HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppendix A - Notice of Preparation and Comment Letters 1
NOTICE OF PROJECT SCOPING AND
NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT BY THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA has prepared a scoping presentation to solicit public
input on the scope of an Environmental Impact Report, as summarized below:
PROJECT: Environmental Impact Report (EIR22-0001) for the Nakano Project.
NOTICE: This notice was released by the City on May 5th, 2022. State Clearinghouse noticing extends the NOP review
period through July 14th, 2022.
PURPOSE: Solicit public comment on the type and extent of the environmental analyses to be performed under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), such as: Aesthetics, Agricultural and Forestry Resources, Air Quality,
Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Energy, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards & Hazardous
Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use, Mineral Resources, Noise, Population/Housing, Public Services and
Utilities, Recreation, Transportation, Tribal Cultural Resources, and Wildfire.
DATES: May 5th to July 14th, 2022 online (see review and commenting instructions below)
The purpose of the scoping presentation is to inform the public that the lead agency, the City of Chula Vista Development
Services Department (DSD), is evaluating a project under CEQA and set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21065 to
solicit public comment regarding the type and extent of environmental analyses to be undertaken. At the scoping stage,
DSD describes the preliminary concept of the project, and asks for public feedback regarding the scope of the EIR. To
provide such information and in the interest of the public health and safety, DSD has prepared a scoping presentation.
HOW TO REVIEW THE PRESENTATION: Members of the public will be able to access a link to watch a pre-recorded
presentation at chulavistaca.gov/EnvironmentalNotices. The link will remain live from May 5th through July 14th, 2022.
HOW TO SUBMIT COMMENTS: Visit the City’s online eComment portal at:
chulavistaca.gov/EnvironmentalNotices
All comments regarding the scope of the EIR must be submitted by July 14th, 2022 by 5:00 pm. All comments submitted
online will be available to the public and City staff and the applicant using the eComment portal.
If you have difficulty or are unable to submit a comment via the website above, please contact Gabriel Innocenzi at
ginnocenzi@chulavistaca.gov or 619-409-5901 for assistance.
Upon completion of the scoping process, comments received on the EIR scope will be considered in the preparation of the
draft environmental document.
ACCESSIBILITY: Individuals with disabilities are invited to request modifications or accommodations in order to access
and/or participate in the scoping process by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at cityclerk@chulavistaca.gov or (619) 691-
5041 (California Relay Service is available for the hearing impaired by dialing 711) at least forty-eight hours in advance of
the opening date of the forum.
2
NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT FOR THE NAKANO PROJECT
PROJECT LOCATION
The 23.77-acre project site is located east of Interstate 805 (I-805), northwest of Dennery Road, and south of the
Otay River in the City of Chula Vista, California (Figure 1). The site Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) is
624-071-0200. The site is located on the southern edge of the City of Chula Vista, directly adjacent to the City of
San Diego. The project would also include off-site access improvements on adjacent parcels located in the City
of San Diego as well as off-site remedial grading in the City of Chula Vista.
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND SETTING
The project is located in the City of Chula Vista but is adjacent to City of San Diego areas on the three sides
(west, south, and east). Due to the intervening Otay River and adjacent developments, vehicular site access
from the City of Chula Vista, as well as the provision of public services by Chula Vista, would be difficult. As
such, Annexation of the site from the City of Chula Vista (and Otay Water District) to the City of San Diego is
being considered as a part of the project. As further described below under Project Description, the proposed
project includes two scenarios: 1) the Annexation Scenario with the site being annexed into the City of San
Diego and 2) the No Annexation Scenario with the site remaining in the City of Chula Vista. Under CEQA
Guidelines Section 15051(d), in cases where two public agencies have a substantial claim to be the lead agency,
the public agencies may, by agreement, contract or other means, designate one public agency to be the lead
agency and provide for cooperative efforts. Both the City of San Diego and the City of Chula Vista have a
substantial claim to be the lead agency but have entered into a cooperative memorandum of understanding
designating the City of Chula Vista as the lead agency with the City of San Diego as a responsible agency.
The project site is currently vacant and was historically used for agricultural purposes, such as row crop
cultivation. Agricultural operations ceased on the site circa 2000. Former agricultural building foundations are
located in the central area of the site. The majority of the site is flat and consists of disturbed habitat and non-
native grasslands, with elevation increasing towards the southern portion of the site. There is also an unimproved
drainage corridor along the eastern boundary of the project site that conveys stormwater runoff from the Kaiser
Permanente Otay Mesa Medical Offices to the south through the site to the Otay River. Native vegetation is
located along the southern slope and along the drainage that extends north-south along the eastern perimeter.
Several dirt trails extend through the project site from the southeastern corner near Dennery Road to the north
towards the Otay Valley River Park.
The project area is currently designated as Open Space by the City of Chula Vista General and is zoned as
Agricultural Zone A-8 by the City of Chula Vista Zoning Code. The off-site remedial grading area within Chula
Vista is also designated as Open Space but is zoned as Floodway Zone F1. The off-site primary and secondary
access improvement areas within the City of San Diego are designated as Residential – Low Medium by the
City of San Diego Otay Mesa Community Plan and zoned as RM-2-4 by the San Diego Zoning Code. The
project area is identified as Open Space within the Otay Valley Regional Park Concept Plan and is surrounded
to the south and east by land under jurisdiction of the City of San Diego Otay Mesa Community Plan.
Land uses surrounding the project site include multi-family residential development to the east and medical office
uses to the south. Open space area associated with the Otay River and Otay Valley Regional Park is located to
the north of the project site, and the site is bordered to the west by I-805. Several utilities and their easements
exist on-site. A 30-inch reclaimed water line and a San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E) 69 kilovolt power line
3
exist along the eastern boundary. An SDG&E above-ground power line also extends along the southern boundary.
A 27-inch sewer pipeline extends from the northeast corner to the former location of buildings on-site and through
to the western site boundary, and along the western site boundary. A 12-inch water line is located off-site adjacent
to the eastern site boundary. There is also a California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) easement in the
northeastern corner of the site that contains infrastructure associated with the I-805 corridor.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project includes two scenarios; 1) the Annexation Scenario with the site being annexed into the
City of San Diego and 2) the No Annexation Scenario with the site remaining in the City of Chula Vista. Both
scenarios include the same project footprint and physical project design.
The project proposes a residential development with supporting amenities (Figure 2). The proposed residential
uses would consist of 215 multi-family residential dwelling units, including 61 detached condominiums, 84
duplexes, and 70 multi-family dwelling units. The project provides for 22 affordable units. However, to represent
a conservative analysis of potential unit mix, the EIR will assume a maximum of 221 residential units.
Recreational amenities would include two “mini” parks, an overlook park associated with the Otay Valley
Regional Park, and a trail connection to the Otay Valley Regional Park. Primary site access would be provided
via an off-site connection to Dennery Road, and secondary emergency access would be provided via a connection
to Golden Sky Way in the River Edge Terrace residential development. Internal roadways would be private, which
would require a deviation for the No Annexation Scenario. Off-site remedial grading would be required to the
north of the site within the City of Chula Vista.
