HomeMy WebLinkAboutRCC AGENDA PK 1993/08/23Mitigated Neg4 _~ve Declaration-
PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT LOCATION:
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.
PROJECT APPLICANT:
CASE NO: IS-91-15
A. Project Settine
DATE: July 28, 1993
The proposed project consists of the annexation and prezoning of 8.52 acres currently located
in the County of San Diego to the City of Chula Vista and subdivision of the site into
residential lots. The site consists primarily of a rectangular tract of land abutting the Bonita
Valley Reservoir on the west, north of the terminus of Moonview Drive. Although the site
was farmed many years ago, a variety of vegetation is on the site. The southern end of the
property features anorth-facing slopes with disturbed vegetation which gradually drops into
a drainage with sage scrub. The terrain rises again to the north onto a barren ridgeline,
before dropping steeply into Bonita Valley. On the eastern boundazy near the center of the
site is a disturbed fill slope abutting a buried reservoir. The 18.7 million gallon reinforced
concrete Bonita Valley Reservoir to the east includes a two foot earthen "blanket" over the
concrete, on which sage scrub was seeded. The high elevation is 308 feet at the south end
of the property, on a hillside below the existing water tank while the low elevation is
approximately 116 feet in the extreme northwestern corner of the property on a steep slope
overlooking Bonita Valley.
B. Proiect Description
The proposed project is~ an annexation to the Ciry of Chula Vista and prezoning of
approximately eight acres and subdivision of the site into thirteen lots. Twelve of the lots
will be for development of custom homes, two of the lots will be dedicated open space for
protection of sensitive environmental resources. Site access will be via Moonview Drive
which will be gated at the entrance to the site.
The site is bounded by existing single family residences at the northeastern and southwestern
corners, water storage facilities at the eastern and southern portions, a partially improved
road at the northwest boundaries, Moon View Drive at the southeastern corner, and
undeveloped land at the. remaining boundazies.
The property to the north, east and west is in the County of San Diego and designated
Residential-Low (0-3 du/ac), Residential 1 and Residential 5, respectively, on the Sweetwater
Community Plan. The property to the south (Terra Nova) is in the City of Chula Vista and
is designated Residential-Low Medium (3-6 du/ac) on the City's General Plan. Zoning for
Bonita Hills Executive Estates
North of the Terminus of Moonview Drive
APN: 592-030-58
Michael Anthony Demich
~«r,
~~
city of Chula vista planning department CITY OF
environmental review section CHUTA VISTA
the property to the north, east and west is RR-1 (to the north and east) and RS-4 (to east and
west). Terra Nova is zoned PC (Planned Community) by the City of Chula Vista.
C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans
The project site's General Plan designation in the County of San Diego is Residential-Low
(0-3 du/ac). The proposed City of Chula Vista General Plan designation for the site is
Residential-Low (0-3 dulac). The current zoning, under the County of San Diego is RR-1
(1 acre minimum lot size). The proposed City of Chula Vista zoning is RE-P (minunum lot
size of 20,000 square feet).
D. Identification of Environmental Effects
An initial study conducted by the City of Chula Vista (including the attached Environmental
Checklist Form) determined that the proposed project could have one or more significant
environmental effects. Subsequent revisions in the project design and/or specific mitigation
measures will be implemented to reduce these effects to a level below significant. With
project revisions and/or mitigation, no significant environmental effects will occur, and the
preparation of an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. This Mitigated
Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with Section (5070 of the State CEQA
Guidelines. Specific mitigation measures are set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring Program
which is attached as Attachment "A".
The following impacts are those that were determined to be potentially significant and are
required to be mitigated to a level below significant. A discussion of each of these
potentially significant but mitigatable impacts from the proposed project follows.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Existing Conditions:
A biological survey was performed on the 8.52-acre Bonita Hills Executive Estate site to identify
sensitive biological resources and constraints for future development of the site. The Biological
Assessment for the site is on file in the City of Chula Vista Planning Department. The survey
revealed that the site is utilized by both Coastal Cactus Wrens and the California Gnatcatcher. The
former inhabits sage scrub and cactus near the ravine along the western fenceline, and territories
extend off-site into higher quality habitat immediately west. The gnatcatchers were noted at the same
locale; as well as in sage scrub now growing on the eastern boundary of the site and further into the
earthen seal for the reservoir (off-site). Two easements of 1.21 and 1.50 acres, which represent
approximately 30% of the project site, are proposed as dedicated biological open space to protect
these sensitive birds and their habitat.
Two plants of limited sensitivity were noted: several California Adolphia grow near the ravine along
the western boundary, and eight San Diego Viguiera occur further upslope to the north. Habitat
quality varies widely on the property, with disturbed grasslands in the south and north, and fair to
good quality Diegan Sage Scrub covering much of the canyon's flanks in the center of the property.
Two vegetation types were present on the property: Diegan Sage Scrub and a very disturbed Annual
Grassland. Shrub diversity at the Bonita Hills site is relatively limited. The more diverse sage scrub
C\NANCY\\DEMICH.IS\ Page 2
is concentrated near the drainage along the western boundary. Unusual for the region is the high
incidence of California Encelia, which although a common plant, is rarely the dominant cover. Also
occurring is Coastal Sagebrush, Lemonadeberry in the more mesic canyon bottom, Flat-top
Buckwheat, Spanish Bayonet and Black Sage. Near the western boundazy, by the drainage, grows
some Jojoba, Coast Cholla, and further upslope San Diego Viguiera in limited numbers.
The understory is relatively limited. Native elements include the late-flowering San Diego Want
Chicory, Bicolored Cudweed, Ocean Locoweed and California Filago. A[ one artificially moist
locale, along the southern boundazy, near an irrigated residential yard, is one Arroyo Willow and
a Great Marsh Evening Primrose. No other wetland species were seen on the property.
The disturbed Annual Grassland/Disturbed habitat includes an abundance of the noxious Tecolote and
Wild Mustard. The overall quality of this grassland is considered poor. Much of the grassland
habitat in the south may have been created during construction of the adjacent buried reservoir.
Grassy areas on [he ridgeline in the north are likely the result of peripheral residential disturbance.
Of the species of plants that were recorded on the site, thirty-seven are non-native invasive elements.
None of these additional species is expected to be, listed as sensitive.
