Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRCC AGENDA PK 1991/05/20RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM FOR MEETING OF MAY 20, 1991 Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report_ City of Chula Vista LCP Resubmittal No. 8 Amendment: EIR-89-08 A. BACKGROUND The Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on Midbayfront LCP Resubmittal No. 8 Amendment was prepared following the public review period for the original Draft EIR. The Planning Commission heard public testimony on the original Draft EIR at a hearing on September 26, 1990. During that public hearing, a new alternative was presented by the applicant for evaluation. That alternative is analyzed in this Recirculated Draft EIR as Alternative 8. In addition, a substantial amount of new technical data was submitted by the applicant following the public review period on the original Draft EIR. That new technical data is also analyzed in the Recirculated Draft EIR. Due to the inclusion of substantial new information, the City, as lead agency under CEQA, determined that the DEIR should be recirculated to provide an opportunity for public comment on the new analysis. In addition to incorporating this new information, the project team has also expanded and refined the impact definitions to clearly distinguish between those significant impacts that may be mitigable at a later stage of planning and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance and those impacts that may only be mitigated through a major redesign of the project or selection of another alternative. In preparing the August 1990 Draft EIR, the category "Significant and Not Mitigable" was used to categorize a broad range of impacts -- including those that were not considered to be mitigable except through project redesign, as well as those considered to be significant and not mitigated at the present time, based upon the information provided by the applicant at the plan-level of CEQA compliance. In various instances, impacts classified in the DEIR as "Significant, Unmitigable" at the plan level, may be mitigable once more detailed studies and planning are completed by the applicant and the City. Consequently, in order to clearly distinguish between these two major impact categories, the project team refined the impact definitions and re-evaluated all environmental impacts of the proposed project and alternatives based upon the following criteria and definitions: • "Significant and Not Mitigable" -This category pertains only to those significant impacts that would not be mitigated below a level of significance at any stage of project planning and environmental compliance. Consequently, this impact category pertains to those effects that can only be avoided through project redesign or selection of another alternative. -1- • "Significant and Not Mitigated at the Plan-Level of CEQA Compliance" -This category of impacts applies to those environmental effects that are not presently mitigated by identifiable measures or the applicant's commitments. These impacts may or may not be mitigated at later stages of planning and environmental compliance. In most instances, additional baseline studies or project details are needed prior to determining whether mitigation would be feasible or not. • "Significant, Mitigable" -Impacts that exceeded the threshold of significance are categorized as "Significant, Mitigable" in those instances where mitigation measures are readily available or where the applicant has already provided sufficient information and mitigation commitments. In this instance, additional studies and/or design information are not necessary to establish appropriate measures and their effectiveness in reducing impacts below the significant threshold. • "Adverse, Not Significant" -Impacts considered to be adverse, but below a level of significance aze listed under this impact level. • "No or Limited Impact" -Impacts that are considered to be very minor or undiscernible are classified in this category. • "Beneficial Impacts" -Impacts that will have a beneficial effect on the City of Chula Vista, its residents, and/or its environmental resources are so noted under this category. The proposed Local Coastal Program Resubmittal No. 8 area consists of approximately 790 acres and is located in the western portion of the City of Chula Vista. Exhibit A shows the location of the LCP Resubmittal area. The proposed LCP Resubmittal area encompasses the same area as the existing certified LCP. The LCP Resubmittal text revised the existing certified LCP in two main ways: 1) by designating the area within the recently established National Wildlife Refuge as open space; and 2) by concentrating most of the remaining text changes to the Midbayfront subarea. Proposed changes within the Midbayfront subarea include modifications to the arrangement of land uses, building height controls, and development intensity. The purpose of the EIR is to provide an accurate and concise informational document which analyzes the environmental consequences of approval and adoption of the proposed LCP Resubmittal. Any changes to the LCP would require corresponding changes to the City's General Plan, Zoning Code, and Bayfront Redevelopment Plan. This EIR, therefore, also addresses changes to these plans. The Recirculated DEIR also examines alternatives to the project, growth inducing impacts, cumulative impacts, and other environmental summaries required by CEQA. -2- The environmental analysis included in the DEIR addresses the following issues: geology/ soils/groundwater, hydrology/water quality, visual aesthetics/community character, conversion of agricultural lands, air quality, noise, biology, archaeology/history/paleontology, and land use/general plan elements/zoning, community social factors, community tax structure, parks/recreation/and open space, utility service, and transportation/access. The environmental consultant that prepared this Recirculated Draft EIR is Keller Environmental Associates, Inc. of San Diego, California. This DEIR was subject to a 45-day review period through the State Clearinghouse which concluded May 20, 1991. The comments received through the State Clearinghouse will be distributed to the Planning Commissioners at the public hearing. The comments received to date by staff are attached as Exhibit B. B. RECOMMENDATION Provide comments on the Recirculated Draft EIR for Planning Commission consideration. C. ANALYSIS 1. Geology/Soils/Groundwater Development of the proposed project and alternatives would result in the following four potentially significant impacts. The impacts are described in the right column and level of each impact is identified in the left column. Impact Level Impact Description Significant Mitigable 1. Ground settlement due to consolidation of the compressible estuarine/fluvial (bay) deposits and the artificial fill soils on site; Significant Mitigable 2. Grading impacts for onsite and offsite water and sewer pipelines; Significant, not mitigated at 3. Seismic hazards, including ground shaking, surface plan level displacement, liquefaction, tsunamis, and earthquake-induced flooding; and Significant, not mitigated at 4. Potential foundation design and construction plan level difficulties associated with the construction of foundations and subterranean parking structures at or near the groundwater table. -3- 2. Hvdrology/Water Ouality Five potentially significant hydrology/water quality impacts were cited as a result of development of the project and the alternatives. These include: Impact Level a. and b. Significant, Mitigable c. Significant, not mitigated at plan level Significant, not mitigated at plan level Significant, not mitigated at plan level Impact Description 1. Flooding of: a) low-lying areas from tidal highs, compounded by run-up from wind-driven waves (coastal flood hazards); b) flooding from the Sweetwater River; c) flooding associated with exceeding the capacity of proposed storm