While the physical improvements proposed would be the same under either project scenario, the discretionary
actions would differ. The No Annexation Scenario would include adoption of a General Plan Amendment and a
new Specific Plan, out of service agreements for services and utilities, certification of the EIR, adoption of CEQA
Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (MMRP). More specifically, the General Plan Amendment would change the land use designation to
Residential Medium and the Specific Plan would implement a new residential zone.
The Annexation Scenario would include the actions listed above in addition to annexation of the site from the
City of Chula Vista and Otay Water District to the City of San Diego, an annexation agreement, City of San Diego
and City of Chula Vista Sphere of Influence Revision, City of San Diego and City of Chula Vista General Plan
Amendment, Otay Mesa Community Plan Amendment, prezone in San Diego, San Diego Resolution of Initiation
and Chula Vista Resolution Support, a tentative map, certification of the EIR, and Adoption of CEQA Findings
and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adoption of MMRP. Under this scenario, the site would
ultimately be designated as Residential – Low Medium in the City of San Diego General Plan and zoned as
RT-1-4 (Residential-Townhouse) in the City of San Diego. The Local Agency Formation Commission would
provide oversight of the annexation process. The Otay Water District would be a responsible agency considering
the need to annex out of the Otay Water District and into the City of San Diego water services area.
Both scenarios are anticipated to need approvals from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality
Control Board, and California Department of Fish and Wildlife due to the proposed changes to the on-site
drainage. The project as proposed would not encroach into the on-site Caltrans easement, and no encroachment
permit is included as a part of the project.
4
EIR CONTENTS
Potential Environmental Effects of the Project
The City of Chula Vista has determined that the project may cause significant adverse environmental effects and
potentially significant indirect, direct, and cumulative environmental effects. An EIR is, therefore, required to
comply with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060 and 15081. Specifically, it has been determined that an EIR will
be prepared.
In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines and the City’s Environmental Procedures, the environmental impact
analysis will describe the environmental setting of the project, identify potential environmental impacts, address
the significance of potential impacts, identify mitigation measures to address potentially significant environmental
impacts, and determine the significance of impacts after mitigation.
The scope of the EIR for the project will be based in part on comments received in response to this NOP and
public input received during the public scoping period. The EIR will address each of the environmental issues
summarized herein. While the City of Chula Vista is the Lead Agency, both the City of Chula Vista and City of
San Diego regulations will be utilized to inform impact thresholds and analyzed for consistency where
appropriate. A MMRP will be prepared to document implementation of the required mitigation measures. For
each mitigation measure, the timing of implementation will be identified and tied to a specific project action.
Responsible parties will be identified to implement and monitor the satisfaction of each mitigation measure. The
following environmental issues will be analyzed in the EIR.
Aesthetics
This section will describe all regulations, policies and guidelines governing views and aesthetic considerations.
This section will evaluate grading associated with the project and the potential change in the visual environment
based on the proposed development, including substantial effects on scenic vistas and potential impact to scenic
resources, if any are present in the vicinity of the site. Further, this section will evaluate any potential conflicts
with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.
Agricultural and Forestry Resources
This section will address the project’s potential to impact farmland. This will include an evaluation of the existing
zoning and if any Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency are present.
If the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program identifies potential agricultural resources, the analysis will
consider the potential for the site to be utilized for agricultural purposes based on the present conditions of the
site such as soil quality, water availability, climate, topography, and surrounding uses. As no off-site farmland
exists adjacent to the site, no off-site impacts are anticipated. No forestry resources exist on or adjacent to the site,
and no impacts to forestry resources are expected.
Air Quality
The air quality section of the EIR will describe the existing air quality in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB) in the
vicinity of the project site, list relevant policies that relate to air quality in the SDAB and identify potential air
quality impacts. Project consistency with the Regional Air Quality Strategy will be evaluated. In addition, air
emissions from the project during construction and operations will be quantified and evaluated per applicable
federal and state ambient air quality standards. Potential exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations and odors will also be assessed. Due to the project location within 500 feet of the freeway, a Health
5
Risk Assessment will also be completed in accordance with City of Chula Vista policy. While the impacts from
the freeway to the project would be from the environment on the project, the result will be disclosed for
informational purposes in the EIR.
Biological Resources
This section of the EIR will address the potential direct and indirect impacts of the project on sensitive biological
resources. The evaluation will be based on project-specific biological resources investigations as well as regional
documentation of biological resources. Recent biological resource surveys have been conducted for the site,
including species-specific surveys, rare plant survey, and a jurisdictional delineation. In addition, project vicinity
and regional biological resources information (i.e., Multiple Species Conservation Plan [MSCP]) will be reviewed
for the study area. The analysis will also include an analysis of the project’s compliance with the City of Chula
Vista’s MSCP and Resource Management Plan as well as the City of San Diego’s MSCP. Indirect impacts will
also be evaluated, including indirect impacts to the nearby Otay River and the Otay Valley River Park. A
Biological Resources Technical Report shall be prepared for all areas of potential effect of the project and will be
included as an appendix to the EIR.
Cultural Resources
This section of the EIR will address the project’s potential impacts to cultural resources. Proposed site grading
and other construction activities have the potential to impact unknown resources as well as known cultural sites.
This will be discussed in detail in the EIR. A Cultural Resources Technical Report shall be prepared for all areas
of potential effect of the proposed project and will be included as an appendix to the EIR.
Energy
This section of the EIR will calculate the energy usage (fuel, natural gas, and electricity) associated with the
project and analyze whether or not the project would potentially result in a significant environmental impact due
to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, or conflict with or obstruct a state or
local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
Geology and Soils
A geology and soils technical report will be prepared and incorporated into the EIR. The project includes soil
remediation to ensure soils are in suitable condition for the proposed development. This section will evaluate
geology and soils issues pursuant to significance criteria based on Appendix G of the CEQA guidelines, including
issues related to soils suitability, and the potential for adverse geotechnical conditions such as slope stability and
seismic risks.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions analysis will include calculations of the greenhouse gas emissions
associated with the project and will identify any GHG reduction measures to reduce potential project GHG
emission impacts. The GHG section would also analyze the project’s consistency with the applicable city’s
Climate Action Plan and other applicable relevant GHG plans, policies, or regulations. The GHG calculations
will be included within an appendix to the EIR.
6
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
This section of the EIR will address risk of upset, hazardous emissions, proximity to airports and the potential
interference with emergency response plans. The radius study consists of a database search of regulatory agency
records to determine whether there are currently, or were previously, any reports of hazardous materials
contamination or usage at the site or contamination at other sites within the search radius. A Phase I environmental
site assessment will be provided to identify known and/or potential hazardous materials within the project site
and adjacent area. The project will be required to comply with local, state and federal hazardous material
regulations. The analysis will address if the proposed project would result in any increased risk to the environment
related to hazards and hazardous materials. The environmental site assessment will be included as an appendix to
the EIR.
