Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1992/09/30 (2) City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of September 30, 1992 Page 1 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Rancho San Miguel General Development Plan (EIR-90-02)(SCH-90010155) A. BACKGROUND On February 5, 1992 and February 12, 1992, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to take testimony on the adequacy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Rancho San Miguel General Development Plan. At the Planning Commission hearing 20 individuals commented on the DEIR including four agencies. Prior to the Planning Commission hearing, the DEIR was circulated for a forty- five (45) day review period. Twenty six (26) comment letters were received. The applicant, San Miguel Partners, submitted one bound document at the time of the public hearing constituting their comments on the DEIR. This document is included in the FEIR in Volume I and staff responses to the same are also included in the same volume. Applicant's Position In response to some of the comments made on the Draft EIR, the applicant submitted a "Mitigation Concept Plan," which is more fully described under Proiect Description. As a result, the staff prepared an Addendum to the Draft EIR, which analyzed the revised project and concluded that impacts to land use, landform/visual quality, biology remain significant and not mitigable. The applicant disagrees with the findings of the Addendum, and has prepared an Addendum of his own, which is not part of the staff-recommended Final ErR, and which recommends findings that the "Mitigation Concept Plan" reduces land use and landform/visual quality impacts to insignificance. In brief, the legal and CEQA issues may be summarized as follows: . Because the EIR as written states that there are significant impacts with the project as proposed including biological issues and General Plan consistency issues, overriding considerations need to be adopted in order to approve the project. WPC F:\home\planning\97.92 /- ( City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of September 30, 1992 Page 2 . The Planning Commission cannot legally recommend approval of the plan as proposed, because the EIR states the project is inconsistent with the General Plan. . It is the applicant's position that their proposed project is consistent with the General Plan; therefore, an analysis found within the applicant's addendum finding the same is required. This is provided by the applicant as are the findings to that effect. . If the Planning Commission recommends adoption of the applicant's Addendum with the EIR without preparing a Supplemental EIR, there is a possibility of subsequent legal action as the applicant's Addendum proposed changes in findings of significance from those contained within the Pinal EIR. Therefore, the City Attorney is requesting indemnification of the City by the applicant in the event of subsequent legal action. B. RECOMMENDATION Staff Recommendation 1. That the Planning Commission adopt the Resolution certifying that the PEIR (including the mitigation monitoring and reporting program) has been prepared in accordance with CEQA. The State CEQA Guidelines, and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista; 2. That the Planning Commission has considered the information contained in the EIR prior to reaching a decision on the projects; and 3. That the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council deny the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Applicant's Recommendation In order for the Planning Commission to recommend approval of the project, the Planning Commission would be required to: 1. Adopt the Resolution certifying that the PEIR (including the applicant's Addendum and the applicant's mitigation monitoring program) have been prepared in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista; WPC F:\home\planning\97.92 /-.z City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of September 30, 1992 Page 3 2. Consider information contained in the EIR and prior to reaching a decision on the project; 3. Adopt the CEQA Findings; and recommend to the City Council that they adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Staff does not recommend that the Planning Commission recommend certification of the applicant's Addendum or the finding that it complies with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista or the Statement of Overriding Considerations. The applicant's addendum sets up a framework for dealing with mitigation of issues at the SPA level. This approach did not receive: agreement after months of discussion between the resource agencies, the City and the applicant. Furthermore, it is staff's opinion that it is not in the best interest of the City to make determinations at this time that certain actions on the applicant's part, if made in the future, will mitigate impacts that are now considered significant to a level below significance. Finally, an addendum is for minor changes in a plan. Staff does not believe that this proposal, which changes, findings of significance for land use, and landform/visual quality, qualifies as "m inor changes. " C. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project as environmentally assessed in the EIR is a single-family detached residential community which will provide a range of housing products with lot sizes varying from 5,000 sq. ft. to 1 acre. Development will take place within a 1,852 acre northern portion and a 738 acre southern portion separated by SDG&E property. The GDP proposed 1,654 single-family re:;idences and also integrates the following proposed components: a 14-acre commercial center, an l1.2-acre elementary school site; a 20.5 community park; a community purpose facility; a 7-acre conference center retreat and inn; a 6 acre interpretive center; pedestrian and bicycle trails connecting Rancho San Miguel to the surrounding community and the Chula Vista Greenbelt. The applicant has proposed as a result of comments received from staff and commentators a mitigation concept plan which is analyzed in the Addendum. This plan does not affect or change the northern portion but modifies the southern parcel to incorporate the following changes: WPC F:\home\planning\97.92 /--3 City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of September 30, 1992 Page 4 Realignment of SR-125, deletion of the interchange, realignment of San Miguel Ranch Road, relocation and replacement of the commercial site, enhancement of slope topography, preservation of an area of Otay tarplant, addition of two public facility sites, adjustment of an open space boundary area, creation of an open space buffer, development of a new commercial site, expansion of planning area 14, and modification of lot sizes. Discretionary actions that are required at the General Development Plan Level include the pre-zoning of the area to Planned Community and the approval of the General Development Plan. D. CONTENTS OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The Pinal EIR consists of two volumes. Volume 1 includes; (1) An Addendum prepared on the applicant's Mitigation Concept Plan (see discussion below) (2) Letters and responses to comments received during the public hearing comment period including a written report by the applicant submitted at the Planning Commissions public hearing on the DEIR - February 5, 1992 titled San Miguel Ranch - Issues - Environmental Impact Report and (3) the staffs response to the applicant's issue paper titled San Miguel Ranch General Plan Consistency Issue Report, March 24, 1992; and (4) ERRATA - Which incorporates textual changes into the document as a result of comments received through the public hearing process. Volume 2 consists of the technical appendices. Addendum As a result of the public comments received during the 45-day public review period and city staff concerns over the project's lack of consistency with the General Plan, the applicant has proposed a mitigation concept plan which is the applicants proposal for the southern portion of the project. The mitigation concept plan was modified to incorporate the following twelve changes to the GDP: Realignment of SR-125, deletion of interchange proposed at San Miguel Ranch Road and SR-125, realignment of San Miguel Ranch Road, relocation of the commercial site, relocation of the commercial site, enhancement of slope topography, creation of 15 acres ofOtay Tarplant Preserve, addition of two public facility sites, provision of an open space boundary adjustment, provision of an open space buffer, provision of a new commercial site and expansion of Planning Area 14. The revisions did not result in the mitigation of any of the issues discussed in the Draft EIR to below a level of significance. WPC F:\home\planning\97.92 / - /f'. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of September 30, 1992 Page 5 E. ANALYSIS The following is a synopsis of the issues addressed in the FEIR. SIGNIFICANT UNMITIGATED IMPACTS Land Use City staff has found development of the southern parcel would be inconsistent with the City's General Plan in the following areas: Character of Development Lot Size Overall Density Preservation of Landforms Clustering and landform alteration/grading The project will also contribute to a significant cumulative land use impact. No mitigation measures are proposed. LandformNisual Ouality Development of either the original project or the Mitigation Concept Plan would result in significant and unmitigated landform grading impacts in the southern portion of the project. Both Horseshoe Bend and Gobbler's Knob would be removed by extensive grading in the southern portion of the site. Approximately 15 lots in the southern portion would be located along the northeastern ridge immediately adjacent to SDG&E property. SDG&E plans to expand the facility that would occur within the viewshed of these lots. Placing lots in proximity to SDG&E property where residents will eventually experience industrial-type views is considered a significant and unmitigated impact. This as well as other projects in the area will contribute to a significant incremental impact to natural landforms and visual quality. No mitigation measures are proposed for impacts due to landform grading or impacts on Horseshoe Bend and Gobbler's Knob under either the original project j- S WPC F:\home\planning\97.92 City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of September 30, 1992 Page 6 or the Mitigation Concept Plan. The Mitigation Concept Plan involves a redesign which proposes to add additional buffering between the 15 lots and the northeastern ridge immediately adjacent to SDG&E property. This will