drain facilities on site; 2. Erosion from inland or coastal flooding; 3. Siltation and chemical contamination degradation of water quality from surface runoff-pesticides, fertilizers, oil, grease, etc.; Significant, mitigable 4. Inconsistency with City of Chula Vista standards, specifically related to the design storm flow, and gravity pipe requirements; and Significant, mitigabee 5. Issues regarding quantity and quality of water for both the 10-acre public lagoon and the semi-public residential lagoon in the northern portion of the site. 3. Visual Aesthetics/Community Character Significant visual and aesthetic impacts would occur from development of the proposed project and three reduced density alternatives (Alternatives 3, 4 and 5). No significant aesthetic/visual impacts would occur from development allowed under the existing LCP. The significant impacts and the level of significance of each impact are summarized below. Impact Level Impact Description Significant, not mitigable 1. Creation of a visually dominant urban landscape from the Nature Interpretive Center, where aesthetic enjoyment of the natural environment is a significant part of the visitor experience, would be permanently lost. -4- Significant, not mitigable 2. Obstruction of existing scenic bay views from public use areas and establishments along Bay Boulevard. Significant, not mitigable 3. Creation of a visually dominant urban landscape from areas within the City of Chula Vista and from I-5, that would be incompatible with the waterfront image community identity of Chula Vista. 4. Conversion of Agricultural Lands The loss of approximately 45 to 65 acres of potential agricultural land to urban uses is not considered significant at the plan level. The loss of agricultural land due to the proposed LCP Resubmittal represents an incremental contribution to a regionally significant loss of agricultural land to development. 5. Air Quality Potentially significant air quality impacts would occur from development of the proposed cogeneration plant. An incremental contribution to regional air quality problems would also occur from vehicular sources. In addition, cumulative impacts would occur from vehicular emissions added to the cogeneration plant emissions. Mitigation measures must be implemented to reduce these impacts to a level below significant, including compliance with the Air Pollution Control District's requirements for cogeneration emissions, dust control (during construction), construction traffic monitoring, and implementation of Transportation Control Measures coordinated through a transportation management agency. Further, once the proposed parking garages have been designed, an additional air quality analysis must be conducted to assess potential air quality impacts to the garage users. 6. Noise Potentially significant noise impacts could occur from construction activities, and land use incompatibIlity. Specifically the location of the child care center close to the noise from I-5 and the cogeneration facility raise noise concerns. These impacts can be mitigated to a level below significant by limiting construction activities to certain times, limiting construction access routes, establishing a noise performance standard for the cogeneration facility, and by requiring a noise barrier along the eastern end of the child care facility. -5- Biolo 8. Numerous impacts are cited to biological resources including wildlife resources, threatened and endangered species, and marine resources. Twenty- six mitigation measures are detailed for biological impacts in the DEIR. These mitigation measures would help to minimize the impacts of the project on biological resources, but one significant unmitigable impact would remain. There are not foreseeable mitigation measures available to compensate for the loss of raptor foraging habitat associated with the alternation of land uses in the Midbayfront. Thus, this impact is considered significant and unmitigable. The project description, environmental safeguards and the mitigation measures detailed in the Recirculated Draft EIR provide adequate assurance, at a plan level, that impacts associated with alterations of predator, competitor, and prey regimes, endangered species concerns, and vector control issue may be mitigated at the project level by the development and implementation of precise plans which address these concerns. C~rrrently, there is not enough project-level detail available to adequately evaluate significance on these issues. A biological resources management plan will be developed in a completed form during the project level environmental review process. So, the impacts identified above remain significant and not mitigated at the plan level. Archaeology/History The impacts to archaeological and historical resources were found to be less than significant. 9. Paleontoloev Significant impacts to paleontological resources could occur during project grading. The standard on-site monitoring requirements are included in the Recirculated Draft EIR as mitigation for these impacts. 10. Land Use/General Plan Elements/Zoning The significant land use impacts associated with the proposed project and the level of significance of each impact are summarized below. -6- Impact Level Impact Description Significant, not mitigable L Incompatibility of the intense nature of the development with the land uses of the surrounding Chula Vista area; Significant, not mitigable 2. Incompatibility of the intense nature of development with the adjacent unique open space uses of the Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge and Nature Interpretive Center; Significant, mitigabee 3. The potential incompatibility of the residences located above and nearby the commercial retail and commercial visitor uses in the central core area. Such potential impacts include noise from traffic and people, traffic congestion, night-lighting and competition for parking spaces, all of these largely occurring on weekends and evenings when most people are home; and Significant, not mitigated at 4. Inconsistency with the existing certified LCP and the the plan level General Plan (2010). The only mitigation measure possible to reduce the impacts from land use intensity incompatibility (number 1 above) and incompatibility with the adjacent NWR (number 2 above) to below a level of significance would be to redesign the proposed project and the reduced density alternatives. Otherwise, these impacts would remain significant. Mitigation for impact number 3 above would involve building design techniques such as maximum insulation in exterior and interior walls, floor separation design, and window treatment. Mitigation for number 4 above would also necessitate either project redesign, or approval of this Resubmittal, and approval of a General Plan Amendment; otherwise, this land use impact would also remain significant. 11. Community Social Factors A significant increase in housing and a resulting population increase would occur on the project site over what was planned for the site, and a substantial increase in employment opportunities would occur. Both the increase in housing and employment opportunities are considered beneficial impacts. -7- 12. Community Tax Structure No significant adverse impacts would occur in the area of community tax structure. A positive impact to the Cit}~s Redevelopment Agency would occur under all of the alternatives. 