The Diegan Sage Scrub and Annual Grassland are habitat types for wildh`fe on the site. A small
canyon with a few large shrubs at the western end of the property is kept moist by suburban runoff.
This is an attractive area for animal-life in an otherwise grid environment. Two sensitive species
of birds were observed utilizing the available sage scrub habitat, Coast Cactus Wren and California
Gnatcatcher.
No amphibian were observed. Only one species of reptile were observed. Fifteen species of birds
were observed on the site. Most of the species were associated with the natural sage scrub habitat.
As many as six Coastal Cactus Wrens were observed. One pair of California Gnatcatchers utilize
this property. No nesting activity was detected, but the quality of the available sage scrub habitat
is rather good. A sepazate single gnatcatcher was seen and heard briefly to the northeast of this
property along Randy Lane, indicating their presence there as well. Another pair of gnatcatchers
uses the revegetated sage scrub covering the adjacent underground reservoir and the small tract of
sage scrub off-site in the southeast (south of Moonview Drive).
Desert Cottontail was observed. Coyote was detected from its scat. California Ground Squirrel
burrows were found, and they undoubtedly occur on-site, pazticularly within the disturbed terrain.
Potential Environmental Impacts:
Both the Riversidian phase and the Diegan phase of Coastal Sage Scrub have been severely reduced
in total acreage over the last century. Along with the extensive reduction in sage scrub has come
a piecemeal fragmentation of larger tracts of such habitat. Isolation into small pazcels devoid of
viable linkages to other similar lands has undercut the value of such lands.
Substantial redesign has eliminated initial significant biological impacts. Several adverse biological
impacts will result from the proposed 12-lot split.
• Loss of 1.5 acres of Diegan Sage Scrub. This habitat is severely declining in the
Bonita region due to urban development and its conservation is a focus of regional
C:\NANCY\\DEMICH.IS\ Page 3
planning for both Chula Vista and San Diego County. This highest quality sage
scrub is situated in proposed open space B. Impacted sage scrub is of lesser or
degraded quality.
• The loss of eight San Diego Viguiera are not considered biologically significant.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Existing Conditions:
An Archaeological/Historical Assessment was prepared for the project site to determine if any
significant cultural resources were present. The entire Cultural Resource Survey is on file in the
City of Chula Vista Planning Depaztment. Record searches were conducted at the San Diego
Museum of Man and the South Coastal Information Center at San Diego State University to identify
previously recorded archaeological sites within one mile of the site. No sites were recorded on the
project site, however, the record searches indicated that ten prehistoric sites have been recorded
within one mile of the property. All sites are located along ridge tops overlooking either side
drainages or the Sweetwater River.
In 1981, the project site was part of a larger survey for Sweetwater Authority for the Bonita Valley
Reservoir Site. As a result of the 1981 investigation, no cultural resources were recorded. The
1981 study concluded that the area had been a working farm for over thirty yeazs. Historic maps
and aerial photographs do not reveal any pre-1942 farmsteads or activities on the site, although they
do reveal the farm activities mentioned in the 1981 report, occurring on the knoll top by 1944.
Although, according to [he 1981 study, debris related to farming was found on the site, none of it
was determined to be significant. No mitigation was required at that time.
The entire site was again surveyed for the current study in September, 1992. No prehistoric or
historic resources were located. Sprinkler heads were noted through the property suggesting the
possibility of past farming activities. Miscellaneous trash, asphalt and cement chunks and pieces of
road gravel were noted primarily along the road. A small, abandoned area, likely the remnants of
a worker's camp containing trash and a wooden platform, was located in the southwest area. It was
determined to be non-significant, and therefore, no mitigation is necessary.
SOILS
Existing Conditions:
A Soil and Geologic Reconnaissance was to prepared by Geocon,Inc. to provide preliminary
geotechnical information relative to the development of the proposed subdivision. The Geocon, Inc.
study is on file in the City of Chula Vista Planning Department. Two geologic formations and two
surficial deposits were encountered during the reconnaissance. The geologic formations consisted
of Oligocene-aged Otay Formation and Pliocene-aged San Diego Foundation. The surficial deposits
consisted of fill and topsoil. The Oligocene-aged Otay Formation is located near the northern portion
of the site. The Otay Formation does have contact with the younger (overlying) San Diego
Formation within the open space azea of Open Space Lot "A". The formation generally consists
of dense sandstone and claystones. Due to the formation being located only within the open space
azea it should not be encountered during grading for the proposed development.
CNNANCY\\DEMICH.IS\ Page
The San Diego Formation (Tsd) is a dense, tan/light gray, silty, fine-grained (with some gravel)
associated with the San Diego Formation which appears to be the predominant formation underlying
the site. Excavation within this unit will likely require moderate to heavy efforts with conventional
heavy-duty grading equipment. Localized cemented zones, if encountered, may require a very heavy
effort.
The San Diego Formation should provide suitable foundation engineering characteristics for proposed
structures in either an undisturbed or properly compacted condition. Cut slopes and compacted fill
slopes constructed at 2: I (horizontal:vertical) or flatter should generally be stable. These soils, when
used to construct fill slopes, are very susceptible to surficial erosion and should be properly planted
to reduce the potential for erosion.
Topsoils consisting of silty to slightly clayey, fine sands were observed overlying the formational
units and were visually classified as relatively "low" -expansive with observed thicknesses of
approximately 1 to 2 feet (where exposed) and may be as thick as 3 feet in some locations. Due to
the generally loose, unconsolidated nature of the topsoil, it should be removed and recompacted prior
to placing fill or structural loads.
There is a fill slope, on the site, associated with the underground reservoir east of the project site.
Where fills are proposed above the existing reservoir fill soils, these areas`may require subsurface
investigation (trenches, etc) where structural improvements are considered. Other minor fills were
noted on, or adjacent to, the site. These soils will require additional investigation where
improvements aze proposed. It is anticipated that the above-mentioned fills were derived from soils
similaz to those previously discussed.
No evidence of landslides was found in previous reports or photographs and none were observed on
the site. No groundwater or seeps were observed during the reconnaissance.
The site is not located on any known active or potentially active fault trace. The Coronado Banks
Fault, which is considered to be active, lies approximately 18 miles west of the site. The Rose
Canyon Fault is located approximately 8 miles from the site and is the closest active fault to the site.
