced dog run, and open
turf areas. Passive use areas may include shaded picnic areas and moveable seating areas. Refer to
Exhibit 22: Conceptual Illustrative Plan for the conceptual locations of passive and active
recreation areas. The recreational facility locations and program to be finalized during the Design
Review process.
The landscape transitions to a naturalized palette at the project perimeter to blend with the existing
native character of the existing slopes and MSCP Preserve area located along the northern edge of
the site and to the west. The plant palette is composed of durable and low water use/drought
tolerant plants which are easily maintained. (See Appendix A: Landscape Palette) It includes a
diverse range of textural and flowering species to provide seasonal interest with both foliage and
colorful flowering accents. Trees, shrubs, and vines are proposed to soften architectural facades
and site walls. Trees will also be used to create shade and scale throughout the community,
including at the various amenity spaces and pedestrian circulation paths. Additional species are
included in the fuel modification and biological restoration areas to promote fire safety while
supporting the local native plant ecologies of the adjacent MSCP Preserve area.
The Landscape Design Guidelines include:
• Landscape to be comprised of trees, shrubs, vines, and groundcover and to be utilized
throughout the community to create a cohesive landscape design.
• Tree planting shall be varied to provide interest in the landscape.
• The side and rear/front of building to be landscaped to soften the architecture and provide
privacy for residential units.
• Landscape design shall be simple, bold, and easy to maintain
• The landscape palette to incorporate many drought-tolerant non-toxic plant materials
• Landscape elements on multi-family parcels to be visible from public streets and should
blend with and appear to be an extension of the public right-of-way landscaping
• All permanently landscaped areas to be irrigated with permanent underground irrigation.
• Transformer and cable box locations are to be carefully planned and coordinated with both
the utility company and landscape architect and should be located to be unobtrusive and
screened from view with plantings where possible.
• Mailboxes and mailbox structures to be designed to complement the architectural style of
the community.
• Landscaping shall be designed to comply with the City’s Landscape Water Conservation
Ordinance and Shade Tree Policy No. 576-19.
• A Landscape Master Plan shall be prepared by the developer for Sunbow II, Phase 3 and
submitted to the City for approval.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 941 of 1271
SUNBOW II SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
March 2021 Page 108
Community Recreation Area:
The site designated Community Purpose Facility on the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Site Utilization Plan
is planned as a Community Recreation Area. This 0.9-acre area is planned to accommodate a
swimming pool, spa and associated pool uses, club house, a fire pit, a shaded BBQ area, children’s
play area, multi-use hard court area and level turf area. The Recreation Area would be private,
owned and maintained by the Master Homeowner’s Association. (Refer to Exhibit 23: Conceptual
Community Recreation Area)
Conceptual Design provided for illustrative purposed only –The final design shall meet the requirements of CVMC
Section 19.48.025 as a qualified CPF private recreation use.
Exhibit 23: Conceptual Community Recreation Area (CPF)
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 942 of 1271
SUNBOW II SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
March 2021 Page 109
The relationship between land uses, improvements and the natural MSCP open space areas
strongly influenced the landscape design concept for Sunbow II, Phase 3. A series of cross sections
depict unique certain conditions across the project site and the landscape concept for each. (Refer
to Exhibit 24: Site Conditions Key Map).
Exhibit 24: Site Conditions Key Map
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 943 of 1271
SUNBOW II SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
March 2021 Page 110
Community Entry:
Two entries into the community are planned along Streets “A” and “B.” New Zealand Christmas
(Metrosideros Excelsa), Leslie Roy Mesquite (Prosopis g. 'Leslie Roy'), Pink Trumpet Tree
(Handroanthus Impetiginosus) and other flowering trees line these streets to provide shade and
create a colorful, vibrant gateway into the community. Refer to Exhibit 25: Conceptual Landscape
Design – Streets “A” & “B.”
Exhibit 25: Conceptual Landscape Design – Streets “A” & “B”
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 944 of 1271
SUNBOW II SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
March 2021 Page 111
STREET TREES
Pink Trumpet Tree New Zealand Christmas Tree Leslie Roy Mesquite
Handroanthus Impetiginosus Metrosideros Excelsa Prosopis g. ‘Leslie Roy’
North Perimeter Slope:
Large landscaped 2:1 slopes at the perimeter of Sunbow II, Phase 3 (R-1) are designed to soften
the aesthetics of manufactured slopes with a diverse plant palette and planting program. Homes
will be setback from the slope and view fencing is planned at the top of slope to provide open
views across the natural open space. A 3-foot wide flat bench is provided at the top of slope for
maintenance access. Landscaping within the Fuel Modification Zone and adjacent grading buffer
must be consistent with the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Fire Protection Plan and Chula Vista MSCP
Subarea Plan. (Refer to Exhibit 26: Perimeter Slope @ R-1.
Exhibit 26: Perimeter Edge Condition @ R-1 (Cross Section J-J)
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 945 of 1271
SUNBOW II SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
March 2021 Page 112
Interior Edge Condition:
The homes along the western edge of R-2 will include private courtyards with open views across
Street “B” to the MSCP Preserve area. Interior slopes will be landscaped with low shrubs and
trees to screen views into the site. Refer to Exhibit 27: Internal Condition at R-2/Street “B.”
Exhibit 27: Internal Condition @ R-2 / Street “B” (Cross Section I-I)
Internal Condition:
Exhibit 28: Internal Condition @ R-1 & R-6 depicts the relationship between multi-family homes
within neighborhoods R-1 and R-4. Trees lined walkways and grade changes provide additional
buffers between neighborhoods.
Exhibit 28: Internal Condition @ R-1 & R-4 (Cross Section H-H)
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 946 of 1271
SUNBOW II SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
March 2021 Page 113
South Perimeter Condition with Off-Site Fuel Modification Zone:
The perimeter edge condition south of neighborhood R-1 is planned to include a 6-foot high
retaining wall and upward slope area to an off-site fuel modification zone. Slope landscaping shall
be consistent with the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Fire Protection Plan. (Refer to Exhibit 29: South
Perimeter Condition @ R-6).
Exhibit 29: South Perimeter Condition @ R-6 (Cross Section E-E)
17.0 AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN
The City of Chula Vista Balanced Communities Policy applies to residential projects of 50 or more
units. The Applicant will be required to enter into a Balanced Communities Affordable Housing
Agreement. See Development Agreement for additional details.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 947 of 1271
SUNBOW II SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
March 2021 Page 114
INTENTIONALLY BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 948 of 1271
APPENDIX A
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
PLANT PALETTE
MARCH 2021
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 949 of 1271
INTENTIONALLY BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 950 of 1271
SHADE TREES
AGONIS FLEXUOSA / PEPPERMINT TREE
CERCIDIUM X `DESERT MUSEUM` / THORNLESS PALO VERDE
JACARANDA MIMOSIFOLIA / JACARANDA
METROSIDEROS EXCELSA / NEW ZEALAND CHRISTMAS TREE
PROSOPIS G.‘LESLIE ROY’ / LESLIE ROY MESQUITE
ACCENT TREES
CERCIS CANADENSIS `FOREST PANSY` / FOREST PANSY REDBUD
CHILOPSIS LINEARIS / DESERT WILLOW
HANDROANTHUS IMPETIGINOSUS / PINK TRUMPET TREE
RHUS LANCEA / AFRICAN SUMAC
PALM TREES
PHOENIX DACTYLIFERA / DATE PALM
BIO-BASIN TREES
ALNUS RHOMBIFOLIA / WHITE ALDER
SALIX LASIOLEPIS / ARROYO WILLOW
STREET TREES
HANDROANTHUS IMPETIGINOSUS / PINK TRUMPET TREE
METROSIDEROS EXCELSA / NEW ZEALAND CHRISTMAS TREE
PROSOPIS G. ‘LESLIE ROY’ / LESLIE ROY MESQUITE
SHRUB/ GROUNDCOVER PLANTING
AGAVE SHAWII / COASTAL AGAVE
AGAVE X `BLUE FLAME` / BLUE FLAME AGAVE
AGAVE X `BLUE GLOW` / BLUE GLOW AGAVE
ALOE VERA / MEDICINAL ALOE
ALOE X `BLUE ELF` / ALOE
ASPARAGUS MEYERI / FOXTAIL FERN
BACCHARIS PILULARIS `TWIN PEAKS` / TWIN PEAKS COYOTE BRUSH2
CALLIANDRA CALIFORNICA / RED BAJA FAIRY DUSTER
CISTUS X PURPUREUS / ORCHID ROCKROSE
DIANELLA TASMANICA / FLAX LILY
ERIGERON KARVINSKIANUM / SANTA BARBARA DAISY
FESTUCA CALIFORNICA / CALIFORNIA FESCUE
FICUS PUMILA / CREEPING FIG
GALVEZIA JUNCEA / BAJA SNAPDRAGON
GALVEZIA SPECIOSA `FIRECRACKER` / BUSH SNAPDRAGON
GREVILLEA X `NED KELLY` / NED KELLY GREVILLEA
IVA HAYESIANA / SAN DIEGO POVERTY WEED
LEUCADENDRON X `SAFARI SUNSET` / CONEBUSH
LEUCOPHYLLUM FRUTESCENS `GREEN CLOUD` TM / GREEN CLOUD TEXAS RANGER
LEYMUS CONDENSATUS `CANYON PRINCE` / NATIVE BLUE RYE
MISCANTHUS SINENSIS `ADAGIO` / ADAGIO MAIDEN GRASS2
MUHLENBERGIA CAPILLARIS / PINK MUHLY GRASS2
PHILODENDRON X `XANADU` / CUT-LEAF PHILODENDRON
PITTOSPORUM SPP. / PITTOSPORUM SPECIES (except PITTOSPORUM UNDULATUM / VICTORIA
BOX
PITTOSPORUM TENUIFOLIUM / TAWHIWHI
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 951 of 1271
RHAMNUS CALIFORNICA `EVE CASE` / CALIFORNIA COFFEEBERRY
ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS `PROSTRATUS` / CREEPING ROSEMARY
SALVIA SONOMENSIS / CREEPING SAGE
SALVIA LEUCOPHYLLA ‘POINT SAL SPREADER’ / POINT SAL PURPLE SAGE
SENECIO MANDRALISCAE `BLUE CHALK STICKS` / SENECIO
SESLERIA AUTUMNALIS / AUTUMN MOOR GRASS
WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA `BLUE GEM` / COAST ROSEMARY
BASIN SHRUB / GROUNDCOVER PLANTING
CAREX PRAEGRACILIS / CALIFORNIA FIELD SEDGE
IVA HAYESIANA / SAN DIEGO POVERTY WEED
JUNCUS MEXICANUS / MEXICAN RUSH
LEYMUS CONDENSATUS / GIANT WILD RYE
LEYMUS TRITICOIDES / CREEPING WILD RYE
TURF (SOD)
DROUGHT TOLERANT HYBRID BERMUDA
ENHANCED SHRUB / GROUNDCOVER PLANTING
AGAVE X `BLUE FLAME` / BLUE FLAME AGAVE
AGAVE X `BLUE GLOW` / BLUE GLOW AGAVE
ALOE VERA / MEDICINAL ALOE
CAREX SPP. / SEDGE
CISTUS X PURPUREUS / ORCHID ROCKROSE
DIANELLA TASMANICA / FLAX LILY
ERIGERON KARVINSKIANUM / SANTA BARBARA DAISY
FESTUCA CALIFORNICA / CALIFORNIA FESCUE
GALVEZIA SPECIOSA `FIRECRACKER` / BUSH SNAPDRAGON
GREVILLEA X `NED KELLY` / NED KELLY GREVILLEA
LEUCADENDRON X `SAFARI SUNSET` / CONEBUSH
LEYMUS CONDENSATUS `CANYON PRINCE` / NATIVE BLUE RYE
MISCANTHUS SINENSIS `ADAGIO` / ADAGIO MAIDEN GRASS2
MUHLENBERGIA CAPILLARIS / PINK MUHLY GRASS2
PHORMIUM SPP.
PITTOSPORUM TENUIFOLIUM / TAWHIWHI
RHAMNUS CALIFORNICA `EVE CASE` / CALIFORNIA COFFEEBERRY
ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS `PROSTRATUS’ / CREEPING ROSEMARY
SALVIA SONOMENSIS / CREEPING SAGE
SENECIO MANDRALISCAE `BLUE CHALK STICKS` / SENECIO
SESLERIA AUTUMNALIS / AUTUMN MOOR GRASS
WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA `BLUE GEM` / COAST ROSEMARY
STREETSCAPE SHRUBS/ GROUNDCOVER
AGAVE SHAWII / COASTAL AGAVE
AGAVE X `BLUE FLAME` / BLUE FLAME AGAVE
BACCHARIS PILULARIS `TWIN PEAKS` / TWIN PEAKS COYOTE BRUSH3
CISTUS X PURPUREUS / ORCHID ROCKROSE
DIANELLA TASMANICA / FLAX LILY
GALVEZIA SPECIOSA `FIRECRACKER` / BUSH SNAPDRAGON
IVA HAYESIANA / SAN DIEGO POVERTY WEED
LEYMUS CONDENSATUS `CANYON PRINCE` / NATIVE BLUE RYE
MUHLENBERGIA CAPILLARIS / PINK MUHLY GRASS2
PHORMIUM SPP.
RHAMNUS CALIFORNICA `EVE CASE` / CALIFORNIA COFFEEBERRY
ROSMARINUS OFFICINALS ‘PROSTRATUS’ / CREEPING ROSEMARY
SALVIA SONOMENSIS / CREEPING SAGE
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 952 of 1271
WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA `BLUE GEM` / COAST ROSEMARY
SLOPE PLANTING AND FUEL MODIFICATION ZONE TREES3
RHUS LANCEA / AFRICAN SUMAC2
HETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA / TOYON2
SLOPE SHRUB / GROUNDCOVER PLANTING IN FUEL MODIFICATION ZONES
ACANTHOMINTHA ILICIFOLIA/SAN DIEGO THORNMINT 1
AMBROSIA CHENOPODIFOLIA/ SAN DIEGO BURSAGE2
ASTER CHILENSIS ‘POINT SAINT GEORGE’ / CALIFORNIA ASTER 1
BACCHARIS PILULARIS `TWIN PEAKS` / TWIN PEAKS COYOTE BRUSH1
BAHIOPSIS LACINIATA/SAN DIEGO SUNFLOWER2
ACALYPHA CALIFORNICA / CALIFORNIA COPPERLEAF2
BERGEROCACTUS EMORYI/VELVET CACTUS1
CISTUS SALVIFOLIUS ‘PROSTRATUS’ / SAGELEAF ROCKROSE1
CORETHROGYNE FILAGINIFOLIA / SILVER CARPET1
CYLINDROPUNTIA PROLIFERA / COAST CHOLLA
DEINANDRA CONJUGENS/OTAY TARPLANT1
DUDLEYA PULVERULENTA / CHALK LETTUCE1
DUDLEYA LANCEOLATA/LANCE-LEAF DUDLEYA1
ENCELIA CALIFORNICA / CALIFORNIA ENCELIA2
EPILOBIUM CANUM VAR. LATIFOLIUM ‘EVERETTS’ CHOICE1
EUPHORBIA MISERA / CLIFF SPURGE1
ISOMERIS ARBOREA / BLADDERPOD2
IVA HAYESIANA / SAN DIEGO POVERTY WEED2
LUPINUS SUCCULENTUS / ARROYO LUPINE2
LYCIUM CALIFORNICUM / CALIFORNIA BOX THORN2
MALACOTHAMNUS FASCICULATUS / BUSH MALLOW2
MYOPORIUM PARVIFOLIUM / MYOPORIUM1
SALVIA LEUCOPHYLLA ‘POINT SAL SPREADER’ / POINT SAL PURPLE SAGE1
SALVIA SONOMENSIS / CREEPING SAGE 1
STIPA DIEGOENSIS/SAN DIEGO NEEDLEGRASS1
STIPA LEPIDA/FOOTHILL NEDDLEGRASS1
STIPA PULCHRA / PURPLE NEEDLE GRASS1
OPUNTIA LITTORALIS / SHORE CACTUS1
OPUNTIA ORICOLA / CHAPARRAL PRICKLYPEAR1
RHAMNUS CROCEA / REDBERRY2
RHUS INTEGRIFOLIA / LEMONADE BERRY 2
RIBES SPECIOSUM / FUCHSIA FLOWERING GOOSEBERRY2
SIMMONDSIA CHINENSIS / JOJOBA2
WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA ‘MUNDI / MUNDI COAST ROSEMARY1
SHRUB/ GROUNDCOVER PLANTING (NON-SLOPE) IN FUEL MODIFICATION ZONES SHRUBS3
AGAVE SHAWII / COASTAL AGAVE1
AGAVE X `BLUE FLAME` / BLUE FLAME AGAVE1
AGAVE X `BLUE GLOW` / BLUE GLOW AGAVE1
ALOE VERA / MEDICINAL ALOE1
ALOE X `BLUE ELF` / ALOE1
ALOE 'CYNTHIA GIDDY'/CYNTHIA GIDDY ALOE1
ASTER CHILENSIS 'POINT SAINT GEORGE'/ CALIFORNIA ASTER1
BACCHARIS PILULARIS `TWIN PEAKS` / TWIN PEAKS COYOTE BRUSH1
CISTUS SALVIIFOLIUS 'PROSTRATUS' - SAGELEAF ROCKROSE1
CORETHROGYNE FILAGINIFOLIA / SILVER CARPET1
DIANELLA TASMANICA / FLAX LILY1
DIANELLA REVOLUTA ‘BABY BLISS’/ BABY BLISS FLAX LILY1
EPILOBIUM CANUM VAR. LATIFOLIUM 'EVERETT'S CHOICE'1
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 953 of 1271
ERIGERON GLAUCUS/SEASIDE DAISY1
ERIGERON KARVINSKIANUM / SANTA BARBARA DAISY1
FESTUCA CALIFORNICA / CALIFORNIA FESCUE1
FURCRAEA FOETIDA 'MEDIOPICTA'1
HELIANTHEMUM 'BELGRAVIA ROSE' / BELGRAVIA ROSE1
LEYMUS TRITICOIDES ‘LAGUNITA' / LAGUNITA WILD RYE1
MYOPORUM PARVIFOLIUM / MYOPORUM1
OTHONNA CAPENSIS - LITTLE PICKLES1
ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS ‘PROSTRATUS’ / CREEPING ROSEMARY1
SALVIA SONOMENSIS / CREEPING SAGE1
SENECIO MANDRALISCAE `BLUE CHALK STICKS` / SENECIO1
SESLERIA AUTUMNALIS / AUTUMN MOOR GRASS1
WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA `MUNDI` / MUNDI COAST ROSEMARY1
BIOLOGICAL RESTORATION AREAS SHRUBS / GROUNDCOVER
ACMISPON GLABER VAR. GLABER / COASTAL DEERWEED
ARTEMISIA CALIFORNICA/CALIFORNIA SAGEBRUSH
BAHIOPSIS LACINIATA/SAN DIEGO SUNFLOWER
BLOOMERIA CROCEA / COMMON GOLDER STAR
BERGEROCACTUS EMORYI/VELVET CACTUS
CORETHROGYNE FILAGINIFOLIA / SAND ASTER
CONVOLVULUS SIMULANS / SMALL-FLOWERED BINDWEED
CYLINDROPUNTIA PROLIFERA / COAST CHOLLA
DICHELOSTEMMA CAPITATUM SSP. CAPITATUM / BLUE DICKS
DEINANDRA CONJUGENS/OTAY TARPLANT
ERIOGONUM FASCICULATUM VAR. FASCICULATUM/FLAT-TOP BUCKWHEAT
ERIOPHYLLUM CONFERTIFLORUM / GOLDDEN YARROW
ESCHSCHOLZIA CALIFORNICA / CALIFORNIA POPPY
EUPHORBIA MISERA / CLIFF SPURGE
GRINDELIA CAMPORUM / RAYLESS GUMPLANT
ISOCOMA MENZIESII VAR. DECUMBENS / DECUMBENT GOLDENBUSH
ISOMERIS ARBOREA / BLADDERPOD
LASTHENIA CORONARIA / ROYAL GOLDFIELDS
LUPINUS BICOLOR / MINIATURE LUPINE
LYCIUM CALIFORNICUM / CALIFORNIA BOX THORN
MELICA IMPERFECTA / COAST RANGE MELIC
SISYRINCHIUM BELLUM / BLUE-EYED GRASS
STIPA DIEGOENSIS/SAN DIEGO NEEDLEGRASS
STIPA LEPIDA/FOOTHILL NEDDLEGRASS
STIPA PULCHRA / PURPLE NEEDLE GRASS
OPUNTIA LITTORALIS / SHORE CACTUS
RHUS INTEGRIFOLIA / LEMONADE BERRY
SIMMONDSIA CHINENSIS / JOJOBA
YUCCA SCHIDIGERA / MOHAVE YUCCA
GENERAL NOTES
TREE SIZES: 15-GALLON (15%), 24” BOX (60%), 36” BOX (20%), 48” BOX (5%)
SHRUB AND GROUNDCOVER SIZES: 5-GALLON (30%), 1-GALLON (70%)
RESTORATION SHRUB AND GROUNDCOVER SIZES: 1-GALLON (100%), OVERSEED ALL AREAS WITH
SEED BLEND OF SAME SPECIES
FOOTNOTES:
1. LOW GROWING VARIETY OF SPECIES ABLE TO BE PLANTED IN FUEL MODIFICATION ZONE 1
AND 2.
2. LOW GROWING VARIETY OF SPECIES ABLE TO BE PLANTED IN FUEL MODIFICATION ZONE 2.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 954 of 1271
3. SEE PROJECT FIRE PROTECTION PLAN FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. PLANTING MUST BE
IMPLEMENTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHULA VISTA FIRE DEPARTMENT’S FUEL
MODIFICATION GUIDELINES SUMMARIZED WITHIN THE FIRE PROTECTION PLAN.
4. SEE PROJECT BIOLOGICAL RESTORATION PLAN FOR ON-SITE PLANTING SPECIFICATIONS
(TIMING, SPECIES, AND SIZE) WITHIN RESTORATION AREA.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 955 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA AMENDMENT
Supplemental Public Facilities Financing Plan
Appendix B
March 2021
Prepared for:
ACI Sunbow, LLC
Contact: Bill Hamlin
2356 Moore Street
San Diego, CA 92110
619-544-9100
Sunbow II Public Facilities Financing Plan
Adopted January 24, 1990
By Resolution No. 15525
Addendum Adopted __________
By Resolution No. ______________
Prepared By:
RH Consulting Group, LLC
Contact: Ranie Hunter
Ranie@RHConsultingGroup.com
619-823-1494
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 956 of 1271
PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 957 of 1271
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Overview ............................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Purpose ................................................................................................................ 3
1.3 Assumptions ........................................................................................................ 3
1.4 Proposed Land Use Plan ..................................................................................... 3
1.5 Discretionary Actions ......................................................................................... 4
1.6 Development Phasing ......................................................................................... 5
1.7 Development Impact Fee Programs .................................................................... 6
1.8 Subdivision Security ........................................................................................... 6
2. Public Facilities ............................................................................................................... 6
2.1 Transportation/Traffic ......................................................................................... 6
2.2 Water ................................................................................................................... 9
2.3 Sewer................................................................................................................. 11
2.4 Drainage ............................................................................................................ 12
2.4 Park & Recreation ............................................................................................. 14
2.5 Libraries ............................................................................................................ 15
2.6 Fire Protection ................................................................................................... 15
2.7 Police................................................................................................................. 16
2.8 Civic Center ...................................................................................................... 16
2.9 Corporation Yard .............................................................................................. 17
2.10 Other Public Facilities....................................................................................... 17
2.11 Schools .............................................................................................................. 17
2.12 Fiscal Analysis .................................................................................................. 18
2.13. Public Facility Finance ..................................................................................... 18
Attachment A: Sunbow II, Phase 3 Fiscal Impact Analysis
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 958 of 1271
EXHIBIT LIST
1 Sunbow II, Phase 3 Site Utilization Plan 4
2 Conceptual Circulation Plan 9
3 Conceptual Water & Recycled Water Plan 10
4 Conceptual Sewer Plan 12
5 Conceptual Drainage Plan 13
TABLE LIST
1 Comparison of Land Uses – 1990 Sunbow II SPA Plan to 2020
Proposed Project
2
2 Sunbow II, Phase 3 Utilization Table 5
3 Conceptual Phasing 6
4 Projected Potable Water Demand 10
5 Projected Recycled Water Demand 10
6 Sewer Flow Comparison – 2009 to Proposed Project 11
7 Summary of Peak 50-Year Flows 13
8 Estimated Required Park Land Dedication 14
9 Student Generation Factors 17
10 Estimated Student Generation by School District 17
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 959 of 1271
Sunbow II, Phase 3
Supplemental Public Facilities Finance Plan
Page 1 March 2021
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Overview
The City of Chula Vista authorized development of the Sunbow Planned Community when it
approved the following:
• Sunbow II General Development Plan (GDP) approved by Resolution No. 15427 on
December 5, 1989;
• Sunbow II Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP) approved by Resolution No. 15525 on
January 24, 1990;
• Sunbow II Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan approved by Resolution No. 15524 on
February 20, 1990;
• Sunbow II Planned Community District Regulations and Land Use District Map approved
by Ordinance No. 2361 on February 27, 1990;
• Sunbow II Design Guidelines approved by Resolution No. 15640 on May 22, 1990;
• Sunbow II Tentative Subdivision Map (TSM 90-07) approved by Resolution No. 115640
on May 22, 1990; and
• Sunbow II Affordable Housing Agreement approved by Resolution No. 18662 on May 13,
1997.
The Chula Vista City Council also certified the Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan and
Tentative Map Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 88121423)
(City of Chula Vista 1989), which contains a comprehensive disclosure and analysis of potential
environmental effects associated with implementation of the Sunbow Planned Community.
On February 26, 2020, ACI Sunbow, LLC (Applicant) filed an application with the City of Chula
Vista for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 comprised of approximately 135.7 acres (Project Area). The
application included the discretionary actions necessary to implement a proposal to: 1) rezone the
Sunbow II, Phase 3 Industrial Park to residential, Community Purpose Facility and other related
land uses and 2) a minor MSCP Boundary adjustment between the development area and the
adjacent Chula Vista MSCP Preserve area north and west of Planning Area 23, resulting in an
increase of 0.7 acres of Preserve Open Space within the Project Area. Table 1: Comparison of
Land Uses - 1990 SPA to Proposed Project provides a comparison of land use between the 1990
Sunbow II SPA Plan and the Proposed Project.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 960 of 1271
Sunbow II, Phase 3
Supplemental Public Facilities Finance Plan
Page 2 March 2021
Table 1 – Comparison of Land Uses – 1990 Sunbow II SPA Plan to Proposed Project
Approved Land Uses Proposed Project Land
Uses
Approved vs. Proposed
Land Uses
Land Use Acres Units Acres1 Units Acres1 Units
Limited Industrial 46.0 -46.0
Medium High Residential
36.6 534 +36.6 +534
High Residential 7.6 184 +7.6 +184
Community Purpose Facility 0.9 +0.9
Preserve Open Space 62.1
63.6 0 +1.52 0
Open Space/Other 27.6 21.1 -6.5
Circulation 5.9 +5.9
TOTAL 135.7
135.7 718 +0.0 +718
1 Acreage reflects rounding of numbers to nearest 1/10th acre and may vary slightly from calculated total.
2 Proposed Preserve Open Space includes 1.31 acres of mapping correction area.
The 1990 PFFP was prepared consistent with the requirements of the Chula Vista Growth
Management Program and Chapter 9, Growth Management of the Sunbow General Development
Plan (GDP). The preparation of the 2021 PFFP is required in conjunction with the preparation of
the SPA Plan Amendment for the Proposed Project to ensure that the phased development of the
Proposed Project is consistent with the overall goals and policies of the Chula Vista General Plan
(CVGP), Growth Management Program and the Sunbow GDP, which may be amended from time
to time to ensure that the development of the Proposed Project will not adversely impact the City’s
Growth Management Ordinance Threshold Standards.
This 2021 PFFP is based on the phasing and information presented in the Sunbow II, Phase 3 SPA
Amendments, dated January 2021. The Applicant prepared technical analyses to determine
whether the proposed amendments resulted in any changes to financing, constructing, or
maintaining public facilities within the Project Area. The Applicant-prepared technical analyses
for the Proposed Project which are relevant to the 2021 PFFP include the following:
• Priority Development Project (PDP) Storm Water Quality Management Plan for the
Sunbow II, Phase 3 Tentative Map (Hunsaker 2021)
• Drainage Study for Sunbow II, Phase 3 (Hunsaker 2021)
• Transportation Impact Analysis for Sunbow II, Phase 3 (Linscott, Law & Greenspan
2021)
• Overview of Water Service for Sunbow II, Phase 3 (Dexter Wilson Engineering 2020)
• Sewer System Evaluation for Sunbow II, Phase 3 (Dexter Wilson Engineering 2020)
• Sunbow II, Phase 3 SPA Amendment Water Conservation Plan (Dexter Wilson
Engineering 2020)
• Sunbow II, Phase 3 Fiscal Impact Analysis (DPFG 2021)
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 961 of 1271
Sunbow II, Phase 3
Supplemental Public Facilities Finance Plan
Page 3 March 2021
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of all PFFPs in the City of Chula Vista is to implement the City’s Growth
Management Program and to meet the CVGP goals and objectives, specifically those within the
Growth Management Element of the General Plan. The Growth Management Program ensures
that development occurs only when the necessary public facilities and services exist or are
provided concurrent with the demands of new development. The Growth Management Program
requires a PFFP be prepared for every new development project which requires either a SPA Plan
or tentative map approval. Similarly, amendments to a SPA Plan require an amendment or
supplement to the PFFP. The purpose of this Supplemental PFFP is to update and clarify the
adopted 1990 PFFP to address changes to the Proposed Project.
In the City of Chula Vista, the PFFP is intended to ensure adequate levels of service are achieved
for all public services and facilities impacted by a project. It is understood that assumed growth
projections and related public facilities needs are subject to several external factors, such as the
local economy, the City’s future land use approval decisions, etc. It is also understood that funding
sources specified herein may change due to financing programs available in the future or
requirements of either state or federal laws. It is intended that revisions to cost estimates and
funding programs be handled as administrative revisions whereas revisions to the facilities-driven
growth phases are accomplished through an update process via an amendment or supplement to
the PFFP.
1.3 Assumptions
This 2021 PFFP supplements the Sunbow PFFP adopted in 1990. The Proposed Project includes
amendments to the Chula Vista General Plan, Sunbow GDP and Sunbow II SPA Plan and also
includes Sunbow II, Phase 3 Tentative Map CVT No. 20-0002.
1.4 Proposed Land Use Plan
The Project Area encompasses approximately 135.7 acres and includes a 67.5-acre development
area comprised of 44.2 acres of residential, a 0.9-acre Community Purpose Facility (CPF) site, 5.9
acres of public streets, and 16.5 manufactured open space slopes and basins and a 0.3-acre wetland
preservation and associated buffer area. Approximately 4.3 acres of Poggi Canyon Conservation
Easement areas and 63.6 acres of adjacent MSCP Preserve area are also within the Project Area.
The Sunbow II, Phase 3 project will create a residential enclave within the larger Sunbow Planned
Community and help meet the market demand for attainable workforce and move-up housing. The
Proposed Project generates a population of approximately 2,3341 persons. See Exhibit 1: Sunbow
II, Phase 3 Site Utilization Plan and Table 2: Sunbow II, Phase Site Utilization Table.
1 Source: California Department of Finance (January 1, 2020).
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 962 of 1271
Sunbow II, Phase 3
Supplemental Public Facilities Finance Plan
Page 4 March 2021
In order to address the changes related to the proposed land use plan, several assumptions were
made. These assumptions play a role in determining public facility needs and phasing of those
facilities and are summarized below.
This proposal includes amendments to the following CVGP diagrams and tables:
• General Plan Land Use Diagram (Figure 5-12, Page LUT-47) –
o Modify the General Plan land use designations from Limited Industrial to High
Residential, Medium High Residential, Open Space and Open Space Preserve
• General Plan Land Use Distribution in 2030 (Acreages), (Table 5-6, Page LUT-56)
o Modify the land use acreages of Medium-High Residential, High Residential, Open
Space Preserve and Open Space to reflect the Project
• General Plan Land Use in 2030 (Table 5-7, Page LUT-57)
o Modify the residential dwelling units within the Medium-High and High residential
land uses and acreage by land use designations to reflect the Project
1.5 Discretionary Actions
Discretionary actions which require City Council and/or Planning Commission consideration
and/or approval include certification of an Environmental Impact Report, amendments to the City
of Chula Vista General Plan, the Sunbow General Development Plan and the Sunbow II SPA Plan,
a Rezone, a Development Agreement and approval of Sunbow II, Phase 3 Tentative Map CVT No.
20-0002.
Exhibit 1: Sunbow II, Phase 3 Site Utilization Plan
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 963 of 1271
Sunbow II, Phase 3
Supplemental Public Facilities Finance Plan
Page 5 March 2021
Table 2: Sunbow II, Phase 3 Site Utilization Table
Sunbow II, Phase 3 Land Use
District Acres2 Units Density
Multi-Family Residential
R-1 RM 8.5 131 15.4
R-2 RM 4.6 73 16.0
R-3 RM 8.1 108 13.3
R-4 RM 8.2 118 14.4
R-5 RM 7.1 104 14.7
R-6 RC 7.6 184 24.1
Subtotal Residential 44.2 718 16.3
Other
Community Purpose Facility CPF 0.9
MSCP Preserve Open Space
(OS-1, 2, 3 and 9b) OSP 63.6
Poggi Creek Easement
(OS-4, 5, 6a and 6b) OS 4.3
Manufactured Slopes/Basins
(OS-7, 8, 9a, 10 and 13) OS 16.5
Wetland Avoidance Area (OS-14) OS 0.3
Public Streets Circulation 5.9
Subtotal Other 91.5
TOTAL 135.7 718 16.3
1.6 Development Phasing
Development of the Proposed Project is anticipated to build-out over a six to seven-year period,
depending on market conditions. Phasing will be managed to ensure construction of necessary
infrastructure and amenities are provided as development progresses. Table 3, Conceptual Phasing
Plan, presents the anticipated phasing plan based on the 2021 SPA Plan. Individual parcels may
be graded as part of a larger development phase and developed over several years.
2 Acreages rounded to nearest 1/10th acre and may vary slightly from the calculated total.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 964 of 1271
Sunbow II, Phase 3
Supplemental Public Facilities Finance Plan
Page 6 March 2021
Table 3: Conceptual Phasing
ESTIMATED DEVELOPMENT YEARS
Land Use/Parcel 1 2 3 4 5 6 TOTAL
Multi-Family (R-6) 38 48 48 48 2 0 184
Multi-Family (R-1 /R-5) 30 48 48 48 48 13 235
Multi-Family (R-4 /R-4) 21 36 36 36 36 26 191
Multi-Family (R-3) 21 36 36 15 0 0 108
TOTAL 110 168 168 147 86 39 718
1.7 Development Impact Fee Programs
Per Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 3.42.010, the Chula Vista City Council must adopt a fee
schedule. The Proposed Project must comply with the City of Chula Development Master Fee
Schedule, Chapter 16. Development & In-Lieu Fees, revised November 2019. Fees are subject to
change as the ordinance is amended by the City Council from time to time, unless stated otherwise
in a separate development agreement.
1.8 Subdivision Security
The Proposed Project will be developed in phases over several years. As public improvements are
complete, security provided for the Proposed Project in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act
and the Municipal Code should be reduced to reflect the completed improvements. Accordingly,
the process described herein will apply to bonds for Grading and Drainage, Public Improvements
and Landscape and Irrigation, but will not apply to Survey Monumentation bonds. Applicant may
submit to the City not more often than once every six months a detailed engineer’s estimate
identifying with respect to each bond the costs to complete the remaining improvements secured
by such bond (“Cost to Complete”). The City will review and approve or disapprove the Costs to
Complete, and if disapproved Applicant may resubmit a modified estimate of Cost to Complete
for City review. Upon approval of the Costs to Complete by the City, the amount of the applicable
bond may be reduced to an amount equal to 110% of the Costs to Complete. If approved by the
City, the reduced amount will be communicated to the bonding company in a letter. Based on the
City’s communication, the bonding company may issue a bond reduction rider to reduce the
principal amount of the bond to the reduced amount approved by the City. However, the bond
amount may never be reduced by this process to less than 15% of the original estimate of the costs
of the applicable improvements.
2. PUBLIC FACILITIES
2.1 Transportation/Traffic
Linscott, Law and Greenspan, LLC prepared the Transportation Impact Assessment (March 2021)
for the Proposed Project. The Conceptual Circulation Plan is provided as Exhibit 2. In compliance
with Senate Bill 743 (SB 743), this Transportation Impact Analysis evaluates the Proposed
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 965 of 1271
Sunbow II, Phase 3
Supplemental Public Facilities Finance Plan
Page 7 March 2021
Project’s potential vehicular impacts using a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) metric, pursuant to
direction from the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) in December 2018
(Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA). Public Resources Code
section 20199, enacted pursuant to SB 743, identifies VMT as an appropriate metric for measuring
transportation impacts along with the elimination of auto delay/level of service (LOS) for
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) purposes statewide.
In addition to the VMT analysis, a project-specific Local Mobility Assessment (LMA) was also
prepared that focuses on automobile delay/LOS. The LOS analysis was conducted to identify
roadway deficiencies in the Project study area and recommend project improvements to address
such deficiency; however, the CEQA significance determination for the proposed Project is based
only on VMT and not on LOS.
City identified capital improvement projects are summarized in the published Eastern
Transportation Development Impact Fee (“Eastern TDIF”) (September 2014). Additionally,
City capital improvement projects include traffic signal upgrades for intersections in the study area
published in the City of Chula Vista, Traffic Signal Communications Master Plan Study (July
2017). These two documents were referenced when identifying potential operational
improvements to address Project-related effects.
Substantial effects and operational improvements are described in the Transportation Impact
Analysis, Section 17.0. The TIA identified seven affected Olympic Parkway
Segments/Intersections:
• Olympic Parkway/Brandywine Avenue Intersection (Cumulative from Oleander to
Brandywine/Project Specific between Brandywine and western Project Driveway)
• Olympic Parkway Segment from Oleander Avenue to Project Driveway (West) (Street A)
(Cumulative)
• E. Orange Avenue/I-805 Southbound Intersection (Cumulative)
• Olympic Parkway/I-8-5 Northbound Ramps (Cumulative)
• Olympic Parkway/Heritage Road Intersection (Cumulative)
• Olympic Parkway/La Media Road Intersection (Cumulative)
• Olympic Parkway Segments I-805 Ramps to Oleander and Project Driveway (West) (Street
A) to La Media Road (Cumulative)
• The Proposed Project shall pay fair share funding towards the provision of Adaptive Traffic
Signal Control (ATSC) modules to each signalized intersection along the Olympic
Parkway corridor between the I-805 Ramps and La Media Road. (See TIA, Table 14-1,
Near-Term Operations for detailed intersection analysis)
The Project will implement the following project design features, as described in Section 4.4.8.4
of Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 2020-0002:
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 966 of 1271
Sunbow II, Phase 3
Supplemental Public Facilities Finance Plan
Page 8 March 2021
• Trip Reduction Strategies. The strategies outlined below would reduce the number of
automobile trips generated by residents of the project and the distance that the residents
drive:
o Provide ride share coordination services thru the project’s homeowner’s association
to match residents interested in carpooling
o Coordinate with nearby schools and/or the project’s homeowner’s association to
match residents interested in carpooling to/from schools
o Provide on-site transit opportunities information
o Encourage bicycling by providing on-site bicycle infrastructure such as bike racks
Growth Management Threshold Standard Compliance and Requirements
The growth management threshold standards for traffic are per CVMC Section 19.09.040.G.3:
• Arterial Level of Service for Nonurban Streets. Traffic monitoring program (TMP)
roadway segments classified as other than urban streets in the Land Use and
Transportation Element of the City’s General Plan shall maintain LOS “C” or better,
except that during peak hours LOS “D” can occur for no more than two hours per day.
• Level of Service for Urban Streets. TMP roadway segments classified as urban streets in
the Land Use and Transportation Element of the City’s General Plan shall maintain LOS
“D” or better, except that during peak hours, LOS “E” can occur for no more than two
hours per day.
The Applicant shall be required to pay the City’s Eastern TDIF which will be applied towards
other planned network enhancements included in the Eastern TDIF study that would reduce traffic
on Olympic Parkway. Payment of the Eastern TDIF is the only readily identifiable operational
improvement that is feasible at this time. Large-scale network enhancements such as the future
extension of La Media Road and the extension of Main Street, funded through the Eastern TDIF
Program, are expected to reduce the number of trips on Olympic Parkway.
Based on the screening map review and the Project-specific VMT analysis presented in the TIA,
Section 5, a significant transportation impact is calculated. The following strategies are
recommended to reduce the number of automobile trips generated by residents of the Proposed
Project and the distance that the residents drive, thereby mitigating the Proposed Project’s
significant transportation impact:
• Provide Ride Share coordination services through the Project’s Home Owner’s Association
to match residents interested in carpooling.
• Coordinate with near-by schools and / or the Project’s Home Owner’s Association to
• match residents interested in carpooling to / from schools.
• Offer transit pass subsidies and on-site transit information.
• Encourage bicycling by providing on-site bicycle infrastructure such as bike lanes and bike
racks.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 967 of 1271
Sunbow II, Phase 3
Supplemental Public Facilities Finance Plan
Page 9 March 2021
Exhibit 2
Conceptual Circulation Plan
2.2 Water
An Overview of Water Services was prepared by Dexter Wilson Engineering for the Sunbow II,
Phase 3 SPA Amendment and EIR which provides an overview of water service for the Proposed
Project.
The Project Area is within the boundaries of the Otay Water District (OWD) for water service.
The OWD has existing and planned facilities in the vicinity of the Proposed Project and water
service can be provided by expanding the existing system. In particular, water service will be
provided by the 624 Pressure Zone (624 Zone) within the Central Area System of the OWD. The
624 Zone receives potable water from the SDCWA aqueduct connectio ns that supply 624 Zone
reservoirs.
The Project would connect 12” public waterlines within Streets “A” and “B” to the existing 624
Zone water line within Olympic Parkway, at two existing stubs, to provide domestic service to the
Project. A looped private fire protection water network is planned within private streets and
driveways. Table 4 provides the projected potable water demands for the Proposed Project. The
total estimated average potable water use from OWD’s 624 Zone is 0.12 mgd. See Exhibit 3,
Conceptual Water & Recycled Water Plan for infrastructure sizing and locations.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 968 of 1271
Sunbow II, Phase 3
Supplemental Public Facilities Finance Plan
Page 10 March 2021
Table 4: Projected Potable Water Demand
Neighborhood Land Use Gross Acres Quantity Water Duty
Factor
Total Average
Demand (gpd)
R-1 MF Residential 8.5 131 170 gpd/unit 22,270
R-2 MF Residential 4.6 73 170 gpd/unit 12,410
R-3 MF Residential 8.1 108 170 gpd/unit 18,360
R-4 MF Residential 8.2 118 170 gpd/unit 20,060
R-5 MF Residential 7.1 104 170 gpd/unit 17,680
R-6 MF Residential 7.6 184 170 gpd/unit 31,280
Total 718 122,060
gpd = gallons per day; DU = dwelling units; ac = acre.
Recycled water will be utilized for irrigation of manufactured slopes and common areas. A 680
Zone recycled waterline is located in Olympic Parkway, adjacent to the Proposed Project. The
Proposed Project would be served by 6” private recycled lines located outside of the public right-
of-way of Streets “A” and “B” via a connection to the 680 Zone line. On-site irrigation systems
would be private. Table 5 provides the projected recycled water demands for the Proposed Project.
Table 5: Projected Recycled Water Demands
Land Use Quantity Irrigation
Factor
Total Average
Demand (gpd)
Irrigated Slopes 12.0 ac 1,900 gpd/ac 22,800
Common OS/CPF 0.9 1,900 gdp/ac 1,710
TOTAL 24,510
Exhibit 3
Conceptual Water & Recycled Water Plan
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 969 of 1271
Sunbow II, Phase 3
Supplemental Public Facilities Finance Plan
Page 11 March 2021
Growth Management Threshold Standard Compliance and Requirements
The Applicant shall be required to secure and construct all necessary potable and recycled water
infrastructure required to serve the Proposed Project, to the satisfaction of the Otay Water District.
2.3 Sewer
Dexter Wilson Engineering prepared the Sewer System Evaluation for Sunbow II, Phase 3 (2020).
The purpose of the evaluation is to determine the effect the conversion of Planning Area 23 from
industrial to residential uses would have on the local and regional sewer system. The 2009 Poggi
Canyon Basin Development Impact Fee Study prepared by PMC provided projected sewer flows
for the industrial land uses within Planning Area 23. Table 6 provides a comparison between 2009
projected sewer flows and the Proposed Project. As shown, a total decrease of approximately
4,642 gpd or 20 EDU is estimated for the proposed land uses.
Table 6: Sewer Flow Comparison 2009 to Proposed Project
Land Use Acres Residential Units Generation Factor Average Flow
(gdp)
2009 Poggi Canyon Basin DIF Sewer Flow
Industrial 54.61 2,500 gdp/ac 135,500
2020 Proposed Land Uses
MF Residential 718 182 gdp/du 130,676
Community Purpose 0.9 1,313 gpd/ac 1,182
Subtotal 131,858
+/- Sewer Flow -,4,642
+/- Sewer EDUs2 -20
1Acres from 2009 Poggi Basin DIF Study
2Based on 230 gdp/EDU
Since the 2009 Poggi Canyon DIF Study was prepared, the City has adopted updated sewer
generation factors to estimate flows from various land uses. The City currently adopted generation
rates for multi-family units at 182 gpd/du and CPF at 1,313 gpd/ac.
The proposed onsite sewer system consists of gravity sewer lines within Streets “A” and “B” that
will convey flow to the existing Poggi Canyon Interceptor in Olympic Parkway. Based on the
average flow presented in Table 6 and a peak factor of 2.33 per the City Subdivision Manual, the
projected peak flow for the Proposed Project is 0.31 mgd. An 8-inch gravity sewer line within
Street “A” with a minimum slope of 1.0 percent is adequate to convey total Project flow. Private
sewer lines will be connected to this 8-inch public sewer line and extended to the building sewer
laterals. See Exhibit 4: Conceptual Sewer Plan for the on-site sewer system layout.
Note: The internal private gravity sewer system layout is conceptual. Final layout to be determined during
preparation of private utility plans.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 970 of 1271
Sunbow II, Phase 3
Supplemental Public Facilities Finance Plan
Page 12 March 2021
Note: The internal private gravity sewer layout is conceptual. Final layout to be determined during preparation of
private utility plans.
Exhibit 4
Conceptual Sewer Plan
Growth Management Threshold Standard Compliance and Requirements
The growth management threshold standard for sewer is per CVMC Section 19.09.040.E.3:
1. Existing and project facility sewage flows, and volumes shall not exceed City engineering
standards for the current system and for budgeted improvements, as set forth in the
Subdivision Manual.
2. The City shall annually ensure adequate contracted capacity in the San Diego
Metropolitan Sewer Authority or other means sufficient to meet the projected needs of
development.
The Applicant shall be required to secure and construct all sewer improvements necessary to serve
the Proposed Project, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The Applicant shall also be required
to pay the Poggi Canyon Sewer Basin DIF.
2.4 Drainage
A Drainage Study and Storm Water Quality Management Plans (SWQMP) were prepared by
Hunsaker and Associates for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 FEIR. As described in these reports,
stormwater will be collected using low impact development (LID) techniques and best
management practices (BMP) near the source to ensure that runoff from the development area is
treated for pollutant removal prior to discharging into the natural watershed.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 971 of 1271
Sunbow II, Phase 3
Supplemental Public Facilities Finance Plan
Page 13 March 2021
The drainage system will collect stormwater through a series of swales, catch basins, inlets and
culverts that direct stormwater flows to two onsite basins for purposes of water quality and
hydromodification. Onsite storm drain facilities include a series of storm drain pipes within Streets
“A” and “B” and the private streets within the residential parcels. A by-pass system of pipes
carries natural or treated runoff in separate pipes to discharge into Poggi Creek. Pre- and Post-
Development flows are estimated in Table 7. See Exhibit 5, Conceptual Drainage Plan for the
drainage system layout.
Table 7: Summary of Peak 50-Year Flows
Reference: Drainage Study for Sunbow II, Phase 3 TM, Table 1
Note: Pipe sizes are 18” unless noted on Exhibit 5.
Exhibit 5
Conceptual Drainage Plan
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 972 of 1271
Sunbow II, Phase 3
Supplemental Public Facilities Finance Plan
Page 14 March 2021
Growth Management Threshold Standard Compliance and Requirements
The growth management threshold standards for drainage facilities are per CVMC Section
19.09.040.F.3:
a. Storm water flows and volumes shall not exceed City engineering standards and shall
comply with current local, state and federal regulations, as may be amended from time to
time.
b. The GMOC shall annually review the performance of the City’s storm drain system, with
respect to the impact of new development, to determine its ability to meet the goal and
objective for drainage.
The Proposed Project would continue to comply with all applicable rules and regulations including
compliance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit requirements for urban
runoff and stormwater discharge. BMPs for design, treatment, and monitoring for stormwater
quality would be implemented as delineated in the FEIR with respect to municipal and construction
permits.
2.4 Park & Recreation
The Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC) Chapter 17.10. Parklands and Public Facilities,
establishes the method by which actual park acreage is to be calculated, based on the number and
type of residential units determined at the Final Map level. The City’s 2016 Parkland Acquisition
and Development Fee (PAD Fee) Update determined that each multi -family unit generates the
need for 341 square feet of development parkland. The 718 multi-family units authorized within
Planning Area 23 generates a parkland obligation of 5.6 acres, as calculated in Table 8: Estimated
Required Park Land Dedication.
Table 8: Estimated Required Park Land Dedication
Unit Type Units Park/SF/Unit Total Park SF Total Park Acres
Multi-Family 718 341 244,838 5.6
The Community Benefit Agreement between the City and the Applicant includes a provision for
the waiver of the Project PAD fees and the payment of a Park Benefit Fee, equal to the PAD fees
that would otherwise have been due pursuant to Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC) Chapter
17.10. As of the writing of this report, the Park Benefit Fee is anticipated to total $11.06 million.
The final Park Benefit Fee amount will be determined based on the number of residential units
constructed and the PAD fee rates in effect as of the effective date of the Development Agreement.
Payment of the Park Benefit Fee will satisfy the Project’s park obligations. The Park Benefit Fees
may be utilized by the City to acquire and/or develop parkland, as the City determines appropriate
and in the best interest of the City.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 973 of 1271
Sunbow II, Phase 3
Supplemental Public Facilities Finance Plan
Page 15 March 2021
Growth Management Threshold Standard Compliance and Requirements
The growth management threshold standard for park facilities is per CVMC Section
19.09.040.D.3:
Three acres of neighborhood and community parkland with appropriate facilities per 1,000
residents east of I-805.
2.5 Libraries
Growth Management Threshold Standard Compliance and Requirements
The growth management threshold standard for library facilities is per CVMC Section
19.09.040.C.4:
The city shall not fall below the citywide ratio of 500 gross square feet (GSF) of library
space, adequately equipped and staffed, per 1,000 residents.
The Proposed Project would generate the need for 1,159 square feet of library facilities. Prior to
the issuance of each certificate of occupancy for any residential dwelling unit, the Applicant shall
pay the City’s Public Facilities DIF in accordance with the fees in effect at the time of payment.
2.6 Fire Protection
The Sunbow II, Phase 3 Fire Protection Plan (FPP), prepared by Dudek, analyzed the emergency
response capability of existing Chula Vista Fire Department resources in the vicinity of the
Proposed Project and the estimated calls and demand for services generated by the Proposed
Project.
Based on an estimated population of 2,334 persons and the average number of calls for service of
79/1,000 persons/year, the FPP estimates that the Proposed Project will generate approximately
0.50 calls per service per day. Based on the service analysis in the FPP, ex isting CVFD Station
No. 3 is the closest station to the Proposed Project and has the ability to respond to calls for service
within an estimated 2 minutes 41 second travel time. CVFD Station No. 7 is the next closest
station and is able to respond to calls for service within a 5 minute 35 second travel time. The
newly constructed CVFD Station No. 9 located at the southeastern corner of Naples Street and
Alpine Avenue would be able to respond in in approximately 6-minutes 50-seconds travel time to
the southeastern portion of the Project site. The FPP concludes existing fire stations can respond
to calls for service within the Proposed Project in compliance with City of Chula Vista Growth
Management Thresholds and that no new fire and emergency services resources are needed to
serve the Proposed Project.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 974 of 1271
Sunbow II, Phase 3
Supplemental Public Facilities Finance Plan
Page 16 March 2021
Growth Management Threshold Standard Compliance and Requirements
The growth management threshold standard for fire and emergency medical services is per CVMC
Section 19.09.040.B.4:
Emergency response: Property equipped and staffed fire and medical units shall respond
to calls throughout the City within seven minutes in at least 80 percent of the cases
(measured annually). (Note: For growth management purposes, response time includes
dispatch, turnout and travel time to the building or site address.)
Prior to the issuance of each certificate of occupancy for any residential dwelling unit, the
Applicant shall pay the City’s Public Facilities DIF in accordance with the fees in effect at the time
of payment.
2.7 Police
The Proposed Project generates demand for Police services as identified in the Sunbow II, Phase
3 FEIR.
Growth Management Threshold Standard Compliance and Requirements
The growth management threshold standards for police services are per CVMC Section
19.09.040.A.3:
Priority 1 – Emergency Response: Properly equipped and staffed police units shall respond
to 81 percent of Priority 1 emergency calls throughout the city within 7 minutes, 30 seconds
and shall maintain an average response time to all Priority 1 emergency calls of 6 minutes
or less (measured annually).
Priority 2 – Urgent Response: Property equipped and staffed police units shall respond to
all Priority 2 urgent calls throughout the city within 12 minutes.
(Note: For growth management purposes, response time includes dispatch and travel time
to the building or site address, otherwise referred to as “received to arrive.”)
Per the City’s Notice of Deferred DIF Program Policy, prior to the issuance of each certificate of
occupancy for any residential dwelling unit, the Applicant shall pay the City’s Public Facilities
DIF in accordance with the fees in effect at the time of payment.
2.8 Civic Center
There are no adopted threshold standards related to Civic Center facilities.
Per the City’s Notice of Deferred DIF Program Policy, prior to the issuance of each certificate of
occupancy for any residential dwelling unit, the Applicant shall pay the City’s Public Facilities
DIF in accordance with the fees in effect at the time of payment.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 975 of 1271
Sunbow II, Phase 3
Supplemental Public Facilities Finance Plan
Page 17 March 2021
2.9 Corporation Yard
There is no adopted threshold standard related to Corporation Yard facilities that are part of the
Public Facilities Development Impact Fee Program.
2.10 Other Public Facilities
Not applicable.
2.11 Schools
The Proposed Project is within the boundaries of the Chula Vista Elementary School District
(CVESD) (K-6 grades) and the Sweetwater Union High School District (SUHSD) (7-12) Student
generation estimated for the Proposed Project is based on the most recent student generation
factors for each school district serving the Proposed Project as provided in Table 9: Student
Generation Factors and Table 10: Student Generation by District. Based on current student
generation rates, the Proposed Project will generate approximately 246 elementary school students,
51 middle school students and 108 high school students.
Table 9: Student Generation Factors
School Type Students by MF Unit
Elementary (K-6) 0.3434
Middle School (7-8) 0.0712
High School (9-12) 0.1504
Table 10: Estimated Student Generation by District
Students Generated
CVESD SUHSD
Land Use Units Elementary Middle School High School
Multi-Family 718 246 51 108
Since the Proposed Project does not generate the need to construct new school facilities, the
students generated from the Proposed Project will be served by existing schools within the Chula
Vista Elementary School District and Sweetwater Union School District.
Growth Management Threshold Standard Compliance and Requirements
Per CVMC Section 19.09.050.B.4, the City of Chula Vista must provide the school districts
with an annual 5-year growth forecast and request an evaluation of their ability to
accommodate forecasted growth, both citywide and by subarea.
Prior to the issuance of each building permit for a residential dwelling unit, the Applicant shall
provide evidence or certification by the CVESD and SUHSD that any fee, charge or other
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 976 of 1271
Sunbow II, Phase 3
Supplemental Public Facilities Finance Plan
Page 18 March 2021
requirement levied by the school districts under state law has been complied with or that the
district(s) has determined that the fee, charge or other requirements do not apply to the construction
of the residential dwelling unit or that the Applicant has entered into a school mitigation agreement
with the district(s). School Mitigation Fees shall be in accordance with the fees in effect at the time
of payment.
2.12 Fiscal Analysis
Growth Management Threshold Standard Compliance and Requirements
The growth management threshold standards for fiscal are per CVMC Section 19.09.040.H.3:
a. Fiscal impact analyses and public facilities financing plans, at the time they are
adopted, shall ensure that new development generates sufficient revenue to offset the
cost of providing municipal services and facilities to that development.
b. The City shall establish and maintain, at sufficient levels to ensure the timely delivery
of infrastructure and services needed to support growth, consistent with the threshold
standards, a development impact fee, capital improvement funding, and other
necessary funding programs or mechanisms.