13. Parks. Recreation, and Open Space The EIR cites the following inadequacies in the proposed project in the area of parks, recreation, and open space. • The phasing plan includes one park and a majority of public area parking in Phase V, or in years 2009 to 2011; • Potentially insufficient amount of parking for park users; • Inadequate information regarding public access from on-site parking areas to parks, and from areas across I-5 to the east to the parks.; • Shade impacts to parks and public areas. Mitigation is possible to reduce the first three impacts to below a,level of significance. These measures are: • Revise the Phasing Plan to include the parks and adequate public pazk parking (as approved by the City) within Phase I. • Creation of additional public parking spaces per City requirements to be determined at the project level; and • Provision of access plan both on-site and off-site to the east, and approval of plan by City Planning and Community Development Departments and Coastal Commission. The fourth impact can only be reduced by project redesign, thus, it remains significant and unmitigable. Additionally, an adverse and cumulatively significant impact is expected to occur from anticipated high regional demand placed on the bayfront parks resulting in limited amounts of park land for anticipated high use. To reduce this impact to a level below significant, the park azeas west of Marina Parkway should not be broken up with development, but, rather, should be continuous along the bayfront. The amount of park land provided by Alternatives 2, 4, 5, and 7 ranges from approximately 20 to 35 percent greater than what the project proposes. Provision of a similar amount of park land as proposed by alternatives with a similar design (continuous) would reduce the cumulative impact to below a level of significance. This provision has not -8- occurred, thus, this incremental impact remains significant, although it could be easily mitigated at a future project level phase by redesign. 14. Utility Service In the area of schools, the inclusion of the project into the Mello-Roos districts would provide for the collection of funds to finance items such as buses, relocatable classrooms, permanent classrooms, and property on which those facilities could be located. Annual costs for student transportation including bus maintenance and drivers' salaries are not, however, eligible for Mello-Roos funding. These costs need to be funded by either a cash contribution from the applicant or a long-term binding agreement with the applicant to finance annual school transportation costs. Also, new school sites are being required by the Districts, including one secondary school site, and two and one-half elementary school sites. At this time, no school site is proposed; however, this is a measure which could be achieved at the project level of CEQA compliance. I5. Transportation/Access Development of the proposed project would result in significant impacts to street and intersection capacities at streets in the project vicinity. The Year 2000 condition was analyzed with the traffic generated by the Proposed Project added to the No-Project condition. This analysis revealed that under this condition, like the No-Project condition, all study area intersections will operate at LOS C or better during the a.m. peak hour with the exception of Broadway/"H" Street which will operate at LOS D and I-5 northbound ramps at "E" Street which will operate at LOS F. During the p.m. peak hour, with the proposed project generated traffic added to the network, the following intersections will operate at unacceptable levels of service (LOS D or worse -Arterial Intersections, LOS E or worse -Freeway Ramp Intersections). • I-5 Southbound Ramp/"E" Street (LOS F, ICU 1.02) • I-5 Northbound Ramp/"E" Street (LOS F, ICU 1.38) + Woodlawn Avenue/"E" Street (LOS D, ICU 0.84) • Broadway/"E" Street (LOS F, ICU 1.05) • Broadway/"F" Street (LOS E, ICU 0.91) • Broadway/"H" Street (LOS E, ICU 0.98) Measures have been suggested and analyzed that would result in the following levels of service. • I-5 Southbound Ramp/"E" Street (LOS D, ICU 0.88) • I-5 Northbound Ramp/"E" Street (LOS D, ICU 0.80) • Woodlawn Avenue/"E" Street (LOS C, ICU 0.78) -9- • Broadway/"E" Street (LOS C, ICU 0.79) • Broadway/"F' Street (LOS D, ICU 0.88) • Broadway/"H" Street (LOS C, ICU 0.75) The feasibility of several of the measures, restriping of the "E" Street overcrossing, and widening Bay Boulevard to provide three northbound lanes has not as yet, been demonstrated. The feasibility of these measures must, however, be confirmed by the City Traffic Engineer and CalTrans prior to accepting the measures as appropriate mitigation at the project level. Thus, many of the traffic impacts associated with the proposed project remain significant and not mitigated at the plan level. Finally, the gate down time of the San Diego Trolley would worsen the "E" Street impacts; it is estimated that this down time could account for an overall reduction of intersection capacity at the "E" Street/I-5 northbound ramp signalized intersection. D. ALTERNATIVES CEQA requires description of a range of "reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project,' and to evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. The discussion of alternatives "shall focus on alternatives capable of eliminating any significant adverse environmental effects or reducing them to a level of insignificance, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of project alternatives, or would be more costly." The alternatives analysis in the Recirculated DEIR includes nine alternatives, five of which were development plans which were analyzed at the same level of detail as the proposed project. The alternatives are listed below; numbers 2 through 5, and 8, are those that are analyzed in the same level of detail as the proposed project. (1) No Project (2) Development Under Existing Certified LCP (3) Reduced Density 1 (26 percent intensity decrease from developer's proposal) (4) Reduced Density lA (26 percent intensity decrease from developer's proposal) (5) Reduced Density 2 (47 percent intensity decrease from developer's proposal) (6) Possible Locational Alternatives (7) Reduced Density/Modified Design Alternative (47 percent intensity decrease from developer's proposal) (8) Applicant's Revised Development Plan (9) Alternative Developed in Response to Public Comments -10- Locational Alternatives Eight locational alternatives were analyzed in the DEIR. The alternative site locations aze included in response to the recent Goleta case, in which the Court ruled that EIRs must evaluate alternative locations for a project, in addition to project alternatives on the same site. Alternative sites are examined in the EIR not as a viable option to the proposed project, but rather to assess whether environmental impacts from the same or a similar project might be reduced or eliminated at a different site than the proposed location. The Midbayfront development plan would create reduced impacts in a different location, possibly in such areas as shown by possible locational alternatives 2 and 6. It was also concluded that the elements of the development plan that resulted in the significant, unmitigable impacts were the high density, building bulk, and building heights. Thus, Alternatives 7 and 9, additional on-site alternatives, were designed by the City's environmental and planning consultants in an effort to reduce project impacts. Further, during the public review period for the original Draft EIR, the applicant presented an additional alternative. The impacts of that alternative, referred to as Alternative 8, as well as the impacts associated with Alternatives 7 and 9, reduced density and summarized below. Alternative 7 Alternative 7 was developed by reviewing the potentially significant impacts of the proposed project, and designing a development which maintained the land uses proposed by the project while avoiding or significantly reducing the cited impacts. The design reduced the overall intensity to a level allowed by the existing LCP (this alternative assumes a maximum of approximately 2.5 million square feet of building). The design also reduced the heights of buildings throughout the project area. Under Alternative 7, the significant unmitigated impacts in the areas of geology/soils/ groundwater and hydrology/water quality would remain due to lack of specific mitigation measures at the plan level. It is, however, likely that these