The site is located within the La Nacion Fault zone with the nearest splay approximately 1,600 feet
to the west. Regional active faults include the Elsinore Fault and the San Jacinto Fault zones, which
lie approximately 41 and 62 miles to the northeast, respectively. In an event of a major earthquake
on these or other faults in the southern California region, the site could be subjected to moderate to
severe ground shaking. With respect to this hazard, this site is comparable to others in the general
vicinity. Due to the high density of prevailing formational soils at the site, anticipated remedial
grading of the surficial soils, and the lack of a permanent near-surface groundwater table, there does
not appear to be a significant risk of seismically induced liquefaction occurring on the property.
Mitigation Measures:
Conclusion•
No significant soil or geologic conditions have been observed or are known to exist which would
preclude development of the property. Provided the mitigation recommendations in the Geologic
Reconnaissance are adhered to there will be no significant impact related to geology or soils.
C:\N ANCY\\DEM ICH.IS\
DRAINAGE/HYDROLOGY
Existing Conditions:
Due to the topography of the site, drainage is considered to be a potentially significant impact. A
Drainage Study was prepared for the site and is on file in the City of Chula Vista Planning
Department.
The subject property is dominated by a saddle located in the center portion of the property between
two knolls located on the northern and southern extremes of the project. The proposed northern six
lots would be developed on the descending ridgeline of the northern knoll. The southern six lots
would be located on the northern side of the southern knoll. The central saddle descends to a canyon
and natural drainage course to the west. The northern 150 feet of the property is steep in grade and
would not be disturbed by the proposed project.
Due to the site's location in close proximity to hilltops, very little offsite land (approximately 1.1
acres) contribute to the study area's drainage basins. In a natural condition, only property to the east
would naturally drain towards the project. However, the drainage generated offsite to the east of
the site is collected in the Sweetwater Authority storm drain system and duected to the northeast
away from site. '
The drainage study area consists of two well-defined drainage areas. The area to the north of the
ridgeline of the northern knoll encompasses approximately 2.1 acres and generates 4.27 cubic
feet/second (cfs) of run-off in a 100-year storm. This water exits the project site in an even
sheetflow down the steep slope descending to the north of the site.
The second existing drainage azea encompasses the majority of the project site which is located south
of the ridgeline of the northern knoll, along with a small area off-site on the slope of the southern
knoll and portions of the canyon banks to the west. This basin generates an existing 18.14 cubic
feetlsecond (cfs) of run-off in a 100 year storm which is concentrated offsite into the flowline of the
small canyon descending westerly from the central project site area.
A portion of the access road abutting the central portion of the site along its eastern boundary is part
of the proposed subdivision, however, it has not been included in the Drainage Study since the road
is already developed and its drainage is collected in the storm drainage system developed as part of
the underground reservoir and discharged offsite. No change in this drainage is proposed as part
of the proposed project.
Proposed Developed Drainage:
The developed drainage analysis is based on proposed site improvements as shown on the tentative
map for the project Chula Vista Tract Map No. 91-2 dated March 3, 1993. The drainage basin areas
following site development will remain basically the same as in the existing condition (see Figure
1). There would be little change in Drainage Area B. For the three lots proposed on the north side
of proposed Street "C", the reazyazds would sheet drain to the north and the frontyazds would drain
south to the street. Though there will be a small increase in Drainage Area B, it will be offset by
the increased time of concentration due to the shallow slope of the proposed pad. Therefore,
although there will be a slight increase in drainage, it does not constitute a significant impact.
Q\NANCY\\DEMICH.IS\ Page 6
i S i a_i.3 R y ~ i:, ~. ai C
Y i
t ti/
~ ~
~i /
I
..a
fir.., _.. .
: ~ a cea~4 ~aG~ a g 95g_~e P?
D;
'-" ..i a
7.'
,-
W o iFig
[ ~; a k ~~
:3:3
C ~ ~
g
# .a.~
~:a~
1
S [
:oFAa i
tt5
~ * d G
~
~~
.~
'R d?R7.3
i Ifi
LP~ ~A Y^a W C
Et '_ ~ _ a ~~±.
i ~;!.~ ;
,.; /f
^i.
a ;
'<a °m.a l
~F~.$I,I
1
rk ~il
B, /~
I r /'
°LM t~ / , ~~ ~'
~ ~~
' a ,~~ ~.
~ .,~.'.
'a
,• ,~ °Eo ~
7~ \2. \\`
,\\ ~~\\
1, .~~
il'~
1° ~\~
~~.~..-~- is r
p j,
X311 -. ~~
!:. .e~
'' ,/
~ / %
• P
C
lil
.~
'.
r~ ~i .~,
~~
'/t'i
/ ,_ . ,
ga~s~a==:........-~
a
of
5
e
F. ~ vei~4
I i
C
°6€
l
.E ~ _3- ~.9:
_-...lac :........._ D
\
\ v C
r
1 .~~
~
~ ,
..... _ .::.:F,
F ,., ,y
o
z
:
_
:;; ra
,r
-- ~ .
,
_ , ~~ %,
ice`
~~~~ {
.f ~
N
p
`L
- E -
a
a- r
~
T 1
FG
'
'
a SJ
,
N
~YD
- R
I
r m
~
I D3~ ° t
~ . ~
a N
m
~OI
( ~T S ti
q
n oPn
n t ~
°gE4 ~~' N
aN :~ IT
L"t l°
~ _
.
~ ~
~m
'm 6 ~ °
_
t
m ~
J_
~
t F,T
y^
~4 c
<s t
~.!.. _ we ew r_ _4~~ -- ~ ~ J.J
^I ~~ -`_s _-- m
x n
I °I I1 Anl I ~ ~
I ~,~ '- ~ G
I _ - C Cl~
~" „ ;II
I I a~i Cy r rn
~' vrr II ; ~ E ~~ o
„Q~I I ~ I~ , R ~n ,
a ; ~;li ; gESA'9 ~ ~ ~ D
E; 1 ~~ i I~ S pe q `°
it ;Q I; ~ ~aFe~ ,. ~ J z
I ;, ~g.p -1
8[[~ ~Qlil;f ~ eS; ~?7 m D D
'`PI I I •Ckk2yd X
-I I m
tY" ~`~ " ~
~„ ~
~ ~„ ,,151E 11 ~~ ~ xa:@~ ; m --I ~
I ,/ I l:`~ 7
IM I U. "'I
i°~ I ^I I~~~ I ~ ' ~ m Q
-,:._ ~ ,
C _ . t . _~.~.. _- , ~ CO O
'a '~ - ~
~;. ~ ~ ~ z
~_ ~
_Z
~
F \
9 \
/ _.. • 'j
~' ~
n ~~~ `
\~ \ a \a ~
_ aE
~ F\
~ l' - ~ oero
IT _ _ ~ y-+-t
~ ~- pn n ~t~ wn
~~ L n W W R I C NS 4t
vsOMtIMNVMOMY ~
II I IVY
(
(•• .~
D
~. ~~
II
~
~ i !,
sEi~aj -
t '~
_'~_ f ' LO f 1 7;
~ fLpl t
I
t ~------ i
~
t
k; S~.a.