Hydrology and Water Quality
A water quality and hydrology/drainage technical report will be prepared and incorporated into the EIR. This
section will evaluate effects of the project related to increases in impervious surfaces and effects on groundwater
recharge, water quality issues related to urban runoff, and storm drain capacity issues resulting from changes in
runoff patterns. The project will be required to comply with hydromodification regulations, as well local, state,
and federal regulations pertaining to hydrology and water quality. The project includes on-site detention to control
project site runoff, as well as the treatment of project stormwater to control water quality prior to discharge to the
north. The analysis will include addressing potential impacts to downstream waters such as the Otay River,
including downstream beneficial uses and biological resources. This analysis will be supported by drainage and
stormwater technical studies that will be included as appendixes to the EIR.
Land Use and Planning
The project proposes General Plan Amendments as well as rezoning or prezoning, depending on the project
scenario. This section will identify all of the relevant goals, objectives and recommendations within applicable
plans/ordinances that pertain to the project related to minimizing environmental effects. This section will analyze
whether project implementation will be consistent with these plans and policies. This will include addressing the
City of San Diego and City of Chula Vista General Plans as well as the City of San Diego Otay Mesa Community
Plan. If any inconsistency is identified, the analysis will address if the inconsistent would lead to a significant
physical environmental impact.
Mineral Resources
The EIR shall identify if the site contains significant mineral resources based on available mineral resource
mapping information. The conditions of the site and surrounding area will be assessed to determine the
significance of any mineral resources present. Impacts shall be evaluated based on if the resource provides a
significant benefit to the local, regional, or state residents.
Noise
A Noise Report will be prepared for the proposed project and the results of the technical report will be
incorporated into the EIR. This section of the EIR will evaluate the project’s potential to increase noise levels
above the baseline ambient noise condition and will address compliance with the noise policies and standards
identified in the City of Chula Vista’s General Plan and Municipal Code, as well as the City of San Diego General
Plan and ordinances. Both short-term, construction-related noise, and long-term operational noise issues will be
7
evaluated. While an impact of the environment onto the project, the adjacent freeway noise levels will be
discussed for informational purposes.
Paleontological Resources
This section of the EIR will address the project’s potential impacts to paleontological resources. Proposed on- and
off-site grading and other construction activities have the potential to impact unknown paleontological resources.
A Paleontological Resources Study will be prepared and included as an appendix to the EIR.
Population and Housing
The project purposes housing on a site designated as open space and zoned for agricultural uses. This section will
analyze the project’s effects on population and housing, both within Chula Vista, San Diego, and the region. The
region is noted to currently have a shortage of housing, including affordable housing. As no existing houses exist
on the site and the site is not currently planned for housing, the project is not expected to displace existing housing
or people. Population projections will be based on housing unit type and anticipated occupancy. The discussion
of housing and population issues will be on population growth, which is primarily a “growth inducing impact.”
The focus of the analysis shall be if the project would result in physical environmental impacts. A housing
technical report will be prepared and included as an appendix to the EIR to assess housing conditions and impacts.
Public Services
This section of the EIR will evaluate potential environmental impacts related to public services. The existing
services and infrastructure will be identified and the potential for impacts to fire protection (including emergency
medical services), police services, schools, parks, and other services. The analysis in this section will focus on
the potential increased demand on services based on the applicable City-approved standards and measures, and
the associated physical improvements necessary to meet those service levels. As needed, coordination will be
completed with the service providers to obtain information regarding existing service levels and the potential
project impact to services. The No Annexation Scenario is noted to require out of service agreements with the
City of San Diego in order to obtain adequate public services. The physical environmental impacts to provide
public services to the proposed project will be evaluated. A public facilities plan will be prepared to address public
services and included as an appendix to the EIR.
Recreation
This section of the EIR will evaluate the project’s potential to increase use of existing parks and recreational
facilities as well as the environmental impact of any recreational facilities included in the project. In addition, the
project’s effects to the adjacent Otay Valley River Park will be evaluated.
Transportation
This section of the EIR will be based on the transportation impact study and will address potential conflicts with
a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system or CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3,
subdivision (b). This section will address project Vehicle Miles Traveled. Further, this section will analyze
whether or not the project would substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or result in
inadequate emergency access. The analysis will address multi-modal transportation impacts, including pedestrian
and bicycle modes of transportation. Thresholds will be utilized based on the location of the impact and the
applicable City’s regulations and standards.
8
Tribal Cultural Resources
This section of the EIR will address the project’s potential impacts to tribal cultural resources. This project will
involve Assembly Bill 52 and Senate Bill 18 consultations with California Native American Tribes to identify
and protect tribal cultural resources. A Cultural Resources Technical Report shall be prepared for all areas of
potential effect of the project and will be included as an appendix to the EIR. The proposed site grading and other
construction activities will be evaluated to assess potential to impacts to tribal cultural resources. This will be
discussed in detail in the EIR.
Utilities and Service Systems
This section of the EIR will evaluate potential impacts on utilities and service systems. The existing services and
infrastructure will be identified and the potential for impacts to water, sewer, drainage, electrical, solid waste
disposal, and telecommunication services. The analysis in this section will focus on the potential increased
demand on services based on City-approved standards and measures. This analysis will be supported by water
and sewer demand technical studies, which will be included as appendixes to the EIR.
Wildfire
This section will analyze the project’s potential wildfire hazard impacts. The site is located within a Very High
Fire Hazard Severity Zone. The analysis will address if the project would substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, exacerbate wildfire risks through winds or installation
or maintenance of associated infrastructure, or expose people or structures to significant risks, including
downslope or downstream flooding or landslides. The site’s emergency access and evacuation will be assessed
for compliance with State and local regulations. A Fire Protection Plan will be prepared and included as an
appendix to the EIR.
Alternatives
This section will consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible project alternatives which avoid or
substantially reduce the project's significant impacts while meeting the basic project objectives. Alternatives may
include a reduced density/intensity alternative, land use alternatives, and other alternatives developed in
coordination with the City of Chula Vista once additional details regarding the significant impacts of the project
are determined. The Alternatives section will include a comparative environmental analysis of the various
potentially feasible project alternatives in relation to the proposed project.
Other Mandatory Sections
Other mandatory sections that will be addressed in the EIR include Cumulative Impacts, Growth Inducement,
Effects Found Not to Be Significant, and Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes. Topics discussed above
determined to be less than significant may be discussed in the Effects Found Not to Be Significant section of the
EIR.