impacts could be mitigated to below significant at the project level. With the mitigation measures outlined in the Recirculated Draft EIR, impacts in the areas of visual aesthetics/community character, land use/general plan elements/zoning, and parks/recreation/and open space could be mitigated to a less than significant level. Five impacts to biological resources would remain significant and not mitigated at the plan level under Alternative 7. The incremental loss of raptor foraging areas would be significant and unmitigable under Alternative 7. In addition, traffic impacts were also assessed as significant and not mitigated at the plan level because of the uncertainty regarding the feasibility of the mitigation measures. Finally, the issues of school transportation costs and school sites would remain unresolved, and therefore, significant under Alternative 7. -11- In summary, although significant unmitigable impacts would result from implementation of Alternative 7, the number of unmitigable impacts would be substantially reduced from the number identified for the proposed project. Alternatives 7 and 9 have fewer significant adverse environmental impacts than any of the other alternatives analyzed except the No Project alternative. Alternative 9 Alternative 9 was developed in response to comments received on the original Draft EIR. The impacts associated with Alternative 9 would be very similar to the impacts identified for Alternative 7. Alternative 8 Alternative 8 was developed by the applicant during the public review process on the original Draft EIR. Alternative 8 is very similar to the proposed project in concept and land use. However, Alternative 8 reduces the overall density of development and building heights in comparison to the proposed project. Alternative 8 also eliminates development south of the public lagoon and increases park acreage. The total proposed development for Alternative 8 is approximately 3.9 million square feet (s.f.) of building space, in comparison to 4.2 million s.f. for the proposed project. The existing approved LCP currently allows 1.9 to 2.5 million s.f. of building space in the Midbayfront. Thus, the proposed Alternative 8 building space is approximately 1.4 million s.f. greater than the current maximum allowable density in the Midbayfront area. Additionally, the height of many of the buildings exceeds the height allowed by this certified LCP. Alternative 8 proposed high-rise hotels (172 to 229 feet high), mid-rise hotels (up to 69 feet high), mid-rise and high-rise apartments (106 to 176 feet high), low-rise apartments, a 3.3 acre semi-public lagoon to serve apartment dwellers and restaurant users north of "E"Street, retail shops, restaurants, offices, a co-generation facility and a conference center, as well as athletic facilities including a tennis complex, swimming facility, and an ice rink. Under Alternative 8, the significant unmitigated impacts in the areas of geology/soils/groundwater and hydrology water quality would remain due to lack of specific mitigation measures at the plan level. It is, however, likely that these impacts could be mitigated to below significant at the project level. Impacts in the areas of visual aesthetics/ community character, land use/general plan elements/zoning, and parks/recreation/open space would be significant and unmitigable under Alternative 8. Five impacts to biological resources would remain significant and not mitigated at the plan level under Alternative 8. The incremental loss of raptor foraging areas would also be significant and unmitigable under Alternative 8. In addition, traffic impacts were also assessed as significant and not mitigated at the plan level because of the uncertainty -12- regarding the feasibility of mitigation measures. Finally, the issues of school transportation costs and school sites would remain unresolved, and therefore, significant under Alternative 8. In summary, the number and type of unmitigable impacts that would result from implementation of Alternative 8 are the same as unmitigable impacts that would result from implementation of the proposed project. [C\WP51\PUT'NAM\EIR69-09.TX'I'~ -13- L C P R E S U B M T T Q L 8 Rena i\; SWeet/ C 4~ Street Street / ~cti<N` `na'~n:i .u~aretx+u ~ p / t _'' 1 "" ; i 1 1 ~ CHU " "~' ~I unpawdcY ~-{~encr Pang ~ SUBAREA 1 ~ ~ ~~ Pa+nt O ~ ~ ~ .. (MIDI CHUIn'VISY'A `~~ v~EStrcet Marsh •~~ NATURE INTHRCRLTIVE CBNTCR ~±~ `' SWEE'I'WATER MARSH ..1 I~TATIONAL WILDLIFE _ ~-. 1 REFUGE .*~' ~, '&GS Marsh.. ~ ~ ~•. b ~ „1 ,, -- ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ , ~~ 1 ~ ~ ~: • ~ ...I ~~ PROPOSED LCP ~o . ~; ~ RESUBMITTAL NO. 8 0 = :: .-< BOUNDARY ~; _ ~ . ~~ 11 P COR4 $p4 .~ l:/ . / ,~ ~ ct~~ ~/ 1 ~, _ 1 \~ per.. ... ~ . % _.. „~,~~„~aiiuul~'lllllll~~~~~llllll~4lllumur~,~~~~,~,,,... F E T i u iiN i ii ii ii i in O 2000 400t] Sues G A ~ SUe~ f r r ~ Street m "~ N , < ~ FIST ~ sUBAREA K L N d v et Strom MpS~ •• St. ~`~~~ LCP RESUBMITTAL AREA Pieure 2-Ii EXHIBIT B COMMENTS RECEIVED BY STAFF Sweetwater Union High School District ADMINISTRATION CENTER 1130 FIFTH AVENUE CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 92011 (619) 691-5553 PLANNING DEPARTMENT April 24, 1991 Mr. Cris Salamone City of Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91911 Dear Mr. Salamone: APR 2 9 ~. Re: Recirculated D.E.I.R. Midbayfront LCP No. 8 Amendment I appreciate the opportunity to respond and comment on the Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Midbayfront proposal. I was pleased to see that the district's previous comments were incorporated into the report. If the project's impacts to secondary schools are to be fully mitigated, then the measures described in Appendix items I and J (the district's response to the original report) needs to be implemented. The district is understanding of the agencies desire to see this project act as a catalyst for an enhanced tourist/commercial base in the city. To that end, the city may not wish to site a senior high school within the project area. If that is the case, then existing offsite facilities will require upgrading if they are to accommodate new students. The applicant has been made aware of this alternative solution and has agreed to its concept. If the city concurs with this approach, then specific rights- of-way adjacent to an existing school will have to be vacated so that additional classrooms may be constructed. The costs associated with the vacation and subsequent acquisition should be born by the developer not the district. Land acquisition costs are not a component of the district's Mello Roos Community Facilities District No. 5. Enclosed please find the November 6, 1990, letter to the plannino department which outlines this alternative approach to mitigate the Midbayfront's anticipated impacts. Please feel free to call me this issue. if you have any concerns regarding Sincerely, Thomas Silva Director of Planning TS/sf cc: Robert Leiter Sweetwater Union High School District ADMINISTRATION CENTER 1130 FIFTH AVENUE CMULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA G2011 (619) 691-5553 PLANNING DEPARTMENT November 6, 1990 Ms. Mary Anne Miller planning Department City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92115 Dear Ms. Miller: MAV 0 7 Re: Proposed Chula Vista MidbaVfront Plan Applicant: William J. Barkett, Merjan On October 18, 1990, Mr. William Barkett met with Mr. Andrew Campbell and me to discuss the District's August 23, 1990, letter to your department. As you may recall, that correspondence commented on the Midbayfront Draft Environmental Impact Report and delineated impacts to the District which were not identified in the document. The result of the October meeting can he summarized as follows: Mr. Barkett aoreed to the creation of a Mello-coos Community Facilties District to address all impacts the proposed project has nn secondary schools. • The District agreed to accept Mello-Roos special tax revenue in lieu of developer