SE
i ~ CFIUL
§; YISf.1 f 71C f JO
~ - ~
~ a ~
I
II I P I ° j
_`Si {
~6
e
[
a
~ s ~ ~
; s i;i f C ~.
4i
a g ~ l .
I
°~ pp ]]
~~,m'
~-
i3i
^'
~
t t ~
-
~
n pp
5jo II
~
`' pg€ ~ =~
~`
t n
i
' _ I.
c
i
3
. ~__. .
I_~.___.
_
.
_~__
. _'- _. I
A
I~
n
Drainage Area A will be impacted due to the construction of a surface collection and underground
drainage conveyance system for the proposed development. Some run-off from portions of Area A
will be conveyed in a different manner than in the existing condition. Drainage Subareas A„ AZ,
A3, Aa and A5, will be directed to the underground storm drain system with its outlet in Lot B.
Drainage Subareas A6 and A~ will be collected at the rear of the graded pads, directed to the rip rap
energy dissipators to be located on the north side of these lots, from which they will drain into the
western canyon.
The Drainage Study concludes that there will be a slightly lower quantity of runoff after development
than in the existing condition, due to the drainage improvements that are proposed. This reduction
is due to the larger time of concentration caused by the change in landform and increased time for
the drainage to be routed in the street curb and gutter system prior to release in the underground
storm drains.
Erosion/Sedimentation:
There is minimal erosion currently from the site due to dense vegetation on the canyon slopes and
the sheetflow nature of the existing drainage pattern. In the developed condition, all of the drainage
subareas of Area A except for AS will be concentrated, and thus increasing its erosive possibilities.
Drainage Subazeas A, through A, and ?.6 and A, have a total quantity of approximately 9.05 cfs.
If this quantity were released directly in a concentrated condition on the canyon sideslopes, the slopes
could erode and cause downstream siltation. This can be eliminated by extending the storm drains
to the flowline of the existing canyon and reducing the outlet velocities. The extension of the storm
drains to the flowline along with the proposed installation of rip rap and splashwalls would mitigate
the impact of the increased drainage from the proposed development.
WATER QUALITY/EROSION:
Due to the topography of the site, sedimentation could be a significant short- and long-term impact.
The long-term impact related to drainage has been addressed in the drainage section above with
appropriate mitigation measures recommended.
Erosion and sedimentation impacts during the grading and construction period would be short-term,
especially after storm events, and would be potentially significant. These impacts would occur only
if adequate erosion control measures are not applied during and after the earthwork stage when
disturbed soil is left temporarily unprotected.
Long term erosion may occur from exposure of graded land if the area is not adequately landscaped
soon after grading. These impacts aze also considered to be potentially significant.
The applicant will be required to comply with the General National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit issued to San Diego County by the State Water Resources Control Boazd
for grading and construction activities. Individual projects fall under the General Permit issued to
San Diego County by filing a Notice of Intent (NOI), including a Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan (SWPPP), with the State Water Resources Control Board prior to commencing grading
activities. The SWPPP also addresses runoff from the site after construction to ensure that the future
runoff is in compliance with the NPDES. Implementation of the recommended mitigation measures
will mitigate the impact of sedimentation to less than significant.
Q\NANCY\\DEMICH.IS\
E. Mitigation necessary to avoid significant effects
Specific project mitigation measures are required to reduce potentially significant
environmental impacts identified in the initial study for this project to a level below
significant. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project design and have
been made conditions of project approval, as well as requirements of the attached Mitigation
Monitoring Program (Attachment "A").
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Two dedicated open spaces are recommended, and have been incorporated into the tentative
map, which will include 1.2 acres of the higher quality Diegan Sage Scrub on-site in Area
A, and protect habitat for both the Coastal Cactus Wren and the California Gnatcatcher. The
California Adolphia will also be protected within these areas. The western open space (Area
B) is 1.5 acres and is contiguous with high quality cactus wren and gnatcatcher habitat off-
site to the west. It also links the revegetated lands of the reservoir with this sage scrub-
dominated habitat (separated only by the existing paved road). Lot A covers a steep north-
facing slope with grassland habitat. Specific mitigation measures to avoid specific significant
biological impacts aze as follows:
1. No cleazance of vegetation or other forms of habitat and soil disturbance shall occur
within the dedicated open space areas (Lots A and B), with the exception of the
construction of the sewage pipes and storm drainage pipe. In such case, disturbance
shall be at the minimum required to accommodate construction.
2. 0.3 acre of disturbed grassland Diegan Sage Scrub in Lot B shall be revegetated in
accordance with the recommendations in the Pacific Southwest Biological Services
Assessment for the project dated September 4, 1992. Artemisia californica, Encelia
californica, Eriogonum fasciculatum, Diplacus puniceus, and Salvia mellifera should
be the principal shrubby components of this revegetation. A three-yeaz monitoring
plan shall be implemented to ensure the successful establishment of this scrub. The
0.3 acre constitutes the entire area within Area B mapped as grassland.
3. Prior to consideration of any final subdivision or pazcel map, issuance of a grading
permit, or issuance of a building permit for any portion of the project site, proof of
an incidental take permit under Section 7, Section l0a of the Endangered Species Act
or any other form of approval by the US Fish & Wildlife Service, relative to the
California Gnatcatcher or Coastal Sage Scrub, shall be provided to the Environmental
Review Section of the Plamting Department. If such permit is not required, written
verification to that effect from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service shall be provided.
Any project redesign required in obtaining a Section 7 or l0a permit may require
reconsideration by the appropriate City decisionmaking body.