FIGURE 1
Project Location
Map Source: DUDEK
M:\JOBS\3496-1\env\graphics\fig1.ai 04/19/22 fmm
0 700Feet
Da
t
e
:
2
/
1
7
/
2
0
2
2
-
L
a
s
t
s
a
v
e
d
b
y
:
c
k
u
b
a
c
k
i
-
P
a
t
h
:
Z
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
j
1
2
4
7
6
0
1
\
M
A
P
D
O
C
\
D
O
C
U
M
E
N
T
\
0
2
N
a
k
a
n
o
\
N
O
P
\
F
i
g
u
r
e
1
_
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
.
m
x
d
MA IN S TMAIN S T
OOCCEEAA
EENNNN
SOURCE: NAIP 2020
Project Boundary
Off-site Impact
City Limit
FIGURE 1
Chula Vista
Solana Beach
Encinitas
San Diego
Carlsbad
Oceanside
Lemon Grove
La Mesa
El Cajon
Santee
Poway
San
Marcos
Escondido
Vista
Imperial
Beach
Del Mar
Coronado
R iv e r s i d e
C ou n ty
Me x i c o
905
209
75
52
163
188
54
125
111195
56
86
78
74
67
76
94
79
8
15
215
8805
5
Pacific Ocean
S A N D I E G O
C O U N T Y
Project Site
805
C i t y o f S an Di e g o
C i t y o f C h u l a V i s ta
10
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
FIGURE 2
Site Plan
Map Source: Civil Sense
M:\JOBS\3496-1\env\graphics\fig2.ai 04/19/22 fmm
P2.2P3.1
C
P2.1 P1.1
A
P3.1P1.1
B
P2.1 P1.1
A
P4A P3 P2 P1 P4BRP3RP2RP1RP3RP3P4AP3P2P1P4BRP3RP2RP1RP3RP3
P4BR P2R
P3.1 P1.1
B
P2.2P3.1
C
P2.1 P1.1
A
P3.1 P1.1
B
P2.2P3.1
C
P2.1 P1.1
A
P2.2P3.1
C
P2.1P1.1
A
P3.1P1.1
B
P2.2 P3.1
C
P2.1P1.1
A
P3.1P1.1
B
P2.2 P3.1
C
P2.1P1.1
A
P2.2 P3.1
C
P2.1 P1.1
A
P3.1 P1.1
B
P2.2P3.1
C
P2.1 P1.1
A
P3.1 P1.1
B
P2.2P3.1
C
P2.1 P1.1
A
P2.1 P1.1
P2.2P3.1
P2.1P1.1
13475 Danielson Street, Suite 150
Poway, CA 92064
12
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
9485 Aero Drive, MS 413
San Diego, CA 92123
sandiego.gov/planning/
T (619) 235-5200
sandiego.gov
Planning Department
June 3, 2022
Gabriel Innocenzi, Senior Planning Technician
City of Chula Vista
Development Services Department
276 Fourth Avenue, Building B
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Subject: City of San Diego Comments on the Notice of Project Scoping and Notice of
Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the Nakano Project
(EIR22-0001)
Dear Mr. Innocenzi:
The City of San Diego (City) has received the Notice of Project Scoping and Notice of
Preparation (NOP) of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Nakano Project (EIR22-
0001) prepared by the City of Chula Vista and has distributed to applicable City departments
for review. The City, as a Responsible Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), has reviewed the NOP and appreciates this opportunity to provide comments to the
City of Chula Vista. Continued coordination between the City, City of Chula Vista, and other
local, regional, state, and federal agencies will be essential, especially if future ministerial or
discretionary actions on behalf of the City are required. In response to this request for public
comments, the City has the following comments on the NOP for your consideration.
• • •
City of San Diego Planning Department
Tait Galloway, Interim Deputy Director (TGalloway@sandiego.gov / 619-533-4550)
1. The Land Use and Planning section of the Draft EIR should discuss the Otay Mesa
Public Facilities Financing Plan, Otay Mesa Infrastructure Financing District, and the
Northwest Otay Mesa Maintenance Assessment District.
Rebecca Malone, Program Manager (RMalone@sandiego.gov / 619-446-5371)
1. The City will act as a “Responsible Agency” as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section
15381: “a public agency which proposes to carry out or approve a project, for which a
Lead Agency is preparing or has prepared an EIR or Negative Declaration”. The City
will determine whether all potential environmental impacts, mitigation measures,
monitoring program(s), and findings have been properly addressed and adopted by
Page 2 of 5
Gabriel Innocenzi, Senior Planning Technician
June 3, 2021
9485 Aero Drive, MS 413
San Diego, CA 92123
sandiego.gov/planning/
T (619) 235-5200
sandiego.gov
the Lead Agency (City of Chula Vista) prior to any discretionary actions taken by the
City.
2. The goal of the City’s comments and clarifications on the NOP is to aid the City of
Chula Vista in further understanding the City’s requirements to ensure that the Draft
EIR incorporates the analysis needed by the City for future actions to allow for project
implementation.
3. Please refer to the Development Services Department (DSD) website
at http://www.sandiego.gov/development-services/ for guidance on permit submittal
requirements. Staff from the DSD will be able to assist the City of Chula Vista with
any future ministerial permitting and/or discretionary actions (when applicable)
associated with the proposed project.
Marlon Pangilinan, Senior Planner (MPangilinan@sandiego.gov / 619-235-5293)
1. The project site is located adjacent to areas where the Community Plan
Implementation Overlay Zone (CPIOZ) in the Otay Mesa Community Plan would
require consistency with applicable Urban Design Element policies and
archaeological, paleontological, biological, and traffic studies would need to be
conducted.
Elena Pascual, Senior Planner (EPascual@sandiego.gov / 619-533-5928)
1. The Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) should describe any possible real estate
or other discretionary actions that the City may be required to take as a Responsible
Agency under CEQA for the project. This should be included in a separate section
within the chapter containing the Project Description and will ensure reliance on the
analysis in the Final EIR for any subsequent discretionary and/or ministerial actions
by the City.
2. Any work within the City’s Public Right-of-Way (PROW) will require ministerial
review and approval in accordance with all the applicable chapters of the San Diego
Municipal Code including the supplemental development regulations contained in the
Land Development Code, such as, but not limited to compliance with the City’s Storm
Water Runoff and Drainage Regulations, Grading Regulations, Mobility Choices
Regulations, and Historical Resources Regulations (Archaeology), and should be
included in the Project Description as well as the applicable issue area chapters of the
Draft EIR.
3. The Project as proposed is located in an area where cultural resources (archaeological
and tribal) have the potential to be encountered during ground disturbing activities
associated with project implementation. A thorough evaluation of potential impacts
should be conducted and prepared in accordance with CEQA and the City of San
Diego’s Land Development Code Historical Resources Regulations and Land
Development Manual Historical Resources Guidelines. This evaluation will determine
the presence or absence of resources in the project area, significance of the resources,
and identify all applicable mitigation for direct or indirect impacts, including a
requirement for monitoring by representatives of the local Kumeyaay Community,
especially when working within the City’s PROW.
4. Early consultation with local Kumeyaay tribal representatives in accordance with
Assembly Bill 52 should be conducted prior to release of the Draft EIR and include all
relevant information to ensure a meaningful dialogue regarding whether the project
Page 3 of 5
Gabriel Innocenzi, Senior Planning Technician
June 3, 2021
9485 Aero Drive, MS 413
San Diego, CA 92123
sandiego.gov/planning/
T (619) 235-5200
sandiego.gov
will impact tribal cultural resources as defined in CEQA and identify measures to
reduce and/or mitigate impacts.