impact fees. Mr. Barkett aoreed to mitigate the need for a school site (as identified in Mr. Campbell's May 31, 1990, letter to the City) by securing the necessary land and exoandino_ an existing school facility east of Interstate 5. Mary Anne, the required land acouisition and expansion of an existing district facility to accommodate this project's students is a critical issue to the District. The project is located in the Chula Vista Junior and Chula Vista High Schools attendance boundaries; therefore, the enhancement of one or both facilities is appropriate. Obviously, City support will be needed. After the District's identification of an appropriate strateoy for facility expansion, existing land will have to be vacated, relocation benefits provided, and the property rezoned to accommodate a school use. I'm certain environmental analysis is also reouired. The costs for these activities should be borne by the developer because they relate directly to the project. Ms. Mary Anne Miller November 5, 1990 Page 2 I am requesting that the City not approve the proiect unless the first and third issues regarding the creation of a community facilities district and land acquisition are conditions of approval. Also, to insure that the funding mechanism is in place, the community facilities district should be established prlor to the approval of the project's final map. I have enclosed a copy of an October 26, 1990, letter I sent to Mr. Barkett for your reference. If you have any comments or questions regarding this issue, please do not hesitate to call me at 691-5553. Co ial~l~y~, ~~~ homas Silva Director of Planning TS/sf cc: Kate Shurson William Barkett Sweetwater Union High School District ADMINISTRATION CENTER 1110 fIFIM AVENUE ~NULA VISTA CALIFORNIA X2011 (610) t9]-555] •LANNING DEIART MEM October 26, 1990 ~''4-. William J. Barkett President, Merjan 864 Prospect Street La Jolla, CA 92037 Dear Mr. Barkett: This letter is sent as a follow up to our recent meeting regarding your MidSayfront Project proposal and our response to the Draft Environmental Impact Report. During this meeting you mentioned that your company proposed to the City an alternative land use plan which contains 1400 dwelling units, 1800 hotel rooms, approximately 640,000 square feet of office space, and 150,000 square feet of commercial retail space. Given these numbers, the impact to schools is as follows: LAS ~ ESTIMiTm YIE~~ REQUIRID FACILITIES Resident 406 students 13.5 classrooms *Commercial/Office 574 students 19.0 classrooms *Source: 1990 SourcePoint To mitigate the anticipated impact, you had agreed to the formation of a Mello-Roos Community facilities District, and the district had agreed not to levy school developer fees upon the formation of the Mello-Roos district. A significant unresolved issue is the location of where to house these additional students. As you know, we had originally requested that the City designate a school site within the project. We understand the difficulty you will have in providing enough area while still keeping the project economically feasible. Therefore, to mitigate the housing issue we would need a cooperataive effort from the City, Merjan, and the district in the procurement of additional land to expand an existing facility east of Interstate 5. It is important that you understand that the district cannot sign-off on your project until the Mello-Roos Community facilities District is in place and the additional land issue is resolved. I have been informed by the City that although your company is willino to participate in a Mello-Roos district, Rohr Enterprises has strongly objected to any such participation. My question to you is, do you have authority to speak for Rohr? I look forward to working with you and your company for the earliest resolution of these issues. Sin rely, ~~ mas Sily Director of Planning MAY- 1 4-•--_+ 1 TUE 1 3 _~. E H C F_ E2 w~ r '~! I • xe. i l ~ i r i gal `~,~r ~ 1 ~• ~ i i el , f il. ~ 1` '). ~q~l ~ r "`'`'~`' • ~ IRUNMI~;NTAI, HEAL, hH COALxTION ~N V X844 , Third Avenue • San Diego, California 92101 • (619) 235-0281 ~ "~: ~ f I, FICBRS ~ ;' Sue Woods, Presldant ' S. D, Communlty Collegyo District ~ay 1,~, 1991 Laura Follla, MSW Vice President thud Protective servlcos City of Chula Vista Planning Commission Mlchoel Shames c/o Robin Putnam Vioe President Utility Consumar Acilcn Network 276 Fourth Avenue Anna-Marie Feenburq, Ph.D. Chula VlSta, CA 9201. SOCrBtary Nailanal UnlvCrslty l MA RL: ItESp01`1SLS TO THE IY..LCCRCULATEI7 na, Tony Pett Trocsurer HDIVIRONIVC$N1"Al. IMPACT REPORT' (EIR) FOR THE s.D Communlty Colloge District CHULA VISTA $AYFRONT PROJECT )ARD OF DIRECTORS Douq 8allis nternatlonal Association Dear Roble, of Iron Workars Jim Ball The recirculated E1R is more complote than the earlier one an we Ecological uro svsr©ms Insnture see that more complete informatipn Was provided from l d t Laurence L. Brunton, Ph.D. are g a o ucsD school of Moa!clne ' the developer. Mary Carmichoal ESCOndidO Neighbors Agaln34 chemlcairoxlns ~ We have three areas of comment: Scott Chatfield rolK~sFM 1. All ssible AND feasible mitigations are not listed under Mara Cummings Nothcn Cummings foundation Ruth Duemler slerro dub 2, Not all projects under consideration for the bay were Edward Gorhom MPH Naval Hoaltn Rosoaran contor considered in the cumulative impacts section. Ruth Helfeti, MD, MPH UC50 School of Modlclno 3. 'Th0 discussion of pesticides is inaccurate and lacks critical Richard Juarez Motropoiltpn Area Advlscry Com mltto9 detatlS. Sharon Kalemklarlan Attorney , Lyn Lacye Lacye & Asscclaros Dan McKlrnan, Ph.D. i, )LHC REQCI~ST'S ADDITION TO FEASIBLE ucsD schaoi of Modlclne OF THB FOLLOWING Sylvia Micik, MD North County Health Servicos MEASURES: Reynaldo Pisarlo '~ a' ` is Jay Powell While some of these measures would require major changes to the Bea Ropp~ ~~ j r0'eCt the are than es that could significantly reduce the negative Y 8 ucsD/SDSU Por Lo vlda Pro ocr ~ p ) , N Richard Wharton USD Enviranmentol Law Cllnlc i 'GP'I Ip!IOnb n0~oq IOr ~doMlNco~'o~ o~t~oGO90rtly MA`.'- 1 4-S 1 TUE 1 3 4 E H C F_ ~~3 impacts to tht environment caused by the current project plan. These changes also promote the concept of sustainable-yield uses of the area. Include a Water reclamation Plant in the Project An alternaiive water source for the lagoons which should be explored is that of reclaimed water. A water reclamation plant could be incorporated in to the project plan to lessen impacts to water demand and the water reclaimed from this plant may be used of the lagoons. Water Conservation To offset the increase in water usage from the project we would recommend a policy such as is used in Morro Bay, CA. As a prerequisite to constructing any new home, a builder must first save more water than the new home will use. Builders have the option of paying to replace a specified length of the city's load! water mains or retrofitting existing homes with water saving devices. A requirement like this one would insure, up front, that rho new project would 'pay its own way' water-wise. 'I'oxie contaminant discharges There still is no provlsIon for toxic pollution prevention end collection from starmwater discharger; other than oil. 'There is still inadequate assurance that toxics will not he leaked into the marshes and bay. Containment traps, filters, and otheC mechanism SPECIFICALLY' DESIGNED for toxics (other than oil) should be included. The first flush of a rain should be of particular concern. All parking lots, yards, and streets should be equipped with miniature catchment basins or some other alternative to catch/cleanse the first flush of a rain. The sentence sir#eken from page 3.81 which reads "Since the potential for rontaminant discharges cannot be estimated at this time, this impact is considered to be significant and unmitigable" should be reinstated because the long term and cumulative impacts of contaminant discharge can be expected to have negative impacts. It should he remembered that even allowable low levels of contaminants multiplied by many projects adds up to a significant cause of pollution to the Bay, Currently the bay Is a listed 'water quality impaired segment'. Additional pollutant loading will make the current situation worse. liousehold aad industrial Toxica Use Reduction An aggressive plan of household toxic use reduction and industrial toxics use elimination be pursued for this project. The project plan should also include a permanent collection center for household hazardous waste. 