CULTURAI. RESOURCES
No significant impacts were identified, therefore, no mitigation is necessary.
C: \NANCY\\DEMICH.IS\
SOILS
4. All recommendations of the Soi] and Geologic Reconnaissance prepared for the
Bonita Hills Executive Estates by Geocon Incorporated, dated December, 1992, shall
be adhered to.
5. A 20- to 30-foot high near vertical slope within the central drainage at the western
boundary may experience additional erosion. Consideration should be given in the
design process for future slope relation within the immediate area.
6. All future geotechnica] subsurface investigation for the site should include review of
the fill compaction report for the underground water reservoir at the eastern
boundary.
7. The topsoils overlying the formational units will require remedial grading in the form
of removal and recompaction in aeeas of proposed improvement. A subsurface
investigation and laboratory testing will be required to determine actual depths of
removals.
8. Existing fills in areas of proposed improvement should be`evaluated during future
investigations.
9. Excavations within the on-site soils should generally be possible with moderate to
heavy efforts with conventional heavy-duty grading equipment. Localized cemented
zone, if encountered, may require a very heavy effort.
10. Deleterious materials encountered during grading, such as tree roots, should be
excavated and disposed of off site.
11. Cut and fill slopes planned at inclinations of 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) or flatter with
maximum heights of 13 feet should generally be stable against deep-seated failure.
12. Cut and fill slopes will be provided with anerosion-resistant ground cover and an
adequately designed and maintained irrigation system as soon as practical to reduce
the erosion potential. Constructed slopes should be designed with appropriate
drainage systems; water will not be allowed to discharge over the top of slopes.
13. In general, the prevailing soil conditions in either a dense undisturbed or properly
compacted condition are suitable for the support of conventional isolated and
continuous spread footings. It is anticipated that "very low" expansive soils will be
encountered or will be placed as fill in the areas influencing future foundations.
Foundation design, including an allowable soil bearing pressure and estimated
settlements, should be incorporated within future geotechncial studies.
14. Prior to the fmalization of the grading and improvement plans, a detailed soil and
geologic investigation addressing the proposed development shall be performed.
C:\NANCY\\DEMICH.IS\ Page t0
DRAINAGE/HYDROLOGY
15. All drainage improvements shown on Tentative Map 91-2 dated March 2, 1993,
including rip rap velocity dissipators at outlet locations on the banks of the existing
slopes, shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
16. Storm drains shall be extended to the flow line of the canyon. Outlets and energy
dissipators shall be designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
WATER QUALITY/EROSION:
17. The developer shall prepare an erosion and sedimentation control plan, in compliance
with the NPDES permit issued to San Diego County, for the proposed development
to address the impacts of short-term construction and grading activity. Said plan
shall be incorporated into the project's grading and construction plans and shall be
approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of grading permits.
18. The project shall comply with the provisions of the State Water Resources Control
Board (State Water Board) Order Number 92-08-DWQ, National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit Number CAS 000002, Waste Discharge
Requirements (WDRS) for Discharges of Storm Water Runoff Associated with
Construction Activity including the preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan.
19. All graded slopes shall be properly planted to reduce the potential for erosion.
Landscape plans shall be subject to approval of the Planning Director prior to
issuance of grading permits.
C: \N ANCY\\DEMICH.IS\
F. Consultation
I. Individuals and Organizations
City of Chula Vista: Marilyn R. F. Ponseggi, Planning Consultant
Roger Daoust, Engineering
Cliff Swanson, Engineering
Hal Rosenberg, Engineering
Bob Sennett, Planning
Ken Larsen, Director of Building & Housing
Carol Gove, Fire Marshal
Crime Prevention, MaryJane Diosdada
Marty Schmidt, Parks & Recreation Dept.
Rich Rudolf, Assistant City Attorney
Chula Vista City School District: Kate Shurson
Sweetwater Union High School District: Tom Silva
Applicant's Agent: Sidney Xinos, Xinos Engineering
David B. Parot, Xinos Engineering
2. Documents
Chula Vista General Plan (1989) and EIR (1989)
Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code
Biological Assessment of the Proposed Bonita Hills Estates, City of Chula Vista,
California, prepared by Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc., September 4,
1992, revised March 16, 1993 (Appendix "A")
Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed 8.9 acre Demich Subdivision Chula Vi$
Tract #9]-2, Chula Vista, California, prepared by Roth and Associates, September,
1992 (Appendix "B")
Soil and Geologic Reconnaissance for Bonita Hills Executive Estates, Chula Vista,
California, prepared by Geocon, Inc., December, 1992
(Appendix "C")
Drainage Study for Bonita Hills Executive Estates, prepared by Xinos Enterprises,
Inc., March 31, 1993 (Appendix "D")
C:\NANCY\\DEMICH.IS\ Page t2
Initial Studv
This environmental determination is based on the attached Initial Study as well as any
comments on the Initial Study and this Mitigated Negative Declaration, and reflects
the independent judgement of the City of Chula Vista. Further information regarding
the environmental review of the project is available from the Chula Vista Planning
Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910.
7`
~, L~ ~ ~/fly ~~, ~.- i) ~~>i~~;
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR
EN 6 (Rev. 5/93)
C:\NANCY\\DEMICHJS\ Page t3
Case No. IS 91-IS
APPENDIX I
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
(To Be Completed By Lead Agency)
Background
1. Name of Proponent: Michael Anthony Demich
2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 3356 Glen Abbey Boulevard. Chula Vista.
California 92010. (619) 427-5005
3. Date of Checklist:
4. Name of Proposal: Bonita Hills Executive Estates
5. Initial Study Number: IS-91-15
Environmental Impacts
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: YES MAYBE NO
a. Unstable earth conditions or changes in
geologic substructures? ^ ^ ^
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or
overcovering of the soil? ^ ^ ^
c. Change in topography or ground surface
relief features? ^ ^ ^
d. The destruction, covering or modification
of any unique geologic or physical features? ^ ^ ^
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of
soils, either on or off the site? ^ ^ ^
f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach
sands, or changes in siltation, deposition
or erosion which may modify the channel of
a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or
any bay, inlet or lake? ^ ^ ^
c:wnNCV~~~aMicH.~s~ Page 14
g. Exposure of people or property [o geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud
slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? ^ ^ ^
Comments:
Potential geological impacts aze addressed in the Soils section of the Negative Declaration.