5. The Public Utilities chapter of the Draft EIR should address how existing and
proposed utilities within the project footprint will be protected, relocated, or
upgraded as a result of the proposed improvements associated with the project.
6. The Project’s transportation analysis should be consistent with the City’s
Transportation Study Manual adopted in November 2020. This includes preparation
of a Local Mobility Analysis (LMA) that would study the Project’s effects on the local
transportation network in the Project’s influence area. The transportation analysis
should address the project’s effects on vehicle miles travelled (VMT).
7. The Project should clearly define where proposed improvements would become City
of San Diego assets, including but not limited to, streets, sidewalks, bikeways,
streetlights, traffic signals, and stormwater infrastructure.
City of San Diego Parks and Recreation Department
Andy Field, Director (AField@sandiego.gov / 619-235-1110)
1. The annexation of Nakano into the City of San Diego impacts the existing Ocean View
Hills Maintenance Assessment District (OVH MAD). Based on what is known of the
project at this time, the new development should ultimately become part of the OVH
MAD as it certainly derives benefit from the improvements and activities provided by
the existing district. The annexation of the project area into the OVH MAD should be
required as a condition of development. Further analysis would be necessary,
including a close examination of development plans, in order to determine whether
the project seeks to add additional improvements or activities. In this case, either an
HOA or the creation of a new zone of benefit could be considered. The annexation
process will likely mirror a new-formation process and require a vote of the affected
properties. Please contact the City’s Parks and Recreation Department if the City of
Chula Vista has any questions and whether the City can meet with the developer to
ensure this process to form a MAD is considered as part of the effort to bring Nakano
into the City of San Diego. The City can provide more details and context on this as
the City of Chula Vista feels is appropriate.
Laura Ball, Project Officer II (LBall@sandiego.gov / 619-685-1301)
1. The project is within the Otay Valley Regional Park (OVRP) Concept Plan boundary.
The OVRP is jointly administered by the County of San Diego and the cities of Chula
Vista and San Diego. The Draft EIR should addresses potential impacts to the OVRP
and including biological resources, cultural resources, hydrology and recreation (trail
connections within and to the OVRP).
Mark Berninger, Senior Planner (MBerninger@sandiego.gov / 619-685-1314)
1. If the site is annexed into the City of San Diego, the City’s Parks and Recreation
Department would like to have final sign-off before it is conveyed.
Page 4 of 5
Gabriel Innocenzi, Senior Planning Technician
June 3, 2021
9485 Aero Drive, MS 413
San Diego, CA 92123
sandiego.gov/planning/
T (619) 235-5200
sandiego.gov
City of San Diego Environmental Services Department
Jane-Marie Fajardo, Senior Planner (JFajardo@sandiego.gov / 858-492-5025)
1. Page 2, Introduction, under Project Location: APN 624-071-0200 is approximately
250-300 feet from the closed Shinohara II Burn Ash Site. Current interpretation of
regulations generally apply many regulatory requirements to any activity within
1000’ of a former disposal site. Due to potential liabilities associated with former
disposal sites, careful consideration should be exercised if the City of San Diego would
like to explore the possibility of parcel annexation.
2. Page 8, EIR Contents, under Utilities and Service Systems: General comment, SB 1383
is in effect and should be included in this section.
City of San Diego Stormwater Department
Mark Stephens, Associate Planner (MGStephens@sandiego.gov / 858-541-4361)
1. Page 6, Hazards and Hazardous Materials: If potential flood hazards are not
addressed in this section, please refer the reader to where they will be discussed in
the Hydrology and Water Quality section.
2. Page 6, Hydrology and Water Quality: Thank you for including consideration of
hydrology and water quality and the commitment to conduct supporting drainage and
stormwater technical studies and prepare a water quality and hydrology/drainage
technical report. Given the proposed site annexation to the City of San Diego, please
note and assure compliance with the most current version of the City of San Diego
Stormwater Standards Manual, City Stormwater Design Manual, City Municipal
Waterways Maintenance Plan, San Diego Bay Watershed Management Area Water
Quality Improvement Plan, and other key source documents. (Please contact the City
of San Diego Stormwater Department for any assistance needed in this area.)
3. Page 8, Utilities and Service Systems: Existing services and infrastructure are to be
identified and potential impacts evaluated for water, sewer, drainage, electrical, solid
waste disposal, and telecommunications services, and water and sewer demand
technical studies to support this analysis are referenced. Drainage and stormwater
technical studies described under the Hydrology and Water Quality heading on page 6
of the NOP should also be considered. Key findings of these technical studies dealing
with drainage infrastructure should also be reflected and at least a cross-reference
made to the Hydrology and Water Quality section of the Draft EIR.
• • •
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the NOP. Please feel free to contact
Rebecca Malone, Environmental Policy Program Manager, directly via email at
RMalone@sandiego.gov, or by phone at (619)446-5371 if there are any questions regarding
the contents of this letter or if the City of Chula Vista would like to meet with City staff to
discuss these comments.
Page 5 of 5
Gabriel Innocenzi, Senior Planning Technician
June 3, 2021
9485 Aero Drive, MS 413
San Diego, CA 92123
sandiego.gov/planning/
T (619) 235-5200
sandiego.gov
Sincerely,
Rebecca Malone
Program Manager, Planning Department
cc: Heidi Vonblum, Director, Planning Department
Tait Galloway, Interim Deputy Director, Planning Department
Kelley Stanco, Interim Deputy Director, Planning Department
Marlon Pangilinan, Senior Planner, Planning Department
Elena Pascual, Senior Planner, Planning Department
Sureena Basra, Associate Planner, Planning Department
Andy Field, Director, Parks and Recreation Department
Laura Ball, Project Officer II, Parks and Recreation Department
Mark Berninger, Senior Planner, Parks and Recreation Department
Jane-Marie Fajardo, Senior Planner, Environmental Services Department
Mark Stephens, Associate Planner, Stormwater Department
Christopher Ackerman-Avila, Policy Advisor, Office of Mayor Todd Gloria
1
From: Kaur, Kiran <Kiran.Kaur@sdcounty.ca.gov>
Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 5:38 PM
To: Gabriel Innocenzi <ginnocenzi@chulavistaca.gov>
Cc: Mosley, Deborah <deborah.mosley@sdcounty.ca.gov>; Ornelas, Nicole <Nicole.Ornelas@sdcounty.ca.gov>
Subject: Nakano Project Notice of Preparation ‐ County of San Diego Comments
Hello –
The County of San Diego, Department of Parks and Recreation submits the following comments on the Notice
of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) by the City of Chula Vista for the Nakano Project.
The proposed project, the Nakano Project, is located adjacent to the Otay Valley Regional Park (OVRP) which is
a multi‐jurisdictional planning effort by the County of San Diego, City of San Diego, and City of Chula Vista. This
effort initiated in 1990 when the jurisdictions entered into a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (JEPA). The
original JEPA has been updated to include coordinated acquisition, planning, design, construction, and
management of the OVRP. As part of this coordinated effort, the three jurisdictions developed the OVRP
Concept Plan which was adopted by the OVRP Policy Committee in 1997 and most recently updated in 2006.