allow an adequate buffer to be provided, which could be enhanced through landscaping, topographic variation and home site orientation. See Section IV.B. for further discussion of mitigation measures. Biolol!v . Biodiversity This proposal would disrupt the biodiversity of the site. The EIR indicates that the Rancho San Miguel site supports one of the richest and most diverse assemblages of unique and sensitive biological resources in Southern California. Of special importance is not only the biodiversity in terms of species numbers, but more importantly, the sizes of the populations of the sensitive resources. The gnatcatcher, cactus wren, barrel cactus, Palmer's grappling hook and Otay tarplant all represent regionally significant populations. The gnatcatcher population represents up to 10% of the County-wide population. Thirteen sensitive plant species and twenty sensitive animal species are known to occur on the project site. Regionally significant populations of coast barrel cactus and San Diego cactus wren are also present onsite. Individually, many of the 33 sensitive species found on the site would be considered significant resources. The high diversity and large population sizes of these resources compounds the significance of the site for biological resources. The northern portion of the project is contiguous with an eXIstmg gnatcatcher population occurring throughout the Sweetwater River Valley to just above Singing Hills Golf Course that likely exceeds 150 pairs. The northern portion of the site serves as a major movement corridor between the Otay Mesa area to the south and the Sweetwater Reservoir. This combination of a high diversity of rare plant and animal species with high population densities, and its proximity within a much larger regional open space preserve cumulatively make this site one of the most significant parcels of undeveloped land remaining in San Diego County for biological resources. Impacts to biodiversity of the site are significant and are unmitigable. WPC F:\home\planning\97.92 /- t;, City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of September 30, 1992 Page 7 . Coastal Sage Scrub The proposed project would bring about the loss of 467 acres of Diegan Coastal. Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub is considered a sensitive habitat by the County of San Diego, California Department of Fish and Game and United States Fish and Wildlife Service. The County of San Diego considers the Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub a sensitive species due to the fact that 70% of the Coastal Sage Scrub is now gone. Birds and animals that are dependent on the community are impacted and could eventually be listed. . Otay Tarweed The proposed project impacts to roughly 70 to 80 percent of an estimated total of 200,000 individual Otay Tarweed. (Dense populations are endangered.) The Mitigation Concept Plan proposes to preserve the Otay Tarplant in the southeastern corner of the western half of the southern parcel, where the most dense population of Otay Tarplant currently exists. Approximately 10 acres of proposed residential development would be set aside and 5 acres of open space proposed for development would be left as open space, for a total preserve of 15 acres, in addition to the existing SDG&E right-of-way of approximately 8 acres. The proposed mitigation area would include approximately 42,000 (29%) of the 144,000 plants occurring within the southern parcel. . Coast Barrel Cactus 80% of an estimated 8,000 individuals would be impacted by the project. As the Coast Barrel Cactus has a Category 2 listing with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. This means the federal government is currently considering listing this as a threatened or endangered species in California although it is common elsewhere. WPC F:\home\planning\97.92 17 City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of September 30, 1992 Page 8 . Palmer's Grappling Hook All of the estimated 11,000 individuals on the site would be impacted. The California Native Plant Society has given both Palmer's Grappling Hook and California Adolphia a #2 listing. This means that the California Native Plant Society is aware of the plant's restriction locally and that the California Fish and Game Department and the U. S. Forest Service will be observing whether or not developments plan "around" this species. The individual loss may not be important but the cumulative loss is a concern. . California Adolphia 85 % of an estimated total of 350 individuals would be impacted by the project. . Gnatcatchers The wildlife species of highest sensitivIty in the upland habitat is the California gnatcatcher. The proposed project will significantly impact this species. The plan would cause direct impacts to 40 (58 percent) of the existing 69 pairs and would partially impact 8 additional pairs (12 percent). Partial impacts would be expected for pairs which were observed adjacent to proposed development, and thus the majority of their territory would be lost. Reductions to the population could occur from indirect impacts through increased disturbance and fragmentation of the habitat. Only 21 pairs (30 percent) of California gnatcatchers detected by ERCE are in the proposed open space not isolated by homes. Approximately 411 acres (49 percent) of occupied gnatcatcher habitat will