The Applicant prepared an updated fiscal analysis for the Proposed Project utilizing the City’s
fiscal model. The fiscal update assumes full build out of all 718 residential units. The results
generated from the fiscal model meet the requirements of CVMC 19.09.040.H.3. and demonstrate
that the Project will generate an annual fiscal surplus in Years 1 - 20 ($46,461 - $270,928) and a
cumulative fiscal surplus over the first 20 years of approximately $3,218,323. (See Attachment
A: Sunbow II, Phase 3 Fiscal Impact Analysis, January 2021)
2.13 Public Facility Finance
No changes are necessary related to 2009 PFFP, Public Facility Finance.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 977 of 1271
ATTACHMENT A
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 978 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 979 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 980 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 981 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 982 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 983 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 984 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 985 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 986 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 987 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 988 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 989 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 990 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 991 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 992 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 993 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 994 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 995 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA AMENDMENT
Air Quality Improvement Plan
Appendix C
January 2021
Adopted: ________
By Resolution No. ________
Prepared for:
ACI Sunbow, LLC
Attn: Bill Hamlin
2356 Moore Street
San Diego, CA 92110
619-544-9100
Prepared by
WHA, Inc.
680 Newport Center Drive, Ste. 300
Newport Beach, CA 92660
(949)-250-0607
Contact: Julia Malisos
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 996 of 1271
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 997 of 1271
i
Table of Contents
1. Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................... 1
A. Intent of the AQIP ........................................................................................................................ 1
B. Community Site Design Goals...................................................................................................... 2
C. Planning Features .......................................................................................................................... 2
D. Modeled Effectiveness of Community Design ............................................................................. 6
2. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 7
A. Need for a Qualitative Air Quality Plan ....................................................................................... 7
B. Purpose and Goals ........................................................................................................................ 7
C. Regulatory Framework Related to Air Quality ............................................................................. 8
1. Federal ...................................................................................................................................... 10
2. State of California .................................................................................................................... 14
3. Regional ................................................................................................................................... 18
4. City of Chula Vista ................................................................................................................... 19
3. Sunbow SPA Amendment Project Description............................................................................... 21
4. Effect of Project on Local/Regional Air Quality ............................................................................ 23
5. Quantitative Project Evaluation ...................................................................................................... 28
6. Community Design and Site Planning Features.............................................................................. 43
7. Chula Vista CO2 Reduction Plan .................................................................................................... 45
8. Credit Towards Increased Minimum Energy Efficiency Standards ................................................ 47
9. Compliance Monitoring .................................................................................................................. 47
List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Open Space Plan .......................................................................................... 4
Figure 2: Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation Plan ......................................................................... 5
Figure 3: Site Utilization Plan and Summary ............................................................................... 22
Figure 4: Chula Vista General Plan Regional Transit Vision ...................................................... 40
Figure 5: Intersection Density ...................................................................................................... 41
Figure 6: Sunbow II, Phase 3 Tentative Map ............................................................................... 42
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 998 of 1271
ii
List of Tables
Table 1: Thresholds of Significance for Air Quality Impacts ........................................................ 9
Table 2: Ambient Air Quality Standards Matrix .......................................................................... 11
Table 3: San Diego County Attainment Status ............................................................................ 13
Table 4: Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Criteria Air
Pollutant Emissions (Dudek, 2020) ............................................................................... 25
Table 5: Estimated Maximum Daily Operational Criteria Air
Pollutant Emissions (Dudek, 2020) ................................................................................ 26
Table 6: LEED Neighborhood Development Plan V4 Equivalency Analysis ............................. 29
Table 7: Community Design and Site Planning Features ............................................................. 43
Table 8: Summary of PA-23 Consistency with CO2 Reduction Action Measures ...................... 45
Table 9: PA-23 Air Quality Improvement Plan Compliance Checklist ....................................... 46
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 999 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 AMENDMENT
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 1 January 2021
1. Executive Summary
A. Intent of the AQIP
This AQIP provides an analysis of air pollution impacts which would result from the proposed
development and demonstrates the best available design to reduce vehicle trips, maintain or
improve traffic flow, reduce vehicle miles traveled and reduce Greenhouse Gasses (GHG) direct
or indirect emissions. This AQIP demonstrates how Sunbow II, Phase 3 (herein referred to as “the
project”) which is part of the greater Sunbow community, has been designed consistent with the
City’s Energy and Water Conservation regulations (CVMC 20.04) and Landscape Water
Conservation (CVMC 20.12), and represents the best available design in terms of improving
energy efficiency and reducing GHG emissions. GHG emissions include gases such as CO2, CH4,
and N2O. These emissions occur naturally and are produced by human activities, such as by
automobile emissions and emissions from production of electricity to provide power to homes and
businesses. These gases prevent heat from escaping the earth’s atmosphere, while allowing in
sunlight, which has the effect of warming the air temperature.
Applicable action measures contained in the City’s Climate Action Plan that apply to the Sunbow
Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Amendment are addressed. The 2017 Climate Action Plan
focuses on the following areas:
• Water Conservation and Reuse
o The Project will be consistent with the City’s Landscape Water Conservation
Ordinance.
• Waste Reduction
o The Project will comply with current CALGreen codes and will n ot impair the
City’s ability to develop a Zero Waste Plan.
• Renewable and Efficient Energy
o The Project will comply with the current building standards and design solar-ready
rooftops.
o The Project will include shade trees on site to save energy and reduce heat island
issues.
• Smart Growth and Transportation
o The Project is located close to major urban and employment centers. The Project
site is within the City and located close to public transit and I-805.
o The Project will comply with current building standards and EV charging
infrastructure requirements. The Project will provide designated preferred parking
for alternative fuel vehicles.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1000 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 2 January 2021
o The Project will be EV-ready.
B. Community Site Design Goals
The Sunbow General Development Plan approved in 1989, states that the principal objective of
the Sunbow Planned Community is the creation of an efficient, self-contained village. Several
primary objectives were set forth when developing the Sunbow plan:
1. Through an interwoven system of community circulation, commercial, office, industrial,
residential and recreational uses, achieve a compatible mix of uses surrounding an Urban Activity
Center.
2. Provide an opportunity to live within a community that includes commercial, cultural and
recreational uses essential to residential.
3. Provide a safe, convenient, and efficient local circulation system which maximizes access
between residential areas and community facilities while minimized travel distance and reliance
on the automobile.
4. Promote a balanced open space system between active, usable recreation areas and the open
space of the Poggi Canyon through the preservation of natural hillside, canyons and creeks.
Further, through the provision of trails, paseos and parkways and by exceeding the requirement
for active community recreation facilities.
5. Promote community diversity and interaction through the establishment of a Village Center
which includes commercial, office, recreational, civic and residential uses.
6. Provide a sensitive land plan which accommodates shifts in residential density without
exceeding stated unit totals or community goals.
Build out of the Sunbow plan achieved its goals as it currently provides various housing types,
from single-family detached homes to Veteran’s housing, as well as a retail center, an elementary
school (Hedenkamp Elementary School), a medical center and Community Center/Park.
Public transit (bus stops) are currently located at the intersections of East Palomar Street/Paseo
Ladera and Brandywine Avenue/Olympic Parkway in addition to the East Palomar Transit Station
which is approximately 2 miles away from the Project.
The proposed amendment to Sunbow will continue its mix of uses and further permit medium-
high and high density housing. The project is currently designated as an industrial land use but is
being proposed for re-designation to residential. In addition to the residential uses, there are 63.6
acres of MSCP Preserve open space.
C. Planning Features
Sunbow II, Phase 3 comprises of 135.7 acres located south of Olympic Parkway, north of the Otay
Landfill and City of Chula Vista property, east of Brandywine Avenue and west of the future Otay
Ranch Village 2 development area.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1001 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 3 January 2021
Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project (“Project”) includes 718 multi-family units on approximately 44.2
acres within the 135.7-acre Project Area. The Project includes six residential neighborhoods
planned to provide four unique multi-family attached residential product types with 15 unique
floorplans, ranging in square footage from approximately 1,100 to 2,050 in two- and three-story
units. A 0.9-acre Community Purpose Facility site is centrally located and planned as a Community
Recreation Area. Two planned Class III Collector public streets provide access from Olympic
Parkway to the Project, in the locations designated in the adopted Sunbow SPA Plan. Residential
neighborhoods are served by private streets and driveways. The Project also includes 5.9 acres for
backbone public streets, 16.8 acres of open space (two water quality/hydromodification basins,
manufactured slopes, a conserved wetland resource and associated buffer area), 4.3 acres of Poggi
Canyon Conservation Easements and 63.6 acres designated MSCP Preserve open space.
Public Spaces and Amenities
0.9 acres will be designated as Community Purpose Facility. This will be located at the center of
the project and will include a recreation area for the community. There will also be common open
space areas distributed throughout the neighborhood.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1002 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 4 January 2021
Open Space and Trails Network
The design for the project is influenced by its location adjacent to large natural open space areas
and Poggi Creek as well as proximity to future development within Otay Ranch. The Community
is surrounded by large landscaped slope areas which provide a buffer between development and
adjacent Preserve areas and provide fuel modification zones. Besides the CPF site, additional
passive and active recreation open spaces are distributed throughout the community to provide
recreational opportunities within walking distance of most homes. Furthermore, as described in
the following Pedestrian and Bike Mobility section, pedestrian walkways and connections will be
provided throughout the community. Refer to Figure 1: Conceptual Open Space Plan.
Figure 1: Conceptual Open Space Plan1
1 Figure 1 represents a conceptual plan for the Project. The final site plan, including building placement to be
determined during the Design Review process.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1003 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 5 January 2021
Pedestrian and Bike Mobility—Minimize Cars
The project neighborhoods are strategically connected along a network of pedestrian walkways,
both street sidewalks and pedestrian paseos. These walkways provide connections between
neighborhoods and out to the public streets. All streets in the project provide a five-foot wide
sidewalk on at least one side of the street. Most of the street sections also include a landscape
parkway that provides buffer between pedestrians and automobiles. Additionally, pedestrian
activity is encouraged through connection to the existing Chula Vista Regional Trail along both
Streets “A” and “B.” The Chula Vista Regional Trail is located on the north side of Olympic
Parkway, which is the northern boundary of the planning area, accessible at two signalized
intersections.
Bicycle circulation is supported, and connections are provided to travel beyond the project.
Running along the northern boundary of the planning area, Olympic Parkway is comprised of
Class II bike lanes and the Chula Vista Regional Trail.
Bicycles will share the roadway with vehicles along Streets “A” and “B,” providing direct
connections to the existing Olympic Parkway bike lanes and the MTS transit stop located at
Olympic Parkway and Brandywine Avenue. Refer to Figure 2: Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation
Plan.
There are three proposed locations for bicycle racks. These locations will be publicly accessible
and located in common areas. The project home types each include a private garage. Assumptions
are being made that residents will store their own bikes in their garage or homes. Guests will likely
do the same or can use the provided racks.
Figure 2: Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation Plan
Proposed Bike Rack Location
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1004 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 6 January 2021
Building and Design Features
The project plan incorporates several features into the site design that promote alternative
transportation use, encourage energy efficiency, and reduce area source pollutants. These measures
include the following:
• Provide connection to the Chula Vista Regional Trail and public transit opportunities.
• Provide all attached higher density housing options rather than large single-family lots.
• Preserve 63.6 acres of on-site open space.
• Build to 2019 Title 24 codes or the prevailing building codes. The next code cycle will
become effective January 1, 2023 and depending on the stage of development, the project
design may require modifications for compliance with the applicable code.
• Grading activity will be balanced cut and fill onsite.
The updated California Building Standards Code, Title 24, went into effect on January 1, 2020
(2019 Code). This includes Building, Residential, Electrical, Mechanical and Plumbing, as well as
Energy and Green Building (CALGreen) Codes.
January 1, 2020 is the statewide effective date established by the California Building Standards
Commission (CBSC) for the 2019 California Building Standards Code. In accordance with
California Health and Safety Code, Section 18938.5, all applications for a building permit
submitted on or after January 1, 2020 are subject to compliance with the 2019 California Building
Standards Code.
The 2019 Code updates is another step towards GHG reduction and energy efficiency increases.
For example, regarding residential, the 2019 Code is 7% more efficient than 2016.
Non-residential Energy Codes are also proving to be more efficient with the 2019 update reflecting
a 30% efficiency increase from 2016, whereas the 2016 Code was only 5% more efficient than
2013.
Therefore, the proposed Sunbow amendment by design will work towards consistency with Chula
Vista’s Energy and Water Conservation regulations (CVMC 20.04) and Landscape Water
Conservation (CVMC 20.12) and represents code compliance in terms of energy efficiency and
GHG emissions reductions.
D. Modeled Effectiveness of Community Design
The City of Chula Vista previously used the INDEX CO2 model requirements. This tool is no
longer used. Therefore, LEED-ND v4.0 is being utilized as an analytical tool for sustainable
design. Table 1: LEED-ND Equivalency Analysis was prepared to study various design features
within Sunbow with regard to the proposed amendment.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1005 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 7 January 2021
2. Introduction
A. Need for a Qualitative Air Quality Plan
Pursuant to Chula Vista’s Growth Management Ordinance (CVMC 19.09.050B), an Air Quality
Improvement Plan (AQIP) is required to be prepared in conjunction with the Sunbow PA Sectional
Planning Area (SPA) Plan Amendment. The Growth Management Ordinance requires that no
application for a SPA Plan or Tentative Map shall be deemed complete or accepted for review
unless an AQIP is provided and approved as part of the approval of the SPA Plan or Tentative Map
by the City.
This AQIP will serve to implement several of the key aspects of the City’s CO2 Reduction Plan
and Green Building and Energy Efficiency Ordinances for the development of Sunbow II, Phase
3.
B. Purpose and Goals
The purpose of the AQIP is to provide an analysis of air pollution im pacts that would result from
development of the project and to demonstrate how the design of the Project works toward
reducing vehicle trips, maintains or improves traffic flow, reduces vehicle miles traveled, reduces
direct or indirect Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions, and minimizes pollutant emissions during
construction per regulations. This AQIP also demonstrates how the project meets the City's
commitment to improving air quality through compliance with the City's Growth Management
Ordinance, Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Reduction Plan, and adopted Green Building and Increased
Energy Efficiency Standards.
As the result of rapid development not keeping pace with the demand for facilities and
improvements, the City Council adopted Growth Management policy measures that would prohibit
new development to occur unless adequate public facilities, improvements and environmental
quality of life standards were put in place. The City of Chula Vista’s Growt h Management
ordinance (CVMC Chapter 19.09) purpose is to provide the following:
• Provide quality housing opportunities for all economic sections of the community;
• Provide a balanced community with adequate commercial, industrial, recreational and open
space areas to support the residential areas of the City;
• Provide that public facilities, services and improvements meeting City standards exist or
become available concurrent with the need created by new development;
• Balance the housing needs of the region against the public service needs of Chula Vista
residents and available fiscal and environmental resources;
• Provide that all development is consistent with the Chula Vista general plan;
• Prevent growth unless adequate public facilities and improvements are provided in a
phased and logical fashion as required by the general plan;
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1006 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 8 January 2021
• Control the timing and location of development by tying the pace of development to the
provision of public facilities and improvements to conform to the City’s threshold
standards and to meet the goals and objectives of the growth management program;
• Provide that the air quality of the City of Chula Vista improves from existing conditions;
• Provide that the City of Chula Vista conserves water so that an adequate supply be
maintained to serve the needs of current and future residents.
• Conserve energy use consistent with the General Plan, the General Development Plan, and
other City regulations including the City of Chula Vista Climate Action Plan
The AQIP has been prepared based on the best available design practices and also serves to
implement several of the key aspects of the City’s Climate Action Plan and Municipal Code.
C. Regulatory Framework Related to Air Quality
There are a number of actions that Federal, State and Local jurisdictions have taken to improve air
quality, increase energy efficiency, and reduce GHG emissions. This section summarizes those
actions.
Air quality is defined by ambient air concentrations of specific pollutants determined by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to be of concern with respect to the health and welfare
of the public. The principal pollutants monitored by the EPA include the following:
• Carbon Monoxide (CO),
• Lead (Pb),
• Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2),
• Ozone (O3),
• Respirable 10- and 2.5-micron particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5),
• Sulfur Dioxide (SO2),
The EPA has established ambient air quality standards for these pollutants. These standards are
called the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The California Air Resources Board
(CARB) subsequently established the more stringent California Ambient Air Quality Standards
(CAAQS). Both sets of standards are shown in Table 1 on the following page. Areas in California
where ambient air concentrations of pollutants are higher than the state standard are considered to
be in “non-attainment” status for that pollutant.
Regulation of air emissions from non-mobile sources within San Diego County has been delegated
to the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (APCD). As part of its air quality permitting
process, the APCD has established thresholds for the preparation of Air Quality Impact
Assessments (AQIAs) and/or Air Quality Conformity Assessments (AQCAs). APCD has also
established an “emissions budget” or Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS) for the San Diego Air
Basin. This budget considers existing conditions, planned growth based on General Plans for cities
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1007 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 9 January 2021
within the region, and air quality control measures implemented by the APCD. The applicable
standards are shown in Table 1: Thresholds of Significance for Air Quality Impacts.
Table 1: Thresholds of Significance for Air Quality Impacts
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1008 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 10 January 2021
1. Federal
Clean Air Act (CAA)
Air quality is defined by ambient air concentrations of specific pollutants identified by the EPA to
be of concern with respect to health and welfare of the general public. The EPA is responsible for
enforcing the Federal CAA of 1970 and its 1977 and 1990 Amendments. The CAA required the
EPA to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), which identify
concentrations of pollutants in the ambient air below which no adverse effects on the public health
and welfare are anticipated. In response, the EPA established both primary and secondary
standards for several criteria pollutants, which are introduced above. Table1: Ambient Air Quality
Standards Matrix shows the federal and state ambient air quality standards for these pollutants.
The CAA allows states to adopt ambient air quality standards and other regulations provided they
are at least as stringent as federal standards. California Air Resources Board (CARB) has
established the more stringent California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for the six
criteria pollutants through the California Clean Air Act of 1988 (CCAA), and also has established
CAAQS for additional pollutants, including sulfates, hydrogen sulfide (H2S), vinyl chloride, and
visibility-reducing particles. Areas that do not meet the NAAQS or the CAAQS for a particular
pollutant are considered to be “nonattainment areas” for that pollutant. On April 30, 2012, the San
Diego Air Basin (SDAB) was classified as a marginal nonattainment area for the 8-hour NAAQS
for ozone. The SDAB is an attainment area under the NAAQS for all other criteria pollutants. The
SDAB currently falls under a national “maintenance plan” for CO, following a 1998 re-designation
as a CO attainment area (SDAPCD 2010). The SDAB is currently classified as a nonattainment
area under the CAAQS for ozone (serious nonattainment), PM10, and PM2.5.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on April 2, 2007, in Massachusetts v. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency that CO2 is an air pollutant, as defined under the CAA, and that the EPA has
the authority to regulate emissions of GHGs. The EPA announced that GHGs (including CO2,
CH4, N2O, HFC, PFC, and SF6) threaten the public health and welfare of the American people.
This action was a prerequisite to finalizing the EPA’s GHG emissions standards for light-duty
vehicles, which were jointly proposed by the EPA and the United States Department of
Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The standards were
established on April 1, 2010, for 2012 through 2016 model year vehicles and on October 15, 2012,
for 2017 through 2025 model year vehicles (EPA 2011; EPA and NHTSA 2012).
Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Corporate Average Fuel
Economy Standards
The EPA and the NHTSA have been working together on developing a national program of
regulations to reduce GHG emissions and to improve fuel economy of light-duty vehicles. The
EPA is finalizing the first-ever national GHG emissions standards under the CAA, and the NHTSA
is finalizing Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards under the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act. On April 1, 2010, the EPA and NHTSA announced a joint Final Rulemaking
that established standards for 2012 through 2016 model year vehicles. This was followed up on
October 15, 2012, when the agencies issued a Final Rulemaking with standards for model years
2017 through 2025. The rules require these vehicles to meet an estimated combined average
emissions level of 250 grams per mile by 2016, decreasing to an average industry fleet-wide level
of 163 grams per mile in model year 2025. The 2016 standard is equivalent to 35.5 miles per gallon
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1009 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 11 January 2021
(mpg), and the 2025 standard is equivalent to 54.5 mpg if the levels were achieved solely through
improvements in fuel efficiency. The agencies expect, however, that a portion of these
improvements will be made through improvements in air conditioning leakage and the use of
alternative refrigerants that would not contribute to fuel economy. These standards would cut GHG
emissions by an estimated 2 billion metric tons (MT) and 4 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime
of the vehicles sold under the program (model years 2017–2025). The combined EPA GHG
standards and NHTSA CAFE standards resolve previously conflicting requirements under both
federal programs and the standards of the State of California and other states that have adopted the
California standards (EPA 2011; EPA and NHTSA 2012).
Table 2: Ambient Air Quality Standards Matrix
Source: California Air Resources Board.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1010 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 12 January 2021
Table 2: Ambient Air Quality Standards Matrix Continued (footnotes)
Source: California Air Resources Board.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1011 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 13 January 2021
San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) is the local agency responsible for the
administration and enforcement of air quality regulations for the County. The SDAPCD and San
Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) are responsible for developing and implementing
the clean air plan for attainment and maintenance of the ambient air quality standards in the SDAB.
The County’s Regional Air Quality Strategies (RAQS) was initially adopted in 1991, and is
updated on a triennial basis. The most recent version of the RAQS was adopted by the SDAPCD
in 2016. The local RAQS, in combination with those from all other California nonattainment areas
with serious (or worse) air quality problems, is submitted to CARB, which develops the California
State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP relies on the same information from SANDAG to
develop emission inventories and emission reduction strategies that are included in the attainment
demonstration for the air basin. The current federal and state attainment status for San Diego
County is presented in Table 3: San Diego County Attainment Status.
Table 3: San Diego County Attainment Status
Criteria Pollutant Federal Designation State Designation
Ozone (8-Hour) Nonattainment Nonattainment
Ozone (1-Hour) Attainment * Nonattainment
Carbon Monoxide Attainment Attainment
PM10 Unclassifiable ** Nonattainment
PM2.5 Attainment Nonattainment
Nitrogen Dioxide Attainment Attainment
Sulfur Dioxide Attainment Attainment
Lead Attainment Attainment
Sulfates No Federal Standard Attainment
Hydrogen Sulfide No Federal Standard Unclassified
Visibility No Federal Standard Unclassified
* The federal 1-hour standard of 12 pphm was in effect from 1979 through June 15, 2005. The revoked
standard is referenced here because it was employed for such a long period and because this benchmark is
addressed in State Implementation Plans.
** At the time of designation, if the available data does not support a designation of attainment or
nonattainment, the area is designated as unclassifiable.
Source: Air Pollution Control District (https://www.sdapcd.org), April 2015.
As stated above, the SDAPCD is responsible for planning, implementing, and enforcing federal
and state ambient standards. The following rules and regulations apply to all sources in the
jurisdiction of SDAPCD:
SDAPCD Regulation IV Prohibitions; Rule 51: Prohibits the discharge from any source such
quantities of air contaminants or other materials that cause or have a tendency to cause injury,
detriment, nuisance, annoyance to people and/or the public, or damage to any business or property.
SDAPCD Regulation IV: Prohibitions Rule 55: Fugitive Dust Regulates fugitive dust emissions
from any commercial construction or demolition activity capable of generating fugitive dust
emissions, including active operations, open storage piles, and inactive disturbed areas, as well as
track-out and carry-out onto paved roads beyond a project site.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1012 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 14 January 2021
SDAPCD Regulation IV Prohibitions; Rule 67.0: Architectural Coatings: Requires
manufacturers, distributors, and end users of architectural and industrial maintenance coatings to
reduce VOC emissions from the use of these coatings, primarily by placing limits on the VOC
content of various coating categories.
2. State of California
Toxic Air Contaminants
Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) are a category of air pollutants that have been shown to have an
impact on human health but are not classified as criteria pollutants. Examples include certain
aromatic and chlorinated hydrocarbons, certain metals, and asbestos. Air toxics are generated by
a number of sources, including stationary ones such as dry cleaners, gas stations, combustion
sources, and laboratories; mobile ones such as automobiles; and area sources such as farms,
landfills, construction sites, and residential areas. Adverse health effects of TACs can be
carcinogenic (cancer-causing), short-term (acute) noncarcinogenic, and long-term (chronic)
noncarcinogenic. Public exposure to TACs is a significant environmental health issue in
California.
California’s air toxics control program began in 1983 with the passage of the Toxic Air
Contaminant Identification and Control Act, better known as AB 1807 or the Tanner Bill. When a
compound becomes listed as a TAC under the Tanner process, the CARB normally establishes
minimum statewide emission control measures to be adopted by local air pollution control districts
(APCDs). Later legislative amendments (AB 2728) required the CARB to incorporate all 189
federal hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) into the state list of TACs.
Supplementing the Tanner process, AB 2588 the Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and
Assessment Act of 1987 currently regulates over 600 air compounds, including all of the Tanner-
designated TACs. Under AB 2588, specified facilities must quantify emissions of regulated air
toxics and report them to the local APCD. If the APCD determines that a potentially significant
public health risk is posed by a given facility, the facility is required to perform a health risk
assessment (HRA) and notify the public in the affected area if the calculated risks exceed specified
criteria.
On August 27, 1998, CARB formally identified PM emitted in both gaseous and particulate forms
by diesel-fueled engines as a TAC. The particles emitted by diesel engines are coated with
chemicals, many of which have been identified by the EPA as HAPs and by CARB as TACs.
CARB’s Scientific Advisory Committee has recommended a unit risk factor (URF) of 300 in 1
million over a 70-year exposure period for diesel particulate. In September 2000, the CARB
approved the Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled
Engines and Vehicles (Diesel Risk Reduction Plan; CARB 2000). The Diesel Risk Reduction Plan
outlined a comprehensive and ambitious program that included the development of numerous new
control measures over the next several years aimed at substantially reducing emissions from new
and existing on-road vehicles (e.g., heavy-duty trucks and buses), off road equipment (e.g.,
graders, tractors, forklifts, sweepers, and boats), portable equipment (e.g., pumps), and stationary
engines (e.g., stand-by power generators). These requirements are now in force on a state-wide
basis.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1013 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 15 January 2021
California Greenhouse Gas Regulations
There are numerous State plans, policies, regulations, and laws related to GHGs and global climate
change. Following is a discussion of some of these plans, policies, and regulations that (1) establish
overall State policies and GHG reduction targets; (2) require State or local actions that result in
direct or indirect GHG emission reductions for the proposed Project; and (3) require CEQA
analysis of GHG emissions.
California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6
California Code of Regulations Title 24 Part 6: California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for
Residential and Nonresidential Buildings were first established in 1978 in response to a legislative
mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. Energy-efficient buildings require less
electricity, natural gas, and other fuels. Electricity production from fossil fuels and on-site fuel
combustion (typically for water heating) results in GHG emissions.
The Title 24 standards are updated approximately every three years to allow consideration and
possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. The latest update to
the Title 24 standards went into effect on January 1, 2020 , with subsequent iterations expected
in three-year cycles that may be in -force at time of build-out. Each building that submits for
permit will be required to meet the prevailing code at the time of permit submi ssion, at the sole
discretion of the a uthority having jurisdiction.
California Green Building Standards Code
The California Green Building Standards Code (24 California Code of Regulations [CCR], Part
11) is a code with mandatory requirements for new residential and nonresidential buildings
(including buildings for retail, office, public schools and hospitals) throughout California. The
current version of the code went into effect on January 1, 2020. The code is Part 11 of the California
Building Standards Code in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations and is also known as
the CALGreen Building Standards Code (California Building Standards Code [CBSC] 2014a).
The development of the CALGreen Code is intended to (1) cause a reduction in GHG emissions
from buildings; (2) promote environmentally responsible, cost-effective, healthier places to live
and work; (3) reduce energy and water consumption; and (4) respond to the directives by the
Governor. In short, the code is established to reduce construction waste; make buildings more
efficient in the use of materials and energy; and reduce environmental impact during and after
construction.
The CALGreen Code contains requirements for storm water control during construction;
construction waste reduction; indoor water use reduction; material selection; natural resource
conservation; site irrigation conservation; and more. The code provides for design options allowing
the designer to determine how best to achieve compliance for a given site or building condition.
The code also requires building commissioning, which is a process for the verification that all
building systems, like heating and cooling equipment and lighting systems, are functioning at their
maximum efficiency.
The CALGreen Code also focuses on Electric Vehicle (EV) infrastructure. Depending on what
type of use, EV requirements ranges from EV-capable to fully installed EV charging stations. As
it pertains to townhomes with attached private garages, the 2019 CALGreen Code requires the
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1014 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 16 January 2021
garages to be EV-capable with the installation of raceways to accommodate a dedicated 208/240-
volt branch circuit. The project will also install the code-required infrastructure for future spaces
located in guest parking.
Executive Order S-3-05
On June 1, 2005, Executive Order (EO) S-3-05 proclaimed that California is vulnerable to climate
change impacts. It declared that increased temperatures could reduce snowpack in the Sierra
Nevada, further exacerbate California’s air quality problems, and potentially cause a rise in sea
levels. In an effort to avoid or reduce climate change impacts, EO S-3-05 calls for a reduction in
GHG emissions to the year 2000 level by 2010, to year 1990 levels by 2020, and to 80 percent
below 1990 levels by 2050.
AB 32 – Global Warming Solution Act of 2006
The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, widely known as AB 32, requires that the
CARB develop and enforce regulations for the reporting and verification of statewide GHG
emissions. CARB is directed to set a GHG emission limit, based on 1990 levels, to be achieved by
2020. The bill requires CARB to adopt rules and regulations in an open public process to achieve
the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG reductions.
Executive Order B-30-15
On April 29, 2015, EO B-30-15 established a California GHG reduction target of 40 percent below
1990 levels by 2030. The EO aligns California’s GHG reduction targets with those of leading
international governments, including the 28 nation European Union. California is on track to meet
or exceed the target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, as established
in AB 32. California’s new emission reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 will
make it possible to reach the ultimate goal established by EO S-3-05 of reducing emissions 80
percent under 1990 levels by 2050.
AB 1493 – Vehicular Emissions of Greenhouse Gases
AB 1493 (Pavley) requires that CARB develop and adopt regulations that achieve “the maximum
feasible reduction of GHGs emitted by passenger vehicles and light-duty truck and other vehicles
determined by CARB to be vehicles whose primary use is noncommercial personal transportation
in the State.” On September 24, 2009, CARB adopted amendments to the Pavley regulations that
intend to reduce GHG emissions in new passenger vehicles from 2009 through 2016. The
amendments bind California’s enforcement of AB 1493 (starting in 2009), while providing vehicle
manufacturers with new compliance flexibility. The amendments also prepare California to merge
its rules with the federal CAFE rules for passenger vehicles (CARB 2013). In January 2012, CARB
approved a new emissions-control program for model years 2017 through 2025. The program
combines the control of smog, soot, and global warming gases and requirements for greater
numbers of zero-emission vehicles into a single packet of standards called Advanced Clean Cars
(CARB 2013).
AB 341
In 2011, the State legislature enacted AB 341 (California Public Resource Code § 42649.2),
increasing the diversion target to 75 percent statewide. AB 341 also requires the provision of
recycling service to commercial and residential facilities that generate four cubic yards or more of
solid waste per week.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1015 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 17 January 2021
Executive Order S-01-07
This EO, signed by Governor Schwarzenegger on January 18, 2007, directs that a statewide goal
be established to reduce the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels by at least 10
percent by the year 2020. It orders that a Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) for transportation
fuels be established for California and directs the CARB to determine whether a LCFS can be
adopted as a discrete early action measure pursuant to AB 32. CARB approved the LCFS as a
discrete early action item with a regulation adopted and implemented in April 2010. Although
challenged in 2011, the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court’s opinion and rejected arguments
that implementing LCFS violates the interstate commerce clause in September 2013. CARB is
therefore continuing to implement the LCFS statewide.
Senate Bill (SB)375
SB 375 aligns regional transportation planning efforts, regional GHG reduction targets, and
affordable housing allocations. Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) are required to adopt
a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), which allocates land uses in the MPO’s Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP). Qualified projects consistent with an approved SCS or Alternative
Planning Strategy categorized as “transit priority projects” would receive incentives to streamline
CEQA processing.
CARB: Scoping Plan
On December 11, 2008, the CARB adopted the Scoping Plan (CARB 2008) as directed by AB 32.
The Scoping Plan proposes a set of actions designed to reduce overall GHG emissions in California
to the levels required by AB 32. Measures applicable to development projects include those related
to energy-efficiency building and appliance standards, the use of renewable sources for electricity
generation, regional transportation targets, and green building strategy. Relative to transportation,
the Scoping Plan includes nine measures or recommended actions related to reducing vehicle miles
traveled and vehicle GHGs through fuel and efficiency measures. These measures would be
implemented statewide rather than on a project by project basis.
The CARB released the First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan in May 2014, to provide
information on the development of measure-specific regulations and to adjust projections in
consideration of the economic recession (CARB 2014a). To determine the amount of GHG
emission reductions needed to achieve the goal of AB 32 (i.e., 1990 levels by 2020) CARB
developed a forecast of the AB 32 Baseline 2020 emissions, which is an estimate of the emissions
expected to occur in the year 2020 if none of the foreseeable measures included in the Scoping
Plan were implemented. CARB estimated the AB 32 Baseline 2020 to be 509 million metric tons
(MMT) of CO2e. The Scoping Plan’s current estimate of the necessary GHG emission reductions
is 78 MMT CO2e (CARB 2014b). This represents an approximately 15.32 percent reduction. The
CARB is forecasting that this would be achieved through the following reductions by sector: 25
MMT CO2e for energy, 23 MMT CO2e for transportation, 5 MMT CO2e for high-GWP GHGs,
and 2 MMT CO2e for waste. The remaining 23 MMT CO2e would be achieved through Cap-and-
Trade Program reductions. This reduction is flexible—if CARB receives new information and
changes the other sectors’ reductions to be less than expected, the agency can increase the Cap-
and-Trade reduction (and vice versa).
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1016 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 18 January 2021
3. Regional
SANDAG Regional Plan
The Regional Plan (RP) (SANDAG 2015) is the currently approved long-range planning document
developed to address the region’s housing, economic, transportation, environmental, and overall
quality-of-life needs. The RP establishes a planning framework and implementation actions that
increase the region’s sustainability and encourage “smart growth while preserving natural
resources and limiting urban sprawl.” The RP encourages the regions and the County to increase
residential and employment concentrations in areas with the best existing and future transit
connections, and to preserve important open spaces. The focus is on implementation of basic smart
growth principles designed to strengthen the integration of land use and transportation. General
urban form goals, policies, and objectives are summarized as follows:
• Mix compatible uses.
• Take advantage of compact building design.
• Create a range of housing opportunities and choices.
• Create walkable neighborhoods.
• Foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place.
• Otay Ranch Preserve open space, natural beauty, and critical environmental areas.
• Strengthen and direct development towards existing communities.
• Provide a variety of transportation choices.
• Make development decisions predictable, fair, and cost-effective.
• Encourage community and stakeholder collaboration in development decisions.
As plans are ever-evolving, it is recognized that new plans may be approved in the future.
SANDAG lists 12 Near-Term Actions that are intended for implementation in the next Regional
Plan. Along with the strategies of the approved RP, these concepts are recognized as potential
features in development going forward. The 12 Near Term Actions are as follows:
1. The Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP).
2. Develop a long-term specialized transportation strategy through 2050, as part of the next
biennial update of the SANDAG Coordinated Plan, to address the increasing specialized
service needs of seniors and people with disabilities.
3. Promote Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) reduction by applying the Regional Complete
Streets Policy to relevant SANDAG plans, programs, and projects.
4. Develop a Regional Mobility Hub Implementation Strategy.
5. Complete a follow-up study that details ways to reduce greenhouse gases by expanding the
use of alternative fuels regionwide.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1017 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 19 January 2021
6. Incorporate regional transportation model enhancements to provide more robust data
regarding bike and pedestrian travel, carpools, vanpools, carshare, and public health.
7. Expand the Integrated Corridor Management Concept and design for up to three corridors.
8. Complete the comprehensive 10-year review of the TransNet Program in accordance with
the TransNet ordinance.
9. Develop innovative financing tools to self-finance near-term projects for the new border
crossing at Otay Mesa East.
10. Participate in the target-setting and monitoring processes for federal performance measures
and report on progress toward the achievement of these federal performance measure
targets in the new System Performance Report.
11. Develop an Intraregional Tribal Transportation Strategy with tribal nations in the region.
12. Explore the development of a Regional Military Base Multimodal Access Strategy.
4. City of Chula Vista
City of Chula Vista Climate Action Plan
Since 2000, Chula Vista has been implementing a Climate Action Plan (CAP) to address the threat
of climate change to the local community. The original Carbon Dioxide Reduction Plan was
revised to incorporate new climate mitigation and adaptation measures to strengthen the City’s
climate action efforts and to facilitate the numerous community co-benefits such as utility savings,
better air quality, reduced traffic congestion, local economic development, and improved quality
of life. To help guide implementation of the CAP, the City regularly conducts GHG emission
inventories. The City’s CAP was updated in 2008, 2010 and 2017.
Municipal Codes
The Chula Vista City Council adopted the California Energy Code 2016 effective January 1, 2017.
The 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards are more efficient than previous standards and the
2019 Standards exceed 2016 and subsequent code cycles are expected to move aggressively toward
zero-energy and zero-emission buildings. The City adopted the California Energy Code, CVMC §
15.26.10 in November 2019 by reference amended via ordinance 3474. This code section has been
adopted for the purpose of regulating building design and construction standards to increase energy
efficacy for new residential and non-residential buildings.
Per CVMC § 15.24.045, each store in a store building, each flat in a flat building, and each building
used as a dwelling shall be so wired that each store, apartment, flat or dwelling shall have separate
lighting and/or power distribution panels. Such panels shall not serve other portions of the
building. The 2019 Title 24 code supersedes CVMC § 15.24.045 requirements. Any future
buildings in Sunbow II, Phase 3 will comply with the prevailing California Building Standards.
Per CVMC § 20.04.040, all new residential units shall include electrical conduit specifically
designed to allow the later installation of a photovoltaic (PV) system which utilizes solar energy
as a means to provide electricity. No building permit shall be issued unless the requirements of
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1018 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 20 January 2021
this section and the Chula Vista Photovoltaic Pre-Wiring Installation Requirements are
incorporated into the approved building plans. The 2019 Title 24 code supersedes CVMC §
20.04.040 requirements. Any future buildings in Sunbow II, Phase 3 will comply with the
prevailing California Building Standards.
Additionally, per CVMC § 20.04.030, all new residential units shall include plumbing specifically
designed to allow the later installation of a system which utilizes solar energy as the primary means
of heating domestic potable water. It is expected that this ordinance may be superseded by Title
24 updates though the build-out of the SPA Plan Amendment—future buildings will comply with
the more stringent of the requirements following the prevailing approach to water heating.
Finally, per CVMC § 20.04.050, commercial businesses are required to participate in a free
resource and energy evaluation of their facilities when they obtain a new business license and
every five years thereafter.
The City of Chula Vista has developed a number of strategies and plans aimed at improving air
quality. The City is a part of the Cities for Climate Protection Program, which is headed by the
International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI). The original plan followed by
the city to reduce fossil fuel consumption was the CO2 Reduction Plan, adopted in 2002.
Currently, the City uses the Climate Action Plan (CAP) which was adopted in 2017. The Climate
Action Plan references the 2002 CO2 Reduction Plan, however, the initiatives set forth in the
CAP are more relevant to toda y’s conditions.
They are as follows:
• Water Conservation and Reuse
• Waste Reduction
• Renewable and Efficient Energy
• Smart Growth and Transportation
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1019 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 21 January 2021
3. Sunbow SPA Amendment Project Description
The Proposed Sunbow II, Phase 3 project includes a Chula Vista General Plan (CVGP)
Amendment, a Sunbow General Development Plan (GDP) Amendment, a Sunbow Sectional
Planning Area (SPA) Plan Amendment, Rezone and Tentative Map necessary to implement the
proposed land use change to the Planning Area 23 Industrial Park and adjacent open space and
Preserve areas.
Under the Sunbow Sectional Planning Area Plan and Tentative Map Final Environmental Impact
Report (FEIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 88121423) (City of Chula Vista 1989), the Sunbow
General Development Plan was approved by the City of Chula Vista City Council in December
1989. The approved Sunbow (approved project) land uses consist of:
• 1,946 residential units (329.7 acres).
• 11.0 acres of commercial
• 46.0 acres of industrial
• 11.0 acres of school
• 10.0 acres of community recreation
• 194.3 acres of open space and roads
ACI Sunbow, LLC (Project Applicant) is now proposing land use changes to the approved project
resulting in the following:
• Change the project designation from industrial to residential (44.2 acres within the 135.7-
acre area designated Planning Area 23 in the 1998 Sunbow SPA Site Utilization Plan).
• Adding 718 multi-family units (within 6 residential neighborhoods) on approximately 44.2
acres.
• Approximately 5.9 acres of backbone streets (within the Project Area).
• A 0.9-Acre Community Purpose Facility which will serve as the community recreation
area.
• 16.8 acres of open space inclusive of two water quality/hydromodification basins,
manufactured slopes, conserved wetland resource and associated buffer area.
• 4.3 acres of Poggi Creek Conservation Easement areas
• 63.6 acres of designated MSCP Preserve open space.
Figure 3: Site Utilization Plan and Summary implements the land uses contemplated by the
proposed project.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1020 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 22 January 2021
Figure 3: Site Utilization Plan and Summary
Sunbow II, Phase 3 Land Use
District Acres1 Units Density
Multi-Family Residential
R-1 RM 8.5 131 15.4
R-2 RM 4.6 73 15.8
R-3 RM 8.1 108 13.3
R-4 RM 8.2 118 14.4
R-5 RM 7.1 104 14.7
R-6 RC 7.6 184 24.1
Subtotal Residential 44.2 718 16.3
Other
Community Purpose Facility CPF 0.9
MSCP Preserve Open Space
(OS-1,2, and OS-9b) OSP 63.6
Poggi Canyon Conservation Easements
(OS-4, 5, 6a and 6b) OS 4.3
Manufactured Slopes/Basins
(OS-7, 8, 9a, 10 to 15) OS 16.5
Wetland Avoidance Area (OS-14) OS 0.3
Public Streets Circulation 5.9
Subtotal Other 91.5
TOTAL 135.7 718 16.3
1Acreages rounded to nearest 1/10th acre and may vary slightly from the calculated total.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1021 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 23 January 2021
4. Effect of Project on Local/Regional Air Quality
This section includes a generalized discussion of Sunbow II, Phase 3 short-term and long-term
effects on local and regional air quality including its contribution to global climate change.
Utilizing all the Federal, State, and Local strategies for reducing GHGs, Sunbow II, Phase 3 is
projected to reduce GHG emissions through the incorporation reclaimed water use for outdoor
areas, preferential parking for carpools and lower-emitting vehicles, and the advanced energy
efficiency and water conservation design requirements that reduce GHG emissions. The energy
efficiency and water conservation design requirements include both the California Title 24
requirements for energy as well as the CALGreen requirements.
If a project proposes development that is greater than that anticipated in the local plan and the San
Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) growth projections, the project might be in
conflict with the State Implementation Plan (SIP) and Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS) and
may contribute to a potentially significant cumulative impact on air quality. The Project site is
zoned Limited Industrial; however, the Project proposes phased development of 165 multi-family
residential units 2025, 127 units in 2026, 75 units in 2027, and 23 units in 2028. SANDAG Series
13 estimates housing would increase from 89,176 in 2020 to 101,188 in 2035. Thus, the phased
Project development of multi-family residential units would provide balanced and diverse housing
to the City and provide housing to accommodate the City’s future growth projections. Therefore,
the proposed Project would not stimulate population growth or a population concentration or
housing above what is assumed in local and regional land use plans, or projections made by
regional planning authorities. Based on these considerations, impacts related to the Project’s
potential to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan is less than
significant.
Construction Related Emissions
Air pollutant emission sources during project construction include exhaust and particulate
emissions generated from construction equipment; fugitive dust from site preparation, grading,
and excavation activities; and volatile compounds that evaporate during site paving and painting
of structures.
Construction activities are anticipated to occur in five phases over the course of seven years, with
the assumption of heavy construction equipment operating five days a week during project
construction. Refer to Table 6: Construction Scenario Assumptions in the Air Quality and
Greenhouse Gas Emission Analysis Technical Report (Dudek, 2020) for additional construction
details. Grading is proposed to consist of 69.48 acres and will be balanced cut and fill onsite.
Balanced cut and fill onsite is beneficial as it eliminates truck emissions that are created when
hauling dirt off site.
Construction of the Project would result in the temporary addition of pollutants to the local airshed
caused by onsite sources (e.g., off-road construction equipment, soil disturbance, and VOC off-
gassing) and off-site sources (e.g., on-road haul trucks, vendor trucks, and worker vehicle trips).
Maximum daily construction emissions would not exceed the City’s significance thresholds for
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1022 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 24 January 2021
VOCs, NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, or PM2.5 during construction in all construction years (2021
through 2028).
Per the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emission Analysis Technical Report (Dudek, 2020), GHG
emissions are reported to be significant and unavoidable. The use of off-road construction
equipment, on-road hauling, and vendor (material delivery) trucks, and worker vehicles during
construction will be the primary sources of GHG emissions.
To minimize construction and operational emissions to the extent feasible, the project will
implement the following mitigation measures as required per the Air Quality and Greenhouse
Gas Emissions Analysis Technical Report (Dudek, 2020):
PDF-AQ-1 Fugitive Dust Control Measures.
To reduce construction and operational emissions to the extent feasible, the applicant (ACI
Sunbow LLC) would incorporate the following project design features (PDFs) into the new
facility. The applicant or its designee shall implement the following measures to minimize fugitive
dust (PM10 and PM2.5):
• A non-toxic dust control agent shall be used on the grading areas or watering shall be
applied at least three times daily.
• Grading areas shall be stabilized as quickly as possible.
• Chemical stabilizer shall be applied, a gravel pad shall be installed, or the last 100 feet
of internal travel path within the construction site shall be paved prior to public road
entry and for all haul roads.
• Visible track-out into traveled public streets shall be removed with the use of sweepers,
water trucks, or similar method at the end of the workday.
• All soil disturbance and travel on unpaved surfaces shall be suspended if winds exceed
25 miles per hour.
• On-site stockpiles of excavated material shall be covered.
• A 15 mile per hour speed limit on unpaved surfaces shall be enforced.
PDF-AQ-2 Architectural Coating.
The applicant or its designee shall use low or no-volatile organic compound (VOC)
architectural coatings.
The design features listed in PDF-AQ-1 and 2 are not required under the current code. SDAPCD
Rule 55, Fugitive Dust Rule, does not provide specific measures to reduce fugitive dust such as
the ones listed in PDF-AQ-1. Furthermore, the project has committed to watering three times daily
and applying chemical stabilizers which are both going above and beyond the minimum
requirement. The typical requirement to control fugitive dust is watering two times daily.
The project is also committed to using low or no-VOC paint, beyond code requirements. This goes
above and beyond the minimum requirement of SDAPCD Rule 67.0.1, Architectural Coatings.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1023 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 25 January 2021
SDAPCD Rule 67.0.1 limits VOC content for various coating categories (i.e., 50 grams per liter
(g/L) for interior architectural coatings and 100 g/L for exterior architectural coatings). Thus, the
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis Technical Report assumed that the low or
no-VOC content of 5 g/L is much lower than the SDAPCD Rule 67.0.1 limits.
Table 4: Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions
(Dudek, 2020)
Year VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
pounds per day
2021 11.72 90.76 84.02 0.24 16.53 9.77
2022 10.68 79.77 79.63 0.24 16.01 6.77
2023 6.48 34.76 47.64 0.16 11.17 3.57
2024 6.17 33.31 45.80 0.16 11.07 3.48
2025 5.88 31.86 44.11 0.16 10.97 3.39
2026 5.73 31.50 42.77 0.15 10.97 3.39
2027 5.59 31.16 41.58 0.15 10.97 3.38
2028 5.43 30.87 40.57 0.15 10.96 3.38
Maximum
Daily
Emissions
11.72 90.76 84.02 0.24 16.53 9.77
Chula Vista
Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold
Exceeded? No No No No No No
Notes: Emissions include compliance with SDAPCD Rule 55 (Fugitive Dust) and use of no-VOC
architectural coatings.
As shown in Table 4, daily construction emissions would not exceed the City’s significance
thresholds. Therefore, impacts during construction would be less than significant.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1024 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 26 January 2021
Operational Related Emissions
Operation of the Project would generate VOC, NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions from
mobile sources, including vehicle trips; area sources, including the use of consumer products and
landscape maintenance equipment; and energy sources. As discussed in Section 2.4.2.2, Operation,
pollutant emissions associated with long-term operations were quantified using CalEEMod.
Project-generated mobile source emissions were estimated in CalEEMod based on Project-specific
trip rates. CalEEMod default values were used to estimate emissions from the Project area and
energy sources (Dudek, 2020).
Table 5 presents the maximum daily area, energy, and mobile source emissions associated with
operation (year 2028) of the Project. The values shown are the maximum summer or winter daily
emissions results from CalEEMod.
Table 5: Estimated Maximum Daily Operational Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions
(Dudek, 2020)
As shown in Table 5, the combined daily area, energy, and mobile source emissions would not
exceed the City’s operational thresholds for VOC, NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5. Regarding
long-term cumulative operational emissions in relation to consistency with local air quality plans,
the SIP and RAQS serve as the primary air quality planning documents for the state and SDAB,
respectively. The SIP and RAQS rely on SANDAG growth projections based on population,
vehicle trends, and land use plans developed by the cities and the County as part of the
development of their general plans. Therefore, 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 Project would be consistent with the existing zoning and land use designation
for the site. As a result, the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to
regional O3 concentrations or other criteria pollutant emissions. Impacts associated with Project-
generated operational criteria air pollutant emissions would be less than significant.
Emission Source VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
pounds per day
Area 18.81 0.68 59.39 <0.01 0.33 0.33
Energy 0.29 2.48 1.06 0.02 0.20 0.20
Mobile 5.93 22.66 57.76 0.22 22.37 6.08
Total 25.03 25.83 118.20 0.24 22.90 6.61
Chula Vista
Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold
Exceeded? No No No No No No
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1025 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 27 January 2021
Operation of the Project will also contribute to GHG emissions (e.g. landscape equipment, energy
sources, mobile sources, water supply and treatment, and solid waste). However, measures have
been suggested to minimize impacts.
Sunbow II, Phase 3 will implement the following mitigation measures:
MM-GHG-1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Measures (Dudek, 2020).
• 100% recycled water shall be used for outdoor water uses.
• Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the floor plans and/or exterior elevations
submitted in conjunction with the Building Permit application shall show use of low-
flow water fixtures such as low-flow toilets, faucets, showers, etc.
• Thirty two preferential parking spaces (8% of the total parking spaces). shall be
provided for carpool, shared, electric, and hydrogen vehicles.
• Twenty four electric vehicle charging stations (6% of the total parking spaces) shall be
installed.
• Install bicycle parking facility.
• Energy-efficient lighting shall be used for all street, parking, and area lighting
associated with the proposed project, including all on-site and off-site lighting.
• Energy-efficient design practices, such as high-performance glazing, Energy Star
compliant systems and appliances, radiant heat roof barriers, insulation on all pipes,
programmable thermostats, solar access, and sealed ducts, shall be implemented.
• Native species and drought-tolerant species shall be used for a minimum of 50% of the
ornamental plant palette in non-turf areas to minimize water demand.
• Recycling of construction debris and waste shall be ensured through administration by
an onsite recycling coordinator and presence of recycling/separation areas.
Transportation Related Improvements
Based on the Sunbow Transportation Impact Analysis (Linscott Law & Greenspan, 2020), a
significant transportation impact was determined. However, to minimize the impact, the following
strategies are recommended to reduce the number of automobile trips generated by residents of the
Project and the distance that the residents drive.
• Provide Ride Share coordination services thru the Project’s Home Owner’s Association
to match residents interested in carpooling.
• Coordinate with near-by schools and / or the Project’s Home Owner’s Association to
match residents interested in carpooling to / from schools.
• Encourage bicycling by providing on-site bicycle infrastructure such as bike lanes and
bike racks.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1026 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 28 January 2021
5. Quantitative Project Evaluation
A quantitative analysis has been performed for Sunbow II, Phase 3 using Option Two: Alternative
Modeling Programs, specifically a LEED-ND equivalency analysis. LEED-ND criteria are more
appropriate than INDEX indicators for the project for the following reasons:
• INDEX indicators do not take habitat preservation and conservation efforts into account,
of which the Project is providing a significant amount.
• LEED-ND criteria measure these benefits to a greater and more accurate extent.
• The INDEX approach uses only 16 indicators, whereas LEED-ND has 56 indicators that
are able to characterize a project much more comprehensively and thoroughly, and
ultimately capture more contributors to GHG emission reductions.
• The underlying basics of the INDEX approach are nearly 15 years old in contrast to LEED-
ND’s latest update in July of 2018. Consequently, current best practices in urban design,
green infrastructure and resilient neighborhoods are not addressed by INDEX indicators,
but are covered by LEED-ND criteria.
• The California Energy Code and Green Building Standards have been updated since the
INDEX approach was established.
• The INDEX model is no longer being used.
Sunbow II, Phase 3 scores the equivalent of 25 points under the LEED-ND rating system. Table
1: LEED Equivalency Scorecard provides a description of the project attributes that were
considered from the LEED-ND rating system. The INDEX indicator metric is no long relevant,
therefore LEED ND is being used as a scoring method.
One of the largest factors for LEED-ND is location. This includes what land uses are located in
and around a 1/4-mile to 1/2-mile walking distance. The project is a large parcel of land, originally
intended for industrial but now re-designated for residential and open space uses. The inherent
characteristics of this parcel such as open space constraints and topography as well as surrounding
uses and proximity to those uses, creates obstacles to achieving a high LEED-ND score.
The project’s priority feature and purpose are creating housing. At a minimum, the 2019 Title 24
code will need to be met. These are more stringent than previous code cycles for air quality and
energy efficiency. Therefore, there are inherent measures put in place to contribute to air quality
improvements. In addition to Title 24, CEQA requirements require analysis and mitigation for
project significant impacts. Thus, even if a project does not score highly in LEED due to
uncontrollable circumstances, a project can still provide air quality improvement measures to
reduce negative environmental impacts. This Project falls into said category.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1027 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 29 January 2021
Table 6: LEED Neighborhood Development Plan V4 Equivalency Analysis
LEED-NDv4 Credit Options Possible
Points
PA23
Equivalency
Points
Notes
Smart Location & Linkage
SLLp1 Smart Location Transit Served Y/N Yes New infrastructure will be installed
for the project but will connect into
existing water and wastewater
infrastructure. Thus, the intent of
this prerequisite is being met as the
project will be an extension of
existing infrastructure.
Due to the project site location, the
MSCP, and the topography, the
project does not meet the
requirements for “Adjacent Sites
with Connectivity.”
SLLp2 Imperiled
Species and
Ecological
Communities
None Y/N Yes The Project has 63.6 acres of open
space designated for the MSCP.
There is also a 100’ fuel
modification zone which requires a
100’ buffer from any building to
natural open space.
SLLp3 Wetland and
Water Body
Conservation
None Y/N Yes The Project is implementing the
63.6 acres of MSCP. Thus, the
Project meets the intent of this
prerequisite due to the fact that it is
permanent preservation. Exact
management details are still being
determined. In addition,
development occurs more than 50’
away from the Poggi Creek
Conservation Easement.
SLLp4 Agricultural
Land
Conservation
None Y/N Yes The Project Amendment is
implementing the 63.6 acres of
MSCP. Thus, the Project meets the
intent of this prerequisite due to the
fact that it is permanent
preservation. Exact management
details are still being determined.
SLLp5 Floodplain
Avoidance
None Y/N Yes The Project is not within a 100-year
or 500-year floodplain as mapped
by FEMA (FEMA, 2012).
SLLc1 Preferred
Locations
1. Location Type 10
2. Connectivity
3. High Priority
Locations
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1028 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 30 January 2021
LEED-NDv4 Credit Options Possible
Points
PA23
Equivalency
Points
Notes
SLLc2 Brownfield
Remediation
Brownfield Site 1
High Priority
Redevelopment
Area
2
SLLc3 Access to
Quality Transit
Existing/Planned
Transit
1-7
SLLc4 Bicycle Facilities Bicycle Storage 1 1 Option 2, Existing bicycle network
within 1/4 mile, bike network
connects to Class 2 Bike Lanes on
Olympic Parkway, there are diverse
uses that can be accessed from
Olympic Parkway as well as transit.
Bicycle storage will be provided on
site and inclusive of space in
residential unit garages.
Bicycle Location
Bicycle Network 1 1 Connects to an existing bicycle
network with at least 3 continuous
miles.
SLLc5 Housing and
Jobs Proximity
Affordable
housing
3
30% of total SF
residential OR #
of jobs within 1/2
mile = # of
housing
2
Infill project with
nonresidential
component
1
SLLc6 Steep Slope
Protection
1
SLLc7 Site Design for
Habitat or
Wetland and
Water Body
Conservation
Sites w/o
Significant habitat
or wetlands
1
Sites with habitat
or wetlands
1 1 Poggi Creek is on-site in the MSCP
area.