The Geological Recottnaissance prepazed for the site concludes that if the mitigation measures
recommended in the Report aze incorporated into the project the impact is mitigated to a level
of less than significant. Any potential impact due to erosion is discussed and mitigated in
the Drainage/Hydrology section of the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
2. Air. Will the proposal result in: YES MAYBE NO
a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration
of ambient air quality? ^ ^ ^
b. The creation of objectionable odors? ^ ^ ^
c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or
temperature, or any change in climate, `
either locally or regionally? ^ ^ ^
Comments:
Deterioration of regional air quality would not result from the proposed subdivision. The
number of vehicle trips anticipated from the development are minimal as are potential
emissions.
3. Water. Will the Proposal result in:
a. Changes in currents, or the course or
direction of water movements, in either
marine or fresh waters?
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of
surface runoff?
c. Alterations to the course or flow of
flood waters?
d. Change in the amount of surface water
in any water body?
e. Discharge into surface waters, or any
alteration of surface water quality,
including but not limited to temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
YES MAYBE NO
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
Q\NANCY\\DEMICH.IS\ Page ]S
f. Alteration of the direction or rate of
flow of ground waters? ^ ^ ^
g. Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or
withdrawals, or through interception of
an aquifer by cuts or excavations? ^ ^ ^
h. Substantial reduction in the amount of
water otherwise available for public
water supplies? ^ ^ ^
i. Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding or
tidal waves? ^ ^ ^
Comments:
Mitigation measures related to erosion and water quality have been included in the Mitigated
Negative Declaration/Initial Study. Additional drainage improvements have been designed
into the project. Landscaping must meet all City requirements regarding slope protection and
water conservation.
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or
number of any species of plants (including
trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic
plants)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of plants?
c. Introduction of new species of plants into
into an area, or in a barrier to the normal
replenishment of existing species?
d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural
crop?
YES MAYBE NO
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
Comments:
Potential biological impacts are addressed in the Biological Resources section of the Negative
Declaration. The Biological Assessment prepared for the site concludes that if the mitigation
measures recommended in the Report aze incorporated into the project; in addition to the
mitigation measure already incorporated into the project, the impact is mitigated to a level
of less than significant.
5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or
numbers of any species of animals (birds,
YES MAYBE NO
CI\NANCY\\DEMICH.IS\ Page 16
land animals including reptiles, fish and
shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? ^ ^ ^
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of animals? ^ ^ ^
c. Introduction of new species of animals
into an area, or result in a barrier to
the migration or movement of animals? ^ ^ ^
d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife
habitat? ^ ^ ^
Comments:
Potential biological impacts are addressed in the Biological Resources section of the Negative
Declaration. The Biological Assessment prepared for the site concludes that if the mitigation
measures recommended in the Report are incorporated into the project, in addition to the
mitigation measure already incorporated into the project, the impact is mitigated to a level
of less than significant. The mitigation measures include a requirement for obtaining project
approval from the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife due to the presence of Gnatcatchers
(recently listed as Threatened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) and Diego Sage Scrub
on the site.
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: YES MAYBE NO
a. Increases in existing noise levels? ^ ^ ^
b. Exposure of people to severe noise
levels? ^ ^ ^
Comments:
Noise levels will not change as a result of the proposed project.
YES MAYBE NO
7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce
new light or glare? ^ ^ ^
Comments:
The proposed subdivision will not produce any significant light or glare.
YES MAYBE NO
8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a
substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area? ^ ^ ^
C:\NANCY\\DEMICH ]S\
Comments:
The proposed subdivision's density is compatible with the City's General Plan for the
adjacent area. A General Plan Amendment and Rezone aze part of the project.
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural
resources?
YES MAYBE NO
^ ^ ^
Comments:
The proposed subdivision would not cause a change or increase in the rate of natural resource
consumption.
10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve:
a. A risk of an explosion or the release of
hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation) in the event of an accident or
upset conditions?
b. Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or an emergency evacuation
plan?
YES MAYBE NO
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
Comments:
The proposed park improvements would not cause a risk of upset in the City. The project
will not release toxic or hazazdous material into the environment during upset conditions.
11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location YES MAYBE NO
distribution, density, or growth rate of the human
population or an area? ^ ^ ^
Comments:
Although the project does involve the future construction of single family homes, the twelve
homes proposed do not represent a significant increase m the population.
12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing YES MAYBE NO
housing, or create a demand for additional
housing? ^ ^ ^
Comments:
The proposed subdivision will create twelve new single family homes.
C:\NANCY\\DEMICH.IS\ Page 18
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: YES MAYBE NO
a. Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement? ^ ^ ^
b. Effects on existing parking facilities,
or demand for new parking? ^ ^ ^
c. Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems? ^ ^ ^
d. Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods? ^ ^ ^
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air
traffic? ^ ^ ^
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? ^ ^ ^
g. A "large project" under the Congestion
Management Program? (An equivalent of
2400 or more average daily vehicle trips
or 200 or more peak-hour vehicle trips). ^ ^ ^
Comments:
The minimum number of trips that will be generated by the development of 12 single family
dwellings will not have a significant impact on traffic. No road segments will be adversely
impacted by these additional homes.
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered
governmental services in any of the following areas:
YES MAYBE NO
a. Fire protection? ^ ^ ^
b. Police protection? ^ ^ ^
c. Schools? ^ ^ ^
d. Pazks or other recreational facilities? ^ ^ ^
e. Librazies? ^ ^ ^
f. Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads? ^ ^ ^
g. Other governmental services? ^ ^ ^
C:\NANCY\\DEMICH.IS\ Page t9
Comments:
The Fire and Police Depaztments can provide an adequate level of fire protection for the
proposed subdivision without an increase in equipment or personnel. The proposed Bonita
Hills Estates has been annexed to the Sweetwater Union High School District's Community
Facilities District No. 5 which will mitigate any impact this future development may have
had on school facilities. Adequate pazk, recreational and library facilities are existing in the
immediate area to serve the slight population increase from the proposed development.
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: YES MAYBE NO
a. Use of substantial amount of fuel or energy? ^ ^ ^
b. Substantial increase in demand upon
existing sources or energy, or require
the development of new sources of
energy? ^ ^ ^
Comments:
The proposed subdivision will not have any impact on energy or fuel consumption.