2 Pl (tiY- 1 4-~ 1 TL~E 1 3 ?4 E H C Enhanced Wetlands Areas It may be that the concept of sterile, c{ay-lined lagoons, in this time of drought and loss of wetland habitats, are not appropriate. They should be replaced with natural open space parks or productive~wetlands which would serve be an environmental enhancement such as is proposed in alternative 9. For alternative water sources please see above. Integrated Pest Management To mitigate the negative effects from pesticide pollution to the area, an lategrated Pest Management program based on non-toxic chemicals and beneficial insects should be used by the project proponents and included in the mitigations. Canstntction Dewatering Should the appeal of NPDBS 911-31 be successfu{, how the construction dewatering will be discharged should be addressed. Air quality ' instead of a ca-generation plant, which promotes non-renewable energy production, an active solar plant should be developed. Solar energy could reduce the energy requirements of the project and greatly reduce the resulting air pollution from the project. Solar Energy The project should alsp 6e designed to take advantage of passive solar energy opportunities. P - © 4 Promote mass transit, cleaner fuels, walk, and bike trails To mitigate the significant negative environmental effects of additiopal cars and air pollution on the bay, the project could be designed without autos and with an emphasis on mass transit, bikes, and pedestrian means of travel. Promotion of mass transit, biking and hiking paths, replacing the street Marina Parkway with abike/hike trail are all options that should be considered as possible mitigation. These would do muclt to reduce air pollution and the negative environmental effects of this project. To promote cleaner burning fuels in cars, the parking garages should have reserved, close-up parking for those cars which burn hydrogen/natural gas/alternative fuels. Any vehicles used in project maintenance should be cleaner fuel burning as wail. Solid Waste A state of the art recycling, composting, and reuse facility should be Incorporated into the project plan to mitigate the effects of increased solid waste. Composting of organic and yard and landscaping waste could significantly reduce trash to landfill. Ban an aiagle use containers To reduce litter, no plastic or Styrofoam single use coma#ncrs should be sold within the 3 f7 A'Y- 1 4-~+ 1 T U E 1 3 .~ E H C P_ 05 project site. Thi9 would significantly reduce solid waste and reduce the hazard that these materials pose to marine life. 2. NOT Ai.L PROIECI'$ UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR DEV'EI.APMENT ARE CONSIDERED IN Ttll? SECTION ON CUMUL.A7'IVE 1~FFBCi'S Missing from the list of proposed or planned developments and their cumulative effects on the bay are: National City Marina- proposed in concept for Sweetwater channel adjacent to Pepper Park Anchorage, A-7 Crown Cave Anchorage A$ Sweetwater Fteet Landing Dock Float Facility Embarcadero Floating Dock a Street Floating Cack (Above were taken from a San Diego Unified Port District Agenda Sheet. Item #20, August 1, 1990) Other: tumulative effects of increased PAIi pollution In south bay sediments Effects of Copper spill at the 24th Street Marine Terminal and probable cleanup activities surrounding this hazardous waste site Effects of elevated levels of metals and PCBs near the Rohr autfalls and possible cleanup of bay sediments near Rohr outfalls Effects of contaminated sediments nbar the shipyards Effects of major inland developments on the demands on the bay. 3. REPRESENTATION OF pESTiCIDES iN T1IE EIR We have a major concern with how chemical pesticides are characterized in the Ellt. Page ~-82 of the 1?1R states 'The fertilizers and pesticides used today arc generally safer in terms of their consequences to untargeted species." is unsubstantiated. if the chemicals under consideration are nrganophosphates or carbonates as opposed to the older organochlorines, this statement may be true. HOWEVER, we will aot know until the required environmental fate studies are completed. Further, what we are discovering with the environmental fats data available on the organophosphates, is that many of these newer substances are acutely toxic to wildlife, especially bees, birds, and fish. There are also the synergistic effects of these chemicals mixing in the water Ways which 4 ,,•, , ~9A`r - 1 4-5 1 TUE 1 3~ o E H l: can make them very toxic in combination with each other and with water. Any discussion of use of chemical pesticides relied on in the EIR should name the exact products to he used. We can then examine the data gaps in the fate studies to see if these chemicals stlould be used. We would caution the project proponents that it is illegal to say that any chemical is EPA 'approved'. (page 3-82 ,letter d.) "Development and implementation of a project-level landscape chemical management which waujd require d. use of short-lived EPA approved chemicals for use near wetland areas" is An itlegai statement. Please see the finding in the attachment to this letter. 1'he 1986 t:3eneral Office of Accounting report to the Congress states "...it is unlawful for pestiplde labels and distributors' promotional material to state that pesticides are EPA-approved, because the statement implies that EPA recommends or endorses the product." The BIR could be amended to say that the pesticides bsed should be 13PA registered but that this does not imply any assurance of safety for organisms or the environment. To demonstrate how much we don't know about these pesticides and their effects, a reading of any of registration guides for a pesticide will illuminate the data gaps for an EPA registerdd pesticide. Thank yolt for this opportunity to comment on this EIR. Sincerely, F' _ 0 5 Laura hunter, Coordinator Clean Bay Campaign 2. To act as the coordinating body for all groups and individuals in the d city conducting economic surveys or carrying out programs intended to promote, encourage and foster the industrial and commercial growth of the city; 3. To catalogue and evaluate present and potential industrial or commercial sites within the greater Chula Vista community and to make such information available in an annual report to all economic promotion groups and to enterprises which may be seeking locations in this area; 4. To maintain liaison with the economic development corporation of San Diego County; 5. To analyze federal, state and local taxation programs as they relate the costs of carrying on business; 6. To make recommendations to the city council and boards and commissions of the city relative to improving the business climate and opportunities in the Chula Vista community; 7. To perform such other duties and carry out such other programs as may be authorized or directed by the city council to carry out the purposes and objectives of this commission; 8. The commission shall from time to time review the functions and duties assigned to it and make recommnendations designed to improve its capabilities to carry out its purposes and objectives. (Ord. 1215 § 1 (part), 1969: prior code § 2.1302.) 2.30.030 Meetings. The economic development commission shall hold at least one regular meeting each month on the day and at the time and in the place that it shall designate by resolution and such special meetings as such commission may require. Said meetings shall be subject to all requirements of state and local laws governing notice and open meetings. (Ord. 1215 § 1 (part), 1969: prior code § 2.1303.) Chapter 2.32 RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSIONI4 Sections: 2.32.010 Purpose and intent. 