SLLc8 Restoration of
Habitat or
Wetlands and
Water Bodies
1 1 The Project has 63.6 acres of
Preserve (MSCP) area. Habitat
restoration will occur within the
MSCP areas.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1029 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 31 January 2021
LEED-NDv4 Credit Options Possible
Points
PA23
Equivalency
Points
Notes
SLLc9 Long-Term
Conservation
Management of
Habitat or
Wetlands and
Water Bodies
1 1 The 63.6 acres of MSCP will be
permanently preserved, with
management funded through the
existing Sunbow Community
Facilities District.
Neighborhood Pattern & Design
NPDp1 Walkable Streets Y/N No The project is a community
consisting of attached homes. All
homes are accessed from a street or
paseo. Each home has its own
attached garage which is accessed
from a private drive. These product
types enable architecture forward
designs, with front doors at the
front and garages at the rear. Thus,
the front door is along the
pedestrian route rather than garage
doors. Due to the topography of the
site and the current site design, the
majority of the buildings do not
meet the height to street width
requirement. In many cases, the
circulation network within the
planning areas do meet the ratio
(alleys not considered) but homes
along Street A and B are often
farther than 45’ from the centerline
due to slopes and front yard
accommodations. Sidewalks are
smaller than the minimum 8’ width.
Although this pre-requisite is not
being met, the subject project does
provide walkable streets and
pedestrian opportunities
throughout, including connections
to area trails and transit.
NPDp2 Compact
Development
Y/N Yes The minimum density for any
residential area in the project is
13.3 du/ac. The maximum density
for a neighborhood in the project is
24.1 du/ac. The average density for
the entire community is 16.3 which
exceeds the requirements for 7
du/ac.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1030 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 32 January 2021
LEED-NDv4 Credit Options Possible
Points
PA23
Equivalency
Points
Notes
NPDp3 Connected and
Open
Community
Y/N Yes 24 intersections within the project
boundary (.07 square miles).
Proportionately, this would meet
the pre-requisite of 140
intersections/square mile. (Refer to
Figure 5: Intersection Density.
NPDc1 Walkable Streets 25' setback (80%) Residential setbacks are using the
minimum amount permitted with
the constraints including the
MSCP, the slope, and the fuel
modification line.
18' setback (50%)
Residential setbacks are using the
minimum amount permitted with
the constraints including the
MSCP, the slope, and the fuel
modification line setback
restrictions.
1' setback for
nonresidential
(50%)
1
Functional entries
every 75 feet
1
Function entries
every 30 feet
1
Glass on 60% of
facades
1
No blank walls
40% of sidewalk
1
Ground-level
retail, services
must be
unshuttered at
night
1
On-street parking
provided both
sides on 70% of
streets
1
Continuous
sidewalks (10'
1
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1031 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 33 January 2021
LEED-NDv4 Credit Options Possible
Points
PA23
Equivalency
Points
Notes
wide on mixed-use
blocks)
Ground-floor
residential units at
least 24" above
grade
1
Ground floor retail
in multi-stores
1
Building height-
street width
1
20 mph residential
streets
1
25 mph mixed use
street
1
Driveways limited 1
NPDc2 Compact
Development
Density/acre 1-6 2 The average density of Sunbow II,
Phase 3 is 16.3 du/ac.
NPDc3 Mixed-Use
Neighborhoods
Uses with 1/4 mile
walking distances
1-4
NPDc4 Housing Types
and Affordability
Diverse housing
types
1-7 Option 1: Using SDI.
80 units less than 1,250 sf in R-6.
80/718 = .11
.112 = .012
638/718=.89
.892=.792
.012+.792=.804
1-.802 = .196.
There are a variety of home options
in the project. All attached but they
range in size and configuration.
This includes opportunity for
smaller units with tandem garages
and units with side by side garages.
Some units are considered carriage
units above garages while others
have living space on the ground
floor. The applicant is also
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1032 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 34 January 2021
LEED-NDv4 Credit Options Possible
Points
PA23
Equivalency
Points
Notes
financially contributing to the
existing affordable housing
community in Sunbow which will
enable on-going affordable rents.
Affordable
housing
1-3 1 All housing within Sunbow II,
Phase 3 will be market-rate,
however, the applicant is working
with the City to ensure obligations
are met to comply with the City’s
Balanced Affordable Communities
Policies that will be memorialized
in an updated affordable housing
agreement with the City.
Additional diverse
housing types
NPDc5 Reduced Parking
Footprint
All off-street
parking at side or
rear
1 1 The total area for surface parking is
approximately 42,610 square feet
(.98 acres). This equals 2% of the
total development footprint.
NPDc6 Connected and
Open
Community
Intersections/mile
300-400+
1-3 1
NPDc7 Transit Facilities 1
NPDc8 Transportation
Demand
Management
Transit Passes 1-21
points for
every 2
options
Developer-
sponsored transit
Vehicle sharing
Unbundling of
parking/fees
Guaranteed ride
home program
Flexible work
arrangements
NPDc9 Access to Civic
& Public Space
90% of units and
non-residential use
entrances within
1/4 mile of 1 civic
and passive use
space
1
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1033 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 35 January 2021
LEED-NDv4 Credit Options Possible
Points
PA23
Equivalency
Points
Notes
NPDc10 Access to
Recreation
Facilities
1 Rec facility of 1
acre within ½ mile
1 1 There is a 0.9 acre recreation area
within the project as well as other
passive and active recreation spaces
throughout the community.
NPDc11 Visitability and
Universal Design
20% of dwellings
are a visitable unit
1
At least 5
Universal Design
Features
1
Kitchen features 1
Bedroom/Bathroo
m features
1
NPDc12 Community
Outreach and
Involvement
Community
outreach
1 1 Will be conducted.
Charrette 2
Endorsement
Program
2
NPDc13 Local Food
Production
Neighborhood
gardens
1
Community
supported
agriculture
1
Farmers Market
within 1/2 mile
walking distance
1
NPDc14 Tree-Lined and
Shaded
Streetscapes
Trees planted 50
oc on at least 60%
of streets
1
Density and utility lines may
prohibit this.
Shaded sidewalks
on 40% of
sidewalks within
10 years
1
Density and utility lines may
prohibit this.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1034 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 36 January 2021
LEED-NDv4 Credit Options Possible
Points
PA23
Equivalency
Points
Notes
Certification from
landscape
architect that trees
are planted
properly and not
invasive
1 1
NPDc15 Neighborhood
Schools
Neighborhood
school within 1/2
mile
1
There are two schools within a 1-
mile radius.
Green Infrastructure & Buildings
GIBp1 Certified Green
Buildings
Y/N No No commitment for Certified
LEED Buildings at this stage of
project.
GIBp2 Minimum
Building Energy
Efficiency
Y/N Yes
GIBp3 Minimum
Building Water
Efficiency
Y/N No All fixtures meet LEED
requirements except for toilets
which will comply with 2019 Code
of 1.28 gallon/flush rather than 1.1
gallon/flush which is required to
meet this prerequisite.
GIBp4 Construction
Activity
Pollution
Prevention
Y/N Yes
GIBc1 Certified Green
Buildings
Number of
buildings certified
under LEED OR
other green
building rating
system 10-20% 1
point;
20-30% 2 points;
30-40% 3 points,
40-50% 4 points;
+50% 5 points
1-5
GIBc2 Optimize
Building Energy
Performance
12% above
ASHRAE; OR
20% ASHRAE
1-2
ASHRAE 50%
Advanced Energy
Design
2
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1035 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 37 January 2021
LEED-NDv4 Credit Options Possible
Points
PA23
Equivalency
Points
Notes
GIBc3 Indoor Water
Use Reduction
Reduce water use
40% non-
residential
1 1 CALgreen exceeds requirement.
90% of residential
buildings would
earn 4 points
under LEED v4
1 1 CALgreen exceeds requirement.
GIBc4 Outdoor Water
Use Reduction
No irrigation 2
Reduced irrigation
30% 1 point; 50%
2 points
1-2 2 California Code exceeds
requirements. Approved landscape
plans meet California MWELO.
GIBc5 Building Reuse N/A 1
GIBc6 Historic
Resource
Preservation and
Adaptive Reuse
N/A
GIBc7 Minimized Site
Disturbance
1
GIBc8 Rainwater
Management
Manage runoff on
site 80th percentile
1 point; 85th 2
points; 90th 3
points; 95th 4
points
1-4 2 Stormwater management
requirements in the San Diego
Region require capture of the 85th
percentile
GIBc9 Heat Island
Reduction
Non-roof
measures
1
High-reflectance
and vegetated
roofs
1
Mixed non-roof &
roof measures
1
GIBc10
Solar Orientation
Block orientation 1 1 Site layout is conducive to 2019
solar zone of 90 to 300 degrees.
Building
orientation
1 1 Site layout is conducive to 2019
solar zone of 90 to 300 degrees.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1036 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 38 January 2021
LEED-NDv4 Credit Options Possible
Points
PA23
Equivalency
Points
Notes
GIBc11 Renewable
Energy
Production
Renewable energy
production
5% - 1 point,
12.5% -2 points;
20% -3 points
1-3 1 2019 California Energy Code
requires solar installation unless
alternative method that is equally
efficient as solar is used.
GIBc12 District Heating
and Cooling
Needs to be 80%
of projects annual
heating
and/cooling
2
GIBc13 Infrastructure
Energy
Efficiency
Infrastructure to
be 15% annual
energy reduction
1
GIBc14 Wastewater
Management
25% of
wastewater is
reused on-site
1 point; 50% 2
points
1-2
GIBc15 Recycled and
Reused
Infrastructure
1
GIBc16 Solid Waste
Management
1 1 CALGreen requires that a
minimum of 65% of nonhazardous
construction and demolition waste
be either recycled or salvaged for
reuse.
GIBc17 Light Pollution
Reduction
1 1 Per CALGreen requirements.
Innovation & Design Process
IDCPc1 Innovation
IDCPc2 LEED®
Accredited
Professional
1 1
Regional Priority Credits
Regional Priority
Credit: Region
Defined
Rainwater
Management
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1037 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 39 January 2021
LEED-NDv4 Credit Options Possible
Points
PA23
Equivalency
Points
Notes
Regional Priority
Credit: Region
Defined
Mixed-Use
Neighborhoods
Regional Priority
Credit: Region
Defined
Housing Types
and Affordability
Regional Priority
Credit: Region
Defined
Total points
25
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1038 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 40 January 2021
Figure 4: Chula Vista General Plan Regional Transit Vision
Sunbow II,
Phase 3
Location
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1039 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 41 January 2021
Figure 5: Intersection Density
Note: Figure 5 represents a conceptual plan for the Project. The final site plan, including build ing placement to be
determined during the Design Review process.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1040 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 42 January 2021
Figure 6: Conceptual Site Plan
Note: Figure 6 represents a conceptual plan for the Project. The final site plan, including building placement to be
determined during the Design Review process.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1041 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 43 January 2021
6. Community Design and Site Planning Features
Table 7: Community Design and Site Planning Features below provides an overview of the
Community Design and Site Planning Features, as well as building and landscape features, which
have been integrated into the Sunbow SPA Plan to create a sustainable community. These
measures are based on California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA)
Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures.
Table 7: Community Design and Site Planning Features
Transportation Related Measures
An integrated circulation system provides residents access to commercial, public and residential
land uses as well as access to points beyond Sunbow. Non-automobile related circulation options
include walking, bicycling, and transit.
Direct pedestrian links extend to Olympic Parkway and its Chula Vista Regional trail. These
connections enable access to transit and other areas beyond the Project.
The Project is located close to major urban and employment centers, public transit and I-805.
Class II bicycle facilities exist along Olympic Parkway which connect to the on-site Class III
bicycle lanes.
Land uses designed in the Project are intended to be pedestrian and bicycle friendly. With travel
speeds of 25 to 35 mph as well as sidewalks and paseos, this community is designed to be a
relaxed walking environment.
Pedestrians can comfortably access transit by utilizing the Chula Vista Regional Trail along
Olympic Parkway.
Bicycle storage will be provided at the recreation areas. It is expected residents will also store
bikes in their private garages.
Two preferential parking spaces shall be provided for carpool, shared, electric, and hydrogen
vehicles.
Install EV charging stations and EV-ready infrastructure as required by code.
Energy-Conservation Related Measures
Project will be compliant with prevailing building and energy codes at the time of permit
submission.
100% of the residential dwelling units will be multi-family residences that use less energy for
heating and cooling when compared to larger single-family detached homes.
Building orientation is suitable for solar access.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1042 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 44 January 2021
Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the floor plans and/or exterior elevations submitted
in conjunction with the Building Permit application shall show use of low-flow water fixtures
such as low-flow toilets, faucets, showers, etc.
Energy-efficient lighting shall be used for all street, parking, and area lighting associated with
the proposed project, including all on-site and off-site lighting.
Energy-efficient design practices, such as high-performance glazing, Energy Star compliant
systems and appliances, radiant heat roof barriers, insulation on all pipes, programmable
thermostats, solar access, and sealed ducts, shall be implemented.
The Project would use energy supplied by SDG&E, which is in compliance with the Renewables
Portfolio Standard.
California Green Building Code Title 24, Part 11 (CALGreen) 2019 Code requires 65% of all
new construction waste generated at the site be diverted to recycle or salvage. Additionally, the
State has set per capita disposal rates of 5.3 pounds per person per day for the City of Chula
Vista.
CVMC 8.25.095 requires all new construction and demolition projects to divert 100% of inert
waste (asphalt, concrete, bricks, tile, trees, stumps, rocks and associated vegetation and soils
resulting from land clearing from landfill disposal); and 50% of all remaining waste generated,
unless partial or full diversion exemption is granted. Contractors will be required to put up a
performance deposit and prepare a Waste Management Report form to ensure that all materials
are responsibly handled. Upon verification that the diversion goals have been met the
performance deposit will be refunded.
Recycling of construction debris and waste shall be ensured through administration by an onsite
recycling coordinator and presence of recycling/separation areas.
Water-Related Measures to Reduce GHGs
All landscape shall comply with CVMC § 20.12. Landscape Water Conservation requirements.
Landscape and irrigation to comply with California’s Model Water Efficient Landscape
Ordinance (MWELO).
100% reclaimed water shall be used for outdoor water uses.
Native species and drought-tolerant species shall be used for a minimum of 50% of the
ornamental plant palette in non-turf areas to minimize water demand.
Natural turf in residential development will be limited to no more than 30% of the outdoor open
space.
When siting sensitive land uses such as residences, schools, day care centers, playgrounds and
medical facilities the recommendations set forth in Table 1-1 of California Air Resources
Board’s (CARB) Land Use and Air Quality Handbook (CARB 2004) will be used as a guideline.
Specifically, new sensitive uses would not be located within 50 feet of any typical-sized gas
station (one that has a throughput of less than 3.6 million gallons per year). No gas stations with
a throughput of 3.6 million gallons per year or greater shall be developed within the Project.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1043 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 45 January 2021
7. Chula Vista CO2 Reduction Plan
This section provides a comparative evaluation between the community /site design features and
the energy efficiency emission reduction action measure. This section provides a comparative
evaluation between the community /site design features and the energy efficiency emission
reduction action measures contained in the City’s Carbon Dioxide CO2 Reduction Plan.
Table 8: Summary of Sunbow II, Phase 3 Consistency with CO2 Reduction Action Measures
Action Measure Project/Community Design Features
Describe how project
design will Implement
CO2 Reduction Action
Measures
Measure 6 (Enhanced Pedestrian
Connections to Transit):
Installation of walkways and
crossings between bus stops and
surrounding land uses.
The project will have sidewalks and paseos
throughout the neighborhoods. There will also
be pedestrian and bicycle connections to
Olympic Parkway. Olympic Parkway consists
of a Class II bike lane and includes the Chula
Vista Regional Trail. Transit stops can be
accessed from these routes. The project will
provide a comfortable pedestrian environment
for residents to walk within the community.
Reduces vehicle-miles
traveled that in turn
reduces the GHG
emissions.
Measure 7: Increased Housing
Density near Transit: General
increase in land use and zoning
designations to reach an average
of at least 14-18 dwelling units
per net acre within ¼ mile of
major transit facilities.
The Project will allow for medium-high to high
density housing types. There is a bus stop
within a ½ mile walking distance of the Project
entry.
Reduces vehicle-miles
traveled that in turn
reduces the GHG
emissions.
Measure 8 (Site Design with
Transit Orientation): Placement
of buildings and circulation
routes to emphasize transit rather
than auto access; also includes
bus turn-outs and other transit
stop amenities.
Transit stops are located within a ½ mile
walking distance from the Project entry. There
are also other transit stops throughout the
Sunbow Planned Community.
Sunbow provides sidewalks and bike trails that
connect to transit. This facilitates ease of use
and connectivity.
Convenient access to
transit stops encourages
ridership, which in turn
reduce private automobile
trips. Connectivity such as
bike lanes to the transit
stops also encourage
ridership and help
minimize first mile/last
mile issues.
Measure 9 (Increased Land Use
Mix): Provide a greater
dispersion/variety of land uses
such as siting of neighborhood
commercial uses in residential
areas and inclusion of housing in
commercial and light industrial
areas.
The Project is proposing re-designation of an
undeveloped industrial parcel to higher density
residential. The Project Area is part of the
built-out Sunbow General Development Plan
and SPA Plan which has existing infrastructure
and a mix of uses in place (including but not
limited to a fire station, retail, schools, parks, a
community center and various housing types).
Reduces vehicle-miles
traveled that in turn
reduces the GHG
emissions.
Measure 11 (Site Design with
Pedestrian/Bicycle Orientation):
Placement of buildings and
circulation routes to emphasize
Existing Olympic Parkway is a 6-lane Prime
Arterial that provides access to the Project
Area, along two Class III Collector Streets.
Olympic Parkway has a Class II bike lane
Promotes bicycling and
walking thereby reducing
vehicle-miles traveled that
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1044 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 46 January 2021
Action Measure Project/Community Design Features
Describe how project
design will Implement
CO2 Reduction Action
Measures
pedestrian and bicycle access
without excluding autos; includes
pedestrian benches, bike paths,
and bike racks.
within the ROW and is designated on the
City’s Bikeway Master Plan. Brandywine
Avenue and Heritage Road, both running
north-south, also have designated Class II bike
lanes. Brandywine Avenue connects to the
Sunbow retail center which can be traveled to
via bike on the Class II bike lane from the
project. Additionally, Olympic Parkway has a
Chula Vista Regional Trail running along the
north side of the road, which is accessible from
the Project via two fully signalized
intersections on Olympic Parkway.
in turn reduces the GHG
emissions.
Measure 13 (Bike Lanes, paths,
and Routes): Continued
implementation of the City’s
bicycle master plan. Emphasis is
to be given to separate bike paths
as opposed to striping bike lanes
on streets.
The SPA amendment implements the City’s
bicycle master plan. Olympic Parkway has a
Class II bike lane and is designated on the
City’s Bikeway Master Plan. Brandywine
Avenue and Heritage Road, both running
north-south, also have designated Class II bike
lanes. Brandywine Avenue connects to the
Sunbow retail center which can be traveled to
by bike on the Class II bike lane from the
Project. Additionally, Olympic Parkway
includes the Chula Vista Regional Trail along
the north side , accessible from the Project via
two fully signalized intersections on Olympic
Parkway.
Promotes bicycling that can
reduce vehicle-miles
traveled that in turn
reduces the GHG
emissions.
Measure 14 (Energy Efficient
Landscaping): Installation of
shade trees for new single-family
homes as part of an overall City-
wide tree planting effort to reduce
ambient temperatures, smog
formation, energy use, and CO2.
There will be shade trees throughout the
community, both along streets and common
spaces, consistent with the City’s Shade Tree
Ordinance No. 576-19.
Reduces energy
consumption that reduces
GHG emissions.
Measure 15 (Solar Pool
Heating): Mandatory building
code requirements for solar
heating of new pools or optional
motorized insulated pool cover.
Community pool/recreation area will comply
with code requirements.
Reduces energy
consumption that reduces
GHG emissions.
Measure 16 (Traffic Signal &
System Upgrades): Provide high-
efficiency LED lamps or similar
as approved by the City Engineer.
Energy-efficient lighting will be used for all
on- site street, parking, and area lighting within
the Project .
Reduces energy
consumption that reduces
GHG emissions.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1045 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 47 January 2021
Action Measure Project/Community Design Features
Describe how project
design will Implement
CO2 Reduction Action
Measures
Measure 20 (Increased
Employment Density Near
Transit): General increase in
land-use and zoning designations
to focus employment-generating
land-uses within ¼ mile of major
transit stops throughout the City.
The primary Project land use is residential.
However, it is providing for higher density
residential, within an already developed area
which has employment centers in place. The
existing transit stops are within a ½ mile of the
Project entrance. This transit circulates to
employment centers.
Reduces vehicle-miles
traveled that in turn
reduces the GHG emissions
8. Credit Towards Increased Minimum Energy Efficiency Standards
The project will comply with CVMC Sections 15.12, 15.26, 15.28.015, 15.24.065, 15.28.20 and
20.040.
9. Compliance Monitoring
This section includes a written description and a checklist (Table 9) summarizing the project
design features and mitigation measures that have been identified to reduce the project’s effects
on air quality and improve energy efficiency.
Table 9: Sunbow II, Phase 3 Air Quality Improvement Plan Compliance Checklist
Method of
Verification1 Timing of Verification Responsible
Party2
Project
Consistency &
Compliance
Documentation3
PLANNING
AQIP Project Design Features/Principles
Integrated
circulation
system
Plan Review Precise Plan City of Chula
Vista
Class III Bicycle
facilities Plan Check Tentative Tract Final Map, Improvement
Plans
City of Chula
Vista
Neighborhood
circulation
pattern w/less
than 35mph
Plan Review Tentative Tract Final Map, Improvement
Plans
City of Chula
Vista
Air Quality Mitigation Measures
Construction
related
emissions
Permit Review Grading Permit City of Chula
Vista
Siting of
sensitive land
uses
Permit Review Building Permit City of Chula
Vista
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1046 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Page 48 January 2021
Method of
Verification1 Timing of Verification Responsible
Party2
Project
Consistency &
Compliance
Documentation3
TAC Emission
Compliance Permit Review Building Permit City of Chula
Vista
BUILDING
Green Building Standards
New
Construction
Recycling Plan
Waste
Management
Report
Review
Construction or demolition permit City of Chula
Vista
Space of
recycling in
projects
Plan Check Tentative Tract OR Building Permit City of Chula
Vista
Method of
Verification1 Timing of Verification Responsible
Party2
Project Consistency
& Compliance
Documentation3
Energy Efficiency Standards
Size of
dwellings units Plan Check Building Permit City of Chula
Vista
Building
compliance with
prevailing code
Plan Check Building Permit/ Title 24 Energy Report City of Chula
Vista
Installation of
energy efficient
appliances as
code requires
Plan Check Building Permit City of Chula
Vista
Indoor water
fixture
requirements
Plan Check Plumbing Permit City of Chula
Vista
Installation of
Pressure
Reducing
Valves
Plan Check Plumbing Permit Otay Water
District
Landscape
Water
Conservation
Plan Check Landscape Plan City of Chula
Vista
Installation of
Recycled Water
for common
landscape areas,
open space and
the CPF site.
Plan Check Tentative Tract Final Map, Improvement
Plans
Otay Water
District/ City
of Chula
Vista
Notes:
1. Method of verification may include, but is not limited to, plan check, permit review, and site inspection.
2. Identify the party responsible for ensuring compliance (City of Chula Vista, San Diego APCD, Other).
3. This column shall include all pertinent information necessary to confirm compliance including document
type, date of completion, plan/permit number, spec ial notes/comments, and contact information.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1047 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT
FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
Prepared for:
Lennar Homes of California, Inc.
16465 Via Esprillo, Suite 150
San Diego, California 92127
Contact: David Shepherd
Project Applicant
ACI Sunbow, LLC
2356 Moore Street
San Diego, California 92110
Contact: Bill Hamlin
Prepared by:
605 Third Street
Encinitas, California 92024
MARCH 2021
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1048 of 1271
Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1049 of 1271
12431
i March 2021
Table of Contents
SECTION PAGE NO.
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .............................................................................................................................. V
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................................. VII
1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Applicable Codes and Existing Regulations .......................................................................................... 1
1.2 Proposed Project Summary ................................................................................................................... 2
1.2.1 Location ..................................................................................................................................... 2
1.2.2 Proposed Project Description ................................................................................................... 2
2 PROPOSED PROJECT SITE RISK ANALYSIS.................................................................................................... 11
2.1 Environmental Setting and Field Assessment ................................................................................... 11
2.2 Site Characteristics and Fire Environment ........................................................................................ 11
2.2.1 Topography ............................................................................................................................. 11
2.2.2 Existing/Vicinity Land Use ..................................................................................................... 12
2.2.3 Climate ................................................................................................................................... 12
2.2.4 Vegetation (Fuels) .................................................................................................................. 12
2.2.5 Vegetation Dynamics ............................................................................................................. 13
2.2.6 Fire History ............................................................................................................................. 14
3 ANTICIPATED FIRE BEHAVIOR ..................................................................................................................... 18
3.1 Fire Behavior Modeling ....................................................................................................................... 18
3.2 Fire Behavior Modeling Analysis ......................................................................................................... 18
3.3 Fire Modeling Summary ...................................................................................................................... 20
3.4 Wildland Fire Risk Assessment .......................................................................................................... 20
4 EMERGENCY RESPONSE AND SERVICE...................................................................................................... 25
4.1 Emergency Response .......................................................................................................................... 25
4.2 Estimated Calls and Demand for Service .......................................................................................... 30
4.3 Response Capability Impact Assessment .......................................................................................... 31
5 BUILDINGS, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND DEFENSIBLE SPACE ......................................................................... 33
5.1 Site Access ........................................................................................................................................... 33
5.1.1 Fire Apparatus Access ........................................................................................................... 33
5.1.2 Road Widths and Circulation ................................................................................................. 34
5.1.3 Gates ...................................................................................................................................... 34
5.1.4 Dead-Ends .............................................................................................................................. 34
5.1.5 Surface ................................................................................................................................... 34
5.1.6 Vertical Clearance .................................................................................................................. 34
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1050 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
12431
ii March 2021
5.1.7 Driveways ............................................................................................................................... 34
5.1.8 Premise Identification ............................................................................................................ 35
5.2 Ignition Resistant Construction .......................................................................................................... 35
5.2.1 Additional Requirements and Recommendations Based on Occupancy Type .................. 35
5.3 Fire Protection Systems ...................................................................................................................... 36
5.3.1 Water Supply .......................................................................................................................... 36
5.3.2 Fire Hydrants .......................................................................................................................... 36
5.3.3 Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems ......................................................................................... 36
5.3.4 Smoke Alarm Systems ........................................................................................................... 36
5.4 Defensible Space and Vegetation Management ............................................................................... 36
5.4.1 Fuel Modification Zones ........................................................................................................ 36
5.4.2 Fuel Modification Area Vegetation Maintenance ................................................................. 42
5.4.3 Annual Fuel Modification Zone Compliance Inspection ...................................................... 42
5.4.4 Reduced Fuel Modification Zone Discussion ....................................................................... 42
6 HOMEOWNER’S WILDFIRE EDUCATION PROGRAM .................................................................................... 56
7 CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................................. 58
8 LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................................................... 60
9 LIST OF PREPARERS ................................................................................................................................... 62
10 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................................. 64
APPENDICES
A Representative Site Photographs
B BehavePlus Fire Behavior Analysis
C Proposed Project Slope Planting and FMZ Tree List
D Prohibited Plant List
FIGURES
1 Project Location ................................................................................................................................................... 5
2 Sunbow II, Phase 3 Site Plan .............................................................................................................................. 7
3 Sunbow II, Phase 3 Land Use Plan ..................................................................................................................... 9
4 Fire History Map ................................................................................................................................................ 16
5 BehavePlus Fire Behavior Analysis .................................................................................................................. 23
6 Closest Fire Station Locations .......................................................................................................................... 28
7a Conceptual Fuel Modification Map .................................................................................................................. 44
7b Fuel Modification Zone Cross Sections ........................................................................................................... 46
7c Fuel Modification Zone Cross Sections ........................................................................................................... 48
7d Fuel Modification Zone Cross Sections ........................................................................................................... 50
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1051 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
12431
iii March 2021
TABLES
1 Sunbow II Phase 3 Site Utilization Table ............................................................................................................ 3
2 Proposed Project Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types ............................................................... 13
3 Historical Wildfires within Three Miles of the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project Site ............................................. 14
4 Fuel Model Characteristics ............................................................................................................................... 18
5 BehavePlus Fire Behavior Modeling Results - Existing Conditions ................................................................ 19
6 BehavePlus Fire Behavior Modeling Results - Post-Project Conditions ......................................................... 19
7 CVFD Emergency Response Analysis for the Proposed Project Site .............................................................. 26
8 Calculated Call Volume Associated with the Proposed Project ...................................................................... 30
9 Calculated Call Volume Increase Per Station Associated with the Proposed Project ................................... 31
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1052 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
12431
iv March 2021
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1053 of 1271
12431
v March 2021
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Acronym Definition
AMSL Above Mean Sea Level
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
CBC California Building Code
CFC California Fire Code
FAHJ Fire Authority Having Jurisdiction
FMZ Fuel Modification Zone
FPP Fire Protection Plan
FRAP Fire and Resource Assessment Program
GIS Geographical Information System
HOA Homeowner’s Association
Project Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project
SANDAG San Diego Association of Governments
SanGIS San Diego Geographic Information Source
WUI Wildland Urban Interface
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1054 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
12431
vi March 2021
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1055 of 1271
12431
vii March 2021
Executive Summary
This Fire Protection Plan (FPP) has been prepared for the proposed Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project (Proposed Project)
in the City of Chula Vista. This FPP evaluates and identifies the potential fire risk associated with the Proposed
Project’s land uses and identifies requirements for water supply, fuel modification and defensible space, emergency
access, building ignition and fire resistance, fire protection systems, and wildfire emergency pre-planning, among
other pertinent fire protection criteria. The purpose of this plan is to generate and memorialize the fire safety
requirements of the City of Chula Vista along with project-specific measures based on the site, its intended use,
and its fire environment.
This document provides an analysis of the site’s fire environment and its potential impact on the Proposed Project
as well as the Proposed Project’s potential impact on the existing fire protection service in the area. Requirements
and recommendations herein are based on site-specific fire environment and Proposed Project characteristics and
incorporate input from Chula Vista Fire Department (CVFD), local fire personnel, area fire planning documents, site
risk analysis, and standard principles of fire protection planning.
As described in this FPP, the Proposed Project will meet applicable Fire and Building Code requirements or offer
alternative materials and methods for complying with the codes. The recommendations and conditions provided
herein are also consistent with the lessons learned from After Fire Action Reports from numerous fires occurring
over the last roughly 20 years, including the 2003, 2007, 2014, and 2017 San Diego County Fires.
As determined during the analysis of this site and its fire environment, the Proposed Project multi-family residential
development, in its current, undeveloped condition, is considered to include characteristics that, under favorable
conditions, have the potential to facilitate fire spread. Under extreme conditions, wildfires on portions of the site
could burn erratically and aggressively and result in significant ember production. Once the Proposed Project is
built, the Proposed Project’s on-site fire potential will be lower than its current condition due to conversion of areas
of wildland fuels to managed landscapes, extensive fuel modification areas, improved accessibility to firefighting
personnel and equipment, and new structures built to the latest ignition resistant codes.
It is important to note that the fire safety requirements that will be implemented on this site, including ignition
resistant construction standards, along with requirements for water supply, fire apparatus access, fuel modification
and defensible space, interior fire sprinklers and fast fire response travel times were integrated into the fire and
building code requirements based on results of post-fire assessments, similar to the After Action Reports that are
now prepared after large fire events. When it became clear that specifics of how homes were built, how fire and
embers ignited homes, what effects fuel modification had on structure ignition, how fast firefighters could respond,
and how much (and how reliable) water was available, were critically important to structure survivability, the Fire
and Building codes were revised appropriately. These fire safety measures were adopted into the 2007 Fire and
Building Codes and have been retained and enhanced in code updates since then.
The Proposed Project includes the subdivision of an approximately 135.7-acre parcel into 720 multi-family
residential units on 44.2 acres. The Project Site is within a wildland urban interface (WUI) location that is in an area
statutorily designated a Local Responsibility Area Non-Fire Hazard Severity Zone by the City and California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). The Project Site is within a Supplemental Fire Hazard Zone
as designated by the City. Fire hazard designations are based on topography, vegetation, and weather, amongst
other factors with more hazardous sites including steep terrain, unmaintained fuels/vegetation, and WUI locations.
The Project Site is currently undeveloped and in a semi-disturbed condition, including primarily non-native grassland
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1056 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
12431
viii March 2021
with smaller representations of native grassland and coastal sage scrub. The Proposed Project is located adjacent
to open space areas to the north and west, a landfill to the south, planned development to the east and a narrow
strip of open space and a residential development to the north. Terrain on site and within the vicinity of the Proposed
Project is characterized by gentle slopes, with gradients reaching up to 8%. The area, like all of San Diego County,
is subject to seasonal weather conditions that can heighten the likelihood of fire ignit ion and spread, and,
considering the site’s terrain and vegetation, may result in fast moving and moderate-intensity wildfire.
Access to the Proposed Project site is from two planned points from Olympic Parkway, east of Brandywine Avenue.
The entire site has been designed with fire protection as a key objective. The site improvements are designed to
facilitate emergency apparatus and personnel access throughout the site. Driveway and road improvements with
fire engine turnouts and turnarounds provide access to within 150 feet of all sides of every building. Residential
water availability and flow will be consistent with City requirements including fire flow and duration. These features
along with the ignition resistance of all buildings, the automatic interior fire sprinklers, and the pre-planning, training
and resident awareness will assist responding firefighters through prevention, protection and suppression
capabilities. As detailed in this FPP, the Proposed Project site’s fire protection system will include a redundant
layering of protection methods that have proven to reduce overall fire risk. The requirements and recommendations
included herein are performance oriented and site specific based on its unique characteristics rather than a
prescriptive, one-size-fits-all approach. The fire protection system is designed to reduce the wildfire risk to each
property, to minimize risks associated with typical uses, and aid the responding firefighters during an emergency.
No singular measure is intended to be relied upon for the Proposed Projects’ fire protection, but rather, a system
of fire protection measures, methods, and features combine to result in enhanced fire safety, reduced fire potential,
and a prepared community.
Early evacuation for any type of wildfire emergency near the Project Site is the preferred method of providing for resident
safety, consistent with the City’s current approach. As such, each property owner will be individually responsible to adopt,
practice, and implement a “Ready, Set, Go!” (International Fire Chiefs Association 2013) approach to site evacuation.
The “Ready, Set, Go!” concept is widely known and encouraged by the state of California and most fire agencies. Pre-
planning for emergencies, including wildfire emergencies, focuses on being prepared, having a well-defined plan,
minimizing potential for errors, maintaining the site’s fire protection systems, and implementing a conservative (evacuate
as early as possible) approach to evacuation and site uses during periods of fire weather extremes.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1057 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
12431
ix March 2021
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1058 of 1271
12431
1 March 2021
1 Introduction
This Fire Protection Plan (FPP) has been prepared for the proposed Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project (Proposed Project) in the
City of Chula Vista (City), California. This FPP provides specific measures for fire protection which meet or provide
equivalent protection as 2019 California Fire and ignition-resistant Building Codes or the most current version in place
when homes are constructed. It also identifies the fire risk associated with proposed land uses, and identifies
requirements for fuel modification, building design and construction, and other pertinent development infrastructure
criteria for fire protection. These requirements are based on site-specific characteristics and incorporate input from the
Proposed Project’s developer/applicant, planners, engineers, and architects, fire protection planners, urban foresters,
as well as the City.
As part of the assessment, the plan has considered the property location, topography, geology, combustible
vegetation (fuel types), climatic conditions, fire history and the proposed land use. The plan also addresses water
supply, access (including secondary emergency access), structural ignitability and ignition resistive building
features, fire protection systems and equipment, impacts to existing emergency services, defensible space, and
vegetation management. The plan identifies fuel modification zones and recommends the types and methods of
treatment that are designed to protect the Proposed Project’s homeowners and its essential infrastructure. The
FPP recommends measures that the property owner, developer, and builders will implement to reduce the
probability of ignition of structures throughout the area addressed by the plan.
The following tasks were performed in the completion of this plan:
•Gather site specific climate, terrain, and fuel data;
•Collect site photographs;
•Process and analyze the data using the latest GIS technology;
•Predict fire behavior using industry standard, scientifically based fire behavior models;
•Analyze and guide design of proposed infrastructure;
•Analyze the existing emergency response capabilities;
•Assess the risk associated with the Proposed Project and the Project Site; and
•Prepare this FPP detailing how fire risk will be mitigated through a system of fuel modification, homeowner
education, and structural ignition resistance enhancements.
Field observations were utilized to augment existing digital site data in generating the fire behavior models and
formulating the recommendations presented in this FPP. Refer to Appendix A for site photographs of existing fuel types.
1.1 Applicable Codes and Existing Regulations
This FPP demonstrates compliance with California Fire and Building Codes requirements, namely Title 15 – Building and
Construction, Sections 15.34 (Fire Zones), 15.36 (Fire Code adopting the 2019 California Fire Code), and 15.38 (Urban
Wildland Interface Code adopting the 2000 Urban Wildland Interface Code) and Section 15.08 adopting the 2019 California
Building Code, specifically, Chapter 7A for development in wildland urban interface (WUI) areas. Additionally, this FPP is
consistent with the Chula Vista Fire Department’s (CVFD) Fire Prevention Division’s Fire Engineering Safety Detail and
Specification Sheets. Lastly, this FPP conforms to the City’s Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1059 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
12431
2 March 2021
Brush Management Guidelines and Resource Management Plan Preserve Edge Requirements. The Proposed Project will
comply with the applicable adopted codes in place at the time of construction.
The entirety of the Proposed Project lies within the local responsibility area (LRA) Non- Fire Hazard Severity Zone,
as designated by the CVFD and California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). Therefore, the
requirements in Chapter 7A of the CBC would not typically be implemented for this development. However, the
proposed fire protection measures for the Proposed Project will meet or under certain circumstances, exceed all
applicable fire and building codes requirements.
1.2 Proposed Project Summary
1.2.1 Location
As depicted in Figure 1, Proposed Project Location Map, the Project Site is located in the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Section
Planning Area of the City, approximately 11 miles southeast of downtown San Diego and 4.2 miles north of the
U.S./Mexico International border. The Project Site consists of two parcels: Assessor Parcel Numbers (APN): 644-
011-06-00 on western half and 644-020-11-00 on eastern half of the property. The 135.7-acre property is located
adjacent to Poggi Canyon approximately 0,5 miles east of Interstate 805, and south of Olympic Parkway between
Brandywine Avenue and Heritage Road. The Project Site is located in Sections 17 and 18, Township 18 South,
Range 1 West on the U.S. Geographical Survey (USGS), 7.5-minute Imperial Beach quadrangle map.
1.2.2 Proposed Project Description
Sunbow II, Phase 3 Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Amendment encompasses approximately 135.71 acres
(Project Area) that includes a 67.5-acre development area comprised of 44.2 acres of residential, a 0.9-acre
Community Purpose Facility (CPF) site, 5.9 acres of public streets and 16.5 of manufactured slopes/basins.
Approximately 4.3 acres of conserved Poggi Creek Easement areas, a 0.3-acre of conserved wetland resource area
and 63.62 acres of adjacent MSCP Preserve area are also within the Project Area.
The Proposed Project’s residential land use includes four unique multi-family attached residential product types
with 15 unique floor plans, ranging in square footage from approximately 1,100 to 2,050 square feet in two- and
three-story units. Each home includes a two-car garage and two to four bedrooms.
The Proposed Project includes a Chula Vista General Plan Amendment, Sunbow General Development Plan
Amendment, Sunbow II SPA Plan Amendment, a rezone, and a Tentative Map. The Proposed Project also includes
a Chula Vista MSCP Boundary Adjustment to implement minor adjustments to the development limits and the
adjacent MSCP Preserve areas that would result in a 0.09-acre increase to MSCP Preserve Area and an MSCP Minor
Amendment to address off-site grading adjacent to the southwestern boundary of the development area .
1 Acreages are rounded to the nearest 1/10th acre and may vary slightly from calculated total.
2 The Proposed MSCP area includes approximately 1.31 acres of “Mapping Correction Area” and approximately 1.12 acres of MSCP
Allowable Use (Basin – Future Facility).
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1060 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
12431
3 March 2021
Table 1. Sunbow II, Phase 3 Site Utilization Table
Sunbow II, Phase 3
Land Use
District Acres1 Units Density
Multi-Family Residential
R-1 RM 8.5 131 15.4
R-2 RM 4.6 73 15.8
R-3 RM 8.1 108 13.3
R-4 RM 8.2 118 14.4
R-5 RM 7.1 104 14.7
R-6 RC 7.6 184 24.1
Subtotal Residential 44.2 718 16.3
Other
Community Purpose Facility CPF 0.9
MSCP Preserve Conserved Open Space
(OS-1,2, 3, and OS-9b)
OSP 63.6
Poggi Creek Easement Conserved Area
(OS-4, 5, 6a and 6b)
OS 4.3
Manufactured Slopes/Basins
(OS-7, 8, 9a, 10 - 13)
OS 16.5
Conserved Wetland Resource Area
(OS-14)
OS 0.3
Public Streets Circulation 5.9
Subtotal Other 91.5
Total 135.7 718 16.3
1 Acreages rounded to nearest 1/10th acre and may vary slightly from the calculated total.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1061 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
12431
4 March 2021
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1062 of 1271
805
S a l t o n S e a
5
215
805
15
8
Project Site
SOURCE: USGS 7.5 Minute Series, Imperial Beach QuadrangleTownship 18 South, Range 1 West, Sections 17 & 18
0 2,0001,000 Feet
FIGURE 1 Date: 2/20/2020 - Last saved by: lterry - Path: Z:\Projects\j1243100\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\FPP\Fig1_Project Location.mxdProject Boundary
Project Location
Fire Protection Plan for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1063 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
12431
6 March 2021
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1064 of 1271
Sunbow PA 23 Site Plan
Fire Protection Plan for the Sunbow PA 23 Project
FIGURE 2SOURCE: HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES, INC. 2020
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1065 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
12431
8 March 2021
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1066 of 1271
SOURCE: HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES, INC. 2020 FIGURE 3
Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project Land Use Plan (revised)
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1067 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
12431
10 March 2021
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1068 of 1271
12431
11 March 2021
2 Proposed Project Site Risk Analysis
2.1 Environmental Setting and Field Assessment
Dudek conducted a site evaluation on January 22, 2020, in order to acquire site information, document existing site
conditions, and to determine potential actions for addressing the protection of the Proposed Project’s future structures.
While on the site, Dudek’s Fire Planner assessed the area’s topography, natural vegetation and fuel loading, surrounding
land use and general susceptibility to wildfire. Among the field tasks that were completed included:
•Topography evaluation
•Vegetation/fuel assessments
•Existing infrastructure evaluations
•Photograph documentation of the existing condition
•Off-site, adjacent property fuel and topography conditions
•Surrounding land use confirmations
•Necessary fire behavior modeling data collection
•Ingress/egress documentation
•Nearby Fire Station reconnaissance.
Field observations were utilized to augment existing site data in generating the fire behavior models and formulating
the recommendations detailed in this report.
2.2 Site Characteristics and Fire Environment
Fire environments are dynamic systems and include many types of environmental factors and site characteristics.
Fires can occur in any environment where conditions are conducive to ignition and fire movement. Areas of natur ally
vegetated open space are typically comprised of conditions that may be favorable to wildfire spread. The three
major components of fire environment are topography, vegetation (fuels), and climate. The state of each of these
components and their interactions with each other determines the potential characteristics and behavior of a fire
at any given moment. It is important to note that wildland fire may transition to urban fire if structures are receptive
to ignition. Structure ignition depends on a variety of factors and can be prevented through a layered system of
protective features including fire resistive landscapes directly adjacent to the structure(s), application of known
ignition resistive materials and methods, and suitable infrastructure for firefighting purposes. Understanding the
existing wildland vegetation and urban fuel conditions on and adjacent to the site is necessary to understand the
potential for fire within and around the Proposed Project site.
2.2.1 Topography
The Project Site is situated at the south side of Poggi Canyon, a narrow canyon generally trending northeast toward the
southwest. The general topography at the property is moderately hilly and slopes downward to the north towards Poggi
Creek and the south side of Olympic Parkway. Elevations range from approximately 455 feet above mean sea level (amsl)
at the southeast property boundary to 228 feet amsl in the northwestern end of the property. Topographic features that
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1069 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
12431
12 March 2021
may present a fire spread facilitator are the narrow sub-drainages that trend south to north which may serve to funnel
winds. From a regional perspective, the northeast to southwest alignment of Poggi Canyon is conducive to channeling
and funneling wind towards the Project Site.
2.2.2 Existing/Vicinity Land Use
The Proposed Project is located in a predominately residential area of the City of Chula Vista. It is bounded to the north
by an open space preserve, which runs along the southern side of Olympic Parkway. North of Olympic Parkway is a
single-family residential community. The future Otay Ranch Village 2 development is immediately to the east and the
Otay Landfill and City of Chula Vista open space/future community park to the south-southeast. Both the City of Chula
Vista and the County of San Diego own undeveloped land to the south of the Project Site. Brandywine Avenue and
existing residential communities border the western and southwestern edges, respectively, of the property.
2.2.3 Climate
Throughout Southern California, including at the Project Site, climate has a large influence on fire risk. Local climate is
typical of a Mediterranean area, with warm, dry summers and wetter winters. Precipitation typically occurs between
December and March. The prevailing wind is an on-shore flow from the Pacific Ocean, which is approximately 6.6 miles
to the west, Santa Ana winds, which typically occur in the fall, from the northeast can gust to 50 miles per hour (mph) or
higher. Drying vegetation (fuel moisture of less than 5% for 1-hour fuels is possible) during the summer months becomes
fuel available to advancing flames should an ignition occur. Extreme conditions, used in fire modeling for this site, include
92°F temperatures in summer and winds of up to 50 mph during the fall. Relative humidity of 12% or less is possible
during fire season. The site is within the coastal influence area and would be expected to, on average, include higher
humidity and resulting plant moisture, than more inland areas.
2.2.4 Vegetation (Fuels)
The Proposed Project site is currently undeveloped land with four native or naturalized vegetation communities and
one land cover type that were mapped on the site by Merkel & Associates, Inc. (2020). These vegetation and land
cover types were verified by Dudek fire protection planners and assigned a fuel model for use during site fire
behavior modeling as discussed in Section 3. The acreage of each on-site vegetation community or land cover type
is provided in Table 2. There are three pre-dominant vegetation types mapped on the property (Figure 4), including
Diegan coastal sage scrub, native grasslands, and non-native grasslands which encompass approximately 22%,
25%, and 46% of the property, respectively. Smaller areas of wetlands/non-wetlands waters, disturbed habitat, and
the Poggi Creek Maintenance area are also present on the site. More detailed information regarding the site’s plant
communities is provided in the Biological Resources Technical Report for the Proposed Project (Merkel &
Associates, Inc. 2020). Representative photographs of the site’s fuel beds are presented in Appendix A.
The area proposed for development and within the project grading limits will be converted to roads, structures, and
landscaped vegetation following project completion. Any native vegetative fuels within fuel modification zones will
be modified as a result of development, altering their current structure and species composition. Areas outside of
proposed development and fuel modification zones will continue to be grassland-sage scrub fuels.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1070 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
12431
13 March 2021
Table 2. Proposed Project Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types
Vegetation Community or Land Cover Type Total Acres
Inside Preserve
(Acres)
Outside Preserve
(Acres)
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub 29.8 22.6 7.2
Native Grassland 33.6 27.4 6.2
Non-native Grassland 62.2 4.4 57.8
Non-native Vegetation 0.4 0.3 0.1
Southern Willow Scrub (including Seep) 1.3 0.4 0.9
Mulefat Scrub <0.1 <0.1 0.0
Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh 8.4 7.0 1.4
Total 135.7 62.1 73.6
Source: Merkel & Associates, Inc. 2020
2.2.5 Vegetation Dynamics
The vegetation described above translates to fuel models used for fire behavior modeling, discussed in Chapter 3
of this FPP. Variations in vegetative cover type and species composition have a direct effect on fire behavior. Some
plant communities and their associated plant species have increased flammability based on plant physiology (resin
content), biological function (flowering, retention of dead plant material), physical structure (bark thickness, leaf
size, branching patterns), and overall fuel loading. For example, the native shrub species that compose the
chaparral plant communities on site are considered to exhibit higher potential hazard (higher intensity heat and
flame length) than grass dominated plant communities (fast moving , but lower intensity) if ignition occurred. The
corresponding fuel models for each of these vegetation types are designed to capture these differences.
Additionally, vegetative cover influences fire suppression efforts through its effect on fire behavior. For example,
while fires burning in grasslands may exhibit lower flame lengths and heat outputs than those burning in native
shrub habitats, fire spread rates in grasslands are often more rapid.
As described, vegetation plays a significant role in fire behavior, and is an important component to the fire behavior
models discussed in this report. A critical factor to consider is the dynamic nature of vegetation communities. Fire
presence and absence at varying cycles or regimes disrupts plant succession, setting plant communities to an earlier
state where less fuel is present for a period of time as the plant community begins its succession again. In summary,
high-frequency fires tend to convert shrublands to grasslands or maintain grasslands, and fire exclusion tends to convert
grasslands to shrublands over time as shrubs sprout back or establish and are not disturbed by repeated fires.
In general, biomass and associated fuel loading will increase over time, assuming that disturbance (e.g., fire, grazing, or
farming) or fuel reduction efforts are not diligently implemented, which would not occur on this site due to the funded
maintenance entity. It is possible to alter successional pathways for varying plant communities through manual
alteration. This concept is a key component in the overall establishment and maintenance of the proposed FMZs for the
Project Site. The FMZs will consist of irrigated and maintained landscapes that will be subject to regular “disturbance” in
the form of maintenance and will not be allowed to accumulate excessive biomass over time, which results in reduced
fire ignition, spread rates, and intensity. In contrast, conditions outside the fuel modification zones, where the wildfire
threat will exist post-development, are classified as medium to heavy fuel loads due to the maturity of the
vegetation, which haven’t burned for many decades.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1071 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
12431
14 March 2021
2.2.6 Fire History
Fire history is an important component of FPPs. Fire history information can provide an understanding of fire
frequency, fire type, most vulnerable areas, and significant ignition sources. In turn, this understanding of why fires
occur in an area and how they typically behave can be used for pre-planning and designing defensible communities.
Figure 4 Fire History Map provides a graphical representation of the quantity of times the landscape has burned in
the area. As presented on the fire history exhibit, there have been six wildfires recorded by California Department
of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) in their Fire and Resource Assessment Program (FRAP) database (CAL
FIRE FRAP 2019)3 within 3 miles of the property. Table 3 summarizes the fire history for the area within three miles
of the site. CAL FIRE FRAP summarizes fire perimeter data dating to the late 1800s, but which is incomplete due to
the fact that it only includes fires over 10 acres in size and has incomplete perimeter data, especially for the first
half of the 20th century (Syphard and Keeley 2016). However, the data does provide a summary of recorded fires
and can be used to show whether large fires have occurred in the Proposed Project area, which indicates whether
they may be possible in the future.
As presented in Figure 4, the Project Site has been subject to one wildfire during the recorded fire history period.
The Maxwell Fire in 1984 burned along the southern portion of the property. In addition to the one fire burning on
the property, Figure 4 illustrates that the majority of other large wildfires historically start east of the Proposed
Project area and are typically contained east of Lower Otay Lake.
The lack of recent fire history does not indicate that a fire cannot occur in the vegetation that would be adjacent to
the Proposed Project. It is expected that fires have not consistently spread into the Proposed Project area due to
three factors: 1) the position of the surrounding urban developments which ae newer, ignition resistant
construction, 2) the position of lower Otay Lake to the east, presenting a very wide firebreak; and 3) the effective
wildland fire fighting capabilities of Chula Vista Fire Department.
Table 3. Historical Wildfires within Three Miles of the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project Site
Fire Year* Fire Name Total Area Burned (acres)
1945 Un-named 1,022
1969 Telegraph 371
1979 Un-named 51
1979 Un-named 212
1980 Assist #14 39
1984 Maxwell 43
Source: CAL FIRE FRAP 2019
3 Based on polygon Geographical Information System (GIS) data from CAL FIRE’s Fire and Resource FRAP, which includes data from
CAL FIRE, USDA Forest Service Region 5, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, contract counties and other
agencies. The data set is a comprehensive fire perimeter GIS layer for public and private lands throughout the state and covers
fires 10 acres and greater between 1914–2019.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1072 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
12431
15 March 2021
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1073 of 1271
ProjectSite
Project Boundary
3-Mile Buffer
Wildfires
1900 - 1934
1935 - 1965
1966 - 1989
1990 - 1999
2000 - 2018
SOURCE: AERIAL- BING MAPPING SERVICE; FIRE DATA-CALFIRE 2018
0 21 Miles
FIGURE 4Date: 2/20/2020 - Last saved by: lterry - Path: Z:\Projects\j1243100\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\FPP\Fig 4 Fire History2018.mxd Fire History Map
Fire Protection Plan for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1074 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
12431
17 March 2021
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1075 of 1271
12431
18 March 2021
3 Anticipated Fire Behavior
3.1 Fire Behavior Modeling
Following field data collection efforts and available data analysis, fire behavior modeling was conducted to document the
type and intensity of fire that would be expected on and adjacent to the Project Site given characteristic site features
such as topography, vegetation, and weather. BehavePlus software package version 5.5 (Andres, Bevins, and Seli 2008),
which is the industry standard, was utilized to analyze potential fire behavior for the northern, eastern, southern, and
western edges of the proposed Project Site with assumptions made for pre- and post-project slope and fuels conditions.
Results are provided below and a more detailed presentation of the BehavePlus analysis, including fuel moisture and
weather input variables, is provided in Appendix B.
3.2 Fire Behavior Modeling Analysis
An analysis utilizing the BehavePlus software package was conducted to evaluate fire behavior variables and to
objectively predict flame lengths, intensities, and spread rates for four modeling scenarios. These fire sce narios
incorporated observed fuel types representing the dominant on -site and off-site vegetation on vacant land to the
north, east, south and west, in addition to measured slope gradients, and wind and fuel moisture values derived
from Remote Automated Weather Stations (RAWs) weather data sets (San Miguel, ID No. 045737)) for both the
50th percentile weather (summer, on-shore winds) and the 97th percentile weather (fall, off-shore winds). Modeling
scenario locations were selected to better understand different fire behavior that may be experienced on or
adjacent the site.
Vegetation types, which were derived from the field assessment for the Project Site, were classified into a fuel
model. Fuel Models are simply tools to help fire experts realistically estimate fire behavior for a vegetation type.
Fuel models are selected by their vegetation type; fuel stratum most likely to carry the fire; and depth and
compactness of the fuels. Fire behavior modeling was conducted for vegetative types that surround the proposed
development. Fuel models were selected from Standard Fire Behavior Fuel Models: a Comprehensive Set for Use
with Rothermel’s Surface Fire Spread Model (Scott and Burgan 2005). Fuel models were also assigned to the
perimeter fuel management areas to illustrate post-project fire behavior changes. Based on the anticipated pre-
and post-project vegetation conditions, three different fuel models were used in the fire behavior modeling effort
presented herein. Fuel model attributes are summarized in Table 4.
Table 4. Fuel Model Characteristics
Fuel Model Description Location Fuel Bed Depth (Feet)
FM8 Irrigated, landscapes Fuel Modification Zone 1 <3.0
Gr1 cut grasses less than 6 inches in
height
Fuel Modification Zone 2 <0.5
Gr4 Moderate Load, Dry Climate
Grasses
Throughout property (to be
removed from development area)
<2.0
Sh1 50% thinning of shrubs Fuel Modification Zone 2 <3.0
Sh5 Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub
(untreated fuel bed)
Throughout property (to be
removed from development area)
>4.0
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1076 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
12431
19 March 2021
The results of fire behavior modeling analysis for pre- and post-project conditions are presented in Tables 5 and 6,
respectively. Identification of modeling run (fire scenarios) locations is presented graphically in Figure 5,
BehavePlus Fire Behavior Analysis exhibit.