The OVRP Concept Plan, which includes a trail location just north of the proposed Nakano Project, was also
adopted by the governing body of the City of Chula Vista, City of San Diego, and County of San Diego. The trail
envisioned for this area is ultimately envisioned to connect to the larger OVRP trail network and extend west
to connect to the San Diego Bay National Wildlife Refuge and east to connect to the Otay Lakes and associated
trails in that area. The trail connection on the north end of the Nakano project is vital to the success of the
larger network and vision for the OVRP. Specific comments are provided below.
Please continue coordinating with the County of San Diego, Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) on any
project features within or adjacent to Otay Valley Regional Park.
Please share any data collected from environmental resource surveys conducted throughout the project,
especially surveys related to biological or cultural resources with the County of San Diego, Department of Parks
and Recreation.
The northern boundary of the project site is adjacent to trails included in the OVRP concept plan. The County of
San Diego is in the process of designing these trails. Please coordinate with all OVRP partners, including the
County of San Diego, and include a trail adjacent to this property to build out the proposed trail system for all
visitors to enjoy. Please ensure the trail is consistent with the OVRP Design Standards and Guidelines.
As mentioned above, the OVRP Concept Plan includes a trail adjacent to this project. In the Environmental
Impact Report for the proposed project, please analyze any impacts from the project, including stormwater and
hydrology changes from existing conditions, and ensure the project does not result in negative impacts to the
planned trail system, adjacent vegetation, or nearby sensitive resources.
Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Kiran Kaur (She-Her-Hers)
Land Use/Environmental Planner
Resource Management Division
County of San Diego, Parks and Recreation
5500 Overland Ave., Ste. 410
San Diego, CA. 92123
Work Cell: (619) 209‐9922
www.sdparks.org
1
From: donotreply@escribemeetings.com <donotreply@escribemeetings.com>
Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 5:38 PM
To: Cristina Hernandez <chernandez@chulavistaca.gov>
Subject: Public Comment Received
User County of San Diego, Department of Parks and Recreation has enter the following comment(s):
The Nakano Project, is located adjacent to the Otay Valley Regional Park (OVRP), which is bound by a Joint Exercise of
Powers Agreement between the County and Cities of San Diego and Chula Vista. The Concept Plan for this area includes
a trail. ‐Please continue coordinating with the County of San Diego, Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) on any
project features within or adjacent to Otay Valley Regional Park. ‐Please share any data collected from environmental
resource surveys conducted throughout the project, especially surveys related to biological or cultural resources with
the County of San Diego, Department of Parks and Recreation. ‐The northern boundary of the project site is adjacent to
trails included in the OVRP concept plan. The County of San Diego is in the process of designing these trails. Please
coordinate with all OVRP partners, including the County of San Diego, and include a trail adjacent to this property to
build out the proposed trail system for all visitors to enjoy. Please ensure the trail is consistent with the OVRP Design
Standards and Guidelines. ‐As mentioned above, the OVRP Concept Plan includes a trail adjacent to this project. In the
Environmental Impact Report for the proposed project, please analyze any impacts from the project, including
stormwater and hydrology changes from existing conditions, and ensure the project does not result in negative impacts
to the planned trail system, adjacent vegetation, or nearby sensitive resources.
for Nakano ‐ Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Scoping in Scoping Meeting 6/4/2022 8:00:00 PM
Please log into eSCRIBE to review the submitted comment(s).
Warning:
External
Email
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
Page 1 of 5
June 16, 2022
Stan Donn
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Re: 2022060260, Nakano (EIR22-001) Project, San Diego County
Dear Mr. Donn:
The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) has received the Notice of Preparation
(NOP), Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) or Early Consultation for the project
referenced above. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code
§21000 et seq.), specifically Public Resources Code §21084.1, states that a project that may
cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, is a project that
may have a significant effect on the environment. (Pub. Resources Code § 21084.1; Cal. Code
Regs., tit.14, §15064.5 (b) (CEQA Guidelines §15064.5 (b)). If there is substantial evidence, in
light of the whole record before a lead agency, that a project may have a significant effect on
the environment, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) shall be prepared. (Pub. Resources
Code §21080 (d); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 5064 subd.(a)(1) (CEQA Guidelines §15064 (a)(1)).
In order to determine whether a project will cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource, a lead agency will need to determine whether there are
historical resources within the area of potential effect (APE).
CEQA was amended significantly in 2014. Assembly Bill 52 (Gatto, Chapter 532, Statutes of
2014) (AB 52) amended CEQA to create a separate category of cultural resources, “tribal
cultural resources” (Pub. Resources Code §21074) and provides that a project with an effect
that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is
a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. (Pub. Resources Code
§21084.2). Public agencies shall, when feasible, avoid damaging effects to any tribal cultural
resource. (Pub. Resources Code §21084.3 (a)). AB 52 applies to any project for which a notice
of preparation, a notice of negative declaration, or a mitigated negative declaration is filed on
or after July 1, 2015. If your project involves the adoption of or amendment to a general plan or
a specific plan, or the designation or proposed designation of open space, on or after March 1,
2005, it may also be subject to Senate Bill 18 (Burton, Chapter 905, Statutes of 2004) (SB 18).
Both SB 18 and AB 52 have tribal consultation requirements. If your project is also subject to the
federal National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.) (NEPA), the tribal
consultation requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (154
U.S.C. 300101, 36 C.F.R. §800 et seq.) may also apply.
The NAHC recommends consultation with California Native American tribes that are
traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of your proposed project as early
as possible in order to avoid inadvertent discoveries of Native American human remai ns and
best protect tribal cultural resources. Below is a brief summary of portions of AB 52 and SB 18 as
well as the NAHC’s recommendations for conducting cultural resources assessments.
Consult your legal counsel about compliance with AB 52 and SB 18 as well as compliance with
any other applicable laws.
AB 52
CHAIRPERSON
Laura Miranda
Luiseño
VICE CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash
PARLIAMENTARIAN
Russell Attebery
Karuk
SECRETARY
Sara Dutschke
Miwok
COMMISSIONER
William Mungary
Paiute/White Mountain
Apache
COMMISSIONER
Isaac Bojorquez
Ohlone-Costanoan
COMMISSIONER
Buffy McQuillen
Yokayo Pomo, Yuki,
Nomlaki
COMMISSIONER
Wayne Nelson
Luiseño
COMMISSIONER
Stanley Rodriguez
Kumeyaay
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Raymond C.
Hitchcock
Miwok/Nisenan
NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
nahc@nahc.ca.gov
NAHC.ca.gov
Page 2 of 5
AB 52 has added to CEQA the additional requirements listed below, along with many other requirements:
1. Fourteen Day Period to Provide Notice of Completion of an Application/Decision to Undertake a Project:
Within fourteen (14) days of determining that an application for a project is complete or of a decision by a public
agency to undertake a project, a lead agency shall provide formal notification to a designated contact of, or
tribal representative of, traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribes that have
requested notice, to be accomplished by at least one written notice that includes:
a. A brief description of the project.
b. The lead agency contact information.
c. Notification that the California Native American tribe has 30 days to request consultation. (Pub.