16. Thresholds. Will the proposal adversely impact YES MAYBE NO
the City's Threshold Standards? ^ ^ ^
Comments:
As described below, the proposed project does not adversely impact any of the seven
Threshold Standards.
A. Fire/EMS
The Threshold Standards requires that fire and medical units must be able to respond
to calls within 7 minutes or less in 85% of the cases and within 5 minutes or less in
75% of the cases. The City of Chula Vista has indicated that this threshold standard
will be met, since the nearest fire station is 3 1/2 miles away and would be
associated with a 6 minute response time. The proposed project will comply with
this Threshold Standard.
B. Police
The Threshold Standazds require that police units must respond to 84% of Priority
1 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority
1 calls of 4.5 minutes or less. Police units must respond to 62.10% of Priority 2
calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority
2 calls of 7 minutes or less. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold
Standard.
C:\NANCY\\DEMICH.IS\ Page 20
C. Traffic
The Threshold Standards require that all intersections must operate at a Level of
Service (LOS) "C" or better, with the exception that Level of Service (LOS) "D"
may occur during the peak two hours of the day at signalized intersections.
Intersections west of I-805 aze not to operate at a LOS below their 1987 LOS. No
intersection may reach LOS "E" or "F" during the average weekday peak hour.
Intersections of arterials with freeway ramps are exempted from this Standard. The
proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard.
East "H" Street is currently over capacity. However, implementation of this project
will not significantly impact existing conditions since only 130 average daily trips will
be generated from the proposed subdivision.
D. Pazks/Recreation
The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres/1,000 population. The
proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard.
E. Drainage
The Threshold Standards require that storm water flows and volumes not exceed City
Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements
consistent with the Drainage Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. The
proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard.
A drainage study was prepared for the proposed project which is discussed in detail
in the "Drainage" section of the Initial Study/Negative Declaration.
F. Sewer
The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and volumes not exceed City
Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements
consistent with Sewer Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. The proposed
project will comply with this Threshold Standard.
The project site is proposed to be annexed from the County of San Diego to the City
of Chula Vista. The City Engineer will require sewer service to be approved by the
County of San Diego as a condition on the subdivision map. Agreements will be
required to be entered into with the County by the Applicant/City for perpetual
provision of sewer service and easements to the subdivision as a condition of
approval on the tentative map.
G. Water
The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage, treatment, and transmission
facilities are constructed concurrently with planned growth and that water quality
standards aze not jeopardized during growth and construction. The proposed project
will comply with this Threshold Standard.
C:\NANCY\\DEMICH.I$\ Page 21
Applicants may also be required to pazticipate in whatever water conservation or fee
off-set program the City of Chula Vista has in effect at the time of building permit
issuance.
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: YES MAYBE NO
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health? ^ ^ ^
b. Exposure of people to potential health
hazazds? ^ ^ ^
Comments:
The proposed subdivision would not have an adverse impact on human health or safety. No
hazardous or unsafe conditions are associated with the project.
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in:
YES MAYBE NO
a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or view '
open to the public, or will the proposal
result in the creation of an aesthetically
offensive site open to public view? ^ ^ ^
b. The destruction, or modification of a scenic route? ^ ^ ^
Comments:
There are no scenic highways in the vicinity of the site that will be affected by the future
development of homes on the site.
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an YES MAYBE NO
impact upon the quality or~quantity of existing
recreational opportunities? ^ ^ ^
Comments:
No recreational facilities will be directly impacted by the proposed project. Less than fifty
new residential units would be developed and therefore, no additional parkland dedication is
required in accordance with City thresholds. Park fees will be required at the time building
permits are issued in accordance with City ordinances.
20. Cultural Resources.
a. Will the proposal result in the alteration
of or the destruction or a prehistoric or
historic archaeological site?
b. Will the proposal result in adverse
physical or aesthetic effects to a
prehistoric or historic building, structure,
YES MAYBE NO
^ ^ ^
C: \N ANCY\\DEMICH.IS\
or object? ^ ^ ^
c. Does the proposal have the potential to
cause a physical change which would
affect unique ethnic cultural values? ^ ^ ^
d. Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? ^ ^ ^
e. Is the area identified on the City's
General Plan EIR as an area of high
potential for archeological resources? ^ ^ ^
Comments:
A Cultural Resources analysis has been prepared for the project and is discussed in detail in
the Negative Declara[ion/Initial Study. No significant historic or pre-historic sites were
located on the property.
21. Paleontological Resources. Will the proposal result in the YES `MAYBE NO
alteration of or the destruction of paleontological
resources? ^ ^ ^
Comments:
There is no evidence of paleontological resources on the project site.
22. Mandatory Findings of Significance. YES MAYBE NO
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause
a fish or wildlife population to drop below self
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant
or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant
animal or eliminate important examples or the
major periods of California history or prehistory? ^ ^ ^
Comments:
Mitigation measures have been identified to reduce the impact to the Gnatcatcher and Diegan
Sage Scrub on the site to a level of less than significant. Open Space azeas have been
included in the design of the tentative map and approval of the project by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service will be required as a condition of approval of the Tentative Map.
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-term goals to the disadvantage of long-
term, environmental goals? (A short-term
impact on the environment is one which occurs in
a relatively brief, definitive period of time,
C:\NANCY\\DHMICH.IS\ Page 23
while long-term impacts will endure well into the
future.) ^ ^ ^
Comments
All significant impacts related to the site have been mitigated to below a level of significance.
The proposed subdivision does not propose long-term risks to health and safety. The
proposed project does not have any interim use of the site while awaiting ultimate
development.
c. Dces the project have impacts which are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (A project may impact two or
more separate resources where the impact on
each resource is relatively small, but where the
effect of the total of those impacts on the
environment is significant.) ^ ^ ^
Comments:
There are no significant cumulative impacts associated with the project.
d. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly? ^ ^ ^
Comments:
All significant impacts have been mitigated to a level of less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
(To be completed by the Applicant)
I, as owner/owner in escrow'
L ~
Print name
or
I, consultant or agent`
HEREB~~ E to any miti ation measures required to avoid significant impacts.
~- ~~-g3
Signature Date
C:\NANCY\\DHMICH.IS\ Page 24
Determination
(To be completed by the Lead Agency. Check one box only.)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
^ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
^ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
^ I fmd the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and
an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
Environm 1 Review Coordinator
'If acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name.