Table 5. BehavePlus Fire Behavior Modeling Results - Existing Conditions
Fire Scenarios
Flame Length
(feet)
Fireline Intensity
(BTU/feet/second)
Spread Rate
(mph1)
Spotting
Distance2 (miles)
Scenario 1: grasslands-sage scrub; east facing , 15% slope, 50 mph offshore winds
Fuel Model Gr4 33.4 11,616 14.0 2.0
Fuel Model Sh5 41.3 18,451 6.2 2.3
Scenario 2: grasslands-scattered shrubs; south-facing, 7% slope, 50 mph offshore winds
Fuel Model Gr4 33.3 11,575 14.0 2.0
Scenario 3: sage scrub-grasslands; north-facing, 15% slope, 12 mph onshore winds
Fuel Model Gr4 8.1 540 0.82 0.3
Fuel Model Sh5 11.7 1,190 0.54 0.4
Scenario 4: willow-sage scrub (5% slope) and grasslands, on north-facing slopes, 34% slope, 12 mph onshore winds
Fuel Model Gr4 8.1 531 0.53 0.3
Fuel Model Sh5 11.5 1,155 0.80 0.4
Notes (Tables 5 and 6):
1 mph = miles per hour
2 Spotting distance from a wind driven surface fire.
Table 6. BehavePlus Fire Behavior Modeling Results - Post-Project Conditions
Scenario
Flame Length
(feet)
Fireline Intensity
(BTU/feet/second)
Spread Rate
(mph1)
Spotting Distance
(miles2)
Scenario 1: Fuel treatments on east-facing, 15% slope, 50 mph offshore winds
Fuel modification zone 1 (FM8) 2.6 45 0.13 0.3
Fuel modification zone 2 (Sh1) 9.5 760 1.3 0.8
Scenario 2: Fuel treatments on south-facing, 7% slope, 50 mph offshore winds
Fuel modification zone 1 (FM8) 2.6 45 0.13 0.3
Fuel modification zone 2 (Gr1) 3.1 67 1.3 0.4
Scenario 3: Fuel treatments on north-facing, 15-50% slope, 12 mph onshore winds
Fuel modification zone 1 (FM8) 1.0 5 0.02 0.1
Fuel modification zone 2 (Sh1) 0.6 2 0.02 N/A
Scenario 4: Fuel treatments on north-facing, 5-50% slope, 12 mph onshore winds
Fuel modification zone 1 (FM8) 1.0 5 0.21 0.1
Fuel Modification zone 2 (Sh1) 0.6 2 0.02 N/A
Fuel Modification zone 2 (Gr1) 1.7 18 0.16 0.1
Notes:
1 mph = miles per hour
2 Spotting distance from a wind driven surface fire.
The results presented in Tables 5 and 6 depict values based on inputs to the BehavePlus software and are not
intended to capture changing fire behavior as it moves across a landscape. Changes in slope, weather, or pockets
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1077 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
12431
20 March 2021
of different fuel types are not accounted for in this analysis, but the models provide a worst-case wildfire behavior
condition as part of a conservative approach. For planning purposes, the averaged worst -case fire behavior is the
most useful information for conservative fuel modification design. Model results should be used as a basis for
planning only, as actual fire behavior for a given location would be affected by many factors, including unique
weather patterns, small-scale topographic variations, or changing vegetation patterns.
3.3 Fire Modeling Summary
As presented, wildfire behavior in non-treated sage scrub, modeled as a Sh5, and non-native grasslands, modeled
as a Gr4, varies based on timing of fire (Refer to Table 2). A fire being fanned by 12 mph, onshore winds (fire
scenarios 3 and 4) would result in a fire spreading in sage or willow-scrub at roughly 1.0 mph with 11.5 to 11.7 feet
high flames. Under the same wind conditions, a grass fire or flashy fuels would generate 8.1-foot high flame at less
than 1.0 mph rate of spread.
A worst-case fire under gusty Santa Ana winds and low fuel moistures (fire scenarios 1 and 2) is expected to be fast
moving between 6.2 (sage scrub fuel type) and 14.0 mph (grass fuel type). Flame length values with intense radiant
heat would range between 33.4 feet to 41.3 feet for grass and sage scrub fuels burning, respectively, in specific
portions off and on site. Spotting is projected to occur less than 1.0 mile during a fire influenced by onshore winds
and nearly 2.3 miles during a fire fanned by offshore, gusty winds.
As previously mentioned, Dudek conducted modeling of the site for post-fuel modification zones. Typical fuel modification
includes establishment of a minimum 50-foot wide irrigated zone (Zone 1) and a 50-foot wide thinned zone (Zone 2) on
the periphery of the Project Site, beginning from the rear or side yard lot line. For modeling the post-FMZ treatment
condition, the fuel model assignment for coastal sage scrub-willow scrub were re-classified according to the specific fuels
management (e.g., irrigated, fire resistive landscaping vs. 50% thinned native brush) treatment.
As depicted in Table 6, the FMZ areas experience a significant reduction in flame length and intensity. The 41.3-foot flame
lengths predicted for sage scrub habitat during pre-treatment modeling for fire scenarios 1 and 2 are reduced to
approximately 9.5 feet at the outer edges of the FMZ (Zone 2) and to 2.6 feet by the time the inner portions of the FMZ
(Zone 1) are reached. During onshore weather conditions, a fire approaching from the west towards the development
footprint would be reduced from 11.7-foot tall flames to less than 1.0-foot tall for Zones 1 and 2 with low fire intensity and
spotting distances due to the higher live and dead fuel moisture contents. These reduction of flame lengths and intensities
are assumed to occur within the full 100 feet of fuel modification (a combination of Zones 1 and 2), which is not achievable
on the south side of the site, but which is mitigated through landscape and building hardening described later in this report.
3.4 Wildland Fire Risk Assessment
Wildland fires are a common natural hazard in most of southern California with a long and extensive history.
Southern California landscapes include a diverse range of plant communities, including vast tracts of shrublands,
like those found adjacent to the Project Site. Wildfire in this Mediterranean-type ecosystem ultimately affects the
structure and functions of vegetation communities (Keeley 1984) and will continue to have a substantial and
recurring role (Keeley and Fotheringham 2003). Supporting this are the facts that 1) native landscapes, from
chaparral to grasslands, become highly flammable each fall; 2) the climate of southern California has been
characterized by fire climatologists as the worst fire climate in the United States (Keeley 2004) with high winds
(Santa Ana) occurring during autumn after a six-month drought period each year; and 3) homes embedded in
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1078 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
12431
21 March 2021
natural and managed landscape vegetation in what may be accurately described as a wildland urban intermix.
Based on this research, it can be anticipated that periodic wildfires will occur in the designated Preserve lands at
the northern and western portions of the property.
Wildfires have occurred within 3 miles of the site. As such, wildlands near the Proposed Project are expected to be
vulnerable to recurring wildfire ignition and spread and may be subject to nearby wildfire that could, under worst
case conditions, spread through the grassland-sage scrub covered hillsides to the west and north and burn along
the periphery of the Proposed Project’s developed areas. However, the Proposed Project site, once developed,
would not facilitate wildfire spread and would reduce projected flame lengths to levels that would be manageable
by firefighting resources for protecting the site’s structures and inhabitants, especially given the ignition resistance
of the structures and the planned ongoing maintenance of the FMZs surrounding the site.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1079 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
12431
22 March 2021
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1080 of 1271
Date: 9/28/2020 - Last saved by: lterry - Path: Z:\Projects\j1243100\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\FPP\Fig 5_BehavePlus Fire Behavior Analysis.mxdBehavePlus Fire Behavior Analysis
Fire Protection Plan for the Sunbow PA 23 Project
SOURCE: AERIAL-BING MAPPING SERVICE 2019; DEVELOPMENT-HUNSAKER 2020
0 700350Feet
FIGURE 5
Project Site
SCENARIO
RUN #2
SCENARIO
RUN #3 SCENARIO
RUN #1
SCENARIO
RUN #4
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1081 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
12431
24 March 2021
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1082 of 1271
12431
25 March 2021
4 Emergency Response and Service
The following sections analyze the Proposed Project in terms of current Chula Vista Fire Department (CVFD) Fire
Service capabilities and resources to provide Fire Protection and Emergency Services. The analysis that follows
examines the ability of the existing CVFD fire stations to adequately serve the Proposed Project. Response times
were evaluated using Proposed Project build-out conditions. It was assumed that phased construction would
include access roads to the newly constructed buildings and that the shortest access route to those structures
would be utilized.
4.1 Emergency Response
The Proposed Project site is located within the CVFD jurisdictional area. CVFD services 52 square miles and a
population of approximately 271,651 in the City of Chula Vista (U.S. Census Bureau 2020, City of Chula Vista
2020a). CVFD currently operates nine Fire Stations with 120 uniformed fire personnel (City of Chula Vista 2016b).
For additional support, CVFD relies on numerous Automatic Aid agreements with jurisdictions adjoining the City.
Based on current Fire Station distribution, Fire Stations 3, 7, and 9 are most likely to provide initial response.
However, all stations within the CVFD are available to service the Project Site, if necessary. Figure 6 illustrates the
location of these fire stations. Table 7 presents a summary of the location, equipment, staffing levels, maximum
travel distance, and estimated travel time for the three closest stations responding to the Proposed Project.
As depicted in Table 7 and Figure 6, CVFD Fire Station No. 3, located at 1410 Brandywine Avenue is the closest
station that services the Project Site. Station 3 is located 1.2 miles from the most remote portion of the
development. This Station is staffed with 4 firefighters on a Type 1 Heavy Rescue apparatus, which responds to
fires, technical rescues, and medical emergencies. Existing CVFD Fire Stations 7 and 9, which are located at 1640
Santa Venetia and 266 East Oneida, respectively, are the next two closest stations that could respond to the site.
Station 7 is located 2.9 miles away and is staffed with 8 firefighters on a Type 1 Fire Engine, a Ladder Truck, and a
Battalion Chief vehicle. Station 94 is currently located 2.7 miles from the most southern boundary of the site,
however, a newly constructed CVFD Station 9 will be constructed approximately 4 miles from the site. The existing
CVFD Station 9 is equipped with a Type 1 Fire Engine and 3 firefighters.
Emergency travel time for first arriving engines from each station to the Project Site are provided in Table 7. Travel
distances are derived from Google road data while travel times are calculated using response speeds of 35 mph,
consistent with nationally recognized National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1710 and Insurance Services
Office (ISO) Public Protection Classification Program’s Response Time Standard formula (Time=0.65 +
1.7(Distance). The ISO response travel time formula discounts speed for intersections, vehicle deceleration and
acceleration, and does not include turnout time. Automatic and/or Mutual Aid agreements with surrounding fire
departments are in place and would potentially result in additional resources that are not analyzed in this FPP.
4 It should be noted that CVFD Fire Station 9 is being newly constructed at the southeast corner of Naples Street and Alpine Avenue
and is proposed to be completed by the middle of 2021. The new CVFD Fire Station 9 when constructed, will be approximately 4 miles
from the most remote portion of the development.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1083 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
12431
26 March 2021
Table 7. CVFD Emergency Response Analysis for the Proposed Project Site
Chula Vista Fire
Department Station No. Total Mileage to Furthest Extent
on Proposed Project Site
Estimated Response
Travel Time2 Firefighting Resources3
3 1.2 miles 2 min. 05 sec. USAR 53
(4 personnel/shift)
7 2.9 miles 4 min. 58 sec. Engine 57; Truck 57;
Battalion 52
8 personnel/shift)
9 2.7 miles 4 min. 40 sec. Engine 59
(3 personnel/shift)
9 (relocated site) 4.0 miles1 6 min. 50 secs. N/A
Notes:
1.It should be noted that CVFD Fire Station 9 is being newly constructed at the southeast corner of Naples Street and Alpine Avenue
and is proposed to be completed by the middle of 2021.
2 Table 2 presents results of response travel time utilized travel distances derived from Google road data while travel times are
calculated using response speeds at an average of 35 mph, consistent with nationally recognized National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA) 1710 and does not include turnout times. Response times are to the furthest extent of the Proposed Project.
3.The Effective Firefighting Force could include responses from all three stations with a best-case assembly travel time of just under
6 minutes to the furthest extent of the Project Site.
As indicated in Table 7, the first arriving engine from Station 3 with four firefighters onboard achieves an approximately
2-minute 05- second travel time to the southeastern portion of the Project Site. This first arriving response substantially
conforms with the approved response goal of 5 minutes 90% of the time, and it satisfies the OSHA two-in and two-out
standard. As mentioned above, CVFD Station 9 is being newly constructed at the southeast corner of Naples Street and
Alpine Avenue and is proposed to be completed by the middle of 2021. With that said, once construction of the new
CVFD Station 9 is completed, the current second arriving engine from Station 9 would instead be from Station 7, which
archives an approximately 4-minute 58- second travel time to the southeastern portion of the Project site. The newly
constructed CVFD Station 9 located at the southeastern corner of Naples Street and Alpine Avenue would be able to
respond in in approximately 6-minutes 50-seconds travel time to the southeastern portion of the Project site.
The Effective Fighting Force (EFF) or first 3 engines, 1 truck and battalion chief for a total of 14 firefighters could be on-
scene within roughly 7 minutes travel time from three fire stations (including travel time from the new CVFD Station 9).
In this case, the emergency responses from Stations 3, 7, and 9 are substantially within 5 minutes and under the 8-
minute travel time goal for EFF.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1084 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
12431
27 March 2021
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1085 of 1271
Date: 2/27/2020 - Last saved by: lterry - Path: Z:\Projects\j1243100\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\FPP\Fig 6_Fire Station Locations.mxdFIGURE 6Closest Fire Station Locations
Fire Protection Plan for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project
SOURCE: AERIAL-BING MAPPING SERVICE 2019; DEVELOPMENT-HUNSAKER 2020
0 1,600800Feet
Project Boundary
Project Site
Proposed New
Fire Station 9
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1086 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
12431
29 March 2021
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1087 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
12431
30 March 2021
4.2 Estimated Calls and Demand for Service
Determining the potential impact associated with the Proposed Project’s population increase is required in order to
compare how many additional calls may be realized and determine what effects they may have on the available
response resources. The estimated incident call volume of the Proposed Project is based on a conservatively
calculated estimate from the maximum potential number of additional persons that would be expected on site.
Emergency call volumes related to typical projects, such as new residential developments, can be reliably estimated
based on the historical per-capita call volume from a particular fire jurisdiction.
During 2018, CVFD documented 21,514 total incidents (City 2020b) that were generated by a City-wide service
area total population of approximately 271,651 persons. The City’s per capita annual call volume is approximately
79 calls per 1,000 persons. The resulting per capita call volume is 0.079.
As previously described, the Proposed Project’s development includes up to 720 multi-family residential units with
an average unit occupancy of 3.35 people per dwelling unit (U.S. Census Bureau 2020), which calculates to a total
population of 2,412 people (3.35 x 720 DUs = 2,412 persons). The estimated incident call volume at buildout from
the Proposed Project is based on a conservative estimate of the maximum potential number of persons on site at
any given time (considered a “worst case” scenario).
As summarized in Table 8, using the CVFD estimate of 79 annual calls per 1,000 population, the Proposed Project’s
estimated 2,412 people would generate a very conservatively calculated 191 calls per year (about 0.52 calls per
day), roughly 69% of which (131 calls per year) is expected to be medical emergencies, based on past call statistics.
Table 8. Calculated Call Volume Associated with the Proposed Project
Emergency Calls per 1,000
(2016 CVFD Incident Data) Estimated Population
Avg. No. Calls per Year
(2,412\1,000) x 79)
Avg. No. Calls per Day
(191/365)
79 2,412 191 0.52
Type of call Per capita call generation factor
Number of estimated
annual calls
Total Calls 100% 191
Total Fires 1.9% 3.6
Total EMS Calls 68.8% 131
Total Rescue Calls 0.83% 1.6
Total Other Calls 28.47% 54.4
For this study’s analysis, Fire Stations 3 (USAR 53), 7 (Engine 57 and Truck 57), and 9 (Engine 59) were evaluated
as it provides perspective for the potential impacts from build out of the Proposed Project. Heavy Rescue (USAR)
53 responded to 2,195 calls; Engine 57 responded to 1,793 calls; Truck 57 responded to 548 calls; and Engine
59 responded to 2,638 during 2018 (City 2020b). This calculates as 6 calls per day for USAR 53; 5 calls per day
for Engine 57 (E57); 7 calls per day for Engine 59; and 1.5 calls per day for Truck 57 (T57).
As previously mentioned, the Proposed Project’s estimated 2,412 people would generate approximately 191 calls
per year (about 1 call per every 2 days). The addition of less than 1 call per day to Fire Station 7 that currently has
fire apparatus that responds to approximately 1.5 (T57) and 4.9 (E57), calls per day, respectively is considered
average for typical urban fire stations. Six or seven calls per day for Stations 3 and 9, respectively, would be
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1088 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
12431
31 March 2021
considered already busy stations. For perspective, a typical station averages five calls per day and a busy station
responds to about ten calls per day. With the additional 1 call per day, as described herein, and the currently low
call volume at Station 7 and slightly above average calls at other stations, the additional calls associated with build
out can be absorbed and still result in acceptable emergency response coverage. Table 9 presents estimated call
volume increases based on the demand from the Proposed Project
Table 9. Calculated Call Volume Increase Per Station Associated with the Proposed Project
Chula Vista
Fire Station Current Daily Call Volume
Estimated Daily Call
Volume Increase
Estimated Total Daily Call
Volumes with Proposed Project1
3 6.0 (USAR 53) Less than 1.0 Approx. 6.5
7 4.9 (Engine 57) + 1.5 (Truck 57) Less than 1.0 Less than 6.9
9 7.2 (Engine 59) Less than 1.0 Less than 7.7
Notes:
1 Estimated total daily call volume is based on existing volume in addition to the conservatively calculated 0.52 calls per day from
the Proposed Project.
4.3 Response Capability Impact Assessment
The available firefighting and emergency medical resources in the vicinity of the Proposed Project site include an
assortment of fire apparatus and equipment considered capable of responding to the type of fires and emergency
medical services potentially occurring within the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project, which includes 720 multi-family
DUs, is projected to slightly increase the nearest station’s (Fire Station 3) current call volume, but not at significant levels,
because the current call volume is considered slightly above average compared to other urban fire stations and the
capacity would not be considered impacted to the point of resulting in a busy or stressed condition. Additionally, the
Proposed Project and other new projects will provide fire service and availability fees and tax revenues to the CVFD,
enabling the acquisition of response resources needed to maintain acceptable response capabilities over time.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1089 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
12431
32 March 2021
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1090 of 1271
12431
33 March 2021
5 Buildings, Infrastructure, and
Defensible Space
The City’s Municipal Code (Refer to Section 1.1 of this FPP for code references) governs the building, infrastructure,
and defensible space requirements detailed in this FPP. The Proposed Project will meet applicable codes or will
provide alternate methods that will be approved by CVFD prior to their implementation.
The following summaries highlight important fire protection features. All underground utilities, hydrants, water
mains, curbs, gutters, and sidewalks will be installed, and the drive surface shall be approved by VCFD prior to
combustibles being brought on site.
5.1 Site Access
Site access, including fire lane, driveway, and entrance road widths, primary and secondary access, gates,
turnarounds, dead end lengths, signage, aerial fire apparatus access, surface, and other requirements will comply
with the requirements of the 2019 California Fire Code and CVFD Standards. Fire access will be reviewed and
approved by CVFD prior to construction.
The developer will provide information illustrating the new roads, in a format acceptable to the City, for updating of
City maps.
5.1.1 Fire Apparatus Access
The Project Site would be accessed from Olympic Parkway from two signalized access entrances that are 1,213 feet apart.
•Interior circulation roads include all roadways that are considered common or primary roadways for traffic
flow through the site and for fire department access.
•Any dead-end roads serving new buildings that are longer than 150 feet shall have approved provisions for
fire apparatus turnaround.
•Roadways and/or driveways will provide fire department access to within 150 feet of all portions of the
exterior walls of the first floor of each structure.
•Angle of driveway/roadway approach/departure will not exceed 7° (12%) per CVFD.
•Road grades will not exceed 10%, unless approved by the Fire Chief.
•Cul-de-sac bulbs are required on dead-end roads in residential areas where roadways serve more than two
residences and per City standards.
•Road infrastructure improvements shall accommodate fire department apparatus turning capabilities per CVFD’s
Auto Turn detail, which can be downloaded at http://www.chulavista.ca.gov/home/showdocument?id=2844.
•The longest dead-end road (cul-de-sac) allowed by the 2019 California Fire Code is 800 feet for this community.
The Proposed Project includes dead-end cul-de-sac lengths that will exceed 800 feet but is proposed for a
modification based on provision of an emergency secondary access road that resolves this issue.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1091 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
12431
34 March 2021
5.1.2 Road Widths and Circulation
All on-site roads will be constructed to current Fire Codes and County of San Diego Standards for Public and Private
Roads, including minimum 24-foot wide, unobstructed road widths. No buildings will exceed 30 feet heights, so no
additional widths for ladder truck access would be required.
5.1.3 Gates
Any access gates will comply with CVFD standards applicable at the time of building plan approval. Gates on private roads
will comply with CVFD standards for electric gates and will include a Knox box or code pad for emergency access.
5.1.4 Dead-Ends
The longest dead-end road (cul-de-sac) allowed by the 2019 California Fire Code is 800 feet for this type of
development. Cul-de-sac bulbs are required on dead-end roads in residential areas where roadways serve more
than two residences and per City standards.
5.1.5 Surface
All on-site roads shall be constructed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus (75,000 lbs.) and shall
be improved with asphalt paving materials. All underground utilities, hydrants, water mains, curbs, gutters and sidewalks
must be installed, and the drive surface shall be approved by CVFD prior to combustibles being brought on site.
5.1.6 Vertical Clearance
Minimum unobstructed vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches will be maintained for the entire required width for all
streets, including driveways that require emergency vehicle access.
5.1.7 Driveways
Any structure that is 150 feet or more from a common road in the development shall have a paved driveway meeting
CVFD requirements as follows:
1.Grades 10% or less with surfacing and sub-base consistent with CVFD.
2.Approved fire apparatus turnaround with inside radius no less than 40 feet, except for a mini-bulb (30 feet
radius) on Street E, which is only 90 feet from center of bulb to the centerline of Street D.
3.Driveways serving two houses or fewer will be 16 feet wide unobstructed with a fire apparatus turnaround.
Driveways serving more than two houses will be a minimum 20 feet wide, unobstructed.
4.Courtyard driveways, if applicable, shall be designated as fire lanes and identified in accordance with CVFD
Fire Lane Identification Standards.
5.Lighted house addresses shall be posted at the entrance to each driveway if house numbers are not visible
from the street.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1092 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
12431
35 March 2021
5.1.8 Premise Identification
Identification of roads and structures will comply with CVFD and Fire Prevention Division Standards, as follows:
1.All structures required to be identified by street address numbers at the structure. Numbers to be minimum
6 inches high with 1-inch stroke (0 to 50 feet from face of curb), 10-inches high with 1.5-inch stroke (51 to
150 feet from face of curb), or 16 inches with 2-inch stroke (greater than 150 feet from face of curb).
Numbers will contrast with background.
2.Multiple structures located off common driveways will include posting addresses on structures, on the entrance to
individual driveways, and at the entrance to the common driveway for faster emergency response.
3.Proposed roads within the development will be named, with the proper signage installed at intersections to
satisfaction of the CVFD and the Department of Public Works.
4.Streets will have street names posted on non-combustible street signposts. Letters/numbers will be 4
inches high, reflective, on a 6-inch-high backing. Signage will be 7 feet above grade. There will be street
signs at the entrances to the development, all intersections, and elsewhere as needed subject to approval
of the Fire Chief.
5.Access roads to private lots to be completed and paved prior to issuance of building permits and prior to
the occurrence of combustible construction.
5.2 Ignition Resistant Construction
All new structures within the Proposed Project will be constructed to at least the California Fire Code standard.
Each of the proposed buildings will comply with the enhanced ignition -resistant construction standards of the
2019 CBC (Chapter 7A) and Chapter 5 of the Urban -Wildland Interface code , except where buildings require
enhanced i gnition resistance as part of an alternative material and method proposal . These requirements
address roofs, eaves, exterior walls, vents, appendages, windows, and doors and result in hardened structures
that have been proven to perform at high levels (res ist ignition) during the typically short duration of exposure
to burning vegetation from wildfires.
While these standards will provide a high level of protection to structures in this development and should reduce the
potential for ordering evacuations in a wildfire, there is no guarantee that compliance with these standards will prevent
damage or destruction of structures by fire in all cases.
5.2.1 Additional Requirements and Recommendations Based on
Occupancy Type
Buildings that include higher occupancies shall meet all California Fire and Building requirements for higher
occupancy structures. Included in the high occupancy category are multi-family residences over three units,
attached condominiums, and attached townhomes up to three stories, but less than 30 feet overall height.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1093 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
12431
36 March 2021
5.3 Fire Protection Systems
5.3.1 Water Supply
Water service will be provided by the Otay Water District. Water supply requirements specified in the California Fire
Code (Section 404 of the Wildland-Urban Interface Code and Appendix B – Fire Flow Requirements for Buildings,
Appendix C – Fire Hydrant Locations and Distribution {Chula Vista revisions – Sections 15.36.050 and
15.36.055}) including for hydrants and interior sprinklers will be provided for the Proposed Project. Project
domestic waterlines are proposed within Streets “A” and “B.” A 6” private recycled waterline is planned outside of
the Streets A and B public right-of-way connected to the public stub within Street “A.” An on-site looped system of
private domestic, recycled, and fire protection water lines is planned within the private streets and driveways to
serve the Project. See Overview of the Water Service for Sunbow Planning Area 23 (EIR, Appendix L) for additional
details.
5.3.2 Fire Hydrants
Hydrants shall be located along fire access roadways and cul-de-sacs as determined by the CVFD Fire Marshal to meet
operational needs. Hydrants will be consistent with CVFD Design Standards and provided every 500 feet (on-center).
5.3.3 Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems
All structures within the Proposed Project will include interior sprinklers, per code requirements (Section R313.3 of the
2019 California Residential Code, Chapter 9, Section 903 of the 2019 California Fire Code, and Section 602 of the
Urban-Wildland Interface Code). Sprinklers will be specific to each occupancy type and based on the most recent NFPA
13, 13R, or 13D, requirements.
5.3.4 Fire Alarm Systems and Residential Hazard Detectors
All residential units shall have a fire alarm system be installed in accordance with NFPA 72, Fire Protection Signaling
System and CVFD requirements. The fire alarm system will be supervised by a third-party alarm company. The
system will be tested annually, or as needed, with test results provided to CVFD.
Additionally, all residences will be equipped with residential smoke detectors and carbon monoxide detectors and comply
with current CBC, CFC, and California Residential Code standards.
All residential dwelling units shall have electric-powered, hard-wired smoke detectors with battery backup per CVFD.
5.4 Defensible Space and Vegetation Management
5.4.1 Fuel Modification Zones
An important component of a fire protection system is the provision for fire resistant landscapes and modified
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1094 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
12431
37 March 2021
vegetation buffers. FMZs are designed to provide vegetation buffers that gradually reduce fire intensity and flame
lengths from advancing fire by strategically placing thinning zones, restricted vegetation zones, and irrigated
zones adjacent to each other. FMZs would be located on the perimeter of all structures and along both ingress/
egress roadways to and from Olympic Parkway. The FMZ is an important part of the fire protection system
designed for this site. This section provides standard Chula Vista Fire Department FMZ requirements while
specific Proposed Project FMZ details are provided in following sections.
5.4.1.1 Chula Vista Fuel Modification Zone Standards
Definition
Fuel Modification Zone: A brush management area that is measured on a horizontal plane from the rear of the
structure extending outwards towards Preserve land or the Otay Landfill area. All brush management zones and
related fuel modification activities shall occur outside of the Preserve. Fuel modification zones (FMZ) shall be a
minimum of 100 feet in width. A 100-foot-wide FMZ will be installed for lots abutting designated Preserve Lands to
the north and west of the Project Site. To ensure long-term identification and maintenance, each respective FMZ
shall be identified by a permanent marker system meeting the approval of CVFD.
General Criteria
1.Plantings in FMZs will be consistent with the Proposed Project Plant List (Appendix C) prepared by Schmidt
Design. The intent of the Proposed Project plant list is to provide examples of plants that are less prone to
ignite or spread flames to other vegetation and/or combustible structures during a wildfire. Additional
plants can be added to the landscape plant material palette with the approval from the CVFD.
2.Vegetation included on the Prohibited Plant List (Appendix D) is prohibited in any Fuel Modification Zone.
3.Prior to approval of any landscape and irrigation plans for areas designated FMZs, the Applicant shall
provide proof to the City of Chula Vista that a Fire Protection Planning Consulting Firm has reviewed and
confirmed that the plans are in conformance with the requirements of the FPP.
4.All plant and seed material in Zones 1 to be locally sourced to the greatest extent possible to avoid
genetically compromising the existing Preserve Vegetation.
5.Plant 50%–70% of the overall fuel modification zone with deep rooting plant material.
6.Maintain all plant material in irrigated zones in a hydrated condition.
7.Remove debris and trimmings produced by thinning and pruning from the site, except for larger woody
debris that may be chipped and left on site for weed and erosion control.
8.There shall be no hedging of shrubs (i.e., no continuous hedges) as hedges may form a means of rapidly
transmitting fire from the native growth to the structures. All mature trees must be limbed to six feet or 3x
the height of understory plants, whichever is greater.
9.Plant shrubs in clusters not exceeding a total of 400 square feet.
10.Provide a distance of no less than the width of the largest shrub's mature spread between each shrub cluster.
11.Combustible materials, including chipped biomass, bark, wood chips, should be no closer than 5 feet to
structures unless of size and type shown to reduce potential ignitions.
12.Provide a minimum 30-foot distance between mature canopies on slopes that exceed 40%.
13.Provide fire department access every 1,000 lineal feet along portions of the development adjacent to the
Preserve areas or WUI.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1095 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
12431
38 March 2021
Zone 1 (0–50 feet starting at rear of the structures)
Zone 1 – Definition:
All public and private areas located between the rear of the structures and 50 feet outward. These areas may be
located on public slopes, private open-space lots, or public streets, as illustrated on the landscape fuel modification
exhibits.
Zone 1 – Specific Criteria:
1.Provide a permanent irrigation system within this irrigated wet zone.
2.Only those trees on the Proposed Project Plant List (Appendix C) and those approved as not being invasive
are permitted within this zone.
3.Tree limbs shall not encroach within 10 feet of a structure or chimney, including outside barbecues or fireplaces.
4.Provide a minimum of 30 feet between tree canopies.
5.Additional trees (excluding prohibited or highly flammable species) may be planted as parkway trees on
single loaded streets.
6.Limit 75% of all groundcover and sprawling vine masses to a maximum height of 18 inches.
7.25% of all groundcover and sprawling vine masses may reach a maximum height of 24 inches. Ground
covers must be of high-leaf moisture content.
8.Shrubs shall be less than 2 feet tall and planted on 5-foot centers.
9.Randomly placed approved succulent type plant material may exceed the height requirements, provided
that they are spaced in groups of no more than three and a minimum of five feet away from described
“clear access routes.”
10.Vegetation/Landscape Plans shall be in compliance with this FPP.
Zone 2 (51–100 feet from Zone 1)
Zone 2 – Definition:
All public and private areas located between the outside edge of Zone 1 and 50 feet outward to 100 feet, per this FPP.
Zone 2 – Specific Criteria:
1.Utilize temporary irrigation to ensure the establishment of vegetation intended to stabilize the slopes and
minimize erosion.
a.Temporary irrigation, with the exception of tree bubblers, shall be removed from site once the slope
plantings are fully established and the maintenance period has been completed.
2.Trees may be located within this zone, provided they are planted in clusters of no more than three. A
minimum distance of no less than 30 feet shall be maintained between the tree cluster's mature canopies.
3.Only those trees on the Proposed Project Plant List (Appendix C) and those approved by the Development
Services Director as not being invasive shall be permitted within this zone.
4.100% of all groundcover shall be limited to 50% at 24-inches and 50% at 36-inches.
5.Shrubs may be planted in clusters not exceeding a total of 400 sq. ft.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1096 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
12431
39 March 2021
6.Provide a distance of no less than the width of the largest shrub's mature spread between each shrub cluster.
7.Provide “Avenue” devoid of shrubs a minimum width of 6 feet and spaced a distance of 200 linear feet on
center to provide a clear access route from toe of slope to tope of slope.
8.When shrubs or other plants are planted underneath trees, the tree canopy shall be maintained at a height
no less than three times the shrub or other plant's mature height (break up any fire laddering effect).
9.Hedging of shrubs is prohibited.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1097 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
12431
40 March 2021
5.4.1.2 Sunbow II, Phase 3 Specific FMZ Criteria
As indicated in the Figures 7A through 7D, achievable fuel modification for the Proposed Project varies, as follows.
•FMZ on North and West sides of Proposed Project – A total of 100 feet FMZ is achievable from the rear of
the structures outward. The FMZ is comprised by two 50 feet wide zones with the zone closest to the
developed area being irrigated as described previously.
•FMZ on East side of Proposed Project – FMZ widths vary between 24 feet and 100 feet. The FMZ located
between the rear of the structures and a 6 feet tall non-combustible landscape wall (heat and ember
catching) would be consistent with irrigated zone. Fuel modification to the east of the Proposed Project will
tie into existing/proposed development area landscaping for Otay Ranch Village 2. If the Proposed Project
is constructed before Village 2, an interim, off-site 100-foot fuel modification zone will be installed per
Zones 1 and 2 criteria.
•FMZ on South side of Proposed Project – FMZ widths vary between 23 to 100 feet wide. Terrain in the area
is favorable, sloping up and away from the Proposed Project. The FMZ from rear of the structures to the
provided 6 feet, non-combustible landscape wall at the property boundary would be irrigated Zone 1 and
the buildings would be enhanced, as described in Section 5.4.4.1.
•The Proposed Project must comply with the landscape and fuel modification plant palette contained in
Appendix C, Suggested Plant List for a Defensible Space and avoid use of prohibited plants in Appendix D.
•Interior landscape areas will be irrigated and maintained by the HOA per Zone 1 standards.
5.4.1.3 Other Vegetation Management
Roadway-Adjacent Defensible Space
New roads will be subject to fuel modification zones with Zone 1 and/or Zone 2 standards described above. The
combustible vegetation will be modified within 30 feet from each side of Streets A and B. Roadway-adjacent fuel
modification does not preclude the planting of street trees in these fuel modification zones, as long as they are not
found on the Prohibited Plant List (Appendix D), are included in the Approved Plant Palette (Appendix C) and follow
all CVFD spacing and maintenance requirements.
Pre-Construction Requirements
•Perimeter fuel modification areas must be implemented and approved by the CVFD prior to combustible
materials being brought on site.
•Existing flammable vegetation shall be reduced by 50% on vacant lots upon commencement of construction.
•Dead fuel, ladder fuel (fuel which can spread fire from ground to trees), and downed fuel shall be removed,
and trees/shrubs shall be properly limbed, pruned, and spaced per this plan.
Undesirable Plants
Certain plants are considered to be undesirable in the landscape due to characteristics that make them highly
flammable. These characteristics can be physical (structure promotes ignition or combustion) or chemical (volatile
chemicals increase flammability or combustion characteristics). The plants included in the Prohibited Plant List
(Appendix D) are unacceptable from a fire safety standpoint and will not be planted on the site or allowed to
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1098 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
12431
41 March 2021
establish opportunistically within fuel modification zones or landscaped areas. No fuel modification zones are
proposed within the MSCP areas, thus no vegetation within the MSCP will be removed.
Tree Notes for Publicly Owned Areas
•All standard form (single trunk) trees to include a single strong central leader with no branches extending
at an angle narrower than 30 degrees from the main trunk. If the tree does not display a single strong
central leader, a tree may be approved if the Developer’s arborist or landscape architect of record can
demonstrate that a single strong central leader can be achieved through structural pruning. All trees
requiring structural pruning for the purposes of achieving a strong centra l leader shall be pruned by the
Nursery’s Arborist prior to Landscape Architect of Record approval of tree submittal (see bullet 5 below) or
by the Developer’s Arborist at planting.
•No grafted species will be allowed as a street tree.
•Tree sizing based on caliper and tree height per American Standard for Nursery Stock (ANSI Z60.1-2014):
•15-gal:1-inch to 1-1/2-inch caliper; 5 feet to 7 feet height
•24-inch box:1-1/2-inch to 1-3/4-inch caliper; 7 feet to 12 feet height
•36” box:1-3/4-inch to 3-inch caliper; 8 feet to 14 feet height
•48” box:3-inch to 4-inch caliper; 14 feet to 18 feet height
*Note: Caliper to be measured at 6-inches above the root crown
•Live crown ratio shall be a minimum of 50%, meaning there shall be live branches in the upper 50% of the
trunk to distribute wind stress and develop trunk taper for stability.
•The Landscape Architect of Record shall submit to the City’s Landscape Architect a copy of the applicant’s
approved tree submittal with photos representative of those trees to be delivered to the site, including
representative measurements. The City’s Landscape Architect will review the submittal to verify the
included trees comply with the noted requirements prior to any trees being delivered to the site.
•All 36-inch box trees and larger, multi-trunk and other specimen trees shall be tagged at the nursery by the
landscape architect of record and photos submitted to the City’s Landscape Architect as described above.
Vacant Parcels and Lots
•Vegetation management would not be required on vacant lots until construction begins. However, perimeter
FMZs must be implemented prior to commencement of construction utilizing combustible materials (See
Pre-Construction Requirements, above).
•Vacant lots adjacent to active construction areas/lots would be required to implement vegetation
management if they are within 50 feet of the active construction area. Perimeter areas of the vacant lot
would be maintained as a vegetation management zone extending 50 feet from roadways and adjacent
construction areas.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1099 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
12431
42 March 2021
•Prior to issuance of a permit for any construction, grading, digging, installation of fences, etc., on a vacant
lot, the 50 feet at the perimeter of the lot is to be maintained as a vegetation management zone.
•Installation of manufactured slope landscape and irrigation improvements within areas designated FMZs
do not need to be completed prior to commencement of construction; however, all flammable vegetation
and plants listed on the Prohibited Plant List must be removed (i.e. grubbed/graded) or mowed prior to
construction.
•In addition to the establishment of a 50-foot-wide vegetation management zone prior to combustible
materials presence on site, existing vegetation on the lot would be reduced by at least 70% upon
commencement of construction.
•Dead fuel, ladder fuels, and downed fuels would be removed, and trees/shrubs would be properly limbed,
pruned and spaced per Zone 2 standards (See Section 5.4.1.3).
5.4.2 Fuel Modification Area Vegetation Maintenance
All fuel modification area vegetation management shall be completed annually by May 1 of each year and more
often as needed for fire safety, as determined by the CVFD.
5.4.3 Annual Fuel Modification Zone Compliance Inspection
The property owner would obtain an FMZ inspection and report from a qualified CVFD-approved 3rd party inspector
in May of each year certifying that vegetation management activities throughout the Project Site have been
performed pursuant to this FPP. A copy of the annual inspection report would be provided to the Proposed Project
HOA and a copy made available to CVFD, if requested.
5.4.4 Reduced Fuel Modification Zone Discussion
As previously mentioned, due to site constraints, it is not feasible to achieve a 100-foot FMZ width on the south
side of the proposed development. This FPP incorporates additional fire protection measures that will be
implemented to compensate for potential fire related threats. These measures are customized for this site based
on the analysis results and focus on providing functional equivalency for reduced defensible space.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1100 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
12431
43 March 2021
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1101 of 1271
Date: 9/28/2020 - Last saved by: lterry - Path: Z:\Projects\j1243100\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\FPP\Fig 7A_Fuel Mod Plan 20200928.mxdCITY OFCHULAVISTA
COUNTY OFSAN DIEGO COUNTY OFSAN DIEGO
OTAYLANDFILLINC
V 2 N I ND 1(B) LLC
NO DATAAVAILABLE NO DATAAVAILABLE
OLYMPIC
P
K
W
Y
5
0
'
5
0
'
1
0
0
'
OS-13
OS-9b
OS-6b
OS-14
CPF-1
OS-3 MSCP
OS-2 MSCP
OS-1 MSCP
OS-13 OS-13
OS-12
OS-11
OS-10
OS-10
OS-7
OS-6a
OS-5
OS-5OS-4
R-2
R-3
R-6
R-6
R-4
R-4
R-1
R-1
R-5
OS-7 OS-8
OS-9a
Conceptual Fuel Modification Map
Fire Protection Plan for the Sunbow PA 23 Project
SOURCE: AERIAL- SANGIS 2017; DEVELOPMENT - HUNSAKER AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 2020
0 275137.5 Feet
FIGURE 7A
Project Site
Waters of the State
Fire Access
Additional Protection Measures for
Non-Conforming Buildings Adjacent
to Southern Boundary
Fuel Modification Zones
Zone 1 (irrigated)
Zone 2 (50% thinned)
30-Ft Roadside Zone
Interim Offsite ZoneLand Use
Development
Roadway
NOTES:1. REFER TO FIGURE 7B, 7C & 7D FORFMZ CROSS SECTIONS FOR THESOUTH, EAST, AND NORTH EDGESOF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
2. BUILDING LOCATIONS ANDFOOTPRINTS ARE CONCEPTUAL AND WILL BE REFINED DURINGTHE DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1102 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
12431
45 March 2021
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1103 of 1271
Fuel Modification Zone Cross Sections
Fire Protection Plan for the Sunbow PA 23 Project
FIGURE 7BSOURCE: HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES, INC. 2020
PROP. 3.5’ COURTYARD WALL
Future Otay Ranch
Village 2
Dual-tempered Pane Windows
& 1-Hour Rated Wall
6’ High Wall6’ High Wall
6’ High Wall
6’ High Wall
6’ High Wall
6’ High Wall
6’ High Wall
ZONE 1
ZONE 1
ZONE 1 ZONE 1
ZONE 1
ZONE 1
ZONE 1
Dual-tempered Pane
Windows & 1-Hour
Rated Wall
Dual-tempered Pane
Windows & 1-Hour Rated Wall
Dual-tempered Pane
Windows & 1-Hour Rated Wall
Dual-tempered Pane Windows
& 1-Hour Rated Wall
Dual-tempered Pane Windows
& 1-Hour Rated Wall
Dual-tempered Pane
Windows & 1-Hour
Rated Wall
PROP. 4’ MSE WALL
PROP. 4’ MSE WALL
PROP. 5’ MSE WALL
PROP. 13.5’ MSE WALL
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1104 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
12431
47 March 2021
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1105 of 1271
Fuel Modification Zone Cross Sections
Fire Protection Plan for the Sunbow PA 23 Project
FIGURE 7CSOURCE: HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES, INC. 2020
40 Feet
Curb to Curb
30-Ft
Roadside Zone
30-Ft
Roadside Zone
SEE FIGURE 7B FOR SECTION G-G
SEE FIGURE 7D FOR SECTION J-J
FMZ NOT APPLICABLE
FOR SECTION H-H
PROP. 2’ RET. WALL
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1106 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
12431
49 March 2021
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1107 of 1271
Fuel Modification Zone Cross Sections
Fire Protection Plan for the Sunbow PA 23 Project
FIGURE 7DSOURCE: HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES, INC. 2020
ZONE 1
50’
ZONE 2
50’
100’
SEE FIGURE 7B FOR SECTION G-G
SEE FIGURE 7C FOR SECTIONS H-H AND I-I
NOT TO SCALE
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1108 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
12431
51 March 2021
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1109 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
12431
52 March 2021
5.4.4.1 Additional Structure Protection Measures Non-Conforming Lots
The following additional measures (Alternative Materials and Methods) will be implemented to “mitigate” potential
structure fire exposure related to the provided FMZs for buildings along the southern edge of the Project Site. The
additional mitigation measures listed below will be implemented only to the walls of the structu res that face the
open space areas adjacent to the Project site. In order to provide compensating structural protection in the absence
of a full FMZ, and in addition to the multi-family residences being built to the latest ignition resistant codes and will
be protected with a NFPA 13R fire sprinkler system, these structures will also include the following features for
additional fire prevention and protection:
1.Provide exterior glazing in windows (and sliding glass doors, garage doors, or decorative or leaded glass
doors) facing the open space areas to be dual pane with both panes tempered glass, exceeding the fire -
building code requirement;
2.No eave overhangs and combustible construction in portion of yards facing natural open space areas.
3.1-hour rating (Type X- 5/8-inch thickness of gypsum) behind con-combustible covering (stucco, fiber cement
siding) for a facade facing the open space areas to the east and south.
4.Propose to conduct a formal landscaping plan review for structures with a façade facing open space area.
Landscape plans would be reviewed and approved by CVFD; and
5.Annually hire a 3rd party inspector to evaluate whether designated FMZ areas meet the requirements of this FPP.
6.Provide a non-combustible 6-foot-tall, masonry, block or view wall at the property line on the south and east
sides of the Proposed Project to provide a physical, non-combustible barrier that would deflect heat and
flame and would capture ground-blowing embers before they reached the Proposed Project’s developed
areas.
The Proposed Project’s slopes to the south provide an opportunity to place a non-combustible, six-foot-tall,
heat-deflecting wall (or view wall with lower 1 to 2 feet block wall and upper 4 to 5 feet dual pane, one pane
tempered glazing) to provide additional deflection for these lots to compensate for the reduced fuel
modification zones.
Heat-deflecting landscape or view walls will be incorporated along the southern property boundary (Figure 7B
through 7D). The landscape walls provide a vertical, non-combustible surface in the line of heat, fumes, and flame
travel toward the Project Site. When buildings are set back from slopes, and a wall is placed at the top of slope,
flames spreading up those slopes are deflected vertically where cooling occurs, reducing the effects of convective
heat on the structure. Similarly, a significant percentage of the embers that are blowing along the surface or above
the surface are captured by the wall where they fall to the ground and burn out. The duration of radiant heat impact
on the downhill facing side of the house is also reduced. An imaginary line extended along the slope depicts the
path of the heat (hot air rises) and flame. The structure set back is important to avoid heat and/or flame intersection
with the structure.
The FPP’s direction that heat-deflecting landscape view walls of masonry construction with fire-rated glazing is
too general and does not adequately guide builders on what glass product is acceptable. This analysis relies on
previous fire behavior modeling for adjacent fuels and terrain and basis recommendations for glazing on Cohen’s
structure ignition research as well as typical vegetation heat output and duration.
Walls like these have been observed to deflect heat and airborne embers on numerous wildfires in San Diego,
Orange, Los Angeles, Ventura, and Santa Barbara County. Rancho Santa Fe Fire Protection District, Laguna Beach
Fire Protection District, Orange County Fire Authority, and others have regularly approved these walls as
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1110 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
12431
53 March 2021
acceptable Alternative Materials and Methods based on observed performance during wildfires. This has led to
these agencies approving use of non-combustible landscape walls as mitigations for reduced fuel modification
zones and reduced setbacks at top of slope. These walls are consistent with NFPA 1144 Standard for Reducing
Structure Ignition Hazards from Wildland Fire – 2008 Edition, Section 5.1.3.3 and A.5.1.3.3 and International
Urban Wildland Interface Code (ICC 2012). NFPA 1144, A.5.1.3.3 states: “Noncombustible walls and barriers are
effective for deflecting radiant heat and windblown embers from structures.”
The wall glass could be subject to radiant or convective heat from a wildland fire. Therefore, it is worthwhile to
examine the structure ignitability modeling, independent ignition experiments, and case studies and compare them
with the project. Cohens’ (1995) structure ignitability model (SIAM) assesses ignitability of bare wood when exposed
to a continuous heat source. The model assumes a worst-case condition of a constant 1,700 degrees (F). However,
a constant, maximum heat source is typically not the case during a wildfire due to the movement of a fire, non -
uniform vegetation distribution, and the lack of a uniform, constant flame front especially when FMZs are provided.
Further, a flame temperature of 1,700 degrees (F) is considered to be higher than would be experienced by the
fuels adjacent to the landscape fire walls based on the type of fuels found adjacent the site (grasslands , coastal
sage and chaparral vs. Cohen’s timber fuel). However, 1,700 degrees is a valid temperature for testing to ensure
that potential temperature extremes are considered, as confirmed by Pyne, et. al., (1996)1 who found that flaming
combustion typically occurs in wildland fuels between flame temperatures of 1466-2186 degrees (F). For
comparison, Dennison (2006)2 studied the heat signatures from a Southern California wildfire that was burning oak
woodlands, dense chaparral, sparse chaparral, and grasslands. Results from this study indicate that the maximum
temperature commonly observed was 2,200 degrees (f) and associated with the dense, higher fuel load oak and
chaparral vegetation while cooler {980 to 1340 degrees (F)} and smaller fires were associated with the mixed
chaparral and grasslands (like those found adjacent to the landscape wall). Flame temperatures lower than those
associated with chaparral/grassland would be expected at this site due to the 100-foot wide FMZs.
The analysis conducted for this report indicates that the provided FMZ adequately separates the structures from
the short-duration heat and flame associated with a fire burning toward the structure in the off-site, adjacent fuels
(FMZ). Similarly, the landscape fire walls, which would be situated directly adjacent to the FMZ, would be subject to
higher flame temperatures, but for a short duration. The typical duration of large flames from burning vegetation
is on the order of 1 minute and up to several minutes for larger fuels at a specific location (Cohen 1995; Butler
et.al., 20043, Ramsay and Rudolph 20034, Cohen and Quarles 20115)). Tests of various glazing products indicate
that single pane, tempered glass failure may occur between 120 and 185 seconds from exposure (University of
California 20116; Manzello, et. al. 20077) but those tests include direct and constant heating that would not be
experienced during a wildfire adjacent the walls due to the ongoing fuel maintenance and plant separation.
Depending on the heat applied and the type of glass used in the various studies, the cracking/failure time varied.
However, given the short duration of maximum heat (likely 60 to 90 seconds for the largest maintained shrubs
found on or adjacent the project), the loss of heat over distance, and the dual pane, one pane tempered glazing (or
equivalent) in the landscape fire wall, wildfire heat and flame will be lower intensity, short duration, and distant
enough that heat experienced by the windows from the wildland fire are not expected to cause failure of both panes.
However, should a wall window fail, the setbacks associated with rear and/or side yards and the ignition resistant
structures, including dual pane, one pane tempered windows in each structure, would not be expected to be subject
to direct flame impingement or extended heat exposure due to the FMZ and setbacks. Quarles, et. al. (2010)8
provides strong endorsement for tempered glass performance. His research and tests conclude that multi -pane
(2 to 3 panes) with at least one pane tempered is well-suited for wildfire exposures. He indicates that tempered
glass is at least four times stronger and much more resistant to thermal exposures than normal annealed glass.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1111 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
12431
54 March 2021
The use of code required dual pane, one pane tempered glass provides several benefits, with thermal exposure
performance the most important for this study.
Dudek has utilized the preceding findings and the evaluations that resulted in the CBC, Chapter 7A “Materials and
Construction Methods for Exterior Wildfire Exposure” along with the typical vegetation fire resident burn/heat output
timeframes to justify the use of Chapter 7A fire ratings for landscape fire wall glass. This recommendation has been
accepted by numerous fire agencies and allows the use of “fire rated” glass in the landscape fire walls meeting any
of the following approved specifications:
•Be constructed of multi-pane glazing with a minimum of one tempered pane meeting the requirements
of Section 2406 Safety Glazing, or
•Have a fire-resistance rating of not less than 20 minutes when tested according to NFPA 257, or
•Be tested to meet the performance requirements of SFM Standard 12-7A-2.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1112 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
12431
55 March 2021
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1113 of 1271
12431
56 March 2021
6 Homeowner’s Wildfire
Education Program
The Proposed Project’s residents will be provided a proactive educational component disclosing the potential
wildfire risk and this report’s requirements as part of their purchase documents. Property owner will be required to
sign notice of receiving this information during escrow. This educational information must include maintaining the
landscape and structural components according to the appropriate standards and embracing a “Ready, Set, Go”
stance on evacuation.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1114 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
12431
57 March 2021
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1115 of 1271
12431
58 March 2021
7 Conclusion
This FPP has been prepared for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project. It is submitted in compliance with City requirements.
The recommendations in this document meet fire safety, building design elements, infrastructure, fuel
management/modification, and landscaping recommendations of the applicable codes. The recommendations
provided in this FPP have been designed specifically for the Proposed Project development in order to protect
human life based on the best available science and code requirements. The Proposed Project’s fire protection
system includes a redundant layering of protection materials, measures, and methods that have been shown
through post-fire damage assessments to reduce risk.
Fuel modification would occur throughout the site and includes 100-foot wide zones on the north and west project-
perimeter areas, varying widths on the south perimeter bolstered by additional measures and structure hardening,
and an interim zone on the west until that site is developed. Proposed Project access roadways will include 30 feet
of FMZ on either side. The fuel modification zones will be maintained and inspected annually; removing all dead
and dying materials and maintaining appropriate horizontal and vertical spacing. In addition, plants that establish
or are introduced to the FMZ that are not on the approved plant list will be removed so that the FMZs function as
intended by reducing fire spread rates and intensity. Landscaping within the Proposed Project will conform to fire
safe plant palettes, planting densities and spacing (per Zone 1).
The site improvements are designed to facilitate emergency apparatus and personnel access to all portions of the
site. Roads and driveways meeting the code width standards and including fire engine turnarounds provide access
to within 150 feet of all sides of every building. On-site water availability and flow will be consistent with City
requirements. These features along with the ignition resistance of all buildings, the interior fire sprinkler systems,
and the pre-planning, training and awareness will assist responding firefighters through prevention, protection and
suppression capabilities.
Ultimately, it is the intent of this FPP to recommend the construction of structures that are defensible from wildfire
and, in turn, do not represent significant threat of ignition source for the adjacent native habitat. During extreme fire
conditions, there are no guarantees that a given structure will not burn. Fire safety measures identified in this report
are designed to reduce the likelihood that fire would impinge upon the proposed structures. Wildfires may occur in
the area that could damage property or harm persons. However, implementation of the recommendations in this FPP
will substantially reduce the risk associated with this Proposed Project’s supplemental wildfire hazard location.
This FPP recommends that the Project maintains a conservative approach to fire safety. This approach must include
maintaining the landscape and structural components according to the appropriate standards and embracing a
“Ready, Set, Go!” stance on evacuation. This Project is not considered a shelter-in-place community, but this
approach to public safety may be utilized by incident managers as a contingency to an unsafe evacuation.
Accordingly, evacuation of the site and the area should occur according to pre -established evacuation decision
points, or as soon as notice to evacuate is received, which may vary depending on many environmental and other
factors, whichever is more conservative. Fire is a dynamic and somewhat unpredictable occurrence and it is
important for anyone living at the Proposed Project to educate themselves on practices that will improve safety.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1116 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
12431
59 March 2021
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1117 of 1271
12431
60 March 2021
8 Limitations
This FPP does not provide a guarantee that all residents and visitors will be safe at all times because of the
enhanced fire protection features it requires. There are many variables that may influence overall safety. This FPP
provides requirements and recommendations for implementation of the latest fire protection features that have
proven to result in reduced wildfire related risk and hazard. Even then, fire can compromise the fire protection
features through various, unpredictable ways. The goal is to reduce the likelihood that the system is compromised
through implementation of the elements of this FPP and a regular occurring maintenance program.
For maximum benefit, the developer, contractors, engineers, and architects are responsible for proper
implementation of the concepts and requirements set forth in this report. Homeowners are responsible to maintain
their structures and lots as required by this report, the applicable City Fire and Building Codes, and the CVFD Fire
Prevention Division’s Engineering Safety Detail and Specification Sheets.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1118 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
12431
61 March 2021
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1119 of 1271
12431
62 March 2021
9 List of Preparers
Project Manager
Michael Huff
Senior Fire Protection Planner; San Diego County California Environmental Quality Act Consultant List
Dudek
Fire Behavior Modeling and Fire Protection Plan Preparer
Mike Scott
Senior Fire Protection Planner
Dudek
Fire Protection Plan Preparer
Noah Stamm
Fire Protection Planner
Dudek
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1120 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
12431
63 March 2021
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1121 of 1271
12431
64 March 2021
10 References
(Including References Cited in Appendices)
Alexander, M.E.; Stocks, B.J.; Wotton, B.M.; Flannigan, M.D.; Todd, J.B.; Butler, B.W.; Lanoville, R.A. 1998. The
international crown fire modeling experiment: an overview and progress report. In: Proceedings of the
second symposium on fire and forest meteorology; 1998 January 12–14; Phoenix, Arizona. Boston,
Massachusetts: American Meteorological Society; 20–23.
Anderson, Hal E. 1982. Aids to Determining Fuel Models for Estimating Fire Behavior. USDA Forest Service Gen.
Tech. Report INT-122. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT.
http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_int/int_gtr122.pdf.
Andrews, P.L. 1980. Testing the fire behavior model. In Proceedings 6th conference on fire and forest
meteorology. April 22–24, 1980. Seattle, WA: Society of American Foresters. Pp. 70–77.
Andrews, Patricia L.; Collin D. Bevins; and Robert C. Seli. 2008. BehavePlus fire modeling system, version 3.0:
User’s Guide. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-106 Ogden, Utah: Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Rocky Mountain Research Station. 132p.
Brown, J.K. 1972. Field test of a rate-of-fire-spread model in slash fuels. USDA Forest Service Res. Pap. Int-116. 24 p.
Brown, J.K. 1982. Fuel and fire behavior prediction in big sagebrush. USDA Forest Service Res. Pap. INT-290. 10p.
Bushey, C.L. 1985. Comparison of observed and predicted fire behavior in the sagebrush/ bunchgrass vegetation-
type. In J.N. Long (ed.), Fire management: The challenge of protection and use: Proceedings of a
symposium. Society of American Foresters. Logan, UT. April 17–19, 1985. Pp. 187–201.
CAL FIRE. 2019. Fire and Resource Assessment Program (FRAP). California Department of Forestry and Fire.
Website access via http://frap.cdf.ca.gov/data/frapgismaps/select.asp?theme=5.
City of Chula Vista (City). 2016b. Chula Vista Fire Department Adopted Budget, Fiscal Year 2019-20. Accessed
February 2020. https://www.chulavistaca.gov/home/showdocument?id=20159
City. 2020a. About the City of Chula Vista. Accessed February 2020. https://www.chulavistaca.gov/
residents/about-chula-vista.
City. 2020b. Chula Vista Fire Department Annual Stats Report for CY 2018. March 2, 2020.
Cohen, Jack D. 1995. Structure ignition assessment model (SIAM). In: Weise, D.R.; Martin, R.E., technical
coordinators. Proceedings of the Biswell symposium: fire issues and solutions in urban interface and
wildland ecosystems. 1994 February 1517; Walnut Creek, CA. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-158. Albany,
California: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 85–92
Cohen, J.D. 2000. Preventing disaster: home ignitability in the wildland-urban interface. Journal of Forestry 98(3): 15–21.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1122 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
12431
65 March 2021
Cohen, J.D. and Butler, B.W. [In press]. 1996. Modeling potential ignitions from flame radiation exposure with
implications for wildland/urban interface fire management. In: Proceedings of the 13th conference on
fire and forest meteorology. October 27–31; Lorne, Victoria, Australia. Fairfield, Washington: International
Association of Wildland Fire.
FireFamily Plus 2008. http://www.firelab.org/project/firefamilyplus.
Foote, Ethan I.D.; Gilless, J. Keith. 1996. Structural survival. In: Slaughter, Rodney, ed. California's I-zone.
Sacramento, California: CFESTES; 112–121.
Grabner, K., J. Dwyer, and B. Cutter. 1994. “Validation of Behave Fire Behavior Predictions in Oak Savannas Using Five
Fuel Models.” Proceedings from 11th Central Hardwood Forest Conference. 14 p.
Grabner, K.W. 1996. “Validation of BEHAVE fire behavior predictions in established oak savannas.” M.S. thesis.
University of Missouri, Columbia.
Grabner, K.W., J.P. Dwyer, and B.E. Cutter. 2001. “Fuel model selection for BEHAVE in Midwestern oak savannas.”
Northern Journal of Applied Forestry. 18: 74–80.
Howard, Ronald A.; North, D. Warner; Offensend, Fred L.; Smart, Charles N. 1973. Decision analysis of fire
protection strategy for the Santa Monica Mountains: an initial assessment. Menlo Park, CA: Stanford
Research Institute. 159 p.
Keeley, J.E. and S.C. Keeley. 1984. Post fire recovery of California coastal sage scrub. The American Midland
Naturalist 111:105-117.
Keeley, J.E. and C.J. Fotheringham. 2003. “Impact of Past, Present, and Future Fire Regimes on North American
Mediterranean Shrublands.” In Fire and Climatic Change in Temperate Ecosystems of the Western
Americas, edited by T.T. Veblem, W.L. Baker, G. Montenegro, and T.W. Swetnam, 218–262. New York,
New York: Springer-Verlag.
Keeley, J.E. 2004. “Invasive Plants and Fire Management in California Mediterranean-Climate Ecosystems.”
Edited by M. Arianoutsou. In 10th MEDECOS-International Conference on Ecology, Conservation
Management. Rhodes, Greece.
Lawson, B.D. 1972. Fire spread in lodgepole pine stands. Missoula, MT: University of Montana. 110 p. thesis.
Linn, R. 2003. “Using Computer Simulations to Study Complex Fire Behavior.” Los Alamos National Laboratory,
MS D401. Los Alamos, NM.
Marsden-Smedley, J.B. and W.R. Catchpole. 1995. Fire behaviour modelling in Tasmanian buttongrass
moorlands. II. Fire behaviour. International Journal of Wildland Fire. Volume 5(4), pp. 215–228.
McAlpine, R.S. and G. Xanthopoulos. 1989. Predicted vs. observed fire spread rates in Ponderosa pine fuel beds: a
test of American and Canadian systems. In Proceedings 10th conference on fire and forest meteorology,
April 17–21, 1989. Ottawa, Ontario. pp. 287–294.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1123 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
12431
66 March 2021
NFPA 1144. Standard for Reducing Structure Ignition Hazards from Wildland Fire. 2008. Technical Committee on
Forest and Rural Fire Protection. Issued by the Standards Council on June 4, 2007, with an effective date of
June 24, 2007. Approved as an American National Standard on June 24, 2007.
Rothermel, Richard C. 1983. How to Predict the Spread and Intensity of Forest and Range Fires. USDA Forest
Service Gen. Tech. Report INT-143. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment, Ogden, Utah.
http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/24635.
SANDAG (San Diego Association of Governments). 2019. 2010 Population Estimates by Jurisdiction.
http://profilewarehouse.sandag.org/profiles/est/city16est.pdf.
Scott, Joe H. and Robert E. Burgan. 2005. Standard Fire Behavior Fuel Models: A Comprehensive Set for Use with
Rothermel’s Surface Fire Spread Model. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-153. Fort Collins, Colorado: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 72 p.
Syphard A.D., and J.E. Keeley. 2016. “Historical Reconstructions of California Wildfires Vary by Data Source.”
International Journal of Wildland Fire 25(12):1221–1227. https://doi.org/10.1071/WF16050.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2020. QuickFacts (2014-2018): City of Chula Vista, California. https://www.census.gov/
quickfacts/fact/ table/chulavistacitycalifornia/. Retrieved February 25, 2020.
Weise, D.R. and J. Regelbrugge. 1997. Recent chaparral fuel modeling efforts. Prescribed Fire and Effects Research
Unit, Riverside Fire Laboratory, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 5p.
Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC). 2019a. “Period of Record General Climate Summary, Warner Springs,
California.” Accessed April 2019. http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN
WRCC. 2019b. “Period of Record General Climate Summary, Warner Springs.” Accessed April 2019.
http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1124 of 1271
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
12431
67 March 2021
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1125 of 1271
Appendix A
Representative Site Photographs
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1126 of 1271
Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project
Fuels Photo Series
PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN JANUARY 2020
1
Appendix A
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1127 of 1271
Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project
Fuels Photo Series
2
Photograph 1. Photograph illustrates the terrain and
grasslands-sage scrub fuels modeled in fire scenarios
#1 and #4. Note Otay Landfill in background.
Photograph 2. The grasslands and sage scrub covered
slope in Photo #2 represents the terrain and fuel types
modeled in the western portion of the property for fire
scenario #3.
Landfill
Olympic Parkway
Project Site
Western Portion of Property
Otay Water
District Reservoir
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1128 of 1271
Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project
Fuels Photo Series
3
Photograph 3
Photographs 3 (looking east) and 4 (looking west) show the Poggi Creek /wetland area immediately south of
Olympic Parkway. The steeper slope on the background of the photo would be the northern edge of the fuel
modification and residential development. This Project area was modeled in fire scenario #4.
Photograph 4
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1129 of 1271
Appendix B
BehavePlus Fire Behavior Analysis
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1130 of 1271
APPENDIX B FIRE BEHAVIOR MODELING ANALYSIS SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT
B-1
12431
March 2021
BehavePlus Fire Behavior Modeling
Fire behavior modeling has been used by researchers for approximately 50+ years to predict how a fire will move
through a given landscape (Linn 2003). The models have had varied complexities and applications throughout the
years. One model has become the most widely used as the industry standard for predicting fire behavior on a
given landscape. That model, known as “BEHAVE”, was developed by the U. S. Government (USDA Forest Service,
Rocky Mountain Research Station) and has been in use since 1984. Since that time, it has undergone continued
research, improvements, and refinement. The BehavePlus fire behavior modeling software incorporates years of
research and testing. Numerous studies have been completed testing the validity of the fire behavior models’
ability to predict fire behavior given site specific inputs. One of the most successful ways the model has been
improved has been through post-wildfire modeling (Brown 1972, Lawson 1972, Sneeuwjagt and Frandsen 1977,
Andrews 1980, Brown 1982, Rothermel and Rinehart 1983, Bushey 1985, McAlpine and Xanthopoulos 1989,
Grabner, et. al. 1994, Marsden-Smedley and Catchpole 1995, Grabner 1996, Alexander 1998, Grabner et al.
2001, Arca et al. 2005). In this type of study, Behave is used to model fire behavior based on pre-fire conditions
in an area that recently burned. Real-world fire behavior, documented during the wildfire, can then be compared
to the prediction results of Behave and refinements to the fuel models incorporated, retested, and so on.
Fire behavior modeling includes a high level of analysis and information detail to arrive at reasonably accurate
representations of how wildfire would move through available fuels on a given site. Fire behavior calculations are
based on site-specific fuel characteristics supported by fire science research that analyzes heat transfer related
to specific fire behavior. To objectively predict flame lengths, spread rates, and fireline intensities, the BehavePlus
5.0.5 fire behavior modeling system was applied using predominant fuel characteristics, slope percentages, and
four representative fuel models observed on site.
Predicting wildland fire behavior is not an exact science. As such, the movement of a fire will likely never be fully
predictable, especially considering the variations in weather and the limits of weather forecasting. Nevertheless,
practiced and experienced judgment, coupled with a validated fire behavior modeling system, results in useful
and accurate fire prevention planning information.
To be used effectively, the basic assumptions and limitations of BehavePlus must be understood.
First, it must be realized that the fire model describes fire behavior only in the flaming front. The primary driving
force in the predictive calculations is dead fuels less than one-quarter inch in diameter. These are the fine fuels
that carry fire. Fuels greater than one inch have little effect while fuels greater than three inches have no effect on
fire behavior.
Second, the model bases calculations and descriptions on a wildfire spreading through surface fuels that are
within six feet of the ground and contiguous to the ground. Surface fuels are often classified as grass, brush,
litter, or slash.
Third, the software assumes that weather and topography are uniform. However, because wildfires almost always
burn under non-uniform conditions, length of projection period and choice of fuel model must be carefully
considered to obtain useful predictions.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1131 of 1271
APPENDIX B FIRE BEHAVIOR MODELING ANALYSIS SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT
B-2
12431
March 2021
Fourth, the BehavePlus fire behavior computer modeling system was not intended for determining sufficient fuel
modification zone widths. However, it does provide the average length of the flames, which is a key element for
determining “defensible space” distances for minimizing structure ignition.
Although BehavePlus has some limitations, it can still provide valuable fire behavior predictions which can be
used as a tool in the decision-making process. In order to make reliable estimates of fire behavior, one must
understand the relationship of fuels to the fire environment and be able to recognize the variations in these fuels.
Natural fuels are made up of the various components of vegetation, both live and dead, that occur on a site. The
type and quantity will depend upon the soil, climate, geographic features, and the fire history of the site. The
major fuel groups of grass, shrub, trees, and slash are defined by their constituent types and quantities of litter
and duff layers, dead woody material, grasses and forbs, shrubs, regeneration, and trees. Fire behavior can be
predicted largely by analyzing the characteristics of these fuels. Fire behavior is affected by seven principal fuel
characteristics: fuel loading, size and shape, compactness, horizontal continuity, vertical arrangement, moisture
content, and chemical properties.
The seven fuel characteristics help define the 13 standard fire behavior fuel models (Anderson 1982) and the five
custom fuel models developed for Southern California (Weise 1997). According to the model classifications, fuel
models used in BehavePlus have been classified into four groups, based upon fuel loading (tons/acre), fuel
height, and surface to volume ratio. Observation of the fuels in the field (on site) determines which fuel models
should be applied in BehavePlus. The following describes the distribution of fuel models among general
vegetation types for the standard 13 fuel models and the custom Southern California fuel models:
•Grasses Fuel Models 1 through 3
•Brush Fuel Models 4 through 7, SCAL 14 through 18
•Timber Fuel Models 8 through 10
•Logging Slash Fuel Models 11 through 13
In addition, the aforementioned fuel characteristics were utilized in the recent development of 40 new fire
behavior fuel models (Scott and Burgan 2005) developed for use in BehavePlus modeling efforts. These new
models attempt to improve the accuracy of the standard 13 fuel models outside of severe fire season conditions,
and to allow for the simulation of fuel treatment prescriptions. The following describes the distribution of fuel
models among general vegetation types for the new 40 fuel models:
•Non-Burnable Models NB1, NB2, NB3, NB8, NB9
•Grass Models GR1 through GR9
•Grass-shrub Models GS1 through GS4
•Shrub Models SH1 through SH9
•Timber-understory Models TU1 through TU5
•Timber litter Models TL1 through TL9
•Slash blowdown Models SB1 through SB4
BehavePlus software was used in the development of the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project (Project) Fire Protection Plan
(FPP) in order to evaluate potential fire behavior for the Project site. Existing site conditions were evaluated, and
local weather data was incorporated into the BehavePlus modeling runs.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1132 of 1271
APPENDIX B FIRE BEHAVIOR MODELING ANALYSIS SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT
B-3
12431
March 2021
BehavePlus Fuel Model Inputs
Dudek utilized BehavePlus software to evaluate fire behavior potential for the project site. Four fire scenarios
were evaluated, including two onshore winds conditions and two more extreme offshore winds conditions.
BehavePlus software requires site-specific variables for surface fire spread analysis, including fuel type, fuel
moisture, wind speed, and slope data. The output variables used in this analysis include flame length (feet), rate
of spread (feet/minute), fireline intensity (BTU/feet/second), and spotting distance (miles). The following provides
a description of the input variables used in processing the BehavePlus models for the Project site. In addition,
data sources are cited and any assumptions made during the modeling process are described.
Vegetation/Fuel Models
To support the fire behavior modeling efforts conducted for this FPP, the different vegetation types observed
adjacent to the site were classified into the aforementioned numeric fuel models. Dudek analyzed fire behavior
for the fuels adjacent to the property in all directions. As is customary for this type of analysis, the terrain and
fuels directly adjacent to the proposed development and fuel modification zones (FMZ) are used for determining
flame lengths and fire spread. It is these fuels that would have the potential to affect the project’s structures from
a radiant and convective heat perspective as well as from direct flame impingement. Fuel beds, including Diegan
coastal sage scrub and grasslands would be adjacent to the structures in the proposed development. These fuel
types can produce flying embers that may affect the Project, but defenses have been built into the structures to
prevent ember penetration. Table 1 provides a description of the two fuel models observed in the vicinity of the
site that were subsequently used in the analysis for this Project. Modeled areas include the Diegan coastal sage
scrub (Fuel Model Sh5) and non-native/native grasslands (Fuel Model Gr4). A total of four fire scenarios were
completed for the Project area. Identification of modeling run (fire scenarios) locations is presented graphically in
Figure 5 of the FPP. These sites were selected based on the strong likelihood of fire approaching from these
directions during a Santa Ana wind-driven fire event (fire scenarios 1 and 2) and an on-shore weather pattern (fire
scenarios 3 and 4). Dudek also conducted modeling of the site for post-Fuel Modification Zones’ (FMZ)
recommendations for this project (Refer to Table 2 for post-FMZ fuel model descriptions). Fuel modification
includes establishment of irrigated and thinned zones on the periphery of the Project . For modeling the post-FMZ
treatment condition, fuel model assignments were re-classified for the FMZ 1 (Fuel Model 8, irrigated landscape)
and FMZ 2 (Fuel Model Gr1, cut grasses and Fuel Model Sh1, 50% thinned brush).
Table 1. Existing Fuel Model Characteristics
Fuel Model Description Location Fuel Bed Depth (Feet)
Gr4 Moderate Load, Dry Climate Grasses
(untreated fuel bed)
Throughout property <2.0
Sh5 Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub
(untreated fuel bed)
Throughout property >4.0
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1133 of 1271
APPENDIX B FIRE BEHAVIOR MODELING ANALYSIS SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT
B-4
12431
March 2021
Table 2. Fuel Model Characteristics – Post-Project Fuel Modification Zones
Fuel Model Description Location Fuel Bed Depth (Feet)
FM8 irrigated landscapes Fuel Modification Zone 1 <3.0
Gr1 cut grasses Fuel Modification Zone 2 <0.5
Sh1 50% thinning of shrubs Fuel Modification Zone 2 <3.0
Topography
Slope is a measure of angle in degrees from horizontal and can be presented in units of degrees or percent. Slope
is important in fire behavior analysis as it affects the exposure of fuel beds. Additionally, fire burning uphill
spreads faster than those burning on flat terrain or downhill as uphill vegetation is pre -heated and dried in
advance of the flaming front, resulting in faster ignition rates. Natural slope values ranging from 5% to 34% were
measured around the perimeter of the Project site from U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps.
Weather Analysis
In order to evaluate specific weather variables for the Project area, data from the San Miguel Remote Automated
Weather Station (RAWS) was analyzed. The San Miguel RAWS is the closest weather station, located
approximately 5.6 miles due northeast of the Project site, in a similar inland position and estimated to include
consistent weather conditions as the Project area. The location and available data range for the San Miguel
station is: Latitude: 32.68611; Longitude: -116.97833; Elevation: 425 feet; Data years: 2002 to 2018.
Utilizing the FireFamily Plus v. 4.0.2 (FireFamily Plus 2008) software package, data from the San Miguel RAWS
was processed and analyzed to determine 50th (typical) and 97th (extreme) percentile wind and fuel moisture
conditions to be used in the fire behavior modeling efforts conducted for the Project area. Fuel moisture
information was analyzed and directly inputted into the focused BehavePlus runs discussed, below. Two separate
wind scenarios were analyzed and incorporated into the BehavePlus model: summer fire (50th percentile values
from June 1 to August 31) with 12 mph onshore winds, and fall fire (97th percentile values from September 1 to
November 30) with 50 mph winds (representing maximum wind gust speed). The use of 50 mph winds in
modeling efforts is intended to represent wind gusts rather than sustained maximum wind speeds. The maximum
RAWS wind speed for the San Miguel RAWS during the 97th percentile weather period (September 1 to November
30) was 19 mph, which represents a 10-minute average wind speed, not the maximum gust speed. As
BehavePlus presents a static representation of fire behavior, the inclusion of gust speed is appropriate to
evaluate worst-case fire behavior outputs. Table 3 presents the weather and fuel moisture input variables used
for all fire behavior modeling conducted for this FPP.
Table 3. Weather and Fuel Moisture Variables
Model Variable 50th Percentile 97th Percentile
1h Moisture 8% 2%
10h Moisture 9% 3%
100h Moisture 15% 8%
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1134 of 1271
APPENDIX B FIRE BEHAVIOR MODELING ANALYSIS SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT
B-5
12431
March 2021
Table 3. Weather and Fuel Moisture Variables
Model Variable 50th Percentile 97th Percentile
Live Herbaceous Moisture 59% 30%
Live Woody Moisture 118% 60%
20-foot Wind Speed 12 mph 19 mph (50 mph gusts)
Slope Steepness 7% to 15% 5% to 34%
Wind Adjustment Factor (BehavePlus) 0.4 0.4
Wind Direction Onshore Offshore/Santa Ana conditions
Fire Modeling Scenarios
Based on slope and fuel conditions, four different fire scenarios (Refer to Figure 5 of FPP for locations of each fire
scenario) were evaluated for the project site, including:
•Scenario 1: 97th percentile weather with offshore, strong east winds and a fall fire burning in grassland-
sage scrub fuels along the eastern edge of the project site. This area is moderately steep (15% slope),
with potential ignition sources along nearby surface streets (e.g., Olympic Parkway) and adjacent landfill
operations. Fire in this area would be moving uphill toward the proposed Project. It should be noted that
portions of the area included under Scenario 1 is planned for future development . Therefore, the
modeled fire behavior is only relevant for the existing, non-developed condition.
•Scenario 2: 97th percentile weather with offshore wind and a fall fire burning in predominately grasslands
along the southern edge of the project site. This area is relatively flat (7% slope), with potential ignition
sources from landfill operations and activities on City of Chula Vista’s undeveloped property to the south.
•Scenario 3: 50th percentile weather with onshore wind and a summer fire burning in grassland and
coastal sage scrub shrub cover along the western edge of the project site. This area is moderately steep
(15% slope), with potential ignition sources from nearby surface streets (Olympic Parkway and
Brandywine Avenue) and the adjacent residential communities.
•Scenario 4: 50th percentile weather with onshore wind and a summer fire burning in grassland and
willow-sage scrub cover along the northern edge of the project site. This area is similar in environmental
setting as scenario 3, except for steeper slopes reaching up to 34%. Fire in this area would be moving
upslope toward the project site.
Fire Behavior Modeling Analysis
As mentioned, the BehavePlus fire behavior modeling software package was utilized in evaluating anticipated fire
behavior adjacent to the project site. Four focused analyses were completed, each assuming worst-case fire weather
conditions for a fire approaching the project site from the north, east, south, and west. Four fire behavior variables were
selected as outputs from the BehavePlus analysis conducted for the project site, and include flame length (feet), rate of
spread (mph), fireline intensity (BTU/feet/second), and surface fire spotting distance (miles). The aforementioned fire
behavior variables are an important component in understanding fire risk and fire agency response capabilities (See
Table 6). Flame length, the length of the flame of a spreading surface fire within the flaming front, is measured from
midway in the active flaming combustion zone to the average tip of the flames (Andrews, Bevins, and Seli 2008).
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1135 of 1271
APPENDIX B FIRE BEHAVIOR MODELING ANALYSIS SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT
B-6
12431
March 2021
Fireline intensity is a measure of heat output from the flaming front, and also affects the potential for a surface fire to
transition to a crown fire. Fire spread rate represents the speed at which the fire progresses through surface fuels and
is another important variable in initial attack and fire suppression efforts (Rothermel and Rinehart 1983). Spotting
distance is the distance a firebrand or ember can travel down wind and ignite receptive fuel beds. The results of fire
behavior modeling analysis are presented in Table 4.
Based on the BehavePlus analysis, worst-case fire behavior is expected in coastal sage scrub fuels along the
eastern edge of proposed project development (Scenario 1) during a strong wind-driven fire event (97th
percentile weather). Under this scenario, a fire originating east of Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project site and pushed by
winds from the east results in flame lengths reaching 41.3 feet and fireline intensities reaching 18,451
BTU/feet/second and a spread rate of 2.3 mph. Spotting distance for this extreme fire weather scenario reaches
2.3 miles. A grass (i.e., flashy, fuel type) fire would have a rapid rate of spread of 14.0 mph with flames reaching
33.4 feet high. It should be noted that portions of the area included under Scenario 1 is planned for future
development. Therefore, the modeled fire behavior is only relevant for the existing, non-developed condition.
In comparison, a wildfire being fanned by an onshore breeze (i.e., 50th Percentile Weather Condition for
Scenarios 3 and 4) is expected to generate flame lengths of 8.1 for a grass fire and 11.7 for a fire burning in sage
scrub habitat. A fire under higher fuel moistures and lower wind speeds would be of a low to moderate fire
intensity (i.e., 540 to 1,190 BTU/feet/second) and a slower spread rate of less than 1.0 mph. Spotting distances,
where airborne embers can ignite new fires downwind of the initial fire, are calculated at 0.4 mile (Onshore wind)
compared to 2.3 miles for an offshore wind condition.
Table 4. BehavePlus Fire Behavior Modeling Results - Existing Conditions
Fire Scenarios
Flame
Length
(feet)
Fireline Intensity
(BTU/feet/secon
d)
Spread Rate
(mph1)
Spotting
Distance2
(miles)
Scenario 1: grasslands-sage scrub; east facing , 15% slope, 50 mph offshore winds
Fuel Model Gr4 33.4 11,616 14.0 2.0
Fuel Model Sh5 41.3 18,451 6.2 2.3
Scenario 2: grasslands-scattered shrubs; south-facing, 7% slope, 50 mph offshore winds
Fuel Model Gr4 33.3 11,575 14.0 2.0
Scenario 3: sage scrub-grasslands; north-facing, 15% slope, 12 mph onshore winds
Fuel Model Gr4 8.1 540 0.82 0.3
Fuel Model Sh5 11.7 1,190 0.54 0.4
Scenario 4: willow-sage scrub (5% slope) and grasslands, on north-facing slopes, 34% slope, 12 mph onshore
winds
Fuel Model Gr4 8.1 531 0.53 0.3
Fuel Model Sh5 11.5 1,155 0.80 0.4
Notes:
1 mph = miles per hour
2 Spotting distance from a wind driven surface fire.
As previously mentioned, Dudek conducted modeling of the site for post-FMZ fuel recommendations for this project.
Fuel modification includes establishment of irrigated and thinned zones on the periphery of the project’s residences
and roads. Proposed fuel modification zones include establishment of minimum 50-foot wide irrigated zone (Zone
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1136 of 1271
APPENDIX B FIRE BEHAVIOR MODELING ANALYSIS SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT
B-7
12431
March 2021
1) and one or two, 50-foot wide thinned zones (Zone 2= 50% thinned brush and Zone 3= 30% thinned brush) on
the periphery of the project site, beginning at the rear lot line. For modeling the post-FMZ treatment condition, the
fuel model assignments for coastal sage scrub-willow scrub were re-classified according to the specific fuels
management (e.g., irrigated, fire resistive landscaping vs. 50% thinned native brush) treatment.
As depicted in Table 5, the FMZ areas experience a significant reduction in flame length and intensity. The 41.3-
foot flame lengths predicted for coastal sage scrub during pre-treatment modeling for fire scenarios 1 and 2 are
reduced to approximately 9.5 feet at the outer edges of the FMZ (Zone 2) and to less than three feet by the time
the inner portions of the FMZ (Zone 1) are reached. During onshore weather conditions, a fire approaching from
the west towards the development footprint would be reduced from 33.3-foot tall flames to less than 2 feet tall in
Zones 1 and 2 with low fire intensity and spotting distances due to the higher live and dead fuel moisture
contents. These reduction of flame lengths and intensities are assumed to occur within the full 100 to 150 feet of
fuel modification. As such, the proposed minimum 100-foot FMZ width would be approximately two to three
times, depending on which side of the development a fire comes from, as wide as the calculated flame lengths.
Table 5. BehavePlus Fire Behavior Modeling Results - Post-Project Conditions
Scenario
Flame Length
(feet)
Fireline Intensity
(BTU/feet/second)
Spread
Rate
(mph1)
Spotting
Distance
(miles2)
Scenario 1: Fuel treatments on east-facing, 15% slope, 50 mph offshore winds
Fuel modification zone 1 (FM8) 2.6 45 0.13 0.3
Fuel modification zone 2 (Sh1) 9.5 760 1.3 0.8
Scenario 2: Fuel treatments on south-facing, 7% slope, 50 mph offshore winds
Fuel modification zone 1 (FM8) 2.6 45 0.13 0.3
Fuel modification zone 2 (Gr1) 3.1 67 1.3 0.4
Scenario 3: Fuel treatments on north-facing, 15-50% slope3, 12 mph onshore winds
Fuel modification zone 1 (FM8) 1.0 5 0.02 0.1
Fuel modification zone 2 (Sh1) 0.6 2 0.02 N/A
Scenario 4: Fuel treatments on north-facing, 5-50% slope3, 12 mph onshore winds
Fuel modification zone 1 (FM8) 1.0 5 0.21 0.1
Fuel Modification zone 2 (Sh1) 0.6 2 0.02 N/A
Fuel Modification zone 2 (Gr1) 1.7 18 0.16 0.1
Notes:
1 mph = miles per hour
2 Spotting distance from a wind driven surface fire.
3 50% slope = 2:1 manufactured slope
Note: The fire behavior results described herein depict values based on inputs to the BehavePlus software.
Localized changes in slope, weather, or pockets of different fuel types are not accounted for in this analysis, but
assumed (averaged) across the landscape based on the available data resolution. Further, this modeling analysis
assumes a correlation between the available vegetation data and fuel model characteristics. Recent fire activity
may temporarily alter fuel beds, but fire behavior modeling efforts conducted for this project assume natural
succession of burned areas to more mature stand conditions, resulting in a conservative (near worst-case)
estimate of fire behavior. Since fire behavior for a given location will be affected by many factors, including unique
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1137 of 1271
APPENDIX B FIRE BEHAVIOR MODELING ANALYSIS SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT
B-8
12431
March 2021
weather patterns, small-scale topographic variations, or changing vegetation patterns, modeling results are
applicable as a basis for planning, but need to be considered in context with other site variables.
The information in Table 6 presents an interpretation of these fire behavior variables as related to wildland fire
suppression efforts.
Table 6. Wildland Fire Suppression Guidelines
Flame Length
(feet)
Fireline Intensity
(Btu/ft/s) Interpretations
Under 4 Under 100 Fires can generally be attacked at the head or flanks by persons
using hand tools. Hand line should hold the fire.
4–8 100–500 Fires are too intense for direct attack on the head by persons using
hand tools. Hand line cannot be relied on to hold the fire.
Equipment such as dozers, pumpers, and retardant aircraft can be
effective.
8–11 500–1,000 Fires may present serious control problems—torching out,
crowning, and spotting. Control efforts at the fire head will probably
be ineffective.
Over 11 Over 1,000 Crowning, spotting, and major fire runs are probable. Control
efforts at head of fire are ineffective.
Source: BehavePlus 5.0.2 fire behavior modeling program (Andrews, Bevins, and Seli 2004)
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1138 of 1271
APPENDIX B FIRE BEHAVIOR MODELING ANALYSIS SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT
B-9
12431
March 2021
References
Alexander, M.E. 1998. Crown fire thresholds in exotic pine plantations of Australasia. Australian National University,
Canberra, Australian Capital Territory. Ph.D. Thesis. 228p.
Anderson, Hal E. 1982. Aids to Determining Fuel Models for Estimating Fire Behavior. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech.
Report INT-122. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT. http://www.fs.fed.us/
rm/pubs_int/int_gtr122.pdf
Andrews, P.L. 1980. Testing the fire behavior model. In Proceedings 6th conference on fire and forest meteorology.
April 22–24, 1980. Seattle, WA: Society of American Foresters. Pp. 70–77.
Andrews, Patricia L., Collin D. Bevins, and Robert C. Seli. 2004. BehavePlus fire modeling system, version 4.0: User's
Guide. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-106WWW Revised. Ogden, UT: Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Rocky Mountain Research Station. 132p.
Brown, J.K. 1972. Field test of a rate-of-fire-spread model in slash fuels. USDA Forest Service Res. Pap. Int-116. 24 p.
Brown, J.K. 1982. Fuel and fire behavior prediction in big sagebrush. USDA Forest Service Res. Pap. INT-290. 10p.
Bushey, C.L. 1985. Comparison of observed and predicted fire behavior in the sagebrush/ bunchgrass vegetation-type.
In J.N. Long (ed.), Fire management: The challenge of protection and use: Proceedings of a symposium.
Society of American Foresters. Logan, UT. April 17–19, 1985. Pp. 187–201.
FireFamily Plus 2008. http://www.firelab.org/project/firefamilyplus.
Grabner, K., J. Dwyer, and B. Cutter. 1994. “Validation of Behave Fire Behavior Predictions in Oak Savannas Using Five
Fuel Models.” Proceedings from 11th Central Hardwood Forest Conference. 14 p.
Grabner, K.W. 1996. “Validation of BEHAVE fire behavior predictions in established oak savannas.” M.S. thesis.
University of Missouri, Columbia.
Grabner, K.W., J.P. Dwyer, and B.E. Cutter. 2001. “Fuel model selection for BEHAVE in midwestern oak savannas.”
Northern Journal of Applied Forestry. 18: 74–80.
Lawson, B.D. 1972. Fire spread in lodgepole pine stands. Missoula, MT: University of Montana. 110 p. thesis.
Linn, R. 2003. “Using Computer Simulations to Study Complex Fire Behavior.” Los Alamos National Laboratory, MS
D401. Los Alamos, NM.
Marsden-Smedley, J.B. and W.R. Catchpole. 1995. Fire behaviour modelling in Tasmanian buttongrass moorlands. II.
Fire behaviour. International Journal of Wildland Fire. Volume 5(4), pp. 215–228.
McAlpine, R.S. and G. Xanthopoulos. 1989. Predicted vs. observed fire spread rates in Ponderosa pine fuel beds: a test
of American and Canadian systems. In Proceedings 10th conference on fire and forest meteorology, April 17–
21, 1989. Ottawa, Ontario. pp. 287–294.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1139 of 1271
APPENDIX B FIRE BEHAVIOR MODELING ANALYSIS SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT
B-10
12431
March 2021
Rothermel, Richard C. 1983. How to predict the spread and intensity of forest and range fires. GTR INT-143. Ogden,
Utah: USDA Forest Service Intermountain Research Station.161 Rothermel, R.C., and G.C. Rinehart. 1983.
“Field procedures for verification and adjustment of fire behavior predictions.” Res. Pap. INT-142. Ogden, UT:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 25 p.
Rothermel, R.C., and G.C. Rinehart. 1983. “Field procedures for verification and adjustment of fire behavior
predictions.” Res. Pap. INT-142. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain
Forest and Range Experiment Station. 25 p.
Scott, Joe H. and Robert E. Burgan. 2005. Standard Fire Behavior Fuel Models: A Comprehensive Set for Use with
Rothermel’s Surface Fire Spread Model. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-153. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 72 p.
Sneeuwjagt, R.J., and W.H. Frandsen. 1977. “Behavior of experimental grass fires vs. predictions based on Rothermel’s
fire model.” Canadian Journal of Forest Resources. 7:357–367.
Weise, D.R. and J. Regelbrugge. 1997. Recent chaparral fuel modeling efforts. Prescribed Fire and Effects Research
Unit, Riverside Fire Laboratory, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 5p.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1140 of 1271
Appendix C
Proposed Project Slope Planting and FMZ Tree List
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1141 of 1271
APPENDIX C: PRELIMINARY PLANT PALETTE
SHADE TREES
AGONIS FLEXUOSA / PEPPERMINT TREE
CERCIDIUM X `DESERT MUSEUM` / THORNLESS PALO VERDE
JACARANDA MIMOSIFOLIA / JACARANDA
METROSIDEROS EXCELSA / NEW ZEALAND CHRISTMAS TREE
PROSOPIS G. ‘LESLIE ROY’ / LESLIE ROY MESQUITE
ACCENT TREES
CERCIS CANADENSIS `FOREST PANSY` / FOREST PANSY REDBUD
CHILOPSIS LINEARIS / DESERT WILLOW
HANDROANTHUS IMPETIGINOSUS / PINK TRUMPET TREE
RHUS LANCEA / AFRICAN SUMAC
PALM TREES
PHOENIX DACTYLIFERA / DATE PALM
BIO-BASIN TREES
ALNUS RHOMBIFOLIA / WHITE ALDER
SALIX LASIOLEPIS / ARROYO WILLOW
STREET TREES
HANDROANTHUS IMPETIGINOSUS / PINK TRUMPET TREE
METROSIDEROS EXCELSA / NEW ZEALAND CHRISTMAS TREE
PROSOPIS G. ‘LESLIE ROY’ / LESLIE ROY MESQUITE
SHRUB/ GROUNDCOVER PLANTING
AGAVE SHAWII / COASTAL AGAVE
AGAVE X `BLUE FLAME` / BLUE FLAME AGAVE
AGAVE X `BLUE GLOW` / BLUE GLOW AGAVE
ALOE VERA / MEDICINAL ALOE
ALOE X `BLUE ELF` / ALOE
ASPARAGUS MEYERI / FOXTAIL FERN
BACCHARIS PILULARIS `TWIN PEAKS` / TWIN PEAKS COYOTE BRUSH
CALLIANDRA CALIFORNICA / RED BAJA FAIRY DUSTER
CISTUS X PURPUREUS / ORCHID ROCKROSE
DIANELLA TASMANICA / FLAX LILY
ERIGERON KARVINSKIANUM / SANTA BARBARA DAISY
FESTUCA CALIFORNICA / CALIFORNIA FESCUE
FICUS PUMILA / CREEPING FIG
GALVEZIA JUNCEA / BAJA SNAPDRAGON
GALVEZIA SPECIOSA `FIRECRACKER` / BUSH SNAPDRAGON
GREVILLEA X `NED KELLY` / NED KELLY GREVILLEA
IVA HAYESIANA / SAN DIEGO POVERTY WEED
LEUCADENDRON X `SAFARI SUNSET` / CONEBUSH
LEUCOPHYLLUM FRUTESCENS `GREEN CLOUD` TM / GREEN CLOUD TEXAS RANGER
LEYMUS CONDENSATUS `CANYON PRINCE` / NATIVE BLUE RYE
MISCANTHUS SINENSIS `ADAGIO` / ADAGIO MAIDEN GRASS2
MUHLENBERGIA CAPILLARIS / PINK MUHLY GRASS2
PHILODENDRON X `XANADU` / CUT-LEAF PHILODENDRON
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1142 of 1271
PITTOSPORUM SPP. / PITTOSPORUM SPECIES – except PITTOSPORUM UNDULATUM / VICTORIA BOX
PITTOSPORUM TENUIFOLIUM / TAWHIWHI
RHAMNUS CALIFORNICA `EVE CASE` / CALIFORNIA COFFEEBERRY
ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS ‘PROSTRATUS’ / CREEPING ROSEMARY
SALVIA SONOMENSIS / CREEPING SAGE
SALVIA LEUCOPHYLLA 'POINT SAL SPREADER' - POINT SAL PURPLE SAGE
SENECIO MANDRALISCAE `BLUE CHALK STICKS` / SENECIO
SESLERIA AUTUMNALIS / AUTUMN MOOR GRASS
WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA `BLUE GEM` / COAST ROSEMARY
BASIN SHRUB / GROUNDCOVER PLANTING
CAREX PRAEGRACILIS / CALIFORNIA FIELD SEDGE
IVA HAYESIANA / SAN DIEGO POVERTY WEED
JUNCUS MEXICANUS / MEXICAN RUSH
LEYMUS CONDENSATUS / GIANT WILD RYE
LEYMUS TRITICOIDES / CREEPING WILD RYE
TURF (SOD)
DROUGHT TOLERANT HYBRID BERMUDA
ENHANCED SHRUB / GROUNDCOVER PLANTING
AGAVE X `BLUE FLAME` / BLUE FLAME AGAVE
AGAVE X `BLUE GLOW` / BLUE GLOW AGAVE
ALOE VERA / MEDICINAL ALOE
CAREX SPP. / SEDGE
CISTUS X PURPUREUS / ORCHID ROCKROSE
DIANELLA TASMANICA / FLAX LILY
ERIGERON KARVINSKIANUM / SANTA BARBARA DAISY
FESTUCA CALIFORNICA / CALIFORNIA FESCUE
GALVEZIA SPECIOSA `FIRECRACKER` / BUSH SNAPDRAGON
GREVILLEA X `NED KELLY` / NED KELLY GREVILLEA
LEUCADENDRON X `SAFARI SUNSET` / CONEBUSH
LEYMUS CONDENSATUS `CANYON PRINCE` / NATIVE BLUE RYE
MISCANTHUS SINENSIS `ADAGIO` / ADAGIO MAIDEN GRASS2
MUHLENBERGIA CAPILLARIS / PINK MUHLY GRASS2
PHORMIUM SPP.
PITTOSPORUM TENUIFOLIUM / TAWHIWHI
RHAMNUS CALIFORNICA `EVE CASE` / CALIFORNIA COFFEEBERRY
ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS ‘PROSTRATUS’ / CREEPING ROSEMARY
SALVIA SONOMENSIS / CREEPING SAGE
SENECIO MANDRALISCAE `BLUE CHALK STICKS` / SENECIO
SESLERIA AUTUMNALIS / AUTUMN MOOR GRASS
WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA `BLUE GEM` / COAST ROSEMARY
STREETSCAPE SHRUBS/ GROUNDCOVER
AGAVE SHAWII / COASTAL AGAVE
AGAVE X `BLUE FLAME` / BLUE FLAME AGAVE
BACCHARIS PILULARIS `TWIN PEAKS` / TWIN PEAKS COYOTE BRUSH
CISTUS X PURPUREUS / ORCHID ROCKROSE
DIANELLA TASMANICA / FLAX LILY
GALVEZIA SPECIOSA `FIRECRACKER` / BUSH SNAPDRAGON
IVA HAYESIANA / SAN DIEGO POVERTY WEED
LEYMUS CONDENSATUS `CANYON PRINCE` / NATIVE BLUE RYE
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1143 of 1271
MUHLENBERGIA CAPILLARIS / PINK MUHLY GRASS2
PHORMIUM SPP.
RHAMNUS CALIFORNICA `EVE CASE` / CALIFORNIA COFFEEBERRY
ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS ‘PROSTRATUS’ / CREEPING ROSEMARY
SALVIA SONOMENSIS / CREEPING SAGE
WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA `BLUE GEM` / COAST ROSEMARY
SLOPE PLANTING AND FUEL MODIFICATION ZONE TREES3
RHUS LANCEA / AFRICAN SUMAC2
HETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA / TOYON2
SLOPE SHRUB/ GROUNDCOVER PLANTING IN FUEL MODIFICATION ZONES3
ACANTHOMINTHA ILICIFOLIA/SAN DIEGO THORNMINT1
AMBROSIA CHENOPODIFOLIA/ SAN DIEGO BURSAGE2
ASTER CHILENSIS 'POINT SAINT GEORGE'/ CALIFORNIA ASTER1
BACCHARIS PILULARIS `TWIN PEAKS` / TWIN PEAKS COYOTE BRUSH1
BAHIOPSIS LACINIATA/SAN DIEGO SUNFLOWER2
ACALYPHA CALIFORNICA / CALIFORNIA COPPERLEAF2
BERGEROCACTUS EMORYI/VELVET CACTUS1
CISTUS SALVIIFOLIUS 'PROSTRATUS' - SAGELEAF ROCKROSE1
CORETHROGYNE FILAGINIFOLIA / SILVER CARPET1
CYLINDROPUNTIA PROLIFERA / COAST CHOLLA1
DEINANDRA CONJUGENS/OTAY TARPLANT1
DUDLEYA PULVERULENTA / CHALK LETTUCE1
DUDLEYA LANCEOLATA/LANCE-LEAF DUDLEYA1
ENCELIA CALIFORNICA / CALIFORNIA ENCELIA2
EPILOBIUM CANUM VAR. LATIFOLIUM 'EVERETT'S CHOICE'1
EUPHORBIA MISERA / CLIFF SPURGE1
ISOMERIS ARBOREA / BLADDERPOD2
IVA HAYESIANA / SAN DIEGO POVERTY WEED2
LUPINUS SUCCULENTUS / ARROYO LUPINE2
LYCIUM CALIFORNICUM / CALIFORNIA BOX THORN2
MALACOTHAMNUS FASCICULATUS / BUSH MALLOW2
MYOPORUM PARVIFOLIUM / MYOPORUM1
SALVIA LEUCOPHYLLA 'POINT SAL SPREADER' - POINT SAL PURPLE SAGE1
SALVIA SONOMENSIS / CREEPING SAGE1
STIPA DIEGOENSIS/SAN DIEGO NEEDLEGRASS1
STIPA LEPIDA/FOOTHILL NEDDLEGRASS1
STIPA PULCHRA / PURPLE NEEDLE GRASS1
OPUNTIA LITTORALIS / SHORE CACTUS1
OPUNTIA ORICOLA / CHAPARRAL PRICKLYPEAR1
RHAMNUS CROCEA / REDBERRY2
RHUS INTEGRIFOLIA / LEMONADE BERRY2
RIBES SPECIOSUM / FUCHSIA FLOWERING GOOSEBERRY2
SIMMONDSIA CHINENSIS / JOJOBA2
WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA `MUNDI` / MUNDI COAST ROSEMARY1
SHRUB/ GROUNDCOVER PLANTING (NON-SLOPE) IN FUEL MODIFICATION ZONES SHRUBS3
AGAVE SHAWII / COASTAL AGAVE1
AGAVE X `BLUE FLAME` / BLUE FLAME AGAVE1
AGAVE X `BLUE GLOW` / BLUE GLOW AGAVE1
ALOE VERA / MEDICINAL ALOE1
ALOE X `BLUE ELF` / ALOE1
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1144 of 1271
ALOE 'CYNTHIA GIDDY'/CYNTHIA GIDDY ALOE1
ASTER CHILENSIS 'POINT SAINT GEORGE'/ CALIFORNIA ASTER1
BACCHARIS PILULARIS `TWIN PEAKS` / TWIN PEAKS COYOTE BRUSH1
CISTUS SALVIIFOLIUS 'PROSTRATUS' - SAGELEAF ROCKROSE1
CORETHROGYNE FILAGINIFOLIA / SILVER CARPET1
DIANELLA TASMANICA / FLAX LILY1
DIANELLA REVOLUTA ‘BABY BLISS’/ BABY BLISS FLAX LILY1
EPILOBIUM CANUM VAR. LATIFOLIUM 'EVERETT'S CHOICE'1
ERIGERON GLAUCUS/SEASIDE DAISY1
ERIGERON KARVINSKIANUM / SANTA BARBARA DAISY1
FESTUCA CALIFORNICA / CALIFORNIA FESCUE1
FURCRAEA FOETIDA 'MEDIOPICTA'1
HELIANTHEMUM 'BELGRAVIA ROSE' / BELGRAVIA ROSE1
LEYMUS TRITICOIDES ‘LAGUNITA' / LAGUNITA WILD RYE1
MYOPORUM PARVIFOLIUM / MYOPORUM1
OTHONNA CAPENSIS - LITTLE PICKLES1
ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS ‘PROSTRATUS’ / CREEPING ROSEMARY1
SALVIA SONOMENSIS / CREEPING SAGE1
SENECIO MANDRALISCAE `BLUE CHALK STICKS` / SENECIO1
SESLERIA AUTUMNALIS / AUTUMN MOOR GRASS1
WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA `MUNDI` / MUNDI COAST ROSEMARY1
BIOLOGICAL RESTORATION AREAS SHRUBS / GROUNDCOVER4
ACMISPON GLABER VAR. GLABER / COASTAL DEERWEED
ARTEMISIA CALIFORNICA/CALIFORNIA SAGEBRUSH
BAHIOPSIS LACINIATA/SAN DIEGO SUNFLOWER
BLOOMERIA CROCEA / COMMON GOLDER STAR
BERGEROCACTUS EMORYI/VELVET CACTUS
CORETHROGYNE FILAGINIFOLIA / SAND ASTER
CONVOLVULUS SIMULANS / SMALL-FLOWERED BINDWEED
CYLINDROPUNTIA PROLIFERA / COAST CHOLLA
DICHELOSTEMMA CAPITATUM SSP. CAPITATUM / BLUE DICKS
DEINANDRA CONJUGENS/OTAY TARPLANT
ERIOGONUM FASCICULATUM VAR. FASCICULATUM/FLAT-TOP BUCKWHEAT
ERIOPHYLLUM CONFERTIFLORUM / GOLDDEN YARROW
ESCHSCHOLZIA CALIFORNICA / CALIFORNIA POPPY
EUPHORBIA MISERA / CLIFF SPURGE
GRINDELIA CAMPORUM / RAYLESS GUMPLANT
ISOCOMA MENZIESII VAR. DECUMBENS / DECUMBENT GOLDENBUSH
ISOMERIS ARBOREA / BLADDERPOD
LASTHENIA CORONARIA / ROYAL GOLDFIELDS
LUPINUS BICOLOR / MINIATURE LUPINE
LYCIUM CALIFORNICUM / CALIFORNIA BOX THORN
MELICA IMPERFECTA / COAST RANGE MELIC
SISYRINCHIUM BELLUM / BLUE-EYED GRASS
STIPA DIEGOENSIS/SAN DIEGO NEEDLEGRASS
STIPA LEPIDA/FOOTHILL NEDDLEGRASS
STIPA PULCHRA / PURPLE NEEDLE GRASS
OPUNTIA LITTORALIS / SHORE CACTUS
RHUS INTEGRIFOLIA / LEMONADE BERRY
SIMMONDSIA CHINENSIS / JOJOBA
YUCCA SCHIDIGERA / MOHAVE YUCCA
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1145 of 1271
GENERAL NOTES:
TREE SIZES: 15-GALLON (15%), 24” BOX (60%), 36” BOX (20%), 48” BOX (5%)
SHRUB AND GROUNDCOVER SIZES: 5-GALLON (30%), 1-GALLON (70%)
RESTORATION SHRUB AND GROUNDCOVER SIZES: 1-GALLON (100%), OVERSEED ALL AREAS WITH SEED BLEND OF
SAME SPECIES
FOOTNOTES:
1.LOW GROWING VARIETY OF SPECIES ABLE TO BE PLANTED IN FUEL MODIFICATION ZONE 1 AND 2.
2.LOW GROWING VARIETY OF SPECIES ABLE TO BE PLANTED IN FUEL MODIFICATION ZONE 2.
3.SEE PROJECT FIRE PROTECTION PLAN FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. PLANTING MUST BE IMPLEMENTED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH CHULA VISTA FIRE DEPARTMENT’S FUEL MODIFICATION GUIDELINES SUMMARIZED
WITHIN THE FIRE PROTECTION PLAN.
4.SEE PROJECT BIOLOGICAL RESTORATION PLAN FOR ON -SITE PLANTING SPECIFICATIONS (TIMING, SPECIES, AND
SIZE) WITHIN RESTORATION AREA.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1146 of 1271
Appendix D
Prohibited Plant List
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1147 of 1271
APPENDIX D FUEL MODIFICATION ZONE PROHIBITED PLANT LIST
D-1
12431
March 2021
Prohibited Trees
Botanical Name Common Name Resource
Abies species Fir trees S
Acacia species Acacia D,H,S
Agonis juniperina Juniper myrtle S
Araucaria species Norfolk Island Pine S
Callistemon species Bottlebrush D,H
Cedrus species Cedar D,H,S
Chamaecyparis species False cypress S
Conifers Evergreen trees D,H
Cryptomeria japonica Japanese cryptomeria S
Cupressocyparis leylandii Leylandii cypress S
Cupressus forbesii Tecate cypress S
Cupressus glabra Arizona cypress S
Cupressus sempervirens Italian cypress S
Cupressus species Cypress D,H
Eucalyptus species Eucalyptus D,H,S
Eucalyptus Eucalyptus species K
Juniperus species** Juniper D,H
Larix species Larch S
Palmae species Palms D,H,S
Parkinsonia aculeata Mexican palo verde K
Pinus species Pine D,H,S
Pittosporum undulatum Victorian box K
Podocarpus species Fern pine S
Prunus caroliniana Carolina cherry laurel K
Prunus lyonil Catalina cherry K
Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas fir S
Quercus engelmannii Engelmann oak K
Quercus suber Cork Oak K
Schinus molle California Pepper Tree H
Tamarix species Tamarix C
Taxodium species Cypress S
Taxus species Yew S
Tsuga species Hemlock S
Washingtonia filifera California Fan Palm D,H
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1148 of 1271
APPENDIX D FUEL MODIFICATION ZONE PROHIBITED PLANT LIST
D-2
12431
March 2021
Prohibited Groundcovers, Shrubs, and Vines
Botanical Name Common Name Resource
Acacia species Acacia D,H,S
Achillea millefolium Common yarrow K
Adenostoma fasciculatum Chamise D,H,S
Adenostoma sparsifolium Red shanks D,H,S
Aeonium decorum Aeonium K
Aeonium simsii NCN K
Ajuga reptans Carpet bugle K
Anthemis cotula Mayweed H
Aptenia cordifolia x ‘red apple’ Red apple K
Arbutus menziesii Madrone H
Arctostaphylos species Manzanita H
Artemisia pycnocephala Beach sagewort K
Artemisia californica California sagebrush H,S
Artemisia caucasica Caucasica artemisia H
Artemisia pycnocephala Sandhill sage H
Arundo donax Giant cane C
Atriplex species Saltbush H
Atriplex canescens Four-wing saltbush K
Atriplex lentiformis ssp. breweri Brewer saltbush K
Baccharis pilularis consanguinea Chaparral bloom H
Baccharis species* Coyote bush D,H
Bambusa species Bamboo S
Bougainvillea species Bougainvillea H
Brassica nigra Black mustard H
Brassica rapa Yellow mustard H
Cardaria draba Hoary cress, perennial peppergrass H
Carpobrotus species Ice plant, hottentot fig H
Carpobrotus chilensis Sea fig ice plant K
Chrysanthemum leucanthemum Oxeye daisy K
Cirsium vulgare Wild artichoke H
Conyza canadensis Horseweed H
Coprosma pumila Prostrate coprosma S
Cortaderia selloana Pampas grass HC
Crassula lactea NCN K
Crassula multicava NCN K
Crassula ovata Jade tree K
Crassula tetragona NCN K
Cytisus spp. Scotch broom, French broom, etc. D,H,C
Delosperma ‘alba’ White trailing ice plant K
Dodonaea viscosa Hopseed bush S
Drosanthemum floribundum Rosea ice plant K
Drosanthemum hispidum NCN K
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1149 of 1271
APPENDIX D FUEL MODIFICATION ZONE PROHIBITED PLANT LIST
D-3
12431
March 2021
Prohibited Groundcovers, Shrubs, and Vines
Botanical Name Common Name Resource
Drosanthemum speciosum Dewflower K
Eriogonum fasciculatum Common buckwheat H,S
Eschscholzia mexicana Mexican poppy K
Fremontodendron species Flannel bush H
Gaillardia x grandiflora Blanketflower K
Gazania hybrids South African daisy K
Gazania rigens leucolaena Trailing gazania K
Hedera helix English ivy H
Helix canariensis English ivy K
Heterotheca grandiflora Telegraph plant H,S
Hypericum calycinum Aaron’s beard K
Juniperus species** Juniper D,S
Lactuca serriola Prickly lettuce H
Lampranthus aurantiacus Bush ice plant K
Lampranthus filicaulis Redondo creeper K
Lampranthus spectabilis Trailing ice plant K
Limonium pectinatum NCN K
Limonium perezii Sea lavender K
Lonicera japonica Japanese honeysuckle S
Lonicera japonica ‘halliana’ Hall’s Japanese honeysuckle K
Lotus corniculatus Bird’s foot trefoil K
Mahonia species Mahonia H
Malephora luteola Trailing ice plant K
Malosma laurina Laurel sumac D,H
Miscanthus species***** Eulalie grass S
Muhlenbergia species****** Deer grass S
Nerium oleander Oleander K
Nicotania bigelovii Indian tobacco H
Nicotania glauca Tree tobacco H
Ophiopogon japonicus Mondo grass K
Osteospermum fruticosum Trailing African daisy K
Penstemon spectabilis Beard tongue K
Pennisetum setaceum Fountain grass C
Perovskia atriplicifolia Russian sage H
Pickeringia ‘montana’ Chaparral pea S
Plantago sempervirens Evergreen plantain K
Portulacaria afra Elephant’s food K
Potentilla tabernaemontani Spring cinquefoil K
Rhamnus alaternus Italian buckhorn K
Rhus diversiloba Poison oak (worker/firefighter safety) H
Rhus lentii Pink flowering sumac H
Ricinus communis Castor bean H
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1150 of 1271
APPENDIX D FUEL MODIFICATION ZONE PROHIBITED PLANT LIST
D-4
12431
March 2021
Prohibited Groundcovers, Shrubs, and Vines
Botanical Name Common Name Resource
Romneya coulteri ‘white cloud’ White cloud matilija poppy K
Rosmarinus species*** Rosemary S
Salsola australis Russian thistle H
Salvia species**** Sage H,S
Sedum acre Goldmoss sedum K
Sedum album Green stonecrop K
Sedum confusum NCN K
Sedum lineare NCN K
Sedum x rubrotinctum Pork and beans K
Senecio serpens NCN K
Solanum xantii Purple nightshade (toxic) H
Silybum marianum Milk thistle H
Tamarix spp. Tamarisk K
Tecomaria capensis Cape honeysuckle K
Thuja species Arborvitae S
Trifolium hirtum ‘hyron’ Hyron rose clover K
Trifolium fragiferum ‘o’connor’s O’Connor’s legume K
Urtica urens Burning nettle S
Verbena species Verbena K
Vinca major Periwinkle H
Vinca minor Dwarf periwinkle K
Vulpia myuros ‘zorro’ Zorro annual fescue K
Yucca species Yucca D,K
Notes:
1.Various documents are referenced as sources for plant material information in this list of prohibited plant material. The titles
of some of those reference documents suggest that some of the plant materials may be somewhat “Fire Retardant” or “Fire
Resistant.” It must be understood that under various fire conditions, all plants will burn. Accordingly, some seemingly “Fire
Retardant” or “Fire Resistant” plants appear in this Prohibited Plant List.
2.Plant species included on this Prohibited Plant List that also occur on the Landscape Concept Plan may be use d in limited
quantities in interior locations, with approval of the Chula Vista Fire Department (CVFD). Notwithstanding any other
descriptors, the preparers of this document have determined that plants on this Prohibited Plant List shall not be used within
the Fuel Modification Zones within this Project.
3.All vegetation used in Fuel Modification Zones and elsewhere in this development shall be subject to approval of the CVFD’s
Fire Marshal.
4.Any deviations from the Prohibited Plant List must be submitted to the CVFD’s Fire Marshal for approval.
*Baccharis spp. are prohibited except Baccharis pilularis ‘Twin Peaks’ which can be planted within Zones 1 and 2
** Juniperus spp. are prohibited except Juniperus procumbens ‘’nana’ which can be planted within Zones 1 and 2
*** Rosemarinus spp. are prohibited except Rosemarinus prostrates which can be planted within Zones 1 and 2
**** Salvia spp. are prohibited except Salvia sonomensis and Salvia leucophylia which can be planted within Zones 1 and 2
***** Miscanthus spp. are prohibited except Miscanthus sinesis ‘Adagio’ which can be planted within Zone 2
****** Muhlenbergia spp. are prohibited except Muhlenbergia capillaris which can be planted within Zone 2
Sources:
C: City of Chula Vista, Fire Retardant and/or Drought Tolerant Plant List, Landscape Manual, November 1994
D: Dudek, Otay Ranch, Village 4 South – Fire Protection Plan, September 2017
H: Hunt Research Corporation Report, Otay Ranch, Village 7/2 - Fire Protection Plan, June 14, 2005
S: County of San Diego, Suggested Plant List for Defensible Space, http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/dplu/dos/UndesirablePlants.pdf
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1151 of 1271
APPENDIX D FUEL MODIFICATION ZONE PROHIBITED PLANT LIST
D-5
12431
March 2021
K: Appendix K, City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan: San Diego County Fire Chief’s Association Fuel Modification Zone Plant
List, July 15, 1997
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1152 of 1271
Appendix L3
Water Conservation Plan
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1153 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1154 of 1271
DEXTER WILSON ENGINEERING, INC.