Resources Code §21080.3.1 (d)).
d. A “California Native American tribe” is defined as a Native American tribe located in California that is
on the contact list maintained by the NAHC for the purposes of Chapter 905 of Statutes of 2004 (SB 18).
(Pub. Resources Code §21073).
2. Begin Consultation Within 30 Days of Receiving a Tribe’s Request for Consultation and Before Releasing a
Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or Environmental Impact Report: A lead agency shall
begin the consultation process within 30 days of receiving a request for consultation from a California Native
American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project.
(Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.1, subds. (d) and (e)) and prior to the release of a negative declaration,
mitigated negative declaration or Environmental Impact Report. (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.1(b)).
a. For purposes of AB 52, “consultation shall have the same meaning as provided in Gov. Code §65352.4
(SB 18). (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.1 (b)).
3. Mandatory Topics of Consultation If Requested by a Tribe: The following topics of consultation, if a tribe
requests to discuss them, are mandatory topics of consultation:
a. Alternatives to the project.
b. Recommended mitigation measures.
c. Significant effects. (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.2 (a)).
4. Discretionary Topics of Consultation: The following topics are discretionary topics of consultation:
a. Type of environmental review necessary.
b. Significance of the tribal cultural resources.
c. Significance of the project’s impacts on tribal cultural resources.
d. If necessary, project alternatives or appropriate measures for preservation or mitigation that the tribe
may recommend to the lead agency. (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.2 (a)).
5. Confidentiality of Information Submitted by a Tribe During the Environmental Review Process: With some
exceptions, any information, including but not limited to, the location, description, and use of tribal cultural
resources submitted by a California Native American tribe during the environmental review process shall not be
included in the environmental document or otherwise disclosed by the lead agency or any other public agency
to the public, consistent with Government Code §6254 (r) and §6254.10. Any information submitted by a
California Native American tribe during the consultation or environmental review process shall be published in a
confidential appendix to the environmental document unless the tribe that provided the information consents, in
writing, to the disclosure of some or all of the information to the public. (Pub. Resources Code §21082.3 (c)(1)).
6. Discussion of Impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources in the Environmental Document: If a project may have a
significant impact on a tribal cultural resource, the lead agency’s environmental document shall discuss both of
the following:
a. Whether the proposed project has a significant impact on an identified tribal cultural resource.
b. Whether feasible alternatives or mitigation measures, including those measures that may be agreed
to pursuant to Public Resources Code §21082.3, subdivision (a), avoid or substantially lessen the impact on
the identified tribal cultural resource. (Pub. Resources Code §21082.3 (b)).
Page 3 of 5
7. Conclusion of Consultation: Consultation with a tribe shall be considered concluded when either of the
following occurs:
a. The parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect, if a significant effect exists, on
a tribal cultural resource; or
b. A party, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot
be reached. (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.2 (b)).
8. Recommending Mitigation Measures Agreed Upon in Consultation in the Environmental Document: Any
mitigation measures agreed upon in the consultation conducted pursuant to Public Resources Code §21080.3.2
shall be recommended for inclusion in the environmental document and in an adopted mitigation monitoring
and reporting program, if determined to avoid or lessen the impact pursuant to Public Resources Code §21082.3,
subdivision (b), paragraph 2, and shall be fully enforceable. (Pub. Resources Code §21082.3 (a)).
9. Required Consideration of Feasible Mitigation: If mitigation measures recommended by the staff of the lead
agency as a result of the consultation process are not included in the environmental document or if there are no
agreed upon mitigation measures at the conclusion of consultation, or if consultation does not occur, and if
substantial evidence demonstrates that a project will cause a significant effect to a tribal cultural resource, the
lead agency shall consider feasible mitigation pursuant to Public Resources Code §21084.3 (b). (Pub. Resources
Code §21082.3 (e)).
10. Examples of Mitigation Measures That, If Feasible, May Be Considered to Avoid or Minimize Significant Adverse
Impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources:
a. Avoidance and preservation of the resources in place, including, but not limited to :
i. Planning and construction to avoid the resources and protect the cultural and natural
context.
ii. Planning greenspace, parks, or other open space, to incorporate the resources with culturally
appropriate protection and management criteria.
b. Treating the resource with culturally appropriate dignity, taking into account the tribal cultural values
and meaning of the resource, including, but not limited to, the following:
i. Protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource.
ii. Protecting the traditional use of the resource.
iii. Protecting the confidentiality of the resource.
c. Permanent conservation easements or other interests in real property, with culturally appropriate
management criteria for the purposes of preserving or utilizing the resources or places.
d. Protecting the resource. (Pub. Resource Code §21084.3 (b)).
e. Please note that a federally recognized California Native American tribe or a non-federally
recognized California Native American tribe that is on the contact list maintained by the NAHC to protect
a California prehistoric, archaeological, cultural, spiritual, or ceremonial place may acquire and hold
conservation easements if the conservation easement is voluntarily conveyed. (Civ. Code §815.3 (c)).
f. Please note that it is the policy of the state that Native American remains and associated grave
artifacts shall be repatriated. (Pub. Resources Code §5097.991).
11. Prerequisites for Certifying an Environmental Impact Report or Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration or
Negative Declaration with a Significant Impact on an Identified Tribal Cultural Resource: An Environmental
Impact Report may not be certified, nor may a mitigated negative declaration or a negative declaration be
adopted unless one of the following occurs:
a. The consultation process between the tribes and the lead agency has occurred as provided in Public
Resources Code §21080.3.1 and §21080.3.2 and concluded pursuant to Public Resources Code
§21080.3.2.
b. The tribe that requested consultation failed to provide comments to the lead agency or otherwise
failed to engage in the consultation process.
c. The lead agency provided notice of the project to the tribe in compliance with Public Resources
Code §21080.3.1 (d) and the tribe failed to request consultation within 30 days. (Pub. Resources Code
§21082.3 (d)).
The NAHC’s PowerPoint presentation titled, “Tribal Consultation Under AB 52: Requirements and Best Practices” may
be found online at: http://nahc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/AB52TribalConsultation_CalEPAPDF.pdf
Page 4 of 5
SB 18
SB 18 applies to local governments and requires local governments to contact, provide notice to, refer plans to, and
consult with tribes prior to the adoption or amendment of a general plan or a specific plan, or the designation of
open space. (Gov. Code §65352.3). Local governments should consult the Governor’s Office of Planning and
Research’s “Tribal Consultation Guidelines,” which can be found online at:
https://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/09_14_05_Updated_Guidelines_922.pdf .