be directly impacted, and 43 acres (5 percent) will be indirectly impacted, 383 acres (46 percent) will be retained in open space. Approximately 77 acres (54 percent) of potential breeding habitat that was not occupied during the spring ERCE surveys will be directly impacted, and 6 acres (3 percent) will be indirectly impacted. A total of 76 acres (46 percent) of potential breeding habitat will remain in open space as biological mitigation. Biological impacts also contribute to a significant incremental cumulative loss of quality biological habitats in the region as a whole. /- 8' WPC F:\home\planning\97.92 City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of September 30, 1992 Page 9 SIGNIFICANT MITIGATED IMPACTS Land Use Development of the northern portion of the site from natural/agricultural land use to an urban land use is potentially incompatible with the Sweetwater Reservoir. The concentration of contaminants from automotive sources and urban land uses would increase. Sewage could enter the Sweetwater Reservoir or nearby streams if the development's sewer system malfunctioned or overflowed. Also, sediment deposition could increase from grading activities during project construction. As residential units are proposed next to SDG&E facilities and the utility may expand the facility in the future, potential conflicts could arise with residents adjacent to the expanded facility. This is a potential significant impact. The Mitigation Concept Plan is proposing an affordable housing element; however, a detailed program to achieve compliance with the City's provisions related to affordable housing has not been determined. For mitigation associated with impacts to Sweetwater Reservoir, the project applicant must develop stormwater management plans, including a proposed runoff protection system, for approval by the Sweetwater Authority. For specific mitigation concerning this issue, see the mitigation measures included in Section H of these Findings. To reduce land use impacts associated with locating residential lots adjacent to a large electrical substation to below a level of significance, the applicant shall implement the following measures: o Provide potential buyers considering lots adjacent to the substation and transmission lines with a white paper describing future SDG&E expansion plans,to the extent feasible. (Project applicant might sell portions of the site to others to develop housing, and it would be their obligation to advise buyers.) o Achieve general visual separation through landscaping, topography variation, and homesite orientation for houses near the SDG&E property. WPC F:\home\planning\97.92 j- '7 City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of September 30, 1992 Page 10 o Provide grading site plans and other information to SDG&E to assist them in their efforts to develop future improvements on their site and corresponding landscape or other screening programs that will minimize visual impacts to adjacent residential development to below a level of significance. The inconsistency with the affordable housing provisions of the City's General Plan will be reduced to a level below significance upon satisfaction of the City's performance criteria at the SPA Plan review level. Ensuring consistency with the affordable housing provisions will also require that the project applicant will explore, in an affordable housing program, methods to devote 10 percent of the dwelling units to low and moderate income housing; provide equivalent offsite mitigation; or pay fees as determined through the submission of a proposal as part of the SPA Plan processing. This proposal shall be responsive to the City policies concerning affordable housing that may be in effect at the time of the SPA Plan processing. LandformNisual The designated site for the interpretive center, conference center and inn contain topography with slopes in excess of 25 percent. Grading techniques for this portion of development are not discussed in the GDP. Landform impacts associated with the interpretive center and conference center and inn are unknown at this time, and will be analyzed at the SPA level when grading plans for these facilities are available. Large and potentially conspicuous potable water storage tanks are proposed for provision of drinking water at adequate pressure. The exact locations of the tanks have not been determined at this time; therefore the impacts are unknown. Views from a small portion of East H Street, a designated scenic roadway, would be degraded by grading and development associated with the proposed project. Impacts associated with grading for proposed visitor facilities in the northern portion are unknown at this time, and shall be evaluated at the SPA Plan level. Impacts associated with siting and design of water tanks shall be evaluated at the SPA Plan level. /- / Ci WPC F:\home\planning\97.92 City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of September 30, 1992 Page 11 Landscaping and development plans consistent with General Plan guidelines for scenic roadways shaIl be implemented. For additional buffering between residential development and the substation, the applicant should, where feasible, consider SDG&E's suggestions in addition to other techniques which shall be reviewed by the City during the SPA Plan review level, as foIlows: 1) Establishment of separation by development setbacks incorporating landscaped greenbelt or residential coIlector street; 2) Achievement of visual separation through landscaping, topographic variation, homesite orientation, and height and lot setback restrictions for houses near the substation property. 