2.32.020 Created-Appointment of members-Term. 2.32.030 Statement of city goals and policies. 2.32.040 Duties-funeral 2.32.050 Additional duties-Environmental quality. 2.32.060 Additional duties-Energy conservation and resource recovery. 2.32.070 Additional duties-Historical protection. 2.32.080 Administrative functions. 2.32.090 Historical site permit process. 56 2.32.010 Purpose and intent. It is the purpose and intent of the city council, in establishing the resource conservation commission, to create a broadly based multifunctional commission which is to provide citizens' advice to the city council in the areas of energy conservation, resource recovery, environmental quality, historic and prehistoric site protection, and other related fields as determined by the city council. The resource conservation commission shall also provide this citizen advice to the other boards and commissions, the city manager and members of his staff on these matters. (Ord. 1928 § 2 (part), 1980.) 2.32.020 Created-Appointment of members-Term. There is created a resource conservation commission, consisting of seven members to be appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the city council from the qualified voters of the city in a manner prescribed in accordance with the provisions of Section 600 et seq. of the charter. The members shall serve for a term of four years. Each member shall serve until his successor is duly appointed and qualified and all vacancies shall be filled for the unexpired term of the member whose seat has become vacant. (Ord. 1928 § 2 (part), 1980.) 2.32.030 Statement of city goals and policies. The following are goals and policies of the city which relate to the duties of the resource conservation commission: A. Create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony to fulfill the social and economic requirements of present and future generations; B. Take all actions necessary to provide the people with clean air and water, enjoyment of aesthetic, natural and scenic qualities and freedom from excessive noise; C. Prevent the elimination of fish or wildlife species due to population intrusion, assist in assuring that these populations do not drop below self-perpetuating levels, and preserve for future generations representations of indigenous plant and animal communities; D. Ensure that the long-term protection of the environment shall be the guiding criterion in decisions by the city; E. Encourage the utilization of alternatives to nonrenewable energy sources; F. Maximize the conservation and efficient utilization of nonrenewable resources; G. Seek equitable sharing of both the benefits of energy consumption and the hardships of energy shortages; H. Minimize any conflict with any national, state, regional or local energy goals; I. Maximize the recovery, recycling and reuse of waste resources through city action and cooperation with other public agencies and private concerns; J. Safeguard the city's historic, aesthetic, social, economic, political and architectural past; K. Protect finite cultural and scientific resources which provide the only record of our historic, prehistoric and natural past. (Ord. 1928 § 2 (part), 1980.) 57 2.32.040 Duties-C~neral. i The commission shall provide the city council with a citizens' assessment of the following: A. .The effectiveness of proposed goals, policies, procedures and regulations of the city in accomplishing the purpose, intent and goals of this chapter; B. The effects of individual projects being subjected to environmental review on the implementation of the purpose, intent and goals of this chapter; C. The extent to which the capital improvement program implements this chapter; D. Additionally, when needed, submit to the city council recommendations for new goals, policies, procedures or regulations necessary to implement this chapter; E. The commission may recognize individuals or groups in the community who have implemented notable measures to foster the purpose, intent and goals of this chapter; F. Hold hearings and take testimony of any persons under oath, if desired, relating to any matter under investigation or in question before this commission. (Ord. 1928 § 2 (part), 1980.) 2.32.050 Additional duties-Environmental quality. A. The chairperson, or a member of this commission designated by the chairperson, shall be a member of the environmental review committee. B. The commission, its chairperson or designated member may review all environmental documents to assure adequate commission review, analysis and comment. C. In conjunction with input on environmental documents, the commission may make recommendations regarding the environmental impact, energy or resource conservation or impact on historic resources of the project to the appropriate decision~naking authority. These recommendations may include methods to mitigate adverse effects, reduce energy or resource consumption or other suggestions within the purpose and intent of the commission. (Ord. 1928 § 2 (part), 1980.) 2.32.060 Additional duties-Energy conservation and resource recovery. A. All proposed energy or resources conservation or recovery policies, programs, or regulations shall be reviewed by the commission so it may make recommendations to the city council regarding compliance with this chapter. B. The commission may make recommendations to city staff, other boards or commissions or the city council regarding the commission's review of policies, programs or regulations. C. The commission shall review and make a recommendation to the council for the disposition of appeals regarding the administration of Title 20, Energy Conservation, of this code except those portions which are within the scope of the board of appeals and the planning commission. (Ord. 1932 § 2 (part), 1980.) 58 2.32.070 Additional duties-Historical protection. The commission shall: A. Recommend to the city council the designation of any site which it has found to meet the criteria as a .historical site. The commission shall also recommend if the historical site permit process as provided in Section 2.32.090 of the chapter, should be imposed on the site; B. Inspect any site which the commission has reason to believe could meet the criteria for a historical site; C. Explore means for the protection, retention and preservation of any historical site, including, but not limited to, appropriate legislation and financing, such as the establishment of a private funding organization or individual, local, state or federal assistance; D. Recommend standards for historical and aesthetic districts and the establishment of such districts within the city; E. Coordinate its activities with the county, the state and the federal government as appropriate to prevent duplication of efforts. F. Provide direction to staff for the preparation and maintenance of a register of all designated historical sites. The register shall include a description of the site, its location, the reason for its designation and other information that the commission determines is necessary. The register shall be distributed to city departments, the owners and/or occupants of designated historical sites and other interested civic or governmental agencies; G. Ten days prior to the consideration by the commission of any site for designation as a historical site, the owner shall be notified in writing that the site is under consideration for inclusion in the register. The notice shall include the date, time and place of the meeting. For purposes of this chapter, the owner of such property is the person appearing as the owner of such property on the last equalized assessment roll of the county. Such notice shall be mailed to the address shown on the assessment roll, in order for a person to appear and protest such inclusion. The owner shall also be notified of any subsequent discussion or possible actions regarding the potential site by the commission or city council. (Ord. 1932 ~ 2 (part), 1980.) 