~ is52
Date
C:\NANCY\\DEMICH.IS\ Page
APPENDIX II
Case No. IS 91-15
DE MINIMIS FEE DETERMINATION
(Chapter 1706, Statutes of 1990 - AB 3158)
^ It is hereby found that this project involves no potential for any adverse effect, either
individually or cumulatively on wildlife resources and that a "Certificate of Fee
Exemption" shall be prepared for this project.
^ It is hereby found that this project could potentially impact wildlife, individually or
cumulatively and therefore fee in accordance with Section 711.4 (d) of the Fish and
Game Code shall be paid to the County Clerk.
I
Enviro 1 Review Coordinator
~ / e
Date
C:\NANCY\\DEMICH.IS\ Page 26
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING CHECKLIST
PROJECT NAME: Bonita Hills Executive Estates
IS NO.: 91-15
Issue Area
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Specific project mitigation measures are required to reduce potentially significant environmental
impacts identified in the Initial Study for this project to a level below significant. Mitigation
measures have been incorporated into the project design and have been made conditions of project
approval, as well as requirements of the attached Mitigation Monitoring Program (Attachment "A").
In addition to the proposed two dedicated open spaced, which have been incorporated into the
tentative map, the applicant must also refrain from clearing vegetation within the dedicated open
space areas, with the exception of some public improvements construction ahd must revegetate areas
of disturbed Diegan Sage Scrub in Lot B. Once revegetation has been completed, athree-year
monitoring plan shall be implemented to ensure the successful establishment of this scrub. The
developer shall also provide proof of an incidental take permit under Section 7, Section l0a of the
Endangered Species Act relative to the California Gnatcatcher or Coastal Sage Scrub.
Proiect Phase (Project Design: Construction; Post Construction)
Prior to grading operations, during grading operations, and post grading after the revegetation plan
has been implemented.
Responsible Part or A eg ncy
Engineering Department, Planning Department, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Verification of Completion:
Person:
Date:
Comments:
C:\NANCY\\DEMICH.IS\ Page
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING CHECKLIST
PROJECT NAME: Bonita Hills Executive Estates
IS NO.: 91-15
Issue Area
SOILS
Specific project mitigation measures are required to reduce potentially significant envirotunental
impacts identified in the Initial Study for this project to a level below significant. Mitigation
measures have been incorporated into the project design and have been made conditions of project
approval, as well as requirements of the attached Mitigation Monitoring Program (Attachment "A").
All recommendations of the Soil and Geologic Reconnaissance prepared for the Bonita Hills
Executive Estates by Geocon Incorporated, dated December, 1992, shall be adhered to. These
recommendations pertain to the design process for future slope relation within the immediate area;
future geotechnical subsurface investigation for the site regarding fill compaction for the underground
water reservoir; remedial grading, recompaction and subsurface investigation and laboratory testing;
re-evaluation of existing fills; disposal of deleterious materials encountered during grading; design
of cut and fill slopes; use of erosion-resistant ground cover, adequate irrigation and drainage control
for cut and fill slopes and additional geological investigation to be performed prior to completing
grading and improvement plans.
Proiect Phase (Project Desien; Construction; Post Construction
Prior to grading operations and during grading operations.
Responsible Part or Agencv
Engineering Department
Verification of Completion:
Person:
Date:
Comments:
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING CHECKLIST
PROJECT NAME: Bonita Hills Executive Estates
Q\NANCY\\DEMICH.IS\
IS NO.: 91-15
Issue Area
DRAINAGE/HYDROLOGY
Specific project mitigation measures are required to reduce potentially significant environmental
impacts identified in the Initial Study for this project to a level below significant. Mitigation
measures have been incorporated into the project design and have been made conditions of project
approval, as well as requirements of the attached Mitigation Monitoring Program (Attachment "A").
In addition to the proposed drainage improvements shown on Tentative Map 91-2 dated March 2,
1993, the applicant shall also extend the storm drains to the flow line of the canyon.
Project Phase (Project Design; Construction; Post Construction)
Prior to grading operations and during grading operations.
Responsible Part or A¢ency
Engineering Department
Verification of Completion:
Person:
Date:
Comments:
C:\NANCY\\DEMICH.IS\ Page 29
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING CHECKLIST
PROJECT NAME: Bonita Hills Executive Estates
IS NO.: 91-15
Issue Area
WATER QUALITY/EROSION:
Specific project mitigation measures are required to reduce potentially significant environmental
impacts identified in the Initial Study for this project to a level below significant. Mitigation
measures have been incorporated into the project design and have been made conditions of project
approval, as well as requirements of the attached Mitigation Monitoring Program (Attachment "A").
An erosion and sedimentation control plan, in compliance with NPDES will be prepared subject to
approval of the City Engineer and the project shall comply with NPDES for discharges of storm
water runoff, etc. Sedimentation shall be controlled by properly planting all graded slopes.
Proiect Phase (Project Design; Construction; Post Construction)
Prior to grading and during grading operations.
Responsible Part or Agency
Engineering Department and Planning Department
Verification of Completion:
Person:
Date:
Comments:
C:\NANCY\\DEMICH.IS\ Page
ATTACHMENT "A"
Mitigation Monitoring Program
IS 91-15
This Mitigation Monitoring Program is prepared for the Bonita Hills Executive Estates Tentative
Map. The legislation requires public agencies to ensure that adequate mitigation measures are
implemented and monitored on Mitigated Negative Declarations, such as
IS 91-15.
AB 3180 requires monitoring of potentially significant and/or significant environmental impacts. The
mitigation monitoring program for this project ensures adequate implementation of mitigation for the
following potentially significant impacts: biological resources, soils, drainage/hydrology, and water
quality/erosion.
Due to the nature of the environmental issues identified, the Mitigation Compliance Coordinator
(MCC), shall be the Environmental Review Coordinator (ERC) for the City of Chula Vista. It shall
be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that the conditions of the Mitigation Monitoring
Program are met to the satisfaction of the ERC. Compliance with the mitigation measures specified
in Mitigated Negative Declaration 91-IS shall be provided. to the ERC prior to the issuance of any
permits by the City of Chula Vista. The ERC will thus provide the ultimate verification that the
mitigation measures have been accomplished.
Q\NANCY\\DBMICH.IS\ Page 3t