3) Provision to future residents - adjacent to the substation with a white paper describing SDG&E expansion plans and provision of grading site plans and other information to SDG&E to assist them in developing future improvement on their site. Biolol:Y The project would result in the loss of 3.1 acres of wetland habitat. A 1603 agreement between the project proponent and CDFG submission of pre- discharge Notification to the Army Corps of Engineers, and a 404 permit are required as mitigation for any filling of wetlands. To comply with the no net loss of wetlands criteria established by the CDFG, impacts to wetland habitat must be reduced. Where impacts cannot be avoided, onsite creation of wetland habitat is required at a replacement ratio agreed upon with CDFG, to be carried out under the direction of a qualified wetland revegetation specialist and the CDFG. These measures would reduce impacts to below a level of significance. . San Diego Marsh Elder Roughly 90 percent of an estimated total of 340 individuals would be impacted by the project. WPC F: \home\planning\97. 92 /-// City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of September 30, 1992 Page 12 Avoidance of wetlands, where this plant occurs, to the extent practicable, and implementation of a revegetation program for plants that are impacted will reduce impacts to below a level of significance. . Spiny Rush Roughly 50 percent of an estimated total of 400 individuals would be impacted by the project. A voidance of wetlands, where the plant occurs to the extent practicable and enhancement of wetland areas to include revegetation of spiny rush for plants that are impacted. Archaeolo2Y The archaeology study on the San Miguel Ranch site determined that eight important sites will be directly impacted by the proposed project. Another eight sites will be indirectly impacted resulting from residential use of project open space areas. The impacts to these 16 sites are significant. The significant impacts to archaeological resources can be reduced to below a level of significance by implementation of the mitigation measures described at pages 3.4-24 through 3.4-27, inclusive, of the Draft EIR. The principal focus of these mitigation measures is preservation of the resource and data recovery. Impacts to archaeological resources are mitigabIe to below a level of significance with implementation of the prescribed measures. OTHER AREAS WHICH MAYBE MITIGATED TO A LEVEL BELOW SIGNIFICANCE BY RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES INCLUDE: Paleontology, geology, soils, hydrology, water quality, traffic, nOlse, public services and facilities. WPC F: \home\planning\97. 92 /-/~ City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of September 30, 1992 Page 13 Paleontolol!'v Impacts from mass excavation can be reduced to below a level of significance by mitigation measures that are outlined including a qualified paleontologist monitoring original cutting of sensitive formations. Geolo~y /Soils Geotechnical constraints can be mitigated to below a level of significance by mitigation measures including preparation of supplemental geotechnical reports. Areas requiring no mitigation include: mineral resources, conversion of agricultural lands, community social factors, and fiscal analysis. Hydrolol!'v The project would generate substantial increases in surface runoff due to increases in impervious surfaces and cause significant flooding and scouring downstream. A detailed drainage report submitted subject to the approval by the City Engineer at SPA level which would be designed and implemented by the Sweetwater Authority would reduce impacts to below a level of significance. Water Ouality Potential increases in contaminant concentrations in Sweetwater Reservoir resulting from conversion of undeveloped land to urban uses and the potential for sewage to enter Sweetwater Reservoir or nearby streams if the development's sanitary sewer system malfunctioned can be mitigated by an acceptable runoff protection system being prepared and approved by Sweetwater Authority and California Department of Health Services as well as a detailed water quality plan subject to the approval of the City Engineer and Environmental Review Coordinator being submitted prior to GDP approval. WPC F: \home\planning\97. 92 /-/3 City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of September 30, 1992 Page 14 Traffic Regional access to the study area is currently provided by Interstate 805 in a north/south direction and by Bonita Road, San Miguel Road, and East H Street in an east/west direction. Future north/south access will be provided by State Route 125. The final alignment of this road will not be determined until early 1993 (Garcia 1990). Access to the project site is off East H Street and San Miguel Road. Interim access issues surrounding this project must be addressed in Sectional Planning Area (SPA) level EIR documents to be prepared in the future. The Traffic Section of the EIR is based on a traffic technical report prepared by JHK & Associates (1991). The majority