2.32.080 Administrative functions. A. The commission shall select a chairperson and vice chairperson from its membership at the commencement of each fiscal year. Four members shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. B. The commission shall meet not less than once a month and at the call of the chairperson, or in his absence, the vice chairperson or a majority of the members of the commission. C. The commission shall adopt reasonable rules, regulations, procedures and standards, which are consistent with the law, and which are necessary to implement goals, policies and intent of this chapter and related goals, policies and regulations of the city. 59 D. The city manager may make available staff and clerical support as necessary to fulfill its functions and duties, provided such staff and clerical support is available. In the event that private funds or funds from other governmental agencies are made available for special projects, surveys, educational programs or general program support the city manager is authorized, upon recommendation of the commission and approval of the council, to enter into appropriate contracts for the utilization of such funds in furtherance of the purpose and intent of, and the duties and functions of the commission. E. The resource conservation commission shall have no power or right to acquire any property for or on behalf of itself or the city, nor shall it acquire or hold any money for itself or on behalf of the city. Further, the resource conservation commission shall not have the power or right to negotiate with any party for the acquisition of property designated as a historic site. (Ord. 1932 ~ 2 (part), 1980.) 2.32.090 Historical site permit process. A. The city council may, after considering such a recommendation by the resource conservation commission, impose the permit restrictions contained in this section. B. No permit for the demolition, substantial alteration or removal of any building, structure or site shall be issued without first referring the matter to the resource conservation commission, except where the city manager determines that demolition, removal or substantial alteration of any such building, structure or site is immediately necessary in the interest of the public health, safety or general welfare. The building, engineering and planning departments shall notify the resource conservation commission in writing within five days of any request it receives for any such permit. C. The resource conservation commission shall have thirty days from the date of such notification within which to object to the proposed demolition, major alteration or removal of the trees, plants or other major landscaping. The resource conservation commission shall file its objections with the city manager or his delegate. Upon the filing of such objections, no permits shall be issued for the demolition, major alteration or removal of the historic site for a period of not less than thirty nor more than one hundred eighty days. The city manager shall notify the appropriate departments of the filing of objections by the resource conservation commission. Failure to file objections within the thirty-day period is a waiver of all objections, and the permit shall be issued in due course. When the resource conservation connnission files objections with the city manager pursuant to this chapter, all such objections, upon their transmittal to the city manager, shall in addition be transmitted to the applicant for any permit or entitlement to demolish, perform a major alteration upon, or remove any historic site or other feature protected by the terms of this chapter. 60 D. Upon the filing of objections, the resource conservation commission shall ' take such steps within the scope of its powers and duties as it determines are necessary for the preservation of the historical site. No such action shall be taken by the resource conservation commission, however, until the same has been submitted to and approved by the city council. At the end of the first thirty days, the resource conservation commission shall report its progress to the city council which may, upon review of the progress report, withdraw and cancel the objection to the proposed demolition, major alteration or removal, and the necessary permits shall then be issued. If at the end of the first one hundred days of the aforesaid one-hundred~ighty-day period, it is found that the preservation of the site, building or structure cannot be fully accomplished within the one-hundred~ighty-day period, and the resource conservation commission determines that such preservation can be satisfactorily completed within an additional period not to exceed one hundred eighty days, the resource conservation commission may recommend to the city council that a request for extension be granted. Such recommendation shall set forth the reasons therefor and the progress to that date of the steps taken to preserve the site. The city council may accept such recommendation for good cause shown and if it appears that preservation may be completed within the time requested, may grant an extension of time not to exceed one hundred eighty days. No such request for extension shall be made after the expiration of the original one-hundred-eighty-day suspension period. E. No person shall remove trees, plants or other major landscaping from any property designated as an historical site without the approval of the city's landscape architect. The city's landscape architect shall notify ~ the resource conservation commission in writing of any such request within five days of its receipt. (Ord. 1932 § 2 (part), 1980.) Chapter 2.34 (RESERVED) Chapter 2.36 HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSIONI5 Sections: 2.36.010 2.36.020 Purpose and intent. Created-Appointment of members-Term-0uorum ~Aeetings-Rules regulations-Appointments. Duties and functions. and 2.36.030 2.36.040 Staff assistance and funding. 61 AGENDA City Planning Commission Chula Vista, California Wednesday, May 22, 1991 - 7:00 p.m. Cit Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INTRODUCTORY REMARKS APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Meeting of April 24, 1991 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Planning Commission on any subject matter within the Commission's jurisdication but not an item on today's agenda. Each speaker's presentation may not exceed five minutes. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Chula Vista LCP Resubmittal No. 8 Amendment: EIR-89-08 2. PUBLIC HEARING: a) Recertification of EIR-89-10, Rancho del Rey SPA III b) Consideration of Water Conservation Plan for Rancho del Rey SPAS II and III; c) Consideration of Air Quality Improvement Plan for Rancho del Rey SPAS II and III; d) PCS-90-02: Request to subdivide 404.9 acres known as Rancho del Rey Sectional Planning Area III, Chula Vista Tract No. 90-02 located between East "H" Street and Telegraph Canyon Road, immediately south of Rancho del Rey SPA I, Rancho del Rey Partnership; e) Consideration of Rancho del Rey Sectional Planning Area III Design Guidelines; f) Consideration of Amended Mitigation Monitoring Program for EIR-89-10, Rancho del Rey SPA III; g) Consideration of Amended CEQA Findings for EIR-89-10, Rancho del Rey SPA III. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-91-O5: Consideration of an appeal from a decision of the Zoning Administrator relating to a condition of approval requiring dedication of right-of-way along Third Avenue and "L" Street for the property at the northwest corner of that intersection. DIRECTOR'S REPORT COMMISSION COMMENTS AD~~OURNMENT AT p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of June 12, 1991 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.