Some of SB 18’s provisions include:
1. Tribal Consultation: If a local government considers a proposal to adopt or amend a general plan or a
specific plan, or to designate open space it is required to contact the appropriate tribes identified by the NAHC
by requesting a “Tribal Consultation List.” If a tribe, once contacted, requests consultation the local government
must consult with the tribe on the plan proposal. A tribe has 90 days from the date of receipt of notification to
request consultation unless a shorter timeframe has been agreed to by the tribe. (Gov. Code §65352.3
(a)(2)).
2. No Statutory Time Limit on SB 18 Tribal Consultation. There is no statutory time limit on SB 18 tribal consultation.
3. Confidentiality: Consistent with the guidelines developed and adopted by the Office of Planning and
Research pursuant to Gov. Code §65040.2, the city or county shall protect the confidentiality of the information
concerning the specific identity, location, character, and use of places, features and objects described in Public
Resources Code §5097.9 and §5097.993 that are within the city’s or county’s jurisdiction. (Gov. Code §65352.3
(b)).
4. Conclusion of SB 18 Tribal Consultation: Consultation should be concluded at the point in which:
a. The parties to the consultation come to a mutual agreement concerning the appropriate measures
for preservation or mitigation; or
b. Either the local government or the tribe, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes
that mutual agreement cannot be reached concerning the appropriate measures of preservatio n or
mitigation. (Tribal Consultation Guidelines, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (2005) at p. 18).
Agencies should be aware that neither AB 52 nor SB 18 precludes agencies from initiating tribal consultation with
tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with their jurisdictions before the timeframes provided in AB 52 and
SB 18. For that reason, we urge you to continue to request Native American Tribal Contact Lists and “Sacred Lands
File” searches from the NAHC. The request forms can be found online at: http://nahc.ca.gov/resources/forms/.
NAHC Recommendations for Cultural Resources Assessments
To adequately assess the existence and significance of tribal cultural resources and plan for avoidance, preservation
in place, or barring both, mitigation of project-related impacts to tribal cultural resources, the NAHC recommends
the following actions:
1. Contact the appropriate regional California Historical Research Information System (CHRIS) Center
(https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=30331) for an archaeological records search. The records search will
determine:
a. If part or all of the APE has been previously surveyed for cultural resources.
b. If any known cultural resources have already been recorded on or adjacent to the APE.
c. If the probability is low, moderate, or high that cultural resources are located in the APE.
d. If a survey is required to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present.
2. If an archaeological inventory survey is required, the final stage is the preparation of a professional report
detailing the findings and recommendations of the records search and field survey.
a. The final report containing site forms, site significance, and mitigation measures should be submitted
immediately to the planning department. All information regarding site locations, Native American
human remains, and associated funerary objects should be in a separate confidential addendum and
not be made available for public disclosure.
b. The final written report should be submitted within 3 months after work has been completed to the
appropriate regional CHRIS center.
Page 5 of 5
3. Contact the NAHC for:
a. A Sacred Lands File search. Remember that tribes do not always record their sacred sites in the
Sacred Lands File, nor are they required to do so. A Sacred Lands File search is not a substitute for
consultation with tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the
project’s APE.
b. A Native American Tribal Consultation List of appropriate tribes for consultation concerning the
project site and to assist in planning for avoidance, preservation in place, or, failing both, mitigation
measures.
4. Remember that the lack of surface evidence of archaeological resources (including tribal cultural resources)
does not preclude their subsurface existence.
a. Lead agencies should include in their mitigation and monitoring reporting program plan provisions for
the identification and evaluation of inadvertently discovered archaeological resources per Cal. Code
Regs., tit. 14, §15064.5(f) (CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(f)). In areas of identified archaeological sensitivity, a
certified archaeologist and a culturally affiliated Native American with knowledge of cultural resources
should monitor all ground-disturbing activities.
b. Lead agencies should include in their mitigation and monitoring reporting program plans provisions
for the disposition of recovered cultural items that are not burial associated in consultation with culturally
affiliated Native Americans.
c. Lead agencies should include in their mitigation and monitoring reporting program plans provisions
for the treatment and disposition of inadvertently discovered Native American human remains. Health
and Safety Code §7050.5, Public Resources Code §5097.98, and Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §15064.5,
subdivisions (d) and (e) (CEQA Guidelines §15064.5, subds. (d) and (e)) address the processes to be
followed in the event of an inadvertent discovery of any Native American human remains and
associated grave goods in a location other than a dedicated cemetery.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at my email address:
Andrew.Green@nahc.ca.gov.
Sincerely,
Andrew Green
Cultural Resources Analyst
cc: State Clearinghouse
1
User Susie Murphy has enter the following comment(s):
I represent the OVRP CAC as Vice Chair. The Otay Valley Regional Park (OVRP) Citizen's Advisory Committee
(CAC) supports the Nakano ‐ Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Scoping plan. Of particular note of the plan
includes the pathway connections from the development to the existing and future trails in OVRP including
the connections eastward outlined in the Otay Regional Trails Alignment Study. The CAC encourages any and
all plans and amenities that would allow residents access to the OVRP open space and trails by foot or by
bicycle. The CAC supports all the listed EIR areas of study listed in the presentation. Thank you for the
opportunity to comment.
for Nakano ‐ Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Scoping in Scoping Meeting 6/4/2022 8:00:00 PM
Please log into eSCRIBE to review the submitted comment(s).
1
From:THERESA ACERRO <thacerro@yahoo.com>
Sent:Thursday, May 5, 2022 10:51 AM
To:Stan Donn
Subject:Nakano Scoping
Website won't show me the orange box to leave comments. Gabriel said it is
your project to send comments to you.
It is not clear. Is it the city's intention that San Diego annex this land and it
will become their problem?
Building housing in the river bottom is insane. Whenever we have an el nino
year there are days when rain causes that dam to over flow. It is unlikely that
it will fail again and really flood everything downstream, but I know for a fact
there frequently is enough water after a heavy rain period to flood the bridge
on Broadway over the river and obviously there is much more water east of
805. Those homes would all be flooded by several feet of water. This is a crazy
plan. Developers do not care about people's lives. The river bottom can not be
raised without flooding properties along Main Street in heavy rains and that
shopping center.
Our side is low. San Diego doesn't care because their side is higher-much
higher at 805.
Theresa Acerro
1
Obviously it is not Broadway that river flows over but Hollister-every significant
rain period. Water is deep enough cars can't safely pass over street. Also this
must be a federal flood zone-isn't it. Portions along other sections of the river
further from the center are.
Website won't show me the orange box to leave comments. Gabriel said it is your
project to send comments to you.
It is not clear. Is it the city's intention that San Diego annex this land and it will
become their problem?
Building housing in the river bottom is insane. Whenever we have an el nino year
there are days when rain causes that dam to over flow. It is unlikely that it will fail
again and really flood everything downstream, but I know for a fact there
frequently is enough water after a heavy rain period to flood the bridge on
Hollister over the river and obviously there is much more water east of 805. Those
homes would all be flooded by several feet of water. This is a crazy plan.
Developers do not care about people's lives. The river bottom can not be raised
without flooding properties along Main Street in heavy rains and that shopping
center.
Our side is low. San Diego doesn't care because their side is higher-much higher
at 805.
Theresa Acerro