WATER ● WASTEWATER ● RECYCLED WATER
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
2234 FARADAY AVENUE ● CARLSBAD, CA ● (760) 438-4422
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3
SPA AMENDMENT
WATER CONSERVATION PLAN
September 2020
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1155 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1156 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1157 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1158 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1159 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1160 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1161 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1162 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1163 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1164 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1165 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1166 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1167 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1168 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1169 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1170 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1171 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1172 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1173 of 1271
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1174 of 1271
SHEET 6SHEET 4SHEET 5SHEET 3STREET 'B'OLYMPIC PKWYSTREET 'A'AV E
(PUBLIC)(PUBLIC)BRANDYWINEMODIFIED CLASS III PUBLIC COLLECTOR WITH PARKING AND SIDEWALK ONE SIDEMODIFIED CLASS III PUBLIC COLLECTOR WITH PARKING AND SIDEWALK BOTH SIDESEXIST. OLYMPIC PARKWAYTYPICAL INTERNAL SLOPE BENCHEXIST. OLYMPIC PARKWAY WITH PROPOSED TURN LANEREVISIONSDATE BYNO.PREPARED BY:CVT # 20-0002OFSHEETCity Of Chula Vista, CaliforniaSUNBOW IITENTATIVE MAP/SPA/GPA/REZONECVT # 20-00027PHASE 3HUNSAKER& ASSOCIATES1VICINITY MAP KEY MAPCITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIASUNBOW II, PHASE 3TENTATIVE MAP CVT-20-0002SHEET INDEXPUBLIC UTILITIESLEGAL DESCRIPTION:EASEMENT & ENCUMBRANCE NOTESAPPLICANT/OWNEREARTHWORK/GRADING QUANTITIESCIVIL ENGINEERGENERAL NOTESSOURCE OF TOPOGRAPHYGENERAL DESIGN NOTESBENCHMARK:ABBREVIATIONSLEGENDR-15CPF-1OS-1N805905SHEET 1 - TITLE SHEET/ ST. SECTIONSSHEET 2 - LOTTING/ SUMMARY TABLESSHEET 7 - BOUNDARY, EASEMENTSSHEET 4 - PROJECT DESIGNSHEET 5 - PROJECT DESIGNSHEET 6 - PROJECT DESIGN & ENCUMBRANCESSHEET 3 - PROJECT DESIGNCONDOMINIUM NOTESPROJECT WAIVERSCROSS-SECTION A-A2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1175 of 1271
OLYMPIC PKWYSTREET 'A' (PUBLIC)STREET 'A' (PUBLIC)R-5R-1R-4R-4R-6R-3R-2OS-1OS-2OS-3OS-4OS-5OS-7OS-8OS-9aOS-10OS-11OS-12OS-13MSCPMSCPMSCPCPF-1STREET 'B' (PUBLIC)OS-5OS-6aOS-14OS-6bOS-9bOS-10OS-12NeighborhoodLand UseACUnitsDensityR-1RM8.5413115.3R-2RM4.607315.9R-3RM8.0810813.4R-4RM8.1911814.4R-5RM7.1110414.6R-6RC7.6518424.144.1671816.3AC63.6216.814.340.935.8744.1671816.3135.7271816.3Note: Acreages are rounded to the nearest 1/100th acre andmay vary slightly from calculated total.Community Purpose FacilityLand (CPF-1)Public Streets A & BResidential (See ResidentialSunbow 2, Phase III Project SummaryResidential SubtotalLand Use SummaryLand UseTotal Project AreaMSCP Open Space Preserve(OS Lots 1-3 & 9b)Open Space(OS Lots 7, 8, 9a, 10-14)Poggi Creek Easement(OS Lots 4, 5, 6a & 6b)PREPARED BY:OFSHEETCity Of Chula Vista, CaliforniaSUNBOW IITENTATIVE MAP/SPA/GPA/REZONECVT # 20-0002CVT # 20-00027PHASE 3HUNSAKER& ASSOCIATES2LOTTING/ SUMMARY TABLESLOTTINGGEOCON CROSS-SECTION B-BGEOCON LEGENDELEVATION (MSL)SUNBOW PROPERTYCITY OF CHULAVISTA PROPERTY2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1176 of 1271
MWMW
MBFP M
MBFPOS-13OS-10OS-9aO S -8
OS-7OS-1OS-2OS-2OS-5OS-5OS-10OS-10MSCPMSCPMSCPOS-14OS-9bR-5R-1R-4R-6OS-7STREET 'A' (PUBLIC)STREET 'B'(PUBLIC)STREET 'A' (PUBLIC)OLYMPIC PKWY (EXIST.)R-64536PREPARED BY:OFSHEETCity Of Chula Vista, CaliforniaSUNBOW IITENTATIVE MAP/SPA/GPA/REZONECVT # 20-0002CVT # 20-00027PHASE 3HUNSAKER& ASSOCIATES3FOR CONTINUATION SEE SHEET 4
FOR CONTINUATION SEE SHEET 6
SHEET INDEXFOR CONTINUATION SEE SHEET 52021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1177 of 1271
MWMWMBFPMBFPOS-2OS-3OS-3OS-5OS-6aOS-10OS-12MSCPMSCPMSCPOS-6bR-1R-1R-4R-2OS-11CPF-1STREET 'B' (PUBLIC)STREET 'B'(PUBLIC)OLYMPI
C PKWY
(EXI
ST.
)STREET 'A' (PUBLIC)STREET 'B' (PUBLIC)R-3R-44536PREPARED BY:OFSHEETCity Of Chula Vista, CaliforniaSUNBOW IITENTATIVE MAP/SPA/GPA/REZONECVT # 20-0002CVT # 20-00027PHASE 3HUNSAKER& ASSOCIATES4FOR CONTINUATION SEE SHEET 5SHEET INDEXFOR CONTINUATION SEE SHEET 3
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1178 of 1271
MWMWMBFPMBFPOS-13OS-2OS-3OS-5OS-10OS-12OS-13OS-13MSCPMSCPOS-6bOS-13R-1R-4R-4R-6R-6R-3R-2OS-11CPF-1R-6STREET 'B' (PUBLIC)STREET 'B'(PUBLIC)STREET 'A' (PUBLIC)STREET 'B' (PUBLIC)4536PREPARED BY:OFSHEETCity Of Chula Vista, CaliforniaSUNBOW IITENTATIVE MAP/SPA/GPA/REZONECVT # 20-0002CVT # 20-00027PHASE 3HUNSAKER& ASSOCIATES5FOR CONTINUATION SEE SHEET 4FOR CONTINUATION SEE SHEET 3
SHEET INDEX2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1179 of 1271
OS-1OS-1OS-4OS-4MSCPMSCPOLYMPIC PKWY (EXIST.)4536PREPARED BY:OFSHEETCity Of Chula Vista, CaliforniaSUNBOW IITENTATIVE MAP/SPA/GPA/REZONECVT # 20-0002CVT # 20-00027PHASE 3HUNSAKER& ASSOCIATES6FOR CONTINUATION SEE SHEET 3SHEET INDEX2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1180 of 1271
“”–N805905PREPARED BY:OFSHEETCity Of Chula Vista, CaliforniaSUNBOW IITENTATIVE MAP/SPA/GPA/REZONECVT # 20-0002CVT # 20-00027PHASE 3HUNSAKER& ASSOCIATESBOUNDARY, EASEMENTS & ENCUMBRANCES72021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1181 of 1271
RECORDING REQUESTED BY:
City Clerk
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Above Space for Recorder’s Use
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made and entered into by and between
the CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a chartered California municipal corporation ("City") and ACI
SUNBOW LLC, a limited liability corporation (“Owner”). City and Owner whenever referenced
herein collectively shall be referred to as “Parties” and whenever referenced hereinafter
individually may be referred to as “Party.” The Parties agree as follows:
RECITALS
A. City’s Authority to Enter into Development Agreement. City is authorized under
California Government Code sections 65864 et seq. to enter into binding development agreements
with persons having legal or equitable interests in real property for the purposes of assuring, among
other things, (i) certainty as to permitted land uses in the development of such property,
(ii) provides for the construction of adequate public facilities to service such property, and (iii)
ensures the successful completion of the Sunbow General Development Plan, a 604.8 acre master
planned community (“Sunbow Master Plan”).
B. The Property: Owner’s Interest. Owner has a legal or equitable interest or both in
the approximately 135.7-acre site more particularly described in Exhibit “A” attached hereto (the
“Property”). The Property is the subject of this Agreement and is located within Sunbow II Phase
3 of the Sunbow Master Plan. Owner intends that its successors in interest and all other persons
holding legal or equitable interest or both in the Property benefit from and be bound by this
Agreement, as more particularly described herein. The owner intends to develop, improve, build
on, sell or lease the Property or portions thereof to various builders (as hereinafter defined) who
may acquire portions of the Property and the benefits and burdens under this Agreement.
C. The Project. The Property is being planned as a community with a range of
residential uses, open space and MSCP Preserve areas, and recreational opportunities (the
“Project”). More particularly, the Project is located south of Olympic Parkway, east of Brandywine
Avenue, and north and northwest of the Otay Landfill. The Project will provide 534 multi-family
medium-high-density residential dwelling units and 184 multi-family high-density residential
dwelling units for a total of 718 units on the site. The Project will also include various passive and
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1182 of 1271
2
Sunbow DA 2021
active recreational open space areas distributed throughout the residential areas to provide
recreational opportunities within walking distance of the proposed residential uses.
D. Approval of Community Benefit Agreement. The Owner and City entered into that
certain Community Benefit Agreement (approved by Resolution No. 2020-003, January 7, 2020)
wherein the Owner would provide eight million dollars that can be used by the City to direct the
construction of a project in furtherance of the goals set forth in the University Innovation District
Master Plan, on a site located within the University Innovation District Master Plan or within the
SR-125 corridor that is owned by the City or under the control or ownership of a non-profit entity
that has been established to effectuate the goals of the University Innovation District Master Plan
(the “Job Enhancement Funds”). By way of example only, such project could involve : (i) the
construction of a Class “A” office building or an academic, commercial or innovation facility or
building that will attract job enhancing uses into the SR-125 corridor or the University Innovate
District Master Plan; (ii) such other uses that would enable the development of an Institute for
International Studies; or (iii) some other notable project at the City’s discretion consistent with
the goals of the University Innovation District Master Plan.
E. Project Approvals. On _____________, the City approved a General Plan
Amendment (by Resolution No. XX), an amendment to the Sunbow General Development Plan,
an amendment to Sunbow Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan, (by Resolution No. XX), rezone
(by Ordinance No. XX), a Development Agreement (by Ordinance No. XX), Tentative Map 20-
0002 (by Resolution No. XX), and other related entitlements for the Project.
E. Certification of EIR. Prior to the City’s adoption of the Existing Project Approvals
(as hereinafter defined) described above, the City Council (i) independently reviewed and
considered the significant environmental impacts of the Project and several alternatives to the
Project as described in that certain Final Environmental Impact Report (“Project EIR”) and (ii)
adopted Resolution No. XXXX on XXX certifying the Project EIR as adequate and complete,
making Findings concerning Mitigation Measures and Alternatives, adopting a Statement of
Overriding Considerations and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (“MMRP”)
all in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, California
Public Resources Code section 21000, et seq. (“CEQA”)
F. City and Owner Acknowledge. City and Owner acknowledge this Agreement will
provide the following mutual benefits:
1. Facilitate the efficient development of the Project that will ensure the City’s
timely receipt of the Job Enhancement Funds; and
2. Establish mechanisms that will help provide for the financing and
construction of facilities necessary to provide for anticipated levels of service to residents
of the Project; and
3. Provide Owner with assurances regarding the Existing Project Approvals
and regulations that will be applicable to the development of the Project consistent with
the existing land use regulations and the Existing Project Approvals; and.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1183 of 1271
3
Sunbow DA 2021
4. Assure that the Project does not cause any conflict with City's growth
management goals and objectives by, for example, ensuring the provision of adequate
public facilities at the time of Development, proper timing and sequencing of
Development, effective capital improvement programming, and appropriate Development
incentives; and
5. Allow for the development of the Property, that has remained undeveloped
for the last thirty (30) years, with 718 multifamily units, a 0.9-acre Community Purpose
Facility site, 16 acres of open space, and 64 acres of MSCP Preserve open space land.
G. The Parties agree that the covenants, promises and other material requirements of
this Agreement constitute adequate consideration that is fair, just, mutual, equitable and
reasonable. In particular, Owner would not enter into this Agreement, nor agree to provide and
furnish funds for the public and private Development and infrastructure described in this
Agreement, if not for the promise of City that the Property can be developed pursuant to the
Existing Project Approvals and Applicable Laws. Similarly, City would not enter into this
Agreement if not for the promise of Owner to provide the public facilities, public infrastructure
and other public benefits provided for in this Agreement.
H. Planning Commission. On________, City's Planning Commission held a duly
noticed public hearing on this Agreement and at the conclusion of the hearing recommended
approval of this Agreement.
I. City Council Approval. On ________, the City Council held a duly noticed public
hearing on this Agreement, at the conclusion of which the Council introduced and conducted the
first reading of the ordinance approving the Agreement, and subsequently, on _____, adopted
Ordinance No. _______approving the Agreement. As part of its initial hearing, the City Council
considered and approved the environmental documentation for this Agreement as being in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act.
NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, City and Owner hereby agree as follows:
ARTICLE 1
DEFINITIONS
In this Agreement, unless the context otherwise requires, the following terms shall mean:
“Applicable Law” means laws, rules, regulations and official policies of City (including
General Plan policies, Administrative codes, ordinances, resolutions and other local laws,
regulations, and policies of City) in force and effect on the Effective Date.
“City Council” means the Chula Vista City Council.
“City Laws” means any new rules, laws, regulations, policies, ordinances, resolutions and
standards adopted by the City after the Effective Date of this Agreement that can be applied to
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1184 of 1271
4
Sunbow DA 2021
decisions on Future Project Approvals or amendments to Existing Project Approvals as provided
for herein.
“Builder” means the entity, person or persons to whom Owner will sell, lease or convey
or has sold, leased or conveyed the Property or portions thereof, for purposes of its improvement
for residential, commercial, industrial or other uses.
“CEQA” means the California Environmental Quality Act, California Public Resources
Code sections 21000, et seq and State CEQA Guidelines, Title 14 of the California Code of
Regulations, section 15000 et seq.
“City” means the City of Chula Vista, in the State of California.
"CFD" means a Community Facilities District formed pursuant to the provisions of the
Mello-Roos Community Facilities District Act, California Government Code Section 53311, et
seq.
"Development" means the construction, reconstruction, conversion, structural alteration,
relocation, maintenance or enlargement of any structure; any mining, excavation, grading, landfill,
or land disturbance; the construction of roadways, water and sewer infrastructure and other
infrastructure improvements directly related to the Project whether located within or outside the
Property; the installation of landscaping and other facilities and improvements necessary or
appropriate for the Project; and any use or extension of the use of land.
“Development Impact Fee” or “DIF” means assessment, fee, charge or dedication
imposed upon development within the City pursuant to a Development Impact Fee Program or
equivalent program, adopted in accordance with the requirements of State law.
“Effective Date” means the first date on which all of the following are true: (a) the Owner
has signed the Agreement and returned the signed Agreement to the City; (b) the City Council has
adopted Ordinance No._______, approving the Agreement.
“Existing Project Approvals” means the entitlements for the Project described in Recitals
above, and in particular the following: (i) amendment to the General Plan, (ii) amendment to the
Sunbow General Development Plan (iii) an amendment to Sunbow SPA II, (iv) the rezone of the
Property, (v) Tentative Map NO. 20-0002 , (vi) all associated documents that have been attached
and made a part thereof, such as the PFFP, and (vii) the Project EIR, all as may be amended from
time to time consistent with this Agreement.
“Final Map(s)” means any final subdivision map for all or any portion of the Property
upon which the Project is located.
“Future Project Approvals” means all discretionary and ministerial permits and
approvals requested by the Owner and approved by the City after the Effective Date of this
Agreement, including, but not limited to: (i) grading permits; (ii) site plan reviews; (iii) design
guidelines review; (iv) subdivisions of the Property, or re-subdivisions of the Property; (v)
conditional use permits; (vi) variances; (vii) encroachment permits; (viii) rezoning’s; and (ix) all
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1185 of 1271
5
Sunbow DA 2021
other reviews, permits, and approvals of any type which may be required from time to time to
authorize public or private on- or off-site development which is a part of the Project.
“Growth Management Ordinance” means Chapter 19.09 of City’s Municipal Code, as it
exists on the date the Development Agreement is adopted.
“Job Enhancement Funds” means the sum of eight million dollars to be paid by Owner
in three payments as provided herein and as further defined in Recital D.
“Owner” means the person, persons, or entity having a legal or equitable interest in the
Property, or parts thereof, and includes Owner’s successors-in-interest and “Builder” as defined
herein.
“PFFPs” means the Public Facilities Financing Plan for the Project, adopted as a part of
the Project.
“Planning Commission” means the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista.
“Project” means the Development of the Project and all related private and public
improvements on and off the Property as provided for in the Existing Project Approvals and as
may be authorized by the City in Future Project Approvals.
“Project Improvements and Infrastructure” means public and private improvements
and facilities (located on and off the Property) constructed to serve the Project as described in the
Existing Project Approvals or as may be imposed, pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, as part
of Future Project Approvals.
“Property” means the real property described in Exhibit “A.”
“Term” of this Agreement means the period defined in Article 2, below.
ARTICLE 2
TERM
2.1. Term. This Agreement shall become effective as to the Property upon the Effective
Date and shall continue for fifteen (15) years (“Term”) thereafter. The Term may be extended at
the Owner’s sole option for two additional ten (10) year terms. In addition to the extensions herein
provided, the Owner may request that the term of the Agreement be extended beyond the two
additional extensions, which will be processed in the same manner as an amendment to this
Agreement. In the event of litigation challenging this Agreement or the Project, the Term is
automatically suspended for the duration of such litigation and resumes upon final disposition of
such challenge and any appeal thereof upholding the validity of this Agreement or the Project. In
the event that a referendum petition concerning this Agreement or Project is duly filed in such a
manner that the ordinance approving this Agreement or the Project is suspended, then the Term is
deemed to commence upon City Council’s certification of the results of the referendum election
affirming this Agreement or the Project as the case may be.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1186 of 1271
6
Sunbow DA 2021
2.2 Extension. The Term shall be extended for any period of time during which
processing of applications for the Project, Future Project Approvals or issuance of building permits
to Owner is suspended for any reason other than due to the actions or the default of the Owner,
and for such period of time equal to the period of time during which any action by the City or court
action limits the processing of such Project applications, Future Project Approvals, issuance of
building permits or any other development of the Property consistent with this Agreement.
2.3. Covenants Running with the Land. As of the Effective Date, the terms and
provisions of this Agreement are enforceable by the parties as equitable servitudes affecting the
Property, constituting covenants running with the land pursuant to California law including,
without limitation, Civil Code § 1468. Each covenant herein to act or refrain from acting is for
the benefit of or a burden upon the Property, run with the Property, and are binding upon Owner
and the successors and assigns of Owner during their respective ownership of the Property.
2.4. Execution and Recordation. The City shall promptly execute this Agreement
within thirty (30) days after the Effective Date following City Council approval. The City may
execute the Agreement in counterparts as set forth in Section 15.5 herein. Within 10 days after the
Agreement has been executed by the City, the City Clerk shall notify the Owner of such execution
and provide Owner the Agreement for recordation. The Owner shall cause the recordation of such
Agreement and provide the City with a confirmed copy within ten (10) business days following its
recordation.
2.5 Public Benefits. The Parties agree that the covenants, promises and other material
requirements as set forth herein constitute adequate consideration that is fair, just, mutual,
equitable and reasonable. The Owner would not enter into this Agreement, nor agree to provide
and furnish funds for the public and private Development and infrastructure described in this
Agreement, if not for the promise of City that the Property can be developed pursuant to the
Existing Approvals and Applicable Laws. Similarly, City would not enter into this Agreement if
not for the promise of Owner to provide the public facilities, public infrastructure and other public
benefits provided for in this Agreement.
ARTICLE 3
VESTED RIGHTS
3.1. Vested Rights. In consideration of the benefits to City, as set forth herein, Owner
is vested with the right to develop and maintain the Property to the land uses, densities and
intensities of use, and the reservations and dedication of land for public purposes as provided in
the Existing Project Approvals, as such approvals may be amended from time to time, and subject
to Applicable Laws and as further provided in Section 3.4 below. If Future Project Approvals are
obtained by Owner, they shall be vested to the same extent as the Existing Project Approvals.
3.2. Maximum Height and Size of Structures. The maximum height and size of
structures to be constructed on the Project will be governed by the Existing Project Approvals.
3.3. Applicable Law. As provided by this Agreement, the rules, regulations and official
policies (including General Plan policies, Administrative codes, ordinances, resolutions and other
local laws, regulations and policies of City) governing the permitted uses, the density and intensity
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1187 of 1271
7
Sunbow DA 2021
of use, the design, improvement and construction standards and specifications of any
improvements and the mitigation of impacts of the Project, shall be those in full force and effect
on the Effective Date (“Applicable Law”). Applicable Law includes the Existing Project
Approvals, as they may be issued or amended from time to time, in a manner consistent with both
the terms and provisions of this Agreement. The City shall retain its discretionary authority as to
amendments to Existing Project Approvals and to Future Project Approvals, provided however,
such decisions shall be regulated by the Applicable Laws and as further provided in Section 3.4
below.
3.3.1. Amendments. By way of example, the following illustrate the application of
amendments that would hinder, impede or cause an unreasonable delay of the Project as
authorized by the Existing Project Approvals and would be considered in conflict with the
Applicable Laws.
(i) Prevent all or a portion of the Project or the Property from being developed,
used, operated or maintained in accordance with the terms and provisions of this
Agreement, Existing Project Approvals, or Applicable Laws;
(ii) Limit or reduce the overall density, intensity or unit count of the Project, or
any part thereof, to a density, intensity or unit count that is lower than that specified
in this Agreement, Existing Project Approvals or Applicable laws;
(iii) Modify any land use designation or conditional use of the Property in a
manner inconsistent with this Agreement, Existing Project Approvals, or
Applicable Laws;
(iv) Limit or control the rate, timing, phasing or sequencing of the approval,
development, construction or occupancy of all or any portion of the Project or
Property except as specifically permitted by this Agreement;
(v) Impose any condition, dedication or exaction that would conflict with this
Agreement, Existing Project Approvals, or Applicable Law;
(vi) Require the issuance of discretionary permits or nondiscretionary permits,
to the extent such permits impose new or different substantive requirements on
Owner or the Project that are not otherwise required by Applicable Laws, Existing
Project Approvals, or this Agreement;
(vii) Apply to the Project any provision, condition or restriction that would be
inconsistent with this Agreement, Existing Project Approvals, or Applicable Law;
(viii) Apply to the Project any rent control or price control provisions or uniform
or prevailing wage requirements except to the extent required under state law,
unless otherwise permitted by this Agreement;
(ix) Limit or control the location of buildings, structures, grading, or other
improvements of the Project or the Property in a manner that is inconsistent with
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1188 of 1271
8
Sunbow DA 2021
or more restrictive than the limitations included in this Agreement, Existing Project
Approvals, or Applicable Laws;
(x) Limit or control the availability of public utilities, services or facilities or
any privileges or rights to public utilities, services or facilities in a manner other
than as specifically set forth in this Agreement or Applicable Law (for example,
water rights, water connections or wastewater treatment capacity rights, sewer
connections, etc.) for the Project or the Property;
(xi) Apply to the Project or the Property any City Law allowed by this
Agreement that is not uniformly applied on a City-wide basis to other development
projects and properties;
(xii) Establish, enact, increase, or impose against the Project any fees,
Development Impact Fees, assessments, liens or other monetary obligations other
than (i) those specifically permitted by this Agreement, and (ii) City-wide taxes and
assessments (provided such City-wide taxes or assessments are not
disproportionately applied to the Property); or
(xi) Limit the processing or issuance of amendments to Existing Project
Approvals or Future Project Approvals other than as specifically set forth in this
Agreement or Applicable Law.
3.4. Development Impact Fees. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, only
those Development Impact Fee in effect as of the Effective Date and as described on attached
Exhibit B may be applied to the Project or the Property. All Project Development Impact Fees
will be paid at the time the City issues certificates of occupancy unless otherwise noted in this
Agreement. Any increase in a Development Impact Fee can be challenged by Owner, pursuant to
City ordinance and state law. The Parties acknowledge that the provisions contained in this
paragraph 3.4, and as set forth in Exhibit B, are intended to implement the intent of the Parties that
Developer has the right to develop the Project pursuant to specified and known criteria and rules,
and that the City receive the benefits which will be conferred as a result of such Development
without abridging the right of the City to act in accordance with its powers, duties and obligations,
except as specifically provided in this Agreement.
3.5. Reserved Authority. The City may apply changes in City Laws, regulations,
ordinances, standards or policies specifically mandated by changes in state or federal law in
compliance with Article 12 herein. If City amends its Growth Management Ordinance, the
amended Growth Management Ordinance shall apply to the Project upon Owner’s written
acceptance, which acceptance shall not constitute an amendment to this Agreement. This provision
shall not affect any mitigation measures required of Owner under the environmental document
certified for the Project.
3.6. Owner’s Option to Apply New Rules. Owner may elect, with the City Manager, or
their designee, consent to have applied to the Project any rules, regulations, policies, ordinances
or standards enacted after the Effective Date of this Agreement. The City Administrative Officer
shall not unreasonably withhold said consent.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1189 of 1271
9
Sunbow DA 2021
3.7. Modifications to Existing Project Approvals. It is contemplated by the Parties to
this Agreement that the Owner may seek modifications to the Existing Project Approvals from
time to time. These modifications are contemplated as within the scope of this Agreement and
shall, if approved by the City, be incorporated into and constitute for all purposes an Existing
Project Approval. Owner and City agree that any such modifications to Existing Project Approvals
will not constitute an amendment to this Agreement nor require an amendment to the Agreement.
The City shall process and act on such applications in accordance with the applicable provisions
of the Applicable Law.
3.8. Moratorium and other Limitations. This Project is exempt from any moratorium
or other limitation (whether relating to the rate, timing, phasing or sequencing of development)
affecting subdivision maps, building permits, certificates of occupancy or other land use
entitlements that are approved or to be approved, issued or granted within the City. To the
maximum extent permitted by law, City must prevent any City Law from invalidating or prevailing
over all or any part of this Agreement, and City must cooperate with Owner and undertake such
actions as needed to ensure this Agreement remains in full force and effect. If City applies to the
Project a City Law that Owner believes to conflict with Applicable Laws or this Agreement, Owner
may take such action as may be permitted under Section 15.16 and Article 10 herein. City must
not support, adopt or enact any City Law, or take any other action, which would violate the express
provisions of this Agreement or the Existing Project Approvals. Owner may also challenge in court
any City Law that would conflict with Applicable Laws or this Agreement or reduce the
development rights provided by this Agreement, in accordance with the dispute resolution
provisions of Section 15.19 below.
3.9. State and Federal Law. As provided in Government Code § 65869.5, in the event
that state or federal laws or regulations, enacted after the Effective Date (“Changes in the Law”)
prevent or preclude compliance with one or more provisions of this Agreement, such provisions
of the Agreement will be, by operation of law, modified or suspended, or performance thereof
delayed, as and to the extent that may be necessary to comply with such Changes in the Law. In
the event any state or federal resources agency (i.e., California Department of Fish and Game, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control
Board/State Water Resources Control Board), in connection with its final issuance of a permit or
certification for all or a portion of the Project, imposes requirements (“Permitting Requirements”)
that require modifications to the Project, then the parties will work together in good faith to
incorporate such changes into the Project; provided, however, that if Owner appeals or challenges
any such Permit Requirements, then the Parties may defer such changes until the completion of
such appeal or challenge. As set forth in Section 3.6 herein, such modifications are contemplated
to be within the scope of this Agreement and shall, upon written accept ance by the Parties,
constitute for all purposes the Existing Project Approval and will not require an amendment to the
Agreement.
3.10. Further Assurances. To the extent permitted by law, City must take all actions
needed to ensure that the vested rights provided by this Agreement can be enjoyed by Owner
including, without limitation, any actions needed to ensure the availability of public services and
facilities to serve the Project or the Property as development occurs. Should any initiative,
referendum, or other measure be enacted that would affect the Project or the rights provided by
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1190 of 1271
10
Sunbow DA 2021
this Agreement, Owner agrees to fully defend the City against such a challenge in a manner
consistent with Section 15.18 below. The City must not take any actions relative to the Property
whether or not covered by this Agreement that would impede, hinder or frustrate Owner’s ability
to develop or use the Property in a manner consistent with this Agreement.
3.11. Time for Construction and Completion of Project. Development of the Project
shall be subject to all timing and phasing requirements established by the Existing Project
Approvals. Because the California Supreme Court held in Pardee Construction Co. v. City of
Camarillo, 37 Cal. 3d 465 (1984), that the failure of the parties to provide for the timing of
development resulted in a later adopted initiative restricting the timing of development to prevail
over such parties’ agreement, it is the intention of the City and Owner to cure that deficiency by
specifically acknowledging that timing and phasing of development is completely and exclusively
governed by the Existing Project Approvals, and that Owner has the right to develop the Project
at such time as Owner deems appropriate within the exercise of its subjective business judgment.
Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to require Owner to proceed with the development of
any portion of the Project or make any financial commitment associated with any such
development if, in Owner’s sole and absolute discretion, Owner determines that it is not in Owner’s
best financial or other interest to do so. The City and Owner agree that the Project and related
infrastructure is expected to be built in phases in response to existing market conditions over the
term of this Agreement, there is no requirement that Owner initiate or complete development of
the Project or any particular phase of the Project within any particular period of time, and City will
not impose such a requirement on any Project Approval. The Parties acknowledge that Owner
cannot at this time predict when or the rate at which or the order in which phases will be developed.
Such decisions depend upon numerous factors which are not within the control of the Owner, such
as market demand, interest rates, competition and other factors. The provisions of the foregoing
sentence do not, however, limit any obligation of Owner under this Agreement with respect to any
development activities that are chosen by Owner to be undertaken hereunder.
ARTICLE 4
PROCESSING PROJECT
4.1. Processing of Future Project Approvals. City will accept for processing
development applications and requests for Future Project Approvals, or other entitlements with
respect to the development and use of the Property and will consider such matters in accordance
with the appropriate process set forth in the Applicable Laws. The City will diligently work
towards the timely issuance of such entitlements, including grading plans, improvement plans, and
other plans or permits, as needed to issue building permits such efforts will include the City’s
expedited processing of grading plans, improvement plans, and other plans or permits, as needed
to issue a building permit. City shall treat the Project as a priority and shall make best efforts to
dedicate sufficient attention and resources to the Project to facilitate the expeditious development
thereof, as contemplated by this Agreement. The costs for processing work related to the Project,
including hiring of additional City personnel to dedicate to the Project and/or the retaining of
professional consultants, will be reimbursed to City by Owner in a manner consistent with the City
Laws and applicable State law. City shall retain its discretionary authority to act on Future Project
Approvals and apply City Laws to such matters, provided the City Laws do not conflict with
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1191 of 1271
11
Sunbow DA 2021
Applicable Laws or the rights provided by this Agreement. By way of example, the application of
City Laws that would prevent the uses, densities or intensities of development specified herein or
as authorized by the Existing Project Approvals or would unreasonably delay development of the
Project would be considered in conflict with the rules, regulations and official policies in effect as
of the Effective Date of this Agreement and to the intent of the Parties. In addition, the City may
also apply changes in City Laws, regulations, ordinances, standards or policies specifically
mandated by changes in state or federal law in compliance with Article 12 herein.
4.2 Length of Validity of Tentative Subdivision Maps. Government Code section
66452.6 provides that tentative subdivision map(s) may remain valid for a length up to the term of
a Development Agreement. The City agrees that all tentative subdivision maps (vesting or
otherwise) for the Project, shall be for a term coterminous with the length of this Agreement.
4.3 Pre-Final Map Development. If Owner desires to do certain work on the Property
(for example, grading) after approval of a tentative map, but prior to the recordation of a final map,
it may do so by obtaining a grading and/or other required approvals from the City prior to
recordation of a final map. The permit or approval may be approved or denied by the City in
accordance with the requirements of the Applicable Laws and other City regulations or policies as
may be applicable; provided the Owner is in compliance with this Agreement and with the terms
of all Existing Project Approvals and Future Project Approvals. In addition, the Owner shall be
required to post a bond or other reasonably adequate security required by City in an amount
reasonably determined by the City to assure the rehabilitation of the land if the applicable final
map does not record.
4.4 Transfer of Rights and Obligations of Development. Whenever Owner conveys a
portion of the Property, the rights and obligations of this Agreement shall transfer in accordance
with Article 7 herein.
4.5. Cooperation with respect to Project Improvements and Infrastructure. City shall
cooperate with Owner to take all actions necessary and appropriate to facilitate the timely
development of Project Improvements and Infrastructure. Such cooperation includes, without
limitation, the following actions as may be applicable to the City in the exercise of its legislative
discretion: (i) the diligent and timely commencement of the City’s exercise of its power of eminent
domain authority in a manner consistent with the laws of the State of California (and subject to the
City’s exercise of its discretion, the making of all necessary findings and determinations required
to exercise such power), to acquire any rights of way or other real property interests identified by
Owner to be necessary or appropriate for the Project Facilities and Infrastructure; and (ii) City’s
diligent efforts to work with other landowners and governmental and quasi-governmental agencies
to ensure the timely approval and construction of such Project Facilities and Infrastructure. Owner
must notify City as to when a right of way will be required to meet Owner’s construction schedule.
Upon Owner’s notice and as provided for by law, City agrees to use its best efforts to take such
actions in a timely manner as needed to consider the acquisition of any and all necessary right of
ways, provided however, the City shall not be obligated under this Section to exercise its power
of eminent domain with respect to any real property.
4.6. City’s Acceptance of Dedications. City agrees to accept the easements to be
provided by the Owner for conservation of portions of the Poggi Creek channel within ninety (90)
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1192 of 1271
12
Sunbow DA 2021
calendar days of such offer by Owner. All other Owner offers of dedication required by this
Agreement or the Existing Project Approvals must be accepted by City within a reasonable time,
provided that the applicable improvements are completed consistent with Applicable Law.
4.7. Affordable Housing Obligation. Because of the special benefits provided by the
Project as described in this Agreement, the City has provided the Project with a variance from its
affordable housing obligations as permitted by the Balanced Communities Policy and Guidelines.
The Project shall hereafter satisfy its affordable housing obligations by the following two
requirements:
(i) Prior to the issuance of the two hundredth (200th) building permit for the Project, the
Owner shall execute an amendment to the covenants and restrictions ("Affordability
Covenant") set forth in that certain Regulatory Agreement dated June 1, 2000 between the
California Tax Credit Allocation Committee and Serena Sunbow, L.P. (recorded as
Document No. 20000-0641390 in the San Diego County Recorder’s Office, Nov. 27, 2000)
to be extended for sixty-seven (67) low-income housing units in the Villa Serena
residential housing project to June 1, 2055. The extended Affordability Covenant for the
sixty-seven (67) units shall be recorded as a restrictive covenant in the official records of
the County of San Diego.
(ii) The Owner shall implement an outreach program, including advertising and marketing,
that would encourage buyers of all majority and minority groups, regardless of sex,
handicap, and familial status.
4.8. Community Purpose Facilities. Owner is required to provide approximately 3.2
acres of land of CPF land for community purpose facilities ("CPF") based upon a ratio of 1.39
acres per 1,000 residents in accordance with Section 19.48.025 of the City’s Municipal Code. The
City has agreed that the CPF on-site obligation will be reduced to require Owner to provide a 0.9-
acre parcel, including private recreational facilities, designated for CPF land uses in perpetuity as
a part of the SPA. The City Council hereby waives the remaining CPF obligation of 2.3 acres
because of the extraordinary public benefit provided by the payment from the Owner to the City
of one million seven hundred fifty-nine thousand, one hundred thirty-four dollars ($1,759,134.00)
based upon the evaluation described on Exhibit “B” attached hereto (the “CPF Benefit Funds”).
The CPF Benefit Funds shall be due and payable before the issuance of the building permit for the
240th unit. The CPF Benefit Funds satisfies the goals of CPF requirement by providing a
community serving facility on land in the City’s western territories that would not otherwise have
been available for such community service use. The CPF Benefit Funds may be utilized by the
City at its discretion for CPF uses in perpetuity. Therefore, the City hereby determines that the
Owner is in compliance with the CPF requirements of Chapter 19.48. of the Municipal Code.
4.9. Park Facilities. The City shall waive the Parkland Acquisition and Development
Fees/Quimby Fees (“PAD Fees”) set forth in Chapter 17.10 and in- lieu thereof, the Owner shall
pay the City a Park Benefit Fee, equal to the PAD fees that would have otherwise been due
pursuant to Chapter 17.10, using the PAD fee rates in effect as of the Effective Date. The Park
Benefit Fee shall be paid by Owner no later final inspection for each unit. Park Benefit Fees may
be utilized by the City to acquire or develop parkland, as the City determines appropriate and in
the best interest of the City.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1193 of 1271
13
Sunbow DA 2021
4.10. TDIF Obligations. The Transportation Development Impact Fee (“TDIF”) credits
for each development neighborhood within the Sunbow master plan was calculated as of February
1, 2003. The City acknowledges and agrees that the Owner is entitled to $455,330.67 in cash
credits and 109.41 EDU (“Equivalent Dwelling Units”) credits resulting from construction of
improvements, such as East Palomar Street phases l B and 1 C, which may be used for the Project.
4.11. Job Enhancement Funds. The Owner shall provide the Job Enhancement Funds to
the City in three payments. The first payment of up to one million dollars will be made upon the
City’s issuance of the first (1st) building permit based upon the City’s sole determination that such
amount is needed to provide start-up funding for a first phase of a University Innovation District
opportunity. The second payment of one million dollars will be made upon the issuance of the one-
hundredth (100th) building permit. The third payment of six million dollars plus any amount not
requested by the City in the first payment will be made upon the issuance of the two-hundredth
(200th) building permit for the Project. The Job Enhancement Funds shall be held by the City in a
separate account to be used pursuant to the terms set forth in this paragraph. Should Job
Enhancement Funds still be owed to the City by January 2023 and such delay is not the result of
the City’s failure to expedite the approvals described in paragraph 4.11.1 below, said amount will
be increased based on the annual index change from the prior year (January 2022) of the
Engineering News-Record, Building Cost Index (BCI) for the Los Angeles Area; or, in the event
that such index is no longer published or otherwise available, the United States Bureau of Labor
Statistics Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) for the
San Diego – Carlsbad, California region. Each January thereafter, the remaining amount of the Job
Enhancement Funds due to the City shall be increased based upon the annual index change from
the prior year as herein described. The adjustments shall be automatic and shall not require further
action by the City Council.
4.11.1. Diligently process permits. The Parties agree to diligently work towards the timely
issuance of the first building permit, the one-hundredth (100th) building permit and the two hundred
(200th) building permits needed to trigger the Owner’s obligation to deposit the Job Enhancement
Funds with the City, such efforts will include the City’s expedited processing of grading plans,
improvement plans, and other plans or permits, as needed to issue a building permit as described
in paragraph 4.1 above.
4.11.2. Investment of Funds. The City will invest the Job Enhancement Funds into the
construction of a project in furtherance of the goals set forth in the University Innovation District
Master Plan, on a site located within the University Innovation District Master Plan or within the
SR-125 corridor that is owned by the City or under the control or ownership of a non-profit entity
that has been established to effectuate the goals of the University Innovation District Master Plan.
The Parties understand that the Owner shall not be required to provide any other additional funds
or investments into such project identified by the City and as described herein. By way of example
only, such projects could involve: (i) the construction of a class “A” office building, or an
academic, commercial or innovation facility or building that will attract job enhancing uses into
the SR-125 corridor or the University Innovation District Master Plan; (ii) such other building or
facility that would enable the development of the Institute for International Studies; or (iii) some
other notable project at the City’s discretion consistent with the goals of the University Innovation
District Master Plan.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1194 of 1271
14
Sunbow DA 2021
ARTICLE 5
FINANCIAL MECHANISMS
5.1. Initiation of a CFD. Owner may, at its option, submit a written request to City on
City's standard application form requesting that City establish a Community Facilities District to
finance the Development Impact Fees described on Exhibit “C” to this Agreement, or the
acquisition and construction of public facilities. To the extent the City determines it cannot meet
the requirements under federal tax code to allow any Development Impact Fees to qualify under
tax-exempt bonds, the City shall permit the issuance of taxable bonds to fund such fees (or portion
thereof).
5.2. Establishment of CFD. City shall use reasonable good efforts to: (a) initiate and
diligently pursue proceedings to establish such a Community Facilities District in accordance
with the goals and policies in effect as of the Effective Date as set forth in Council Policy 505,
April 4, 2019, attached hereto as Exhibit “D” (“Goals and Policies”), and (b) if the establishment
of such Community Facilities District is approved by the City Council and the levy of special taxes
and the issuance of bonds for or by such a District are approved by the qualified electors of such
District, to thereafter levy and collect special taxes and issue bonds of such District in accordance
with the Goals and Policies. The bonds of the CFD shall be sized based upon the estimated annual
special tax revenues from the CFD at build-out being equal to one-hundred ten percent (110%) of
(i) the projected annual gross debt service on any bonds of the CFD, plus (ii) priority annual
administrative expenses. Priority annual administrative expenses to be funded from special taxes
shall not exceed $75,000.
5.3. Failure to complete. If City fails to complete the CFD proceedings and record the
notice of special tax lien within two hundred ten (210) days following Owner’s submittal of a
complete application, other than due to delays caused by Owner’s failure to provide necessary
information or inaction by Owner or by other circumstances outside the control of City, or if City
establishes the CFD in a manner, structure or subject to conditions that are expressly inconsistent
with the Goals and Policies or this Agreement, then (a) City and Owner shall meet and confer and
reasonably consider the creation of another financing mechanism to finance the Development
Impact Fees or such public facilities, including, but not limited to, reasonable efforts to consider
assisting Owner to establish an alternative financing mechanism.
ARTICLE 6
PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE
6.1. Construction of Project Improvements and Infrastructure. The City may require
Owner to construct or fund the construction of any Project Improvements, and Infrastructure
pursuant to the conditions of the Existing Project Approvals provided any off-site improvements
are based upon the Project’s fair share obligation and are needed to serve the Project. To the extent
Owner may be required to provide appropriate improvement security pursuant to the requirements
of the Existing Project Approvals or as required by Applicable Laws, City agrees to use its best
efforts to ensure the release of any improvement security provided by Owner upon the performance
of the secured act or the City’s good faith acceptance of the secured improvement. Owner may
submit a request to reduce the amount of improvement securities every six (6) months subject to
the City’s review and approval. Project Improvements or Infrastructure, such as street
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1195 of 1271
15
Sunbow DA 2021
improvements, shall be designed and constructed, in accordance with the provisions and standards
set forth in the Existing Project Approvals as applicable. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the
Project shall not be conditioned to fund or construct any public infrastructure including, without
limitation, streets, sewer, storm drain, basins, water connections, park, open space, landscaping,
and dry utility facilities, that may be needed to serve the site upon which the class “A” building or
such other project will be constructed within the University Innovation District Master Plan,
6.2. Pioneering of Project Improvements and Infrastructure. City shall use its
reasonable best efforts to ensure that the Owner is not required to finance or construct any Project
Improvements and Infrastructure in excess of its fair share costs as established by Applicable Law,
including, without limitation, the legal requirements of “essential nexus” and “rough
proportionality” (“Fair Share”). To the extent Owner is required to construct, install, or otherwise
provide financing (i.e., “Pioneers”) for any Project Improvement and Infrastructure that is
oversized so as to benefit an area larger than the Project, the City shall take one of the following
actions: (1) City will use its best good faith efforts to secure funding from other landowners or
developers for that portion of the cost of such oversized improvements that is attributable to
projects or areas owned, developed or proposed for development by such other landowners or
developers by requiring such landowners or developers to enter into reimbursement agreements
directly with Owner; (2) establish a Reimbursement District that includes the other landowners or
developers that are benefited from the oversized facilities so that the Owner may be reimbursed
for the pro-rata share of benefits conferred to the other landowners or developers by the oversized
facility; or (3) include said improvements in a Development Impact Fee Program adopted by the
City and provide Owner with reimbursement from the amounts collected from said fee, equal to
the pro-rata share of the benefits conferred to the other landowners or developers. If the Project
Improvements and Infrastructure is covered by a future Development Impact Fee Program adopted
by the City, Owner shall be reimbursed from the amounts received from such fee program, subject
to the City’s Director of Public Works reasonable determination that such costs are allowable
under the applicable Fee Program. The fact that such improvements may be financed by an
assessment district, Community Facility District or other financing district shall not prevent said
reimbursement to the Owner.
6.3. Reasonable Relationship between Project and Requirement. The cost of providing
Project Improvements and Infrastructure to the Project or the Property shall be consistent with the
following principles: (i) there shall be a reasonable relationship between the Project and any Public
Improvement or Infrastructure required to by constructed by the Project; (ii) there shall be a
reasonable relationship between the services and the Project; (iii) the costs that are to be borne for
such services by the Project shall not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing such
services; (iv) the level of municipal services provided to the Project, including the level of
operation and maintenance of Project Improvements and Infrastructure, shall be equal to the level
of service provided within the City limits; and (v) there shall be a reasonable relationship between
any fee required to finance Project Improvements or Infrastructure or municipal services and the
cost of such improvements or services funded by such fee. For purposes of this paragraph
"reasonable relationship" between the Project and any requirement imposed thereon, shall mean
an “essential nexus” and “rough proportionality” between the Project and such requirement in
accordance with State law.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1196 of 1271
16
Sunbow DA 2021
ARTICLE 7
TERMINATION UPON SALE TO PUBLIC
7.1. Termination of Agreement with Respect to Lots to Public. The provisions of
Article 7 shall not apply to the sale, or lease (for a period longer than one year) of any lot which
has been finally subdivided and is individually (and not in "bulk") sold or leased to a member of
the public or other ultimate user who intends to occupy the parcel. Notwithstanding any other
provisions of this Agreement, this Agreement shall terminate with respect to any lot and such lot
shall be released and no longer be subject to this Agreement without the execution or recordation
of any further document upon satisfaction by Owner of both of the following conditions:
(i) The lot has been finally subdivided and individually or in bulk sold, or leased (for
a period equal to or longer than one year) to a homebuilder, or to a member of the public
or other ultimate user; and
(ii) All benefits set forth under Section 2.5 of this Agreement required at that point in
time have been provided by Owner.
7.2 Partial Termination. The Owner has the right to request that the City approve a
partial termination of this Agreement, to release a portion(s) of the Property from the Agreement’s
obligations and benefits. A partial termination shall be approved by the City if Owner
demonstrates to City that the portion(s) of the Property to be released from the Agreement's
obligations is/are not needed to satisfy any of the obligations established in this Agreement. If
City makes such a determination, such released property shall not be subject to any of the
obligations created in this Agreement, and, similarly, shall not receive any of the benefits granted
in this Agreement.
ARTICLE 8
ANNUAL REVIEW
8.1. City and Owner Responsibilities. The City will, at least every twelve (12) months
during the Term of this Agreement, pursuant to California Government Code section 65865.1,
review the extent of good faith substantial compliance by Owner with the terms of this Agreement.
Pursuant to California Government Code section 65865.1, as amended, Owner shall have the duty
to demonstrate by substantial evidence its good faith compliance with the terms of this Agreement
at the periodic review. Either City or Owner may address any requirement of the Agreement
during the review.
8.2. Review Letter. If Owner is found to be in compliance with this Agreement after
the annual review, City shall, within forty-five (45) days after Owner’s written request, issue a
review letter in recordable form to Owner (“Letter”) stating that based upon information known or
made known to the City Council, the City Planning Commission and/or the City Administrative
Officer, this Agreement remains in effect and Owner is not in default. The owner may record the
Letter in the Official Records of the City of Chula Vista.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1197 of 1271
17
Sunbow DA 2021
8.3. Failure of Periodic Review. City’s failure to review at least annually Owner’s
compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall not constitute, or be asserted by
City or Owner as, a default by Owner or City with respect to the Agreement.
ARTICLE 9
ENCUMBRANCES AND RELEASES ON PROPERTY
9.1. Discretion to Encumber. This Agreement shall not prevent or limit Owner in any
manner at Owner’s sole discretion, from encumbering the Property, or any portion of the Property,
or any improvement on the Property, by any mortgage, deed of trust, or other security device
securing financing with respect to the Property or its improvement.
9.2. Mortgagee Rights and Obligations. The mortgagee of a mortgage or beneficiary of
a deed of trust encumbering the Property, or any part thereof, and their successors and assigns
shall, upon written request to City, be entitled to receive from City written notification of any
default by Owner of the performance of Owner’s obligations under the Agreement which has not
been cured within thirty (30) days following the date of default. If there are no such defaults by
Owner, the City Administrative Officer shall notify the requesting Party of that fact in writing.
9.3. Releases. City agrees that upon written request of Owner and provided that all
payments and the requirements and conditions required by this Agreement have been performed,
City may execute and deliver to Owner appropriate release(s) of obligations imposed by this
Agreement in form and substance acceptable to the City Recorder and title insurance company, if
any, or as may otherwise be necessary to effect the release of a portion of the Property to an
individual home buyer or parcel of property that has been built out and sold to an ultimate
consumer. City Administrator Officer shall not unreasonably withhold approval of such release(s).
9.4. Subordination. Owner agrees to enter into subordination agreements with all
lenders having a lien on the Property to ensure that the provisions of this Agreement bind such
lienholders should they take title to all or part of the Property through a quitclaim deed, sale,
foreclosure or any other means of transfer of property. As a condition precedent to obtaining the
benefits that accrue to the Owner or the Property under this Agreement, this Agreement by and
through said subordination agreements shall be prior and superior to such liens on said Property.
The owner shall deliver to the City the fully executed subordination agreements for the Property
in a form acceptable to the City Council and suitable for recording, prior to the second reading of
the ordinance adopting the Agreement.
ARTICLE 10
DEFAULT
10.1. Events of Default. A default under this Agreement shall be deemed to have
occurred upon the happening of one or more of the following events or conditions:
(i) A warranty, representation or statement made or furnished by Owner to City is false
or proves to have been false in any material respect when it was made.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1198 of 1271
18
Sunbow DA 2021
(ii) A finding and determination by City made following a periodic review under the
procedure provided for in California Government Code section 65865.1 that upon the basis of
substantial evidence Owner has not substantially complied with one or more of the terms or
conditions of this Agreement.
(iii) City does not accept, timely review, or consider requested development permits or
entitlements submitted in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement.
(iv) If either Party defaults under this Agreement, the Party alleging such default will
give the breaching Party not less than thirty (30) days’ notice of default in writing. The notice of
default will specify the nature of the alleged default, and, where appropriate, the manner and period
of time in which said default may be satisfactorily cured. During any period of cure, the Party
charged will not be considered in default for the purposes of termination or institution of legal
proceedings. If the default is cured, then no default will exist and the noticing Party will take no
further action.
10.2. Option to Set Matter for Hearing or Institute Legal Proceedings. After proper
notice and the expiration of the cure period, the noticing Party to this Agreement, at its option,
may (i) institute legal proceedings or (ii) schedule hearings before the Planning Commission and
the City Council for a determination as to whether this Agreement should be modified, suspended,
or terminated as a result of such default.
10.3. Waiver. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to be a waiver by Owner or
City of any right or privilege held by Owner or City pursuant to federal or st ate law, except as
specifically provided herein. Any failure or delay by a Party in asserting any of its rights or
remedies as to any default by the other Party will not operate as a waiver of any default or of any
such rights or remedies or deprive such Party of its right to institute and maintain any actions or
proceedings which it may deem necessary to protect, assert, or enforce any such rights or remedies.
10.4. Remedies upon Default. In the event of a default by either Party to this Agreement,
the Parties shall have the remedies of specific performance, mandamus, injunction and other
equitable remedies. Neither Party shall have the remedy of monetary damages against the other;
provided, however, that the award of costs of litigation and attorneys’ fees shall not constitute
monetary damages.
10.5. Remedies for Breach. All remedies at law or in equity which are consistent with
the provisions of this Agreement are available to City and Owner to pursue in the event there is a
breach provided, however, neither Party shall have the remedy of monetary damages against the
other except for an award of litigation costs and attorneys’ fees as provided for by this Agreement.
ARTICLE 11
MODIFICATION OR SUSPENSION
11.1. Modification to Agreement by Mutual Consent. Except as specifically provided
for herein, this Agreement may be modified, from time to time, by the mutual consent of the Parties
only in the same manner as its adoption by an ordinance as set forth in California Government
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1199 of 1271
19
Sunbow DA 2021
Code sections 65867, 65867.5 and 65868. The term, “Agreement” as used herein, will include
any such modification properly approved and executed.
11.2. Minor Modifications. The Parties to this Agreement contemplate that there may be
periodic clarifications and minor modifications to this Agreement. Such minor clarifications or
modifications when agreed upon by the Parties hereto are anticipated and shall not constitute an
amendment to this Agreement or a modification pursuant to this Article 11 but shall automatically
be incorporated herein upon execution in writing by the Parties.
11.3. Unforeseen Health or Safety Circumstances. If, as a result of facts, events, or
circumstances City finds that failure to suspend or modify this Agreement would pose an
immediate threat to the health or safety of the City’s residents or the City, the following shall
occur:
(a) Notification of Unforeseen Circumstances. Notify Owner of (i) City’s
determination; and (ii) the reasons for City’s determination, and all facts upon which such reasons
are based; and
(b) Notice of Hearing. Notify Owner in writing at least fourteen (14) days prior to the
date, of the date, time and place of the hearing and forward to Owner a minimum of ten (10) days
prior to the hearings described in paragraph 12.3(c) below, all documents related to such
determination and reasons therefor; and
(c) Hearing. Hold a hearing on the determination, at which hearing Owner will have
the right to address the City Council. At the conclusion of said hearing, City may take action to
suspend this Agreement as provided herein. The City may suspend this Agreement if, at the
conclusion of said hearing, based upon the evidence presented by the Parties, the City finds failure
to suspend would pose an immediate threat to the health or safety of the City’s residents or the
City.
ARTICLE 12
CHANGE IN STATE OR FEDERAL LAW OR REGULATIONS
12.1. State or Federal Law or Regulation. If any state or federal law or regulation enacted
during the Term of this Agreement, or the action or inaction of any other affected governmental
jurisdiction, precludes compliance with one or more provisions of this Agreement, or requires
changes in plans, maps, or permits approved by City, the Parties will act pursuant to paragraphs
12.1(a) and 12.1(b), below.
(a) Notice; Meeting. The Party first becoming aware of such enactment or action or
inaction will provide the other Party (ies) with written notice of such state or federal law or
regulation and provide a copy of such law or regulation and a statement regarding its conflict with
the provisions of this Agreement. The Parties will promptly meet and confer in a good faith and
reasonable attempt to modify or suspend this Agreement to comply with such federal or state law
or regulation.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1200 of 1271
20
Sunbow DA 2021
(b) Hearing. If an agreed-upon modification or suspension would not require an
amendment to this Agreement, no hearing shall be held. Otherwise, the matter of such federal or
state law or regulation will be scheduled for hearing before the City Council. Fifteen (15) days’
written notice of such hearing shall be provided to Owner, and the City Council, at such hearing,
will determine and issue findings on the modification or suspension which is required by such
federal or state law or regulation. The owner, at the hearing, shall have the right to offer testimony
and other evidence. Any modification or suspension shall be taken by the affirmative vote of not
less than a majority of the authorized voting members of the City Council. If the Parties fail to
agree after said hearing, the matter may be submitted to nonbinding mediation pursuant to
subsection 15.19, prior to the filing of any legal action by any Party. Any suspension or
modification may be subject to judicial review in conformance with this Agreement.
ARTICLE 13
ASSIGNMENT, TRANSFER AND NOTICE
13.1. Assignment of Interests, Rights and Obligations. Owner may transfer all or any
portion of its interest in, and rights and obligations under, this Agreement to any person acquiring
an interest or estate in all or any portion of the Property (any such portion, a “Transfer Property”),
including, without limitation, purchasers or ground lessees of such Transfer Property (a
“Transferee”) without any act or concurrence by City. Any such transfer must, as and to the extent
set forth below, relieve the transferring party (a “Transferor”) of any and all rights and obligations
under this Agreement insofar as they pertain to the Transfer Property. No sale, transfer or
assignment shall require the amendment of this Agreement.
13.2. Transfers to Third Persons in General. In connection with any transfer by a
Transferor of all or any portion of the Property, the Transferor and the Transferee may enter into
a written agreement regarding the respective rights and obligations of the Transferor and the
Transferee in and under this Agreement (a “Transfer Agreement”). Any such Transfer Agreement
may contain provisions (i) releasing the Transferor from any rights and obligations under this
Agreement that relate to the Transfer Property, provided the Transferee expressly assumes all such
rights and obligations, (ii) transferring to the Transferee a vested right to improve and use that
portion of the Property being transferred and any other rights or obligations of the Transferor
arising under this Agreement, and (iii) addressing any other matter deemed necessary or
appropriate in connection with the Transfer of the Transfer Property.
13.3. Release Provisions. A Transferor has the right, but not the obligation, to seek
City’s consent to those provisions of any Transfer Agreement purporting to release such Transferor
from any obligations arising under this Agreement (the “Release Provisions”). If a Transferor fails
to seek City’s consent or City fails to consent to any of such Release Provisions, then such
Transferor may nevertheless transfer to the Transferee any and all rights and obligations of such
Transferor arising under this Agreement.
13.4. City Consent. City will review and consider promptly and in good faith any request
by a Transferor for City’s consent to any Release Provisions. City’s consent to any such Release
Provisions may be withheld only if, in light of the proposed Transferee’s reputation and financial
resources, such Transferee would not in City’s reasonable opinion be able to perform the
obligations proposed to be assumed by such Transferee. In no event will City’s consent to any
Release Provisions be unreasonably be withheld.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1201 of 1271
21
Sunbow DA 2021
13.5. Non-Assuming Transferees. Except as otherwise required by Owner in Owner’s
sole discretion, the burdens, obligations and duties of Owner under this Agreement terminate with
respect to, and neither a Transfer Agreement nor City’s consent is required in connection with, (i)
any individual single-family residence (and its associated lot) that has received a certificate of
occupancy and been conveyed to a third party, (ii) any property that has been established as a
separate legal parcel for other nonresidential uses. The transferee in such a transaction and its
successors (“Non-Assuming Transferees”) are deemed to have no obligations under this
Agreement but continue to benefit from the vested rights provided by this Agreement for the
duration of the Term. Nothing in this section exempts any property transferred to a Non-Assuming
Transferee from payment of applicable fees and assessments or compliance with applicable
conditions of approval.
ARTICLE 14
PURCHASE OF LAND
14.1. Purchase of Land. The City shall convey that certain real property more particularly
described in the attached Exhibit “X” (“Land”) to Owner, and Owner agrees to purchase the Land
from City in accordance with the following terms and conditions:
(a) Purchase Price. The total purchase price (“Purchase Price”) for the Land to be paid by
Owner is ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) which is based on the fair market value of comparable
open space land located in the City of Chula Vista.
(b) Grant Deed. In consideration of the payment of the Purchase Price, the City shall
convey to Owner a grant deed transferring fee simple title to the Land in recordable form, duly
executed by the City, in substantially the same form as set forth in the attached Exhibit “X” (“Grant
Deed”). City shall convey to Owner fee simple title to the Land free and clear of all recorded liens,
encumbrances, assessments, easements, leases and taxes; except those which are reasonably
approved by the Owner.
(c) As-Is Purchase. Possession of the Land shall be delivered from City to Owner in an
as is condition, with no warranty, express or implied by City as to the condition of the soil, its
geology, or the presence of known or unknown faults. It shall be the sole responsibility of Owner,
at Owner’s expense, to investigate and determine the soil conditions of the Land and the suitability
of the Land for the Owner’s uses. If prior to Closing Date (as defined below) Owner determines
that the soil condition of the Land is not in all respects entirely suitable for the use or uses to which
the Land will be put, then it is the sole responsibility and obligation of Owner to take such action
as may be necessary to place the Land in all respects in a condition suitable for such uses or to
terminate the purchase of such Land and to notify the City and Escrow Agent of such termination
in writing prior to the Closing Date. City acknowledges and agrees that Owner will be grading the
Land and constructing a slope buttress, or other geotechnical mitigation measures on the Land.
The City shall be solely responsible for the preparation or for the use of the City’s real property
located on the property line of the Land and agrees not to take such actions that would undermine
the slope buttress work on the Land.
14.2. Opening of Escrow: Owner shall within thirty (30) days after this Agreement is fully
executed and recorded, deposit a signed copy of this Agreement into escrow that Owner will open
with Lennar Title Insurance Company (“Escrow Agent”) to consummate the purchase and sale of
the Land in accordance with the terms and provisions of Article 14 of this Agreement. The
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1202 of 1271
22
Sunbow DA 2021
provisions set forth herein shall constitute joint primary escrow instructions to Escrow Agent;
provided, however, that the parties shall execute such additional instructions as requested by
Escrow Agent that are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Agreement. The date on which
Escrow Agent receives a copy of the Agreement executed by both Owner and City (which
execution may be affected in multiple counterparts) shall constitute the “Opening of the Escrow.”
Owner shall pay all escrow fees, recording fees, the premium of any insurance policy as Owner
may determine necessary, and other related expenses to transfer title of the Land to the Owner.
The Parties shall timely and properly execute, acknowledge and deliver all documents needed to
transfer the Land as set forth herein.
(a) Instructions to Escrow Agent. The Escrow Agent is authorized to take the following
actions:
i. The Escrow Agent shall notify Owner and City of the fees, charges and co sts
necessary to clear title and convey Land to Owner.
ii. Disburse funds and deliver title and other documents to the parties entitled
thereto when the conditions of this escrow have been fulfilled by the Parties.
iii. Record any instruments delivered through such escrow if necessary or proper
to vest title in Owner in accordance with the terms and provisions of this
Agreement.
iv. All funds received in this escrow shall be deposited by the Escrow Agent with
other escrow funds of the Escrow Agent in a general escrow account or accounts
with any state or national bank doing business in the State of California. Such
funds may be transferred to any other such general escrow account or accounts.
14.3. Close of Escrow. Recordation of the Grant deed to the Land shall be completed no
later than sixty (60) days after the Opening of Escrow, or such other date as mutually agreed to in
writing by Owner and City and communicated in writing to the Escrow Agent (“Closing Date”).
City and Owner agree to perform all acts necessary for recordation of such documents in sufficient
time for escrow to be closed by the Closing Date.
14.4. Delivery to Escrow Agent. The following shall be delivered into the Escrow in
connection with the transfer of the Land:
(a) Delivery by City into Escrow. City shall deposit into Escrow five (5) days prior to the
Closing Date the following:
(1) the Grant Deed to the Land transferring title to Owner free and clear of all
recorded liens, encumbrances, assessments, easements, leases and taxes; except
those which are reasonably approved by the Owner;
(2) any document required to fully release and reconvey all mortgages, deeds of
trust, liens (including mechanics’ liens), assessments, indebtedness, other monetary
encumbrances necessary for City to convey title to the Land free and clear of all
recorded liens, encumbrances, assessments, easements, leases and taxes; except
those which are reasonably excused by Owner; and
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1203 of 1271
23
Sunbow DA 2021
(3) such other instruments and documents as are typically rendered in transactions
of this nature in San Diego County, California and/or may be reasonably requested
by Escrow Agent or Owner.
(b) Delivery by Owner into Escrow. Owner shall deliver the Purchase Price into escrow
five (5) days prior to the Closing Date and such other instruments and documents as are typically
rendered in transactions of this nature in San Diego County, California and/or may be reasonably
requested by Escrow Agent.
(c) Pro forma closing statement. Not less than three (3) business days prior to the Closing
Date, Escrow Agent shall deliver to City and to Owner a pro forma closing statement or statements
(“Pro Forma Closing Statement”). City and Owner shall each review and approve in writing the
Pro Forma Closing Statement provided to it by Escrow Agent and deliver the Pro Forma Closing
Statement it has approved to the Escrow Agent.
14.5. Review Period. Owner shall have until ten (10) days prior to the Close Date
(“Feasibility Review Period”) to review the condition of the Land, which may include an
inspection of the Land, preparation of a Title Report, and review of any documents or material s
provided by City as described below. Owner shall be solely responsible for any and all costs
incurred by Owner in connection with its review and/or investigations of such matters.
(a) Title Report. After the Opening of the Escrow, Owner may in its sole discretion instruct
a Title Insurance Company of its choosing (“Title Company”) to furnish (i) a preliminary title
report (“Title Report”) for the Land; and (ii) copies of all of the documents listed as exceptions to
title in the Title Report, at Owner’s sole expense.
(b) Due Diligence Materials. City shall deliver to Owner within ten (10) days after the
Opening of the Escrow copies of all of the documents, contracts, reports and written materials
related or relevant to the Land including related to or relevant to any notice of violation of any
local, state and federal laws, any environmental, zoning or other proceedings, either instituted or
planned to be instituted, that would materially and adversely affect the use, operation or value of
the Land, any assessments or bonds assessed or proposed to be assessed, against the Land, any
existing or proposed easements, covenants, restrictions, agreements or other documents that affect
title to the Land, and any litigation pending or threatened in writing against City arising out of the
ownership or operation of the Land or that might detrimentally affect the proposed use of the Land
or the ability of City to perform its obligations under this Agreement, and specifically including
any environmental reports, statements or analysis, any environmental site assessments, any prior
Phase Is or Phase IIs, any biological assessments or surveys, and any licenses, approvals, permits
and certificates from governmental and quasi-governmental agencies or private parties necessary
for or relative to the use and operation of the Land (collectively, “Due Diligence Materials”). City
shall promptly deliver to Owner such other information relating to the Land that is specifically
requested by Owner in writing.
(c) Physical Inspection. Owner has the right to physically inspect, and to cause one or
more representatives, agents, contractors or employees of Owner to physically inspect, the Land
in the manner Owner deems necessary, including, without limitation conducting a Phase I
environmental assessment of the Land and other environmental investigations. Owner shall make
all inspections in compliance with all applicable laws, in good faith and with due diligence. All
inspection fees, engineering fees and other expenses of any kind incurred by Owner relating to the
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1204 of 1271
24
Sunbow DA 2021
inspection of the Land will be solely Owner’s expense. City shall cooperate with Owner in all
reasonable respects in making such inspections. Owner shall defend, indemnify and hold Owner,
its officers, agents. contractors and employees harmless from any and all injuries, losses, liens,
claims, judgments, claims for liability, costs, expenses or damages (including reasonable
attorneys’ fees and court costs) sustained by or threatened against City to the extent resulting from
or arising out of any inspections by Owner or its representatives pursuant to this section.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, however, Owner shall not have any obligation to defend or
indemnify City from any costs, damages or claims for liability (including, without limitation, any
claims that the Land has declined in value) to the extent arising out of (a) the discovery of pre-
existing conditions, (b) City’s negligence or intentional misconduct, or (c) Owner’s discovery of
any information potentially having a negative impact on the Land. Owner agrees to return the
Land to substantially the same condition in which the Land was prior to Owner’s making any
inspection. Owner shall keep the Land free and clear of any mechanic’s or materialmen’s liens
arising out of any entry on the Land by Owner or by any of Owner’s representatives, agents or
contractors.
14.6. Owner’s Right to Accept or Reject Land. Owner shall have the right to terminate
escrow if the Owner determines in its sole discretion that: (i) information contained in any of the
Due Diligence Materials is unacceptable to Owner, (ii) the physical condition of the Land or the
condition of the Land’s title is not acceptable to Owner, or (iii) any exceptions to title that may be
listed in a Title Report or matters shown on any survey are unacceptable to Owner. Owner shall
deliver a termination notice to City and Escrow Agent no later than ten (10) days prior to the
Closing Date. Owner may request City to cure any condition of the Land that is unacceptable to
the Owner prior to the Closing Date after receiving such request. Owner shall have the sole
discretion of accepting such cure and the City has the sole discretion of curing such objection.
14.7 Termination of Escrow. If this Agreement and the Escrow are terminated on or before
the Closing Date, the Escrow Agent shall cancel the Escrow, and (b) City will have no further
obligation to sell the Land to Owner, Owner will have no further obligation to buy the Land from
City, and neither party will have any other further obligation or liability to the other, except (i) for
the indemnification obligations of Owner set forth herein and (ii) for Owner’s payment of the
costs and expenses charged by Escrow Agent as a result of the termination of the Escrow.
ARTICLE 15
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
15.1. Relationship of City and Owner.The contractual relationship between City and
Owner arising out of this Agreement is not of agency. This Agreement does not create any third-
party beneficiary rights.
15.2. Notices.All notices, demands, and correspondence required or permitted by this
Agreement shall be in writing and delivered in person, or mailed by first-class or certified mail,
postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1205 of 1271
25
Sunbow DA 2021
If to City, to City
Attention: City Administrative Officer
If to Owner,
City or Owner may change its address by giving notice in writing to the other. Thereafter, notices,
demands, and correspondence shall be addressed and transmitted to the new address. Notice shall
be deemed given upon personal delivery, or, if mailed, two (2) business days following deposit in
the United States mail.
15.3. Rules of Construction.In this Agreement, the use of the singular includes the plural;
the masculine gender includes the feminine; “shall” is mandatory; “may” is permissive.
15.4. Entire Agreement, Waivers, and Recorded Statement.This Agreement constitutes
the entire understanding and agreement of City and Owner with respect to the matters set forth in
this Agreement. This Agreement supersedes all negotiations or previous agreements between City
and Owner respecting this Agreement. All waivers of the provisions of this Agreement must be
in writing and signed by the appropriate authorities of City and Owner. Upon the completion of
performance of this Agreement, or its revocation or termination, a statement evidencing
completion, revocation, or termination signed by the City Administrative Officer shall be recorded
in the Official Records of the City. Unless otherwise specifically stated, nothing herein shall be
construed to supersede, modify or amend other existing agreements between the Parties.
15.5 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts,
each of which shall be deemed to the original and all of which together shall constitute one and
the same instrument.
15.6. Incorporation of Recitals. The recitals set forth in this Agreement are incorporated
herein to this Agreement.
15.7. Captions. The captions of this Agreement are for convenience and reference only
and shall not define, explain, modify, construe, limit, amplify, or aid in the interpretation,
construction, or meaning of any of the provisions of this Agreement.
15.8. Consent. Where the consent or approval of City or Owner is required or necessary
under this Agreement, the consent or approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, delayed, or
conditioned.
15.9. Covenant of Cooperation. City and Owner shall cooperate and deal with each other
in good faith, and assist each other in the performance of the provisions of this Agreement.
15.10 Recording. The City Clerk shall cause a copy of this Agreement to be recorded
with the Office of the City Recorder of the City, within ten (10) days following the Effective Date.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1206 of 1271
26
Sunbow DA 2021
15.11 Delay, Extension of Time for Performance (Force Majeure). In addition to any
specific provision of this Agreement, performance by either City or Owner of its obligations
hereunder shall be excused during any period of delay caused at any time by reason o f any event
beyond the control of City or Owner which prevents or delays and impacts City’s or Owner’s
ability to perform obligations under this Agreement, including, but not limited to the following:
acts of God, enactment of new conflicting federal, state or local laws or regulations (such as:
listing of a species as threatened or endangered), judicial actions (such as the issuance of
restraining orders and injunctions), or riots, strikes, pandemics, or damage to work in process by
reason of fire, floods, earthquake, or other such casualties. In addition, any delay in Owner’s
performance herein may be excused if such delay is caused by City’s failure to process any
required plans, documents or approvals, provided, however, City’s delay is not caused by Owner’s
failure to submit such plans or documents in a timely manner or is due to Owner’s changes or
amendments to said documents. If City or Owner seeks excuse from performance, it shall provide
written notice of such delay to the other Party within thirty (30) days of the commencement of
such delay. If the delay or default is beyond the control of City or Owner, and is excused, an
extension of time for such cause will be granted in writing for the period of the enforced delay, or
longer as may be mutually agreed upon.
15.12. Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealings.No Party shall do anything which shall
have the effect of harming or injuring the right of the other Parties to receive the benefits of this
Agreement; each Party shall refrain from doing anything which would render its performance
under this Agreement impossible; and each Party shall do everything which this Agreement
contemplates that such Party shall do in order to accomplish the objectives and purposes of this
Agreement.
15.13 Time of Essence Time is of the essence in the performance of the provisions of this
Agreement as to which time is an element.
15.14. Cancellation of Agreement.This Agreement may be canceled by the mutual consent
of City and Owner only in the same manner as its adoption, by an ordinance as set forth in
California Government Code section 65868 and shall be in a form suitable for recording in the
Official Records of the City. The term “Agreement” shall include any such amendment properly
approved and executed.
15.15. Estoppel Certificate.Within thirty (30) calendar days following a written request by
any of the Parties, the other Parties to this Agreement shall execute and deliver to the requesting
Party a statement certifying that (i) this Agreement is unmodified and in full force and effect, or if
there have been modifications hereto, that this Agreement is in full force and effect as modified
and stating the date and nature of such modifications; (ii) there are no known current uncured
defaults under this Agreement, or specifying the dates and nature of any such default; and (iii) any
other reasonable information requested. The failure to deliver such a statement within such time
shall constitute a conclusive presumption against the Party which fails to deliver such statement
that this Agreement is in full force and effect without modification, except as may be represented
by the requesting Party, and that there are no uncured defaults in the performance of the requesting
Party, except as may be represented by the requesting Party.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1207 of 1271
27
Sunbow DA 2021
15.16 Institution of Legal Proceeding.In addition to any other rights or remedies, any
Party may institute legal action to cure, correct, or remedy any default, to enforce any covenants
or agreements herein, or to enjoin any threatened or attempted violation thereof; to recover
damages for any default as allowed by this Agreement or to obtain any remedies consistent with
the purpose of this Agreement. Such legal actions must be instituted in the Superior Court of the
County of San Diego, State of California.
15.17. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs.If any Party commences litigation or other proceedings
(including, without limitation, arbitration) for the interpretation, reformation, enforcement, or
rescission of this Agreement, the prevailing Party, as determined by the court, will be entitled to
its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
15.18. Hold Harmless.Owner agrees to and shall hold City, its officers, agents, employees
and representatives harmless from liability for damage or claims for damage for personal injury,
including death, and claims for property damage which may arise from the direct or indirect
operations of Owner or those of its contractors, subcontractors, agents, employees or other persons
acting on Owner’s behalf, on the Project. Owner agrees to and shall defend City and its officers,
agents, employees and representatives from actions for damage caused or alleged to have been
caused by reason of Owner’s activities on the Project. Owner agrees to indemnify, hold harmless,
pay all costs and provide a defense for City in any legal action filed in a court of competent
jurisdiction by a third Party challenging the validity of this Agreement. The provisions of this
paragraph 14.17 shall not apply to the extent such damage, liability or claim is caused by the sole
negligence or willful misconduct of City, its officers, agents, employees or representatives.
15.19. Non-binding Mediation.If this Agreement requires mediation in order to resolve a
disagreement between the Parties, such mediation shall comply with the following provisions:
(a) Meet and Confer. The Parties shall meet and confer in good faith to attempt to
resolve their disagreement. If the Parties are not able to resolve their disagreement within thirty
(30) calendar days after their first meeting on the subject, the matter shall be submitted for non -
binding mediation in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth below.
(b) Non-binding Mediation. In the event that the Parties are unable to resolve their
disagreement by meeting and conferring among themselves as provided above, the Parties shall
meet to select a mediator who will attempt to resolve the disagreement. Unless otherwise agreed
by the Parties, the mediator shall have no affiliation with either of the Parties and preferably have
experience in municipal or resource and habitat management. In the event that the Parties are
unable to agree on a mediator within ten (10) calendar days after the expiration of the meet and
confer period, the Parties shall petition the presiding Judge of the Superior Court of the City of
Chula Vista to appoint a mediator who possesses the above-described qualifications.
(c) Mediation. The mediation shall occur at times and locations agreed upon by the
Parties. The Parties shall submit to the mediator their respective relevant documents or evidence
supporting their position that each may choose to provide. Neither Party, nor the mediator, shall
have any discovery powers in the proceeding. The mediator shall meet with the Parties and attempt
to resolve their disagreement by facilitating discussions between them. The mediator shall not
take a position on the dispute unless requested to do so by both Parties. In the event that mediation
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1208 of 1271
28
Sunbow DA 2021
process does not resolve the disagreement within twenty (20) days after first meeting with the
mediator, unless extended by mutual agreement of the Parties, the mediation process shall
terminate. All discussions at the mediation shall be kept confidential, as may be allowed by state
and federal law, and shall not be discoverable in any subsequent proceedings. Each Party shall
bear their own costs in the mediation and the Parties shall share equally in any and all costs charged
by the mediator. In the event that a resolution of the disagreement at issue is not reached, each
Party reserves the right to pursue any and all remedies available at law or in equity with respect
thereto.
Dated this _____ day of _______________, 2002.
City of Chula Vista Sunbow ACI Company,
______________________________
By: _______________________________
____________________________
ATTEST:
______________________________
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
City Counsel
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1209 of 1271
RESOLUTION NO. EIR-20-0002
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL MAKE
CERTAIN FINDINGS OF FACT; ADOPT A STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS; ADOPT A MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM AND CERTIFY THE
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR-20-0002; SCH NO.
2020110148) FOR THE SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SECTIONAL PLANNING
AREA PLAN, SUNBOW II GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
AMENDMENT AND TENTATIVE MAP PURSUANT TO THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
WHEREAS, ACI Sunbow, LLC (the “Applicant”), submitted an application requesting
approvals for a Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan, General Development Plan Amendment
(GDPA) and Tentative Map (TM), for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 project (Project); and
WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR-20-0002 or Draft EIR) for
the Project was issued for public review on March 15, 2021, and was processed through the State
Clearinghouse; and
WHEREAS, in consideration of the comments received on the Draft EIR and requirements
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Final EIR (Final EIR-20-0002 or Final
EIR) was prepared for the Project; and
WHEREAS, Final EIR-20-0002 incorporates all comments and recommendations received
on the Draft EIR, a list of all persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft
EIR, and the City’s responses to all “significant environmental points” raised by public and agency
comments submitted during the review and consultation process, in accordance with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15132; and
WHEREAS, revisions to Final EIR-20-0002 did not result in modifications to conclusions
regarding significance of impacts or the addition of significant new information that would require
recirculation of the EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5; and
WHEREAS, the Chula Vista Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing for
the Project including the Final EIR-20-0002; and
WHEREAS, to the extent that the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding
Considerations for the Project (Exhibit “1” of this Resolution, a copy of which is on file in the
office of the City Clerk) conclude that proposed mitigation measures outlined in Final EIR-20-
0002 are feasible and have not been modified, superseded or withdrawn, the City of Chula Vista,
contingent upon certification of Final EIR-20-0002 by the City Council, binds itself and the
Applicant and its successors in interest, to implement those measures. These findings are not
merely information or advisory, but constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into effect
when the City adopts the Resolution approving the Project. The adopted mitigation measures
contained within the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, which is a section of Final
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1210 of 1271
Resolution EIR 20-0002
P a g e | 2
July 14, 2021
EIR-20-0002, are also expressed as conditions of approval for the Project. Other requirements are
referenced in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted concurrently with these
Findings of Fact and will be effectuated through the process of implementing the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION of
the City of Chula Vista does hereby find, determine and order as follows:
I. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their
public hearing on the Project including EIR-20-0002, as well as the minutes and resolutions
resulting therefrom, shall be incorporated into the record of proceedings pursuant to Public
Resources Code Section 21167.6. These documents, along with any proceedings of and
documents submitted to the City Council as the decision-makers in certifying Final EIR-
20-0002, shall comprise the entire record of proceedings for any claims under the CEQA
(Public Resources Code §21000 et seq.). The record of proceedings shall be maintained
by the City Clerk at City Hall.
II. FINAL EIR-20-0002 CONTENTS
That Final EIR-20-0002 consists of the following:
1. EIR for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 SPA Plan, Sunbow II GDPA and TM
2. Comments received during public review and responses
3. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
4. Technical Appendices
(All hereafter collectively referred to as “Final EIR-20-0002”)
III. ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENT TO FINAL EIR-20-0002
1. Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
IV. COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
That the Planning Commission does hereby find that Final EIR-20-0002, the Findings of
Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit “1” to this Resolution, a copy
which is on file with the office of the City Clerk), and the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program are prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA (Pub.
Resources Code, §21000 et seq.), the CEQA Guidelines (California Code Regs. Title 14
§15000 et seq.), and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1211 of 1271
Resolution EIR 20-0002
P a g e | 3
July 14, 2021
V. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF PLANNING COMMISSION
That the Planning Commission finds that the Final EIR-20-0002 reflects the independent
judgment and analysis of the City of Chula Vista as the lead agency for the Project.
VI. CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT, MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
A. Adoption of Findings of Fact
That the City Council approve, accept as its own, incorporate as if set forth in full
herein, and make each and every one of the findings contained in Exhibit “1” to
this Resolution, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk.
B. Mitigation Measures Feasible and Adopted
On the basis of the findings set forth in Exhibit “1” of the City Council EIR
Resolution and as more fully identified and set forth in Final EIR-20-002, the
Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council find pursuant to
CEQA Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 that changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in Final EIR -
20-0002, and that such changes and alterations have eliminated or substantially
lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible as shown in the
findings set forth in Exhibit “1” to this Resolution. Furthermore, the measures to
mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment, consisting of those
mitigation measures set forth in Final EIR-20-0002 and in Exhibit “1” of the City
Council EIR Resolution, are fully enforceable through permit conditions,
agreements or other measures, including but not limited to conditions of approval
of the Project, and will become binding upon the entity (such as the project
proponent or the City) assigned thereby to implement the same.
C. Infeasibility of Mitigation Measures
As more fully identified and set forth in Final EIR-20-0002 and in the Findings of
Fact for the Project, which is Exhibit “1” to this Resolution, certain mitigation
measures described in said documents are infeasible.
D. Statement of Overriding Considerations
Even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures and any feasible
alternatives, certain significant or potentially significant environmental effects
caused by the Project, or cumulatively, will remain. However, pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15092, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the
City Council find and determine that any remaining significant effects on the
environment which have been found to be unavoidable as shown in the findings set
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1212 of 1271
Resolution EIR 20-0002
P a g e | 4
July 14, 2021
forth in Exhibit “1” to this Resolution are acceptable due to certain overriding
considerations. Therefore, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the
City Council approve, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, a Statement
of Overriding Considerations in the form set forth in Exhibit “1” to this Resolution
identifying the specific economic, legal, social, technological or other
considerations that outweigh and render the unavoidable significant adverse
environmental effects acceptable.
E. Infeasibility of Alternatives
As more fully identified and set forth in Final EIR-20-0002 and in Exhibit “1” to
this Resolution, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City
Council find, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA
Guidelines Section 15091, that alternatives to the Project, which were identified in
Final EIR-20-0002, were not found to reduce impacts to a less than significant level
or meet the Project objectives.
F. Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
As required by Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines
Section 15091, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council
adopt the program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either
required in the Project or made a condition of approval to avoid or substantially
lessen significant environmental effects, consisting of the Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program set forth in Final EIR-20-0002. The Planning Commission
hereby further recommends that the City Council find that the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program is designed to ensure that, during Project
implementation, the permittee/Project Applicant and any other responsible parties
implement the Project components and comply with the mitigation measures
identified in the Findings of Fact and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission of the City of Chula
Vista on the basis of its findings as set forth above, recommends that the City Council certify Final
EIR-20-0002 upon making the required findings pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15090 and
adopting the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations and the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15091.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1213 of 1271
Resolution EIR 20-0002
P a g e | 5
July 14, 2021
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this _____ day of ____________ 2021, by the following vote,
to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Gabe Gutierrez, Chair
ATTEST:
____________________________
Patricia Salvacion, Secretary
Presented by: Approved as to form by:
_________________________ _____________________
Tiffany Allen Glen R. Googins
Director of Development Services City Attorney
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1214 of 1271
RESOLUTION NO. MPA20-0012, MPA20-0013
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVE AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY’S GENERAL PLAN AND THE
SUNBOW II GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO REFLECT LAND
USE AND POLICY CHANGES FOR APPROXIMATELY 135.7 ACRES
WITHIN THE SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PLANNED COMMUNITY,
INCLUDING ASSOCIATED TEXT, MAPS AND TABLES
WHEREAS, the area of land which is the subject of this Resolution is represented in
Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and commonly known as
Sunbow II, Phase 3, and for the purpose of general description consists of 135.7-acres within the
Sunbow II Planned Community generally located at the southeast corner of Brandywine Avenue
and Olympic Parkway (Project Site); and
WHEREAS, on February 20, 1990, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista approved
the Sunbow II Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan (by Resolution No. 15524), inclusive of a 46.0-
acre parcel designated for an Industrial Park, known as Planning Area 23 (PA23); and
WHEREAS, since approval all other parcels covered by the Sunbow II SPA have been
built out and the PA23 site has remained vacant; and
WHEREAS, on January 7, 2020, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista approved a
Community Benefits Agreement (Resolution No. 2020-003) with ACI Sunbow, LLC
(Applicant/Owner), to allow the Owner to process entitlements to consider the conversion of the
PA23 land from industrial to residential uses and in exchange would provide funding that can be
used by the City to direct the construction of a job enhancing use in Eastern Chula Vista or other
signature project; and
WHEREAS, applications to consider amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan
(MPA20-0012), Sunbow II General Development Plan (MPA20-0013), Sunbow II, Phase 3
Sectional Planning Area Plan (MPA20-0006) and approval of an associated Tentative Map
(PCS20-0002) and Development Agreement (MPA21-0014) were filed with the City of Chula
Vista Development Services Department on February 26, 2020 by the applicant; and
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1215 of 1271
Resolution MPA20-0012, MPA20-0013
July 14, 2021
Page 2
WHEREAS, the applicant proposes to rezone 67.5-acres of developable land on the Project
Site from light industrial to residential uses resulting in up to 534 multi-family medium-high-
density and 184 multi-family high-density residential dwelling units (718 total units) on six parcels
and designate the remaining 68.2 acres as Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) land,
Poggi Creek Conservation Easement areas and a conserved wetland resource area on sixteen
parcels (Project); and
WHEREAS, the City’s Director of Development Services has reviewed the Project for
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and determined that there is
substantial evidence, in light of the whole record, that the Project may have a significant effect on
the environment; therefore, the Development Services Director has caused the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Report, EIR20-0002; and
WHEREAS, amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GP) and the Sunbow II
General Development Plan reflect land use and policy changes within the Sunbow II, Phase 3
Planned Community, including associated text, maps and tables; and
WHEREAS, the subject General Plan Amendment and Sunbow II General Development
Plan Amendments as presented in the Project are necessary to accommodate the land uses
anticipated in the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Development Services set the time and place for a hearing on
the Project, and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a
newspaper of general circulation in the City and the mailing to property owners within 500 feet of
the exterior boundaries of the property, at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Governor’s Executive Order N-29-20 and the City
of Chula Vista Director of Emergency Services’ Emergency Order 002-B-2020, in the interest of
the public health and safety, members of the Planning Commission and staff held a hearing via
teleconference. In accordance with the orders, the public was able to view and participate in the
meeting online and not at the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, and said hearing was
thereafter closed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission hereby
recommends that the City Council adopt the attached City Council Resolution approving the
Project in accordance with the Findings as set forth in the subject City Council Resolution.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1216 of 1271
Resolution MPA20-0012, MPA20-0013
July 14, 2021
Page 3
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this _____ day of ____________ 2021, by the following vote,
to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Gabe Gutierrez, Chair
ATTEST:
____________________________
Patricia Salvacion, Secretary
Presented by: Approved as to form by:
_________________________ _____________________
Tiffany Allen Glen R. Googins
Director of Development Services City Attorney
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1217 of 1271
RESOLUTION NO. MPA20-0006
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVE AMENDMENTS TO THE SUNBOW II SECTIONAL
PLANNING AREA PLAN TO REDEFINE 135.7 ACRES AS THE SUNBOW
II, PHASE 3 PROJECT AND REZONE FROM LIMITED INDUSTRIAL TO
RESIDENTIAL USES ALLOWING UP TO 534 MULTI-FAMILY
MEDIUM-HIGH-DENSITY AND 184 MULTI-FAMILY HIGH-DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS (718 TOTAL UNITS) ON SIX
PARCELS, A 0.9-ACRE COMMUNITY PURPOSE FACILITY SITE, ON-
SITE STREETS, OPEN SPACE AND MSCP PRESERVE OPEN SPACE
WHEREAS, the area of land which is the subject of this Resolution is represented in
Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and commonly known as
Sunbow II, Phase 3, and for the purpose of general description consists of 135.7-acres within the
Sunbow II Planned Community generally located at the southeast corner of Brandywine Avenue
and Olympic Parkway (Project Site); and
WHEREAS, on February 20, 1990, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista approved
the Sunbow II Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan (Resolution No. 15524), inclusive of a 46.0-
acre parcel designated for an Industrial Park, known as Planning Area 23 (PA23); and
WHEREAS, since approval all other parcels covered by the Sunbow II SPA have been
built out and the PA23 site has remained vacant; and
WHEREAS, on January 7, 2020, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista approved a
Community Benefits Agreement (Resolution No. 2020-003) with ACI Sunbow, LLC
(Applicant/Owner), to allow the Owner to process entitlements to consider the conversion of the
PA23 land from industrial to residential uses and in exchange would provide funding that can be
used by the City to direct the construction of a job enhancing use in Eastern Chula Vista or other
signature project; and
WHEREAS, applications to consider amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan
(MPA20-0012), Sunbow II General Development Plan (MPA20-0013), Sunbow II, Phase 3
Sectional Planning Area Plan (MPA20-0006) and approval of an associated Tentative Map
(PCS20-0002) and Development Agreement (MPA21-0014) were filed with the City of Chula
Vista Development Services Department on February 26, 2020 by the Applicant; and
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1218 of 1271
PC Resolution MPA20-0006
July 14, 2021
Page -2-
WHEREAS, the Applicant proposes to rezone 67.5-acres of developable land on the
Project Site from light industrial to residential uses resulting in up to 534 multi-family medium-
high-density and 184 multi-family high-density residential dwelling units (718 total units) on six
parcels, a 0.9-acre Community Purpose Facility site, on-site streets, open space and designate the
remaining 68.2-acres as Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) land, Poggi Creek
Conservation Easement areas and a conserved wetland resource area on sixteen parcels (Project);
and
WHEREAS, the City’s Director of Development Services has reviewed the Project for
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and determined that there is
substantial evidence, in light of the whole record, that the Project may have a significant effect on
the environment; therefore, the Development Services Director has caused the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Report, EIR20-0002; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant requests approval of an amendment to the Sunbow II SPA to
update Chapters 10.0 to 17.0, to describe and define the amended land uses for Sunbow II, Phase
3 and incorporate the development regulations and design guidelines specific to this Project; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Development Services set the time and place for a hearing on
the Project, and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a
newspaper of general circulation in the City and the mailing to property owners within 500 feet of
the exterior boundaries of the property, at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Governor’s Executive Order N-29-20 and the City
of Chula Vista Director of Emergency Services’ Emergency Order 002-B-2020, in the interest of
the public health and safety, members of the Planning Commission and staff held a hearing via
teleconference. In accordance with the orders, the public was able to view and participate in the
meeting online and not at the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, and said hearing was
thereafter closed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission hereby
recommends that the City Council adopt the attached City Council Resolution and Ordinance
approving the Project in accordance with the Findings as set forth in the subject City Council
Resolution and Ordinance.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1219 of 1271
PC Resolution MPA20-0006
July 14, 2021
Page -3-
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this _____ day of ____________ 2021, by the following vote,
to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Gabe Gutierrez, Chair
ATTEST:
____________________________
Patricia Salvacion, Secretary
Presented by: Approved as to form by:
_________________________ _____________________
Tiffany Allen Glen R. Googins
Director of Development Services City Attorney
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1220 of 1271
RESOLUTION NO. PCS20-0002
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP CVT20-0002 (PCS20-0002)
FOR THE SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT
WHEREAS, the area of land which is the subject of this Resolution is represented in
Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and commonly known as
Sunbow II, Phase 3, and for the purpose of general description consists of 135.7-acres within the
Sunbow II Planned Community generally located at the southeast corner of Brandywine Avenue
and Olympic Parkway (Project Site); and
WHEREAS, on February 20, 1990, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista approved
the Sunbow II Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan (Resolution No. 15524), inclusive of a 46.0-
acre parcel designated for an Industrial Park, known as Planning Area 23 (PA23); and
WHEREAS, since approval all other parcels covered by the Sunbow II SPA have been
built out and the PA23 site has remained vacant; and
WHEREAS, on January 7, 2020, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista approved a
Community Benefits Agreement (by Resolution No. 2020-003) with ACI Sunbow, LLC
(Applicant/Owner), to allow the Owner to process entitlements to consider the conversion of the
PA23 land from industrial to residential uses and in exchange would provide funding that can be
used by the City to direct the construction of a job enhancing use in Eastern Chula Vista or other
signature project; and
WHEREAS, applications to consider amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan
(MPA20-0012), Sunbow II General Development Plan (MPA20-0013), Sunbow II, Phase 3
Sectional Planning Area Plan (MPA20-0006) and approval of an associated Tentative Map
(PCS20-0002) and Development Agreement (MPA21-0014) were filed with the City of Chula
Vista Development Services Department on February 26, 2020 by the Applicant; and
WHEREAS, the applicant proposes to rezone 67.5-acres of developable land on the Project
Site from light industrial to residential uses resulting in up to 534 multi-family medium-high-
density and 184 multi-family high-density residential dwelling units (718 total units) on six parcels
and designate the remaining 68.2-acres as Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) land,
Poggi Creek Conservation Easement areas and a conserved wetland resource area on sixteen
parcels (Project); and
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1221 of 1271
Resolution PCS20-0002
July 14, 2021
Page -2-
WHEREAS, the City’s Director of Development Services has reviewed the Project for
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and determined that there is
substantial evidence, in light of the whole record, that the Project may have a significant effect on
the environment; therefore, the Development Services Director has caused the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Report, EIR20-0002; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant requests approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map (Tentative
Map), Chula Vista Tract No. 20-0002, to divide the Project Site into twenty-two (22) lots for the
development of 718 residential units (6 lots), a community purpose facility (1 lot), Poggi Creek
Conservation Easement (3 lots), open space (9 lots) and open space preserve (3 lots); and
WHEREAS, the Director of Development Services set the time and place for a hearing by
the City of Chula Vista Planning Commission on the Project, and notice of said hearing, together
with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City and
its mailing to property owners within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property, at least
10 days prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Governor’s Executive Order N-29-20 and the City
of Chula Vista Director of Emergency Services’ Emergency Order 002-B-2020, in the interest of
the public health and safety, members of the Planning Commission and staff held a hearing via
teleconference. In accordance with the orders, the public was able to view and participate in the
meeting online and not at the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, and said hearing was
thereafter closed.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION
hereby recommends that the City Council adopt, subject to the conditions and in accordance with
the findings contained in the attached Draft City Council Resolution and Exhibit thereto, approving
the Tentative Map and that a copy of this Planning Commission Resolution and Draft City Council
Resolution and Exhibit thereto be transmitted to the City Council.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1222 of 1271
Resolution PCS20-0002
July 14, 2021
Page -3-
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this _____ day of ____________ 2021, by the following vote,
to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Gabe Gutierrez, Chair
ATTEST:
____________________________
Patricia Salvacion, Secretary
Presented by: Approved as to form by:
_________________________ _____________________
Tiffany Allen Glen R. Googins
Director of Development Services City Attorney
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1223 of 1271
RESOLUTION NO. MPA21-0014
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVE A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR SUNBOW II,
PHASE 3
WHEREAS, the area of land which is the subject of this Resolution is represented
in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and commonly
known as Sunbow II, Phase 3, and for the purpose of general description consists of 135.7-
acres within the Sunbow II Planned Community generally located at the southeast corner
of Brandywine Avenue and Olympic Parkway (Project Site); and
WHEREAS, on February 20, 1990, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista
approved the Sunbow II Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan (Resolution No. 15524),
inclusive of a 46.0-acre parcel designated for an Industrial Park, known as Planning Area
23 (PA23); and
WHEREAS, since approval all other parcels covered by the Sunbow II SPA have
been built out and the PA23 site has remained vacant; and
WHEREAS, on January 7, 2020, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista
approved a Community Benefits Agreement (by Resolution No. 2020-003) with ACI
Sunbow, LLC (Applicant/Owner), to allow the Owner to process entitlements to consider
the conversion of the PA23 land from industrial to residential uses and in exchange would
provide funding that can be used by the City to direct the construction of a job enhancing
use in Eastern Chula Vista or other signature project; and
WHEREAS, applications to consider amendments to the City of Chula Vista
General Plan (MPA20-0012), Sunbow II General Development Plan (MPA20-0013),
Sunbow II, Phase 3 Sectional Planning Area Plan (MPA20-0006) and approval of an
associated Tentative Map (PCS20-0002) and Development Agreement (MPA21-0014)
were filed with the City of Chula Vista Development Services Department on February 26,
2020 by the Applicant; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant proposes to rezone 67.5-acres of developable land on
the Project Site from light industrial to residential uses resulting in up to 534 multi-family
medium-high-density and 184 multi-family high-density residential dwelling units (718
total units) on six parcels and designate the remaining 68.2-acres as Multiple Species
Conservation Program (MSCP) land, Poggi Creek Conservation Easement areas and a
conserved wetland resource area on sixteen parcels (Project); and
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1224 of 1271
PC Resolution MPA21-0014
July 14, 2021
Page 2
WHEREAS, the City’s Director of Development Services has reviewed the Project
for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and determined
that there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record, that the Project may have a
significant effect on the environment; therefore, the Development Services Director has
caused the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report, EIR20-0002; and
WHEREAS, approval of a Development Agreement is necessary to ensure all
required fees and ordinance requirements are being satisfied, identify where waivers or
alternative compliance are proposed, and is inclusive and in replacement of the items set
forth in the Community Benefits Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Development Services set the time and place for a
hearing on the Project, and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by
its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City and its mailing to property
owners within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property, at least 10 days prior to
the hearing; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Governor’s Executive Order N-29-20 and the
City of Chula Vista Director of Emergency Services’ Emergency Order 002-B-2020, in the
interest of the public health and safety, members of the Planning Commission and staff held
a hearing via teleconference. In accordance with the orders, the public was able to view and
participate in the meeting online and not at the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, and
said hearing was thereafter closed.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the
City of Chula Vista hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Draft City
Council Ordinance approving the Development Agreement for Sunbow II, Phase 3 in
accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Chula
Vista that a copy of this Resolution and the draft City Council Ordinance be transmitted to
the City Council.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1225 of 1271
PC Resolution MPA21-0014
July 14, 2021
Page 3
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this _____ day of ____________ 2021, by the
following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Gabe Gutierrez, Chair
ATTEST:
____________________________
Patricia Salvacion, Secretary
Presented by: Approved as to form by:
_________________________ _____________________
Tiffany Allen Glen R. Googins
Director of Development Services City Attorney
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1226 of 1271
1
RESOLUTION NO. EIR-20-0002
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS OF FACT;
ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS; ADOPTING A MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM AND
CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT (EIR-20-0002; SCH NO. 2020110148) FOR THE
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN,
SUNBOW II GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
AMENDMENT AND TENTATIVE MAP PURSUANT TO THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
WHEREAS, Sunbow ACI, LLC (Applicant), submitted applications requesting approvals
for a Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan, General Development Plan Amendment (GDPA) and
Tentative Map (TM), for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 project (Project); and
WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR-20-0002 or Draft EIR) for
the Project was issued for public review on March 15, 2021, and was processed through the State
Clearinghouse; and
WHEREAS, in consideration of the comments received on the Draft EIR and requirements
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Final EIR (Final EIR-20-0002 or Final
EIR) was prepared for the Project; and
WHEREAS, Final EIR-20-0002 incorporates all comments and recommendations received
on the Draft EIR, a list of all persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft
EIR, and the City’s responses to all “significant environmental points” raised by public and agency
comments submitted during the review and consultation process, in accordance with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15132; and
WHEREAS, revisions to Final EIR-20-0002 did not result in modifications to conclusions
regarding significance of impacts or the addition of significant new information that would require
recirculation of the EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5; and
WHEREAS, the Chula Vista Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing for
Final EIR-20-0002 and voted ______ to approve a resolution recommending the City Council
make certain Findings of Fact; adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations; adopt a Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program and certify Final EIR-20-0002 for the Project pursuant to
CEQA.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista
that it hereby finds, determines and orders as follows:
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1227 of 1271
2
I. PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL RECORD
The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their
public hearing on the Project and Final EIR-20-0002 and before the City Council at their
public hearing on the Project and Final EIR-20-0002 as well as the Minutes and
Resolutions resulting therefrom are hereby incorporated into the record of proceedings
pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21167.6. These documents, along with any
documents submitted to the Planning Commission and City Council, including documents
specified in Public Resources Code Section 21167.6, subdivision (e), shall comprise the
entire record of proceedings for any claims under the CEQA (Public Resources Code
§21000 et seq.) The record of proceedings shall be maintained by the City Clerk at City
Hall.
II. Final EIR-20-0002 CONTENTS
That Final EIR-20-0002 consists of the following:
1. EIR for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 SPA Plan, Sunbow II GDPA and TM
2. Comments received during public review and responses
3. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
4. Technical Appendices
(All hereafter collectively referred to as “Final EIR-20-0002”)
III. ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENT TO Final EIR-20-0002
1. Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
IV. PRESENTATION TO THE DECISIONMAKING BODY
That the Final EIR-20-0002 was presented to the City Council as the decision-making body
of the Lead Agency and that the City Council has reviewed and considered the information
contained in Final EIR-20-0002 prior to approving the Project.
V. COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
That the Final EIR-20-0002, the Findings of Fact and the Statement of Overriding
Considerations (Exhibit “1” to this Resolution, a copy which is on file with the office of
the City Clerk), and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are prepared in
accordance with the requirements of CEQA (Pub. Resources Code, §21000 et seq.), the
CEQA Guidelines (California Code Regs. Title 14 §15000 et seq.), and the Environmental
Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1228 of 1271
3
VI. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF CITY COUNCIL
That it utilized its independent judgment and analysis in reviewing the Final EIR-20-0002
for the City as Lead Agency for the Project.
VII. CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT, MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
A. Adoption of Findings of Fact
That the City Council does hereby approve, accept as its own, incorporate as if set
forth in full herein, and make each and every one of the findings contained in
Exhibit “1” to this Resolution, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City
Clerk.
B. Mitigation Measures Feasible and Adopted
That on the basis of the findings set forth in Exhibit “1” to this Resolution and as
more fully identified and set forth in Final EIR-20-0002, the City Council hereby
finds pursuant to CEQA Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 that
changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in Final
EIR-20-0002, and that such changes and alterations have eliminated or
substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible as
shown in the findings set forth in Exhibit “1” to this Resolution. Furthermore, that
the measures to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment, consisting
of those mitigation measures set forth in Final EIR-20-0002 and in Exhibit “1” to
this Resolution, are fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements or
other measures, including but not limited to conditions of approval of the Project,
and will become binding upon the entity (such as the project proponent or the City)
assigned thereby to implement the same.
C. Infeasibility of Mitigation Measures
As more fully identified and set forth in Final EIR-20-0002 and in the Findings of
Fact for the Project, which is Exhibit “1” to this Resolution, certain mitigation
measures described in said documents are infeasible.
D. Statement of Overriding Considerations
That even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures and any feasible
alternatives, certain significant or potentially significant environmental effects
caused by the Project, or cumulatively, will remain. However, pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15092, the City Council hereby finds and determines that any
remaining significant effects on the environment which have been found to be
unavoidable as shown in the findings set forth in Exhibit “1” to this Resolution are
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1229 of 1271
4
acceptable due to certain overriding considerations. Therefore, the City Council of
the City of Chula Vista hereby approves, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15093, a Statement of Overriding Considerations in the form set forth in Exhibit
“1” to this Resolution identifying the specific economic, legal, social, technological
or other considerations that outweigh and render the unavoidable significant
adverse environmental effects acceptable.
E. Infeasibility of Alternatives
As more fully identified and set forth in Final EIR-20-0002 and in Exhibit “1” to
this Resolution, the City Council hereby finds pursuant to Public Resources Code
Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 that alternatives to the Project,
which were identified in Final EIR-20-0002, were not found to reduce impacts to a
less than significant level or meet the Project objectives.
F. Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
As required by Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines
Section 15091, the City Council hereby adopts the program for reporting on or
monitoring the changes which it has either required in the Project or made a
condition of approval to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental
effects, consisting of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program set forth in
Final EIR-20-0002. The City Council further finds that the Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program is designed to ensure that, during Project implementation,
the permittee/Project Applicant and any other responsible parties implement the
Project components and comply with the mitigation measures identified in the
Findings of Fact and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
G. Findings are Binding and not Merely Advisory
That to the extent that the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding
Considerations for the Project (Exhibit “1” of this Resolution) conclude that
proposed mitigation measures outlined in Final EIR-20-0002 are feasible and have
not been modified, superseded or withdrawn, the City Council herby binds itself
and the Applicant and its successors in interest, to implement those measures. These
findings are not merely information or advisory, but constitute a binding set of
obligations that will come into effect when the City Council adopts the Resolution
approving the Project. The adopted mitigation measures contained within the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Section of Final EIR-20-0002 are
also expressed as conditions of approval for the Project. Other requirements are
referenced in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program that are adopted
concurrently with these Findings of Fact and will be effectuated through the process
of implementing the Project.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1230 of 1271
5
VIII. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
That the Development Services Director of the City of Chula Vista is directed to file a
Notice of Determination with the County Clerk of the County of San Diego, should the
City Council approve this Project in accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15094.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on the
basis of the findings as set forth above certifies Final EIR-20-0002, and adopts the Findings of Fact
and Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit “1” to this Resolution), and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15091.
Submitted by: Approved as to form by:
_________________________ __________________________
Tiffany Allen Glen R. Googins
Development Services Director City Attorney
Exhibit 1 - Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1231 of 1271
RESOLUTION NO. 2021-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE
CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN (MPA20-0012) AND THE
SUNBOW II GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (MPA20-0013)
TO REFLECT LAND USE CHANGES FOR APPROXIMATELY
135.7 ACRES WITHIN THE SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PLANNED
COMMUNITY, INCLUDING ASSOCIATED TEXT, MAPS AND
TABLES
WHEREAS, the area of land which is the subject of this Resolution is represented in Exhibit
A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and commonly known as Sunbow II,
Phase 3, and for the purpose of general description consists of 135.7-acres within the Sunbow II
Planned Community generally located at the southeast corner of Brandywine Avenue and Olympic
Parkway (Project Site); and
WHEREAS, on February 20, 1990, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista approved the
Sunbow II Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan (Resolution No. 15524), inclusive of a 46.0-acre
parcel designated for an Industrial Park, known as Planning Area 23 (PA23); and
WHEREAS, since approval all other parcels covered by the Sunbow II SPA have been built
out and the PA23 site has remained vacant; and
WHEREAS, on January 7, 2020, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista approved a
Community Benefits Agreement (Resolution No. 2020-003) with ACI Sunbow, LLC
(Applicant/Owner), to allow the Owner to process entitlements to consider the conversion of the
PA23 land from industrial to residential uses and in exchange would provide funding that can be
used by the City to direct the construction of a job enhancing use in Eastern Chula Vista or other
signature project; and
WHEREAS, applications to consider such amendments to the City of Chula Vista General
Plan (MPA20-0012), Sunbow II General Development Plan (MPA20-0013), Sunbow II, Phase 3
SPA Plan (MPA20-0006) and approval of an associated Tentative Map (PCS20-0002) and
Development Agreement (MPA21-0014) were filed with the City of Chula Vista Development
Services Department on February 26, 2020 by the Applicant; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant proposes to rezone 67.5-acres of developable land on the Project
Site from light industrial to residential uses resulting in up to 534 multi-family medium-high-density
and 184 multi-family high-density residential dwelling units (718 total units) on six parcels and
designate the remaining 68.2-acres as Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) land, Poggi
Creek Conservation Easement areas and a conserved wetland resource area on sixteen parcels
(Project); and
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1232 of 1271
Resolution 2021 - _______ Page 2 of 3
WHEREAS, the Director of Development Services has reviewed the proposed project for
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that there
is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record, that the Project may have a significant effect on
the environment; therefore, the Director of Development Services has caused the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR20-0002); and
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista’s current General Plan was last comprehensively
updated in December 2005; and
WHEREAS, the proposed General Plan Amendment (GPA) is contained in a document
entitled, “Sunbow II, Phase 3 Chula Vista General Plan Amendment Justification Report (May
2021)” as represented in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein; and
WHEREAS, the Sunbow II General Development Plan was approved on December 5,
1989,by City Council Resolution No. 15427; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Sunbow II General Development Plan (GDPA) is contained in a
document entitled “Sunbow General Development Pan Amendment (January 2021)” as represented
in Exhibit C attached hereto and incorporated herein; and
WHEREAS, the GPA and GDPA as presented are necessary to accommodate the land uses
anticipated in the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Amendment; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Government Code section 65090, the Planning
Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the Project and recommended that the City
Council adopt the Resolution approving the GPA and GDPA; and
WHEREAS, the proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission
at the public hearing on this Project, and the Minutes and Resolution resulting therefrom, are hereby
incorporated into the record of these proceedings; and
WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for the hearing on the Project and notice of
said hearing, together with its purposes given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation
in the City, at least ten days prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Government Code section 65090, the City Council held
a duly noticed public hearing on the Project; and
WHEREAS, immediately prior to this action, the City Council certified the FEIR (FEIR20-
0002), pursuant to Resolution No. 2021-_A___; and
WHEREAS, the next steps of Project approval will include the consideration of the Sunbow
II SPA Plan Amendment (MPA20-0017), Tentative Map (PCS20-0002) and a Development
Agreement between the City and Applicant (MPA21-0014).
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1233 of 1271
Resolution 2021 - _______ Page 3 of 3
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista hereby
finds and determines as follows:
I. COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista finds that, in the exercise of their independent
review and judgment, immediately prior to this action, considered the FEIR20-0002 (EIR20-0002)
which is attached to this Resolution as Exhibit D.
II. GENERAL PLAN INTERNAL CONSISTENCY
The City Council hereby finds and determines that the General Plan, as amended, is internally
consistent and shall remain internally consistent following amendments thereof by this Resolution.
III. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN INTERNAL CONSISTENCY
The City Council hereby finds and determines that the General Development Plan, as
amended, is internally consistent and shall remain internally consistent following amendments
thereof by this Resolution.
IV. ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AND GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
AMENDMENTS
In light of the findings above, the General Plan Amendment and General Development Plan
Amendment are hereby approved and adopted in the form as presented in Exhibits B and C attached
hereto and incorporated herein and on file in the City Clerk's Office.
Presented by: Approved as to form by:
________________ ________________
Tiffany Allen Glen R. Googins
Director of Development Services City Attorney
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1234 of 1271
RESOLUTION 2021 - __________
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE SUNBOW II SECTIONAL
PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN (MPA20-0006) TO UPDATE
CHAPTERS 10.0 TO 17.0, TO DESCRIBE AND DEFINE THE
AMENDED LAND USES FOR SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 AND
INCORPORATE THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND
DESIGN GUIDELINES SPECIFIC TO THIS PROJECT
WHEREAS, the area of land which is the subject of this Resolution is represented in
Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and commonly known as
Sunbow II, Phase 3, and for the purpose of general description consists of 135.7-acres within the
Sunbow II Planned Community generally located at the southeast corner of Brandywine Avenue
and Olympic Parkway (Project Site); and
WHEREAS, on February 20, 1990, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista approved
the Sunbow II Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan (Resolution No. 15524), inclusive of a 46.0-
acre parcel designated for an Industrial Park, known as Planning Area 23 (PA23); and
WHEREAS, since approval all other parcels covered by the Sunbow II SPA have been
built out and the PA23 site has remained vacant; and
WHEREAS, on January 7, 2020, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista approved a
Community Benefits Agreement (Resolution No. 2020-003) with ACI Sunbow, LLC
(Applicant/Owner), to allow the Owner to process entitlements to consider the conversion of the
PA23 land from industrial to residential uses and in exchange would provide funding that can be
used by the City to direct the construction of a job enhancing use in Eastern Chula Vista or other
signature project; and
WHEREAS, applications to consider such amendments to the City of Chula Vista General
Plan (MPA20-0012), Sunbow II General Development Plan (MPA20-0013), Sunbow II, Phase 3
SPA Plan (MPA20-0006) and approval of an associated Tentative Map (PCS20-0002) and
Development Agreement (MPA21-0014) were filed with the City of Chula Vista Development
Services Department on February 26, 2020 by the Applicant; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant proposes to rezone 67.5-acres of developable land on the
Project Site from light industrial to residential uses resulting in up to 534 multi-family medium-
high-density residential dwelling units and 184 multi-family high-density residential dwelling
units (718 total units) on six parcels and designate the remaining 68.2-acres as Multiple Species
Conservation Program (MSCP) land, Poggi Creek Conservation Easement areas and a conserved
wetland resource area on sixteen parcels (Project); and
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1235 of 1271
Resolution No. ______
Page 2
WHEREAS, the Director of Development Services has reviewed the proposed project for
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that there
is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record, that the Project may have a significant effect
on the environment; therefore, the Director of Development Services has caused the preparation
of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR20-0002); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Government Code section 65090, the Planning
Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the Project and recommended that the City
Council adopt the Resolution approving the Sunbow II, Phase 3 SPA Plan; and
WHEREAS, the proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission
at the public hearing on this Project, and the Minutes and Resolution resulting therefrom, are
hereby incorporated into the record of these proceedings; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Government Code section 65090, the City Clerk set
the time and place for the hearing on the Project and notice of said hearing, together with its
purposes given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, at least ten days
prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the duly called and noticed public hearing on the Project was held before the
City Council of the City of Chula Vista in the Chula Vista Council Chambers, Civic Center, 276
Fourth Avenue, to receive the recommendations of the Planning Commission, and to hear public
testimony with regard to the same; and
WHEREAS, immediately prior to this action, the City Council certified the EIR (FEIR20-
0002), pursuant to Resolution No. 2021-_A___; and
WHEREAS, immediately prior to this action, the City Council approved a General Plan
Amendment (MPA20-0012) and Sunbow II General Development Plan Amendment (MPA20-
0013), pursuant to Resolution No. 2021-_B___; and
WHEREAS, the next steps of Project approval will include the consideration of Tentative
Map (PCS20-0002) and a Development Agreement between the City and Applicant (MPA21-
0014).
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista
hereby finds and determines, as follows:
I. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
The City Council, in the exercise of its independent review and judgment, immediately prior
to this action, certified FEIR 20-0002.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1236 of 1271
Resolution No. ______
Page 3
II. SPA FINDINGS
A. THE PROPOSED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN AMENDMENTS ARE
IN CONFORMITY WITH THE OTAY RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT
PLAN AND ITS SEVERAL ELEMENTS.
The proposed Sunbow II, Phase 3 SPA Plan reflect land use designations, circulation,
and public facilities that are consistent with the amended Sunbow II General
Development Plan and the amended City of Chula Vista General Plan. The proposed
SPA Plans are compatible with the amended plans and regulations applicable to
surrounding sites and, therefore, the proposed SPA Plans can be planned and zoned
in coordination and substantial compatibility with surrounding development.
B. THE PROPOSED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN AMENDMENTS
WILL PROMOTE THE ORDERLY SEQUENTIALIZED DEVELOPMENT OF
THE INVOLVED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREAS.
The proposed Sunbow II, Phase 3 SPA Plan will promote the orderly development of
the SPA Plan areas because the Project will be developed in a manner that is consistent
with the Project’s Form Based Code, Phasing Plan, and Public Facilities Financing
Plan.
C. THE PROPOSED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN AMENDMENTS
WOULD NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND USE, RESIDENTIAL
ENJOYMENT, CIRCULATION OR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY.
The proposed SPA Plan Amendments have been reviewed and have been
determined to be consistent with the overall land use pattern and circulation system
envisioned in the Sunbow II General Development Plan (GDP). The Project
remains consistent with the Sunbow II GDP land use goals and objectives of
integration and compatibility within the village and with adjacent communities and
natural resources. Thus, the proposed SPA Plan Amendments will not adversely
affect the adjacent land uses, residential enjoyment, circulation or environmental
quality of the surrounding uses.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that based on the findings above, the City Council hereby
adopts this Resolution approving the Sunbow II, Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment subject to the
conditions set forth below:
1. All of the terms, covenants and conditions contained herein shall be binding upon and inure
to the benefit of the heirs, successors, assigns and representatives of the Developer as to
any or all of the Property. For the purpose of this document “Developer” shall have the
same meaning as “Applicant.”
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1237 of 1271
Resolution No. ______
Page 4
2. If any of the terms, covenants or conditions contained herein shall fail to occur or if they
are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions
fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the
right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted including issuance of building
permits, deny, or further condition the subsequent approvals that are derived from the
approvals herein granted, institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with
said conditions and/or seek damages for their violation.
3. The Property Owner and Applicant shall and do agree to indemnify, protect, defend and
hold harmless City, its City Council members, Planning Commission members, officers,
employees and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages,
demands, claims and costs, including court costs and attorney’s fees (collectively,
liabilities) incurred by the City arising, directly or indirectly, from City’s actions on (a)
FEIR20-0002, (b) the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project, (c)
the Sunbow II, Phase 3 SPA Plan (MPA20-0006), (d) any and all entitlements issued by
the City in connection with the Project, and/or (e) City’s approval or issuance of any other
permit or action, whether discretionary or non-discretionary, in connection with the use
contemplated on the Project Site. The Property Owner and Applicant shall acknowledge
their agreement to this provision by executing a copy of this Resolution where indicated
below. The Property Owner’s and Applicant’s compliance with this provision shall be
binding on any and all of the Property Owner’s and Applicant’s successors and assigns.
4. The Applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval, guidelines, policies, and any
other applicable requirements of the following plans and programs, as amended from time
to time: The City of Chula Vista Municipal Code; the Chula Vista Subdivision Manual;
City of Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan; City
of Chula Vista Design and Construction Standards; the Development Storm Water Manual
for Development and Redevelopment Projects; the City of Chula Vista Grading Ordinance,
CVMC 15.04; the State of California Subdivision Map Act; the City of Chula Vista General
Plan; the City’s Growth Management Ordinance; Chula Vista Design Manual; Chula Vista
Landscape Manual; Chula Vista Fire Facility Master Plan, and Fire Department Policies
and Procedures; Sunbow II General Development Plan; City of Chula Vista Adopted Parks
and Recreation Master Plan; Sunbow II, Phase 3 Sectional Planning Area (SPA, MPA20-
0006) Plan and supporting appendices, including: Public Facilities Finance Plan (PFFP),
Air Quality Improvement Plan (AQIP), Fire Protection Plan and Water Conservation Plan
(WCP), as amended from time to time; and Sunbow II, Phase 3 Tentative Map (TM)
CVT20-0002. The Project shall comply with all mitigation measures specified in the
Sunbow II, Phase 3 Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR20-0002) Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, to the satisfaction of the Development Services
Director.
5. Phasing approved with the SPA Plans may be amended subject to approval by the Director
of Development Services and the City Engineer.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1238 of 1271
Resolution No. ______
Page 5
6. The Applicant shall enter into supplemental agreement(s) with the City, prior to approval
of each Final Map for any phase or unit, whereby:
a. The Developer agree(s) that the City may withhold building permits for any units
within the Project Site in order to have the Project comply with the Growth
Management Program; or, if any one of the following occur:
i. Regional development threshold limits set by a Chula Vista transportation-
phasing plan, as amended from time to time, have been reached
ii. Traffic volumes, level of service, public utilities and/or services either
exceed the adopted City threshold standards or fail to comply with the then
effective Growth Management Ordinance and Growth Management
Program and any amendments thereto
iii. The Project’s required public facilities, as identified in the Public Facilities
Finance Plan (PFFP), or as amended or otherwise conditioned, have not
been completed or constructed in accordance with the Project entitlements,
to the satisfaction of the City. The Developer may propose changes in the
timing and sequencing of development and the construction of
improvements affected. In such case, the PFFP may be amended after
review and approval by the City’s Director of Development Services and
the City Engineer. The Developer agree(s) that the City may withhold
building permits for any of the phases of development identified in the PFFP
for the Project if the project’s required public facilities, as identified in the
PFFP or in accordance with the Development Agreement. Public utilities
shall include, but not be limited to, air quality, drainage, sewer and water.
7. After final SPA approval, the Applicant shall submit electronic versions of all SPA
documents, including text and graphics, to the Development Services Department in a
format specified and acceptable to the Development Services Director.
8. The Applicant shall comply with the Fire Department’s codes and policies for Fire
Prevention. As part of any submittal for design review, a fire access and water supply plan
prepared by a licensed engineering firm, which has been determined to be qualified in the
sole discretion of the Fire Marshall, shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval
by the Fire Marshall. The plan shall detail how and when the Applicant shall provide the
following items either prior to the issuance of Building Permit(s) for the Project, or prior
to delivery of combustible materials on any construction site on the Project, whichever
occurs earlier:
a. Water supply consisting of fire hydrants as approved and indicated by the Fire
Department during plan check to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshall. Any temporary
water supply source is subject to prior approval by the Fire Marshal.
b. Emergency vehicle access consisting of a minimum first layer of hard asphalt surface
or concrete surface, with a minimum standard width of 15 feet.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1239 of 1271
Resolution No. ______
Page 6
c. Street signs installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, or designee. Temporary
street signs shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer and Fire Marshall,
or their designees.
III. GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020 NOTICE
Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d)(1), NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the
90 day period to protest the imposition of any impact fee, dedication, reservation, or other
exaction described in this resolution begins on the effective date of this resolution and any
such protest must be in a manner that complies with Government Code Section 66020(a)
and failure to follow timely this procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack,
set aside, void or annual imposition. The right to protest the fees, dedications, reservations,
or other exactions does not apply to planning, zoning, grading, or other similar application
processing fees or service fees in connection with the project; and it does not apply to any
fees, dedication, reservations, or other exactions which have been given notice similar to
this, nor does it revive challenges to any fees for which the Statute of Limitations has
previously expired.
IV. EXECUTION AND RECORDATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL
The Property Owner and Applicant shall execute this document signing on the lines
provided below, indicating that the Property Owner and Applicant have each read,
understood and agreed to the conditions contained herein, and will implement same. Upon
execution, this document shall be recorded with the County Recorder of the County of San
Diego, at the sole expense of the Property Owner and/or Applicant, and a signed, stamped
copy returned to the City’s Development Services Department. Failure to return the signed
and stamped copy of this recorded document within 10 days of recordation shall indicate
the Property Owner/Applicant’s desire that the project, and the corresponding application
for building permits and/or a business license, be held in abeyance without approval.
________________________________ _______________
Signature of Property Owner Date
________________________________ _______________
Signature of Applicant Date
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1240 of 1271
Resolution No. ______
Page 7
V. CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE OF CONDITIONS
If any of the forgoing conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by the terms, to be implemented
and maintained over time, and any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and
maintained according to the terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all
approvals herein granted, deny or further condition issuance of future Building Permits, deny,
revoke or further condition all Certificates of Occupancy issued under the authority of
approvals herein granted, instituted and prosecute litigate or compel their compliance or seek
damages for their violations. No vested rights are gained by Applicant or successor in interest
by the City approval of this Resolution.
VI. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION
It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Resolution is dependent upon
enforceability of each and every term provision and condition herein stated; and that in the
event that any one or more terms, provisions or conditions are determined by the Court of
competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, if the city so determines in its
sole discretion, this resolution shall be deemed to be revoked and no further in force or in
effect ab initio.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this _____ day of ____________ 2021, by the following vote, to-wit:
Presented by: Approved as to form by:
______________________ _______________________
Tiffany Allen Glen R. Googins
Director of Development Services City Attorney
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1241 of 1271
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING
THE SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT TO REZONE FROM
LIMITED INDUSTRIAL TO RESIDENTIAL USES ALLOWING
UP TO 534 MULTI-FAMILY MEDIUM-HIGH-DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS AND 184 MULTI-FAMILY
HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS (718
TOTAL UNITS) ON SIX PARCELS, A 0.9-ACRE COMMUNITY
PURPOSE FACILITY SITE, ON-SITE STREETS, OPEN SPACE
AND MSCP PRESERVE OPEN SPACE
WHEREAS, the area of land which is the subject of this Resolution is represented in
Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and is commonly known as
Sunbow II, Phase 3, and for the purpose of general description consists of 135.7-acres within the
Sunbow II Planned Community generally located at the southeast corner of Brandywine Avenue
and Olympic Parkway (Project Site); and
WHEREAS, on February 20, 1990, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista approved
the Sunbow II Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan (Resolution No. 15524), inclusive of a 46.0-
acre parcel designated for an Industrial Park, known as Planning Area 23 (PA23); and
WHEREAS, since approval all other parcels covered by the Sunbow II SPA have been
built out and the PA23 site has remained vacant; and
WHEREAS, on January 7, 2020, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista approved a
Community Benefits Agreement (Resolution No. 2020-003) with ACI Sunbow, LLC
(Applicant/Owner), to allow the Owner to process entitlements to consider the conversion of the
PA23 land from industrial to residential uses and in exchange would provide funding that can be
used by the City to direct the construction of a job enhancing use in Eastern Chula Vista or other
signature project; and
WHEREAS, applications to consider such amendments to the City of Chula Vista General
Plan (MPA20-0012), Sunbow II General Development Plan (MPA20-0013), Sunbow II, Phase 3
SPA Plan (MPA20-0006) and approval of an associated Tentative Map (PCS20-0002) and
Development Agreement (MPA21-0014) were filed with the City of Chula Vista Development
Services Department on February 26, 2020 by the Applicant; and
WHEREAS, the applicant proposes to rezone 67.5-acres of developable land on the
Project Site from light industrial to residential uses resulting in up t o 534 multi-family medium-
high-density residential dwelling units and 184 multi-family high-density residential dwelling
units (718 total units) on six parcels, a 0.9-acre Community Purpose Facility site, on-site streets,
open space and designate the remaining 68.2-acres as Multiple Species Conservation Program
(MSCP) land, Poggi Creek Conservation Easement areas and a conserved wetland resource area
on sixteen parcels (Project); and
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1242 of 1271
Ordinance No. _____
Page 2
WHEREAS, the Director of Development Services has reviewed the proposed project for
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that there
is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record, that the project may have a significant effect
on the environment; therefore, the Director of Development Services has caused the preparation
of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR20-0002); and
WHEREAS, the development of the Property has been the subject matter of a General Plan
Amendment (MPA20-0012), Sunbow II General Development Plan Amendment (MPA20-0013)
and Sunbow II, Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment (MPA20-0006) approved by the City Council
immediately prior to this action; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Development Services set the time and place for a Planning
Commission public hearing on the Project, and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose,
was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the C ity and its mailing to
property owners within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property, at least 10 days prior
to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, before the Planning
Commission and the hearing was thereafter closed; and
WHEREAS, the proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission
at the hearing on the Project, and the Minutes and Resolution resulting therefrom, are incorporated
into the record of this proceeding; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council approve
the subject Rezone; and
WHEREAS, a hearing time and place was set by the City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista
for consideration of the Project and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by
its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, and its mailing to property owners
and residents within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property, at least ten (10) days prior
to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista held a duly noticed public hearing
to consider said Project at the time and place as advertised in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth
Avenue, said hearing was thereafter closed.
NOW THEREFORE the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby ordain as
follows:
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1243 of 1271
Ordinance No.______
Page 3
Section I. Action
The City Council hereby adopts an Ordinance approving the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Rezone,
Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, finding that it is consistent
with the City of Chula Vista General Plan, the Sunbow II General Development Plan and all other
applicable Plans.
Section II. Severability
If any portion of this Ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, is for any
reason held to be invalid, unenforceable or unconstitutional, by a court of competent jurisdiction,
that portion shall be deemed severable, and such invalidity, unenforceability or unconstitutionality
shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining portions of the Ordinance, or its
application to any other person or circumstance. The City Council of the City of Chula Vista
hereby declares that it would have adopted each section, sentence, clause or phrase of this
Ordinance, irrespective of the fact that any one or more other sections, sentences, clauses or
phrases of the Ordinance be declared invalid, unenforceable or unconstitutional.
Section III. Construction
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista intends this Ordinance to supplement, not to
duplicate or contradict, applicable state and federal law and this Ordinance shall be construed in
light of that intent.
Section IV. Effective Date
This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force on the thirtieth day after its final passage.
Section V. Publication
The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause
the same to be published or posted according to law.
Presented by: Approved as to form by:
____________________________ ______________________________
Tiffany Allen Glen R. Googins
Director of Development Services City Attorney
Exhibits A & B to be inserted later
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1244 of 1271
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION
MAP CVT20-0002 (PCS20-0002) FOR A 135.7-ACRE SITE FOR
(718) MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS, KNOWN AS THE
SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT
WHEREAS, the area of land which is the subject of this Resolution is represented in
Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and commonly known as
Sunbow II, Phase 3, and for the purpose of general description consists of 135.7-acres within the
Sunbow II Planned Community generally located at the southeast corner of Brandywine Avenue
and Olympic Parkway (Project Site); and
WHEREAS, on February 20, 1990, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista approved
the Sunbow II Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan (Resolution No. 15524), inclusive of a 46.0-
acre parcel designated for an Industrial Park, known as Planning Area 23 (PA23); and
WHEREAS, since approval all other parcels covered by the Sunbow II SPA have been
built out and the PA23 site has remained vacant; and
WHEREAS, on January 7, 2020, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista approved a
Community Benefits Agreement (Resolution No. 2020-003) with ACI Sunbow, LLC
(Applicant/Owner), to allow the Owner to process entitlements to consider the conversion of the
PA23 land from industrial to residential uses and in exchange would provide funding that can be
used by the City to direct the construction of a job enhancing use in Eastern Chula Vista or other
signature project; and
WHEREAS, applications to consider such amendments to the City of Chula Vista General
Plan (MPA20-0012), Sunbow II General Development Plan (MPA20-0013), Sunbow II, Phase 3
SPA Plan (MPA20-0006) and approval of an associated Tentative Map (PCS20-0002) and
Development Agreement (MPA21-0014) were filed with the City of Chula Vista Development
Services Department on February 26, 2020 by the Applicant; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant proposes to rezone 67.5-acres of developable land on the
Project Site from light industrial to residential uses resulting in up to 534 multi-family medium-
high-density and 184 multi-family high-density residential dwelling units (718 total units) on six
parcels and designate the remaining 68.2-acres as Multiple Species Conservation Program
(MSCP) land, Poggi Creek Conservation Easement areas and a conserved wetland resource area
on sixteen parcels (Project); and
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1245 of 1271
City Council Resolution No. 2021-______
Page 2
WHEREAS, the Director of Development Services has reviewed the proposed project for
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that there
is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record, that the Project may have a significant effect
on the environment; therefore, the Director of Development Services has caused the preparation
of an Environmental Impact Report, EIR20-0002; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant requests approval of Tentative Map CVT20-0002 (PCS20-
0002) to subdivide the Project Site into twenty-two lots for the development of 718 residential
units (6 lots), a community purpose facility (1 lot), Poggi Creek Conservation Easement (3 lots),
open space (9 lots) and open space preserve (3 lots); and
WHEREAS, a hearing time and place was set by the Planning Commission for
consideration of the Project and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its
publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, and its mailing to property owners
and residents within 500-feet of the exterior boundaries of the property, at least ten (10) days prior
to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the Project
and voted to forward a recommendation to the City Council on the Project; and
WHEREAS, the proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission
at the public hearing on the Project, and the Minutes and Resolution resulting therefrom, are
incorporated into the record of this proceeding; and
WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for the City Council hearing on the
Project application and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, given by its publication
in a newspaper of general circulation in the City and its mailing to property owners within 500-
feet of the exterior boundaries of the Project Site at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista held a duly noticed public hearing
to consider the Project at the time and place as advertised in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth
Avenue, and said hearing was thereafter closed; and
WHEREAS, immediately prior to this action, the City Council considered Final
Environmental Impact Report (EIR20-0002), pursuant to Resolution No. 2021-_A___; and
WHEREAS, immediately prior to this action, the City Council approved a General Plan
Amendment (MPA20-0012) and Sunbow II General Development Plan Amendment (MPA20-
0013), pursuant to Resolution No. 2021-_B___; and
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1246 of 1271
City Council Resolution No. 2021-______
Page 3
WHEREAS, immediately prior to this action, the City Council approved the Sunbow II,
Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment (MPA20-0006), pursuant to Resolution No. 2021-_C___; and
WHEREAS, the final step of Project approval will include the consideration of a
Development Agreement between the City and Applicant (MPA21-0014).
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista
that it does hereby find and determine, as follows:
I. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FINDINGS
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.5 of the Subdivision Map Act, the City
Council finds that the Tentative Subdivision Map, as conditioned herein, is in conformance
with the elements of the City’s General Plan, based on the following:
1. Land Use
The General Plan land use designation is Residential Medium-High (11-18 dwelling
units per gross acre) and High (18-27 dwelling units per gross acre). Five of the
proposed parcels will be developed at a medium-high density range of 13.3 to 15.4
dwelling units per gross acre and the remaining at a high density of 24.1 dwelling units
per gross acre, which is within the allowable density and permitted number of dwelling
units.
2. Circulation
All off-site public streets required to serve the subdivision already exist or will be
constructed or paid for by the Applicant in accordance with the Conditions of Approval.
The on-site public streets are designed in accordance with the City design standards
and/or requirements and provides for vehicular and pedestrian connections. The on-
site private streets are designed consistent with the Sunbow II SPA Plan and Tentative
Map.
3. Public Facilities
The Project has been conditioned to ensure that all necessary public facilities and
services will be available to serve the Project concurrent with the demand for those
services.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1247 of 1271
City Council Resolution No. 2021-______
Page 4
The Project Area is within the boundaries of the Otay Water District (OWD) for water
service. The OWD has existing and planned facilities in the vicinity of the Proposed
Project and water service can be provided by expanding the existing system.
4. Housing
The Project is consistent with the density prescribed within the Residential Medium-
High and High General Plan designation and provides additional opportunities for
multi-family residential home ownership in the eastern portion of the City. The Project
will also comply with the City’s Balanced Communities Policy through alternative
compliance as specified in the Project’s Development Agreement. The deed restricted
residential units are to remain within this identified area of the SPA and are non -
transferrable.
5. Growth Management
A Supplemental Public Facilities Finance Plan (PFFP) has been prepared for the
Project, as required by the Grown Management Element. The PFFP requirements have
been included in the Project’s Conditions of Approval.
Circulation
The surrounding street segments and intersections including those along Olympic
Parkway will continue to operate at the current Level of Service in compliance with
the City’s traffic threshold standard with the proposed project traffic. No adverse
impact to the City’s traffic threshold standards would occur as a result of the proposed
project.
Schools
The Project Site is located in the attendance area of Valle Lindo Elementary School,
within the boundaries of the Chula Vista Elementary School District (CVESD). The
Project is also within the attendance area of Rancho Del Rey High School, Otay Ranch
High School, and Chula Vista Adult School, within the Sweetwater Union High School
District (SUHSD). The Project is within the boundaries of CVESD Community Facility
District (CFD) No. 4 and SUHSD CFD No. 4, which will fully mitigate the Project’s
impact on local schools.
Sewer System
The proposed onsite sewer system consists of gravity sewer lines within Streets “A” and
“B” that will convey flow to the existing Poggi Canyon Interceptor in Olympic Parkway.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1248 of 1271
City Council Resolution No. 2021-______
Page 5
Based on the average flow presented in Table 6 and a peak factor of 2.33 per the City
Subdivision Manual, the projected peak flow for the Proposed Project is 0.31 mgd. An 8 -
inch gravity sewer line within Street “A” with a minimum slope of 1.0 percent is adequate
to convey total project flow. Private sewer lines will be connected to this 8-inch public
sewer line and extended to the building sewer laterals.
Drainage
The drainage system will collect stormwater through a series of swales, catch basins, inlets
and culverts that direct stormwater flows to two onsite basins for purposes of water quality
and hydromodification. Onsite storm drain facilities include a series of storm drainpipes
within Streets “A” and “B” and the private streets within the residential parcels. A by-pass
system of pipes carries natural or treated runoff in separate pipes to discharge into Poggi
Creek.
6. Open Space and Conservation
The Project proposes multi-family homes that meet the minimum open space
requirement per the Sunbow II SPA Plan, Planned Community District Regulations.
The Project includes 63.6-acres designated MSCP Preserve open space, 4.3-acres of
Poggi Creek Conservation Easements and a 0.3-acre conserved wetland resource area.
The development of the site is consistent with the goals and policies of the
Conservation Element.
7. Parks and Recreation
The Project would increase population growth, with each multi-family unit generating
the need for 341 square feet of development parkland. The 718 multi-family units within
Planning Area 23 of the Sunbow II Phase 3 SPA Plan generates a parkland obligation of
5.6 acres. In order to satisfy this obligation, the Project is required to pay a Park Benefit
Fee in accordance with the Project’s Development Agreement and will not be providing
the 5.6 acres of development parkland within the development.
8. Safety
The City Engineer, Fire and Police Departments have reviewed the proposed
subdivision for conformance with City safety policies and have determined that the
proposal meets those standards.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1249 of 1271
City Council Resolution No. 2021-______
Page 6
9. Noise
The Project has been reviewed for compliance with the Noise Element and will comply
with applicable noise measures at the time of issuance of Building Permits.
10. Scenic Highway
The Project Site is not located adjacent to or visible from a designated scenic highway.
B. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.1 of the Subdivision Map Act, the
configuration, orientation, and topography of the site allows for the optimum siting of lots
for natural and passive heating and cooling opportunities and that the development of the
site will be subject to site plan and architectural review to ensure the maximum utilization
of natural and passive heating and cooling opportunities.
C. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map Act, the City
Council certifies that it has considered the effect of this approval on the housing needs of
the region and has balanced those needs against the public service needs of the residents of
the City and the available fiscal and environmental resources.
D. The site is physically suited for residential development because it is generally level and is
located adjacent to existing residential developments. The Project conforms to all
standards established by the City for a residential development. The conditions herein
imposed on the grant of permit or other entitlement herein contained is approximately
proportional both in nature and extent to the impact created by the proposed development.
F. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474 (a)-(g) of the Subdivision Map Act, the City
Council hereby finds that the proposed project:
1. Is consistent with the Chula Vista General Plan, as specified in Section 65451, and
land use, transportation, economic development, housing, public facilities and
services, environmental and growth management objectives and policies.
2. Design or improvement is consistent with the General Plan. The General Plan
establishes the vision for the City, and the Project defines the land use character and
mix of uses, design criteria, circulation system, and public infrastructure requirements
for the Project. The Tentative Map is consistent with the General Plan.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1250 of 1271
City Council Resolution No. 2021-______
Page 7
3. The Project Site is suitable for the proposed density of development. The Project’s
zoning supports the design of a viable residential project that will create a strong sense
of place for residents. The densities are in accordance with the General Plan for the
area.
4. The Project Site is physically suitable for the type of development. The Project is
surrounded by other in-fill residential projects. The Project is designed to be
compatible with the surrounding community.
5. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife
or their habitat. The Project has been designed to provide a landscaped buffer for the
surrounding in-fill residential projects and to comply with CEQA.
6. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious
public health problems because the Project has been designed to provide quality open
space and amenities.
7. Neither the Subdivision nor the type of improvements will conflict with easements,
acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the
proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may approve a map if it
finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these
will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This
subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by
judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to a
legislative body to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access
through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.
II. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Unless otherwise specified or required by law: (a) the Conditions of Approval and Code
requirements set forth below shall be completed prior to recordation of the related Final
Map as determined by the Director of Development Services and the City Engineer, or
designees, unless otherwise specified, "dedicate" means grant the appropriate easement,
rather than fee title. Where an easement is required, the Applicant shall be required to
provide subordination of any prior lien and easement holders in order to ensure that the
City has a first priority interest and rights in such land unless otherwise excused by the
City. Where fee title is granted or dedicated to the City, said fee title shall be free and clear
of all encumbrances, unless otherwise excused by the City.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1251 of 1271
City Council Resolution No. 2021-______
Page 8
Should conflicting wording or standards occur between these Conditions of Approval, any
conflict shall be resolved by the City Manager or designee.
A. GENERAL/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
1. The Applicant, or his successor in interest, shall improve the Project Site in accordance
with the approved Sunbow II, Phase 3 Tentative Subdivision Map No. CVT20-0002
(PCS20-0002), on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, and Title
19 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code (“CVMC” or “Municipal Code”).
2. The Project shall comply with the General Development Plan Amendment and the Sunbow
II, Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment.
3. The Applicant shall implement, to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services
and the City Engineer, the mitigation measures identified in EIR20-0002 Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Project, within the timeframe
specified in the MMRP.
4. Prior to initiating any construction related activities requiring a clearing and grubbing or
Grading Permit, the Applicant shall obtain a Habitat Loss Incidental Take Permit pursuant
to Section 17.35 of the Municipal Code for impacts to Chula Vista MSCP Tier I, II, and II
vegetation communities as shown in Table 5.3-11, in accordance with Project Habitat
Mitigation Ratios and Acreages of the EIR and in accordance with Table 5-3 of the City of
Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan.
5. Prior to Final Map approval, the Applicant shall pay all applicable fees, including any
unpaid balances of permit processing fees for deposit account DDA0637.
6. The project will be serviced for domestic water and fire with a public waterline constructed
in Streets A and B, in accordance with Otay Water District (OWD) standards. The
applicant shall conform all project related documents to show such waterlines as public.
Private domestic and fire waterlines can cross Streets A and B as needed to provide OWD
looping requirements.
Land Development Division/Landscape Architecture Division:
7. The Applicant shall comply with all applicable City of Chula Vista Standard Tentative Map
Conditions (STMC) per Section 5-300 of the City Subdivision Manual as referenced hereto
and incorporated herein and as approved and amended from time to time, to the satisfaction
of the Director of Development Services and City Engineer or their designees.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1252 of 1271
City Council Resolution No. 2021-______
Page 9
8. Prior to the First Building Permit the Applicant shall pay the fair share contribution to the
Adaptive Traffic Signal Control (ATSC) modules to each signalized intersection along
the Olympic Parkway corridor between the I-805 Ramps and La Media Road. The
Applicant’s fair share contribution is shown in the table below:
Intersection Peak
Hour
Project % Traffic
Entering a
Project Fair
Share
1. Olympic Pk./I-805 SB Ramps AM 2.6% 3.1%
PM 3.6%
2. Olympic Pk./I-805 NB Ramps AM 3.8% 4.2%
PM 4.6%
3. Olympic Pk./Oleander Av. AM 5.0% 5.4%
PM 5.8%
4. Olympic Pk./Brandywine Av. AM 5.3% 6.0%
PM 6.6%
5. Olympic Pk./project driveway
(west)
AM b b
PM b
6. Olympic Pk./project driveway
(east)
AM b b
PM b
7. Olympic Pk./Heritage Rd. AM 1.6% 1.9%
PM 2.1%
8. Olympic Pk./Santa Venetia St. AM 1.3% 1.5%
PM 1.6%
9. Olympic Pk./La Media Rd. AM 1.0% 1.1%
PM 1.2%
a Near-Term conditions, Table 14-1, Transportation Impact Analysis, Sunbow II,
Phase 3 (June 22, 2020).
b Traffic signal to be constructed by the project with adaptive system incorporated
and fully funded by the applicant.
9. Prior to final inspection for each unit and in accordance with the Development Agreement,
the Applicant shall pay a Park Benefit Fee equal to the PAD fees that would have otherwise
been due pursuant to Chapter 17.10, using the PAD fee rates in effect as of the Effective
Date of the Development Agreement.
10. In accordance with and as defined in the Development Agreement, the Owner shall pay the
Jobs Enhancement Fund in three separate payments prior to issuance of the first (1st)
building permit, one-hundredth (100th) building permit and two-hundredth (200th) building
permit.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1253 of 1271
City Council Resolution No. 2021-______
Page 10
11. Prior to approval of a Grading Plan or Building Permit which includes any private facilities
within the public right-of-way or City easement, the Applicant shall enter into an
Encroachment Agreement with the City.
12. Proposed Fire Access Road(s) shall meet H-20 Loading requirements or shall be designed
for a Traffic Index (T.I.) of 5.
13. The Applicant shall add the following note on the Public Improvement Plans: Public
Works Operations Department shall inspect any existing sewer laterals and connections
that are to be used by the new development. Laterals and connections may need
replacement as a result of this inspection which shall be accomplished by the Applicant at
the Applicant’s sole expense.
14. Prior to beginning any earthwork activities at the site and before issuance of Building
Permits in accordance with Municipal Code Title 15.04 the Applicant shall submit Grading
Plans and associated slope Landscape and Irrigation Plans to the City. Plans shall be in
conformance with the City’s Subdivision Manual and the City’s most current Best
Management Practices; BMP Design Manual. A copy of the BMP Design Manual is
available on the City of Chula Vista website at:
http://www.chulavistaca.gov/departments/public-works/services/storm-water-pollution-
prevention/documents-and-reports.
15. Prior to the issuance of the first Grading or Construction Permit, the Applicant shall enter
into a Storm Water Management Facilities Maintenance Agreement to perpetually
maintain and fund all Post Construction Permanent BMP facilities located within the
Project to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
16. Prior to approval of the Final Map, the Applicant shall enter into an agreement, in a form
acceptable to the City Engineer and City Attorney, granting permission for the City of
Chula Vista to permit the construction of drainage/improvements that will discharge
drainage onto Owner’s property as shown on the CVT # 20-0002 and agreeing to
indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, its agents and employees from and against
any and all liability, claims, damages or injuries to any person, including injury to any City
employees, and any and all claims which arise from, are connected with, or are in any way
related to the performance of or failure to perform the work or other obligations, or are
caused or claimed to be caused by the acts or omissions of Owner, or Owner’s agents or
employees, and all expenses of investigating and defending against same; provided,
however, that this indemnification and hold harmless shall not include any claim arising
from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its agents or its employees.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1254 of 1271
City Council Resolution No. 2021-______
Page 11
17. The Applicant shall provide a minimum 3-foot wide level bench on Grading Plans, for
landscaping maintenance access adjacent to freestanding walls, fencing or sound walls to
be constructed adjacent to perimeter open space slopes (OS-7 through OS-12) with a
gradient of 2:1 or greater.
18. Prior to issuance of any Grading or Building Permit based on plans proposing the creation
of down slopes adjacent to public or private streets, the Applicant shall obtain the City
Engineer's approval of a study to determine the necessity of providing guard rail
improvements at these locations. The Applicant shall construct and secure any required
guard rail improvements in conjunction with the associated Construction Permit as
determined by and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The guard rail shall be installed
per CalTrans Traffic Manual and Roadside Design Guide requirements and American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
19. Prior to the issuance of any Grading Permit, the Applicant shall provide a notarized letter
of permission for all off-site grading work.
20. The Applicant shall apply for Grading Permit(s) consistent with the applicable provisions
of the City’s Municipal Code and Subdivision Manual, reviewed and approved by the Land
Development Division. These permit(s) shall reflect all grading required to create building
pads, private roads and storm drainage system necessary to address drainage leaving the
site.
21. Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit impacting on-site existing monitoring wells, the
Applicant shall submit and gain approval of a Well Destruction Permit from the County of
San Diego Department of Environmental Health and shall provide the City with a Closure
Memorandum from the County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health upon
completion of the Well Destruction Permit.
22. The Applicant shall dedicate for public use all the public streets and public utilities within
the subdivision boundary on the Final Map as shown on the approved Tentative Map (CVT
No. 20-0002) and shall construct or enter into an agreement to construct and secure all
streets, utilities, traffic signals, and intersection improvements as shown on the approved
Tentative Map (CVT No. 20-0002) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City
Attorney.
23. Prior to issuance of any Construction Permit, the Applicant shall submit, for review, street
cross-sections at 25’ intervals depicting existing and proposed street cross-fall and limits
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1255 of 1271
City Council Resolution No. 2021-______
Page 12
of grind and overlay required for the intersection improvements at Olympic Parkway and
Streets ‘A’ and ‘B’ to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
24. Prior to approval of the First Final Map or Improvement Plan, the Applicant shall provide
the City with a Stopping Sight Distance and a Corner Sight Distance analysis which
demonstrates compliance with Chula Vista Standard Drawing RWY-05 for Corner Sight
Distance and Stopping Sight Distance and shall provide easements on the Final Map, as
applicable, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
25. All private sewer laterals and storm drains connecting each building unit to the City-
maintained public facilities shall be privately maintained.
26. All proposed sidewalks, walkways, pedestrian ramps, and disabled parking shall be
designed to meet the City of Chula Vista Design Standards, American’s with Disabilities
Act (ADA) Standards, and Title 24 standards, as applicable.
27. Prior to approval of Improvement Plans for the Project, the Engineer of Work shall submit
and obtain approval by the City Engineer a waiver request for all subdivision design for
public improvements not specifically waived on the Tentative Map, and not conforming to
adopted City standards. The Engineer of Work request shall outline the requested
subdivision design deviations from adopted City standards and state that in his/her
professional opinion, no safety issues will be compromised. The waiver is subject to
approval by the City Engineer in the City Engineer's sole discretion.
28. The Applicant shall provide, Public Drainage and Access Easements on the Final Map over
Open Space Lots OS-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6a, 6b, 7 and 8 for the existing Poggi Creek channel
storm drains laterals and the two (2) existing box culverts within the subdivision boundary
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
29. On the Final Map, the Applicant shall provide an easement for private access and utility
purposes, to serve lots not feasibly served by a public street. If the engineering design of
the lot has not been finalized, at the time of Final Map approval, a note, approved by the
City Engineer, shall be placed on the Final Map, stating that such an easement will be
granted by the Applicant or HOA for these lots as required in the CC&Rs. Said note shall
reference Chula Vista Municipal Code Sections 18.32.030 and 18.44.010.
30. Prior to approval of any Final Map, the Applicant shall enter into a Grant of Easements,
Access and Maintenance Agreement which shall cover all Homeowners Association
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1256 of 1271
City Council Resolution No. 2021-______
Page 13
(HOA) maintained improvements and shall also include all storm water BMP infrastructure
constructed and located in any public right-of-way to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
30. The Applicant shall provide easements on the Final Map over portions of Private Open
Space Lots 5 and 8 to ensure access to public storm drain facilities, to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer.
31. Prior to the issuance of the First Building Permit, the Applicant shall provide
documentation to the City of meetings and correspondence with MTS regarding
implementation of local bus stops or other transit service to the Project, to the satisfaction
of the Director of Development Services.
32. Prior to approval of any Final Map, the Applicant shall present verification to the City
Engineer in the form of a letter from the Otay Water District that the subdivision will be
provided adequate water service and long-term water storage facilities.
33. Prior to the issuance of any Grading Permit impacting the existing on-site Otay Water
District recycled water line, the Applicant shall provide evidence to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer, that the Applicant has complied with the following:
a. The Otay Water District has approved plans to relocate the existing Otay Water
District Recycled Water line as shown on the approved Tentative Map (CVT No.
20-0002).
b. The Applicant has entered into an agreement with Otay Water District to construct
and secure the relocation of the Otay Water District Recycled Water line.
c. The Applicant has provided evidence that Otay Water District has abandoned or
has agreed to abandon any water main easements or portions thereof not needed as
a consequence of the relocation of the Otay Water District Recycled Water line and
the dedication of new right-of-way.
d. The Applicant has entered into an agreement with the City of Chula Vista to defend,
indemnify and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officers and
employees, from and against any and all claims, causes of action, demands, suit,
actions or proceedings, judicial or administrative, for writs, orders, injunction or
other relief, damages, liability, cost and expense (including without limitation
attorneys' fees) arising out of, connected with or incidental to the relocation of the
Otay Water District recycled water line and the closure and abandonment of the old
waterline, or from any and all City action, conduct or matter related thereto.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1257 of 1271
City Council Resolution No. 2021-______
Page 14
e. The Applicant shall maintain recycled water service that is to be relocated
throughout the duration of construction or provide temporary service in accordance
with Otay Water District Regulations.
34. Prior to approval of the Final Map Applicant shall obtain a letter from Otay Water District
stating the private recycled water line adjacent to Streets A & B will be reviewed, approved,
and inspected by the Otay Water District.
35. Prior to City approval of Streets A & B Improvement Plans showing the projects private
recycled water line, the Applicant shall obtain Otay Water District and San Diego County
Department of Environmental Health signatures on said improvement plans.
36. The Applicant shall use benchmarks within the City of Chula Vista Benchmark network
for all mapping purposes.
37. Prior to approval of any Final Map showing public or private streets, the Applicant shall
obtain approval of street names to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services
and City Engineer.
38. With the approval of each, the Final Map, Grading Plan and Improvement Plan, the
Applicant shall upload digital files in a format such as AutoCAD DWG or DXF (AutoCAD
version 2000 or above), ESRI GIS shapefile, file, or personal geodatabase (ArcGIS version
9.0 or above). The files should be transmitted directly to the GIS section using the city's
digital submittal file upload website @ http://www.chulavistaca.gov/goto/GIS. The data
upload site only accepts zip formatted files.
39. Prior to approval of any Final Map, the Applicant shall submit Covenants, Conditions and
Restrictions (CC&Rs) as approved by the City Attorney to the City Engineer and the
Director of Development Services Department. Said CC&Rs shall include the following:
a. Indemnification of City for private sewer spillage.
b. Indemnification of City – General.
c. Listing of maintained private facilities.
d. The City’s right but not the obligation to enforce CC&Rs.
e. Provision that no private facilities shall be requested to become public unless all
homeowners and 100% of the first mortgage obligee have signed a written petition.
f. Maintenance of all walls, fences, lighting structures, paths, recreational amenities
and structures, private sewage facilities, drainage structures and landscaping.
g. Implement education and enforcement program to prevent the discharge of
pollutants from all on-site sources to the storm water conveyance system.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1258 of 1271
City Council Resolution No. 2021-______
Page 15
h. Said CC&Rs shall be consistent with CVMC Chapter 18.44, the Subdivision
Ordinance, and shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Map.
i. Trip reduction strategies:
1. Provide ride share coordination services to match residents interested in
carpooling;
2. Coordinate with nearby schools to match residents interested in carpooling
to/from schools;
3. Provide on-site transit opportunities information; and
4. Encourage bicycling by providing on-site bicycle infrastructure such as bike
racks
40. The CC&Rs shall contain a provision that provides all new residents with a disclosure
document that discloses the following intonation during any real estate transaction or prior
to lease signing:
a. NOTICE OF AIRPORT VICINITY - as required by the Brown Field Airport Land
Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), this property is presently located in the vicinity
of an airport, within what is known as an airport influence area. For that reason,
the property may be subject to some of the annoyances or inconveniences
associated with proximity to airport operations (for example: noise, vibration, or
odors). Individual sensitivities to those annoyances can vary from person to person.
You may wish to consider what airport annoyances, if any, are associated with the
property before you complete your purchase or lease and determine whether they
are acceptable to you. Prior to the First Final Map, the Applicant shall record the
“Airport Overflight Agreement” with the San Diego County Recorder’s Office and
provide the City of Chula Vista with a conformed copy. Each prospective
homeowner shall acknowledge receipt of the Airport Overflight Agreement,
confirming they have been informed of the vicinity of the airport prior to the
purchase or lease of a home.
b. NOTICE OF LANDFILL – This property is located in the vicinity of the Otay
Landfill which is a solid waste disposal facility. Customary solid waste disposal
operations may include, but are not limited to, noise, odors, dust, vibrations, birds
and vectors. Individual sensitivities to those annoyances can vary from person to
person. You may wish to consider which of these annoyances, if any, are associated
with the property before you complete your purchase or lease and determine
whether they are acceptable to you. A copy of this disclosure document shall be
recorded with the San Diego County Recorder's Office and a conformed copy
submitted to the City of Chula Vista as part of the Project approval. Each
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1259 of 1271
City Council Resolution No. 2021-______
Page 16
prospective homeowner shall sign the disclosure document confirming they have
been informed of the vicinity of the landfill prior to the purchase or lease of a home.
41. The Applicant shall submit a HOA budget for review and approval by the City Engineer.
Said budget shall include the following maintenance activities:
a. Private streets, private sewer and storm drain maintenance
b. Water quality facility maintenance and inspection.
42. The Applicant shall underground all utilities serving the subject property and existing
utilities located within or adjacent to the subject property in accordance with the applicable
Municipal Code Sections. Further, all new utilities serving the subject property shall be
under grounded prior to the issuance of Building Permits.
43. Prior to approval of any Design Review Applications, the Applicant shall submit the
Landscape Master Plan to the City for approval.
44. Prior to submittal of the first Landscape and Irrigation Plans for the Project, the Landscape
Master Plan shall be sufficiently complete to enable approval by the Director of
Development Services.
45. Prior to approval and issuance of the first Building Permit, the Applicant shall submit
complete landscape construction documents for approval demonstrating that the installed
landscape will comply with the City of Chula Vista Landscape Water Conservation
Ordinance (LWCO), Chapter 20.12 of the Municipal Code.
46. The Applicant shall deposit funds with the City of Chula Vista needed to purchase the
City’s land associated with the proposed buttress along the southern property line in
accordance with the Development Agreement. If the purchase of such land does not occur
for any reason, Applicant shall provide an alternative method acceptable to the City to
grade along the southern property line.
Planning:
47. Prior to issuance of the 240th Building Permit, the Applicant shall construct the on-site
Community Purpose Facility (CPF) consistent with Exhibit 23: Conceptual Community
Recreation Area as depicted in the Sunbow II, Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment and pay the
applicable CPF Benefit Fee for the remaining obligation in accordance with the
Development Agreement.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1260 of 1271
City Council Resolution No. 2021-______
Page 17
48. Prior to issuance of any Building Permit, the Applicant shall submit separate Design
Review Applications for each of the six residential neighborhoods to facilitate the City’s
issuance of separate Design Review project numbers for each residential neighborhood.
The Applicant shall package said separate Design Review Applications into one master
Design Review Package to facilitate the City’s comprehensive review of the entire Project
Site.
49. Prior to the issuance of the two hundredth (200th) Building Permit for the Project, the
Owner shall execute an amendment to the covenants and restrictions (Affordability
Covenant) set forth in that certain Regulatory Agreement dated June 1, 2000, between the
California Tax Credit Allocation Committee and Serena Sunbow, L.P. (Document No.
20000-0641390 in the San Diego County Recorder’s Office, Nov. 27, 2000), in accordance
with the Development Agreement.
Fire Department:
50. The Applicant shall include the design and permitting of underground fire service utilities
as part of Development Services Department Private Improvement Plans or Building
Permit Plans.
III. The following on-going conditions shall apply to the Project Site as long as it relies on
this approval:
51. With the exception of those items as defined in the Development Agreement, approval of
this request shall not waive compliance with any sections of the CVMC, nor any other
applicable City Ordinances in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance.
52. The Property Owner and Applicant shall and do agree to indemnify, protect, defend and
hold harmless City, its City Council members, Planning Commission members, officers,
employees and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages,
demands, claims and costs, including court costs and attorney’s fees (collectively,
liabilities) incurred by the City arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) City’s approval and
issuance of this Tentative Subdivision Map; (b) the City’s approval of any environmental
document prepared for this Project and (c) City’s approval or issuance of any other permit
or action, whether discretionary or non-discretionary, in connection with the Tentative
Subdivision Map contemplated on the Project Site. The Property Owner and Applicant
shall acknowledge their agreement to this provision by executing a copy of this Tentative
Subdivision Map where indicated below. The Property Owner’s and Applicant’s
compliance with this provision shall be binding on any and all of the Property Owner’s and
Applicant’s successors and assigns.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1261 of 1271
City Council Resolution No. 2021-______
Page 18
53. All of the terms, covenants and conditions contained herein shall be binding upon and inure
to the benefit of the heirs, successors, assigns and representatives of the Developer as to
any or all of the Property.
54. The Applicant shall comply with all requirements and guidelines of the City of Chula Vista
General Plan; the City’s Growth Management Ordinance; Chula Vista Landscape Manual,
Chula Design Plan and the Non-Renewable Energy Conservation Plan in effect on the
Effective Date, as defined and as set forth in the Development Agreement. Plans may be
subject to minor modifications by the appropriate department head, with the approval of
the City Manager, however, any material modifications shall be subject to approval by the
City Council.
55. If any of the terms, covenants or conditions contained herein shall fail to occur or if they
are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions
fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the
right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted including issuance of Building
Permits, deny, or further condition the subsequent approvals that are derived from the
approvals herein granted; institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with
said conditions; and/or seek damages for their violation. The Applicant shall be notified
10 days in advance prior to any of the above actions being taken by the City and shall be
given the opportunity to remedy any deficiencies identified by the City.
IV. GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020 NOTICE
Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d)(1), NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the
90 day period to protest the imposition of any impact fee, dedication, reservation, or other
exaction described in this resolution begins on the effective date of this resolution and any
such protest must be in a manner that complies with Government Code Section 66020(a)
and failure to follow timely this procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack,
set aside, void or annual imposition. The right to protest the fees, dedications, reservations,
or other exactions does not apply to planning, zoning, grading, or other similar application
processing fees or service fees in connection with the project; and it does not apply to any
fees, dedication, reservations, or other exactions which have been given notice similar to
this, nor does it revive challenges to any fees for which the Statute of Limitations has
previously expired.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1262 of 1271
City Council Resolution No. 2021-______
Page 19
V. EXECUTION AND RECORDATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL
The Property Owner and Applicant shall execute this document signing on the lines provided
below, indicating that the Property Owner and Applicant have each read, understood and
agreed to the conditions contained herein, and will implement same. Upon execution, this
document shall be recorded with the County Recorder of the County of San Diego, at the
sole expense of the Property Owner and/or Applicant, and a signed, stamped copy returned
to the City’s Development Services Department. Failure to return the signed and stamped
copy of this recorded document within 10 days of recordation shall indicate the Property
Owner/Applicant’s desire that the project, and the corresponding application for building
permits and/or a business license, be held in abeyance without approval.
________________________________ __________ _____
Signature of Property Owner Date
________________________________ _______________
Signature of Applicant Date
VI. CONFORMANCE WITH CITY SUBDIVISION MANUAL
The City Council does hereby find that the Project is in conformance with the City of Chula Vista
Subdivision Manual, CVMC Chapter 18.12 and the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
VII. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION
It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Resolution is dependent upon the
enforceability of each and every term, provision, and condition herein stated; and that in the event
that any one or more terms, provisions, or conditions are determined by a Court of competent
jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, this Resolution and the permit shall be deemed
to be automatically revoked and of no further force and effect ab initio.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does, based
on the findings, and the general and specific conditions included herein, hereby approve Tentative
Subdivision Map (CVT20-0002) for Sunbow II, Phase 3 in conjunction with the General Plan
Amendment (MPA20-0012), Sunbow II General Development Plan Amendment (MPA20-0013),
Sunbow II Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan (MPA20-0006) and FEIR (FEIR20-0002).
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1263 of 1271
City Council Resolution No. 2021-______
Page 20
Presented by: Approved as to form by:
_________________________ ______________________
Tiffany Allen Glen R. Googins
Director of Development Services City Attorney
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1264 of 1271
ORDINANCE NO.______________
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING
A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AND ACI SUNBOW, LLC (MPA21-0014) FOR
THE SUNBOW II, PHASE 3 PROJECT
I. RECITALS
A. Project Site
WHEREAS, the area of land which is the subject of this Resolution is represented
in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and is
commonly known as Sunbow II, Phase 3, and for the purpose of general description
consists of 135.7-acres within the Sunbow II Planned Community generally located
at the southeast corner of Brandywine Avenue and Olympic Parkway (Project Site);
and
B. Project; Application for Discretionary Approvals
WHEREAS, on February 20, 1990, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista
approved the Sunbow II Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan (Resolution No.
15524), inclusive of a 46.0-acre parcel designated for an Industrial Park, known as
Planning Area 23 (PA23); and
WHEREAS, since approval all other parcels covered by the Sunbow II SPA have
been built out and the PA23 site has remained vacant; and
WHEREAS, on January 7, 2020, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista approved
a Community Benefits Agreement (Resolution No. 2020-003) with ACI Sunbow,
LLC (Applicant/Owner), to allow the Owner to process entitlements to consider the
conversion of the PA23 land from industrial to residential uses and in exchange would
provide funding that can be used by the City to direct the construction of a job
enhancing use in Eastern Chula Vista or other signature project; and
WHEREAS, applications to consider such amendments to the City of Chula Vista
General Plan (MPA20-0012), Sunbow II General Development Plan (MPA20-0013),
Sunbow II, Phase 3 SPA Plan (MPA20-0006) and approval of an associated Tentative
Map (PCS20-0002) and Development Agreement (MPA21-0014) were filed with the
City of Chula Vista Development Services Department on February 26, 2020 by the
Applicant; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant proposes to rezone 67.5-acres of developable land on the
Project Site from light industrial to residential uses resulting in up to 534 multi-family
medium-high-density and 184 multi-family high-density residential dwelling units
(718 total units) on six parcels and designate the remaining 68.2-acres as Multiple
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1265 of 1271
Ordinance No. __________
Page 2
Species Conservation Program (MSCP) land, Poggi Creek Conservation Easement
areas and a conserved wetland resource area on sixteen parcels (Project); and
WHEREAS, immediately prior to this action, the City Council certified the EIR
(FEIR20-0002), pursuant to Resolution No. 2021-_A___; and
WHEREAS, immediately prior to this action, the City Council approved a General
Plan Amendment (MPA20-0012) and a Sunbow II General Development Plan
Amendment (MPA20-0013), pursuant to Resolution No. 2021-_B___; and
WHEREAS, immediately prior to this action, the City Council approved the
Sunbow II, Phase 3 SPA Plan Amendment (MPA20-0006), pursuant to Resolution
No. 2021-_C___ and rezone pursuant to Ordinance No. 2021-__D___; and
WHEREAS, immediately prior to this action, the City Council approved the
Tentative Map (PCS20-0002), pursuant to Resolution No. 2021-_E___; and
WHEREAS, due to waivers in Development Standards or fees related to, but not
limited to, a Jobs Enhancement Fund, Park Benefit Fee, Community Purpose
Facilities Benefit Fund, Affordable Housing obligations and purchase of City
owned land, a Development Agreement between the City and Applicant was
necessary; and
WHEREAS, approval of the Development Agreement serves as the final step in
Project approval; and
C. Environmental Determination
WHEREAS, the Director of Development Services has reviewed the proposed
project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and
has determined that there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record, that
the project may have a significant effect on the environment; therefore, the Director
of Development Services has caused the preparation of an Environmental Impact
Report (EIR20-0002); and
WHEREAS, the City Council has certified and hereby finds that the FEIR has been
prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, and the Environmental
Procedures of the City of Chula Vista; and
D. Planning Commission Record of Application
WHEREAS, the Director of Development Services set the time and place for a
public hearing on the Project, and notice of the public hearing, together with its
purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the
City, and its mailing to property owners within 500 feet of the exterior boundary of
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1266 of 1271
Ordinance No. __________
Page 3
the Project Site at least ten (10) days prior to the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing and
recommended that the City Council approve the Project; and
WHEREAS, the proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning
Commission at the public hearing on the Project and the Minutes and Resolution
resulting therefrom, are incorporated into the record of this proceeding; and
E. City Council Record of Application
WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for a public hearing on the Project
and notices of said hearing, together with its purposes given by its publication in a
newspaper of general circulation in the City, and its mailing to property owners within
500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the Project Site at least ten (10) days prior to the
public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the duly noticed and called public hearing on the Project was held before
the City Council in the Council Chambers in the City Hall, Chula Vista Civic Center,
276 Fourth Avenue, to receive the recommendations of the Planning Commission,
and to hear public testimony with regard to the same.
II. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby find,
determine and ordain as follows:
A. CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN
The City Council finds that the proposed amendment to the Sunbow II, Phase 3
SPA Plan and related documents are consistent with the City of Chula Vista General
Plan. The General Plan envisioned Sunbow II as an efficient self-contained village.
B. APPROVAL OF PROPOSED AGREEMENT
The City Council hereby approves the Development Agreement between the City
of Chula Vista and ACI Sunbow, LLC as represented in Exhibit B attached hereto
and incorporated herein by this reference.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1267 of 1271
Ordinance No. __________
Page 4
III. EFFECTIVE DATE
This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force on the thirtieth day from and after its adoption.
Presented by: Approved as to form by:
______________________ _______________________
Tiffany Allen Glen R. Googins
Director of Development Services City Attorney
Exhibit A and B to be inserted later.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1268 of 1271
1
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
June 9, 2021, 6:00 p.m.
Virtual, Via Teleconference
Present: Commissioner Burroughs, Commissioner De La Rosa,
Commissioner Milburn, Commissioner Nava, Commissioner
Torres, Vice Chair Zaker, Chair Gutierrez
Also Present: Deputy City Attorney Shirey, Director Development Services
Allen, Secretary Salvacion
Others Present DSD Assistant Director, Laura Black, Associate Planner, Oscar
Romero
Pursuant to the Governor of the State of California's Executive Order N-29-20, and in
the interest of public health and safety during the COVID -19 pandemic, members of the
Planning Commission and staff participated in this meeting via teleconference. All votes
were taken by roll call.
_____________________________________________________________________
1. CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista was
called to order at 6:03 p.m. via teleconference.
2. ROLL CALL
Secretary Salvacion called the roll.
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG AND MOMENT OF SILENCE
Commissioner Nava led the Pledge of Allegiance.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1269 of 1271
2
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were none.
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Notice of the hearing was given in accordance with legal requirements, and the
hearing was held on the date and no earlier than the specified in the notice.
5.1 CONSIDERATION OF A DESIGN REVIEW FOR A TWO-STORY
BUILDING AND A DETACHED CARWASH AT 1875 AUTO PARK
AVENUE
Associate Planner, Oscar Romero gave a slide presentation on the item
and answered questions of the Commission.
Chair Gutierrez opened the public hearing and called for a four-minute
pause to allow members of the public to submit electronic comments on
the item. Secretary Salvacion announced that n o electronic comments had
been received and no comments had been received via email.
There being no members of the public who submitted a comment, Chair
Gutierrez closed the public hearing.
Moved by Burroughs
Seconded by Torres
Conduct a public hearing and adopt Resolution DR20-0025 approving the
project, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained
therein.
Yes (7): Burroughs, De La Rosa, Milburn, Nava, Torres, Zaker, and Gabe
Gutierrez, Chair
Carried (7 to 0)
6. ACTION ITEMS
Chair Gutierrez called for a two-minute pause to allow members of the public to
submit any final electronic comments. Secretary Salvacion announced that no
electronic comments had been received and no comments had been received via
email.
6.1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MAY 26, 2021
Approve the minutes dated May 26, 2021.
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1270 of 1271
3
Carried
OTHER BUSINESS
7. STAFF COMMENTS
There were none.
8. CHAIR'S COMMENTS
There were none.
9. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS
The Commission requested a status report on the Balanced Communit y
Affordable Housing Policy Update at a future meeting.
10. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:46 p.m.
Minutes prepared by: Patricia Salvacion, Planning Commission Secretary
_________________________
Patricia Salvacion, Secretary
2021-07-14 PC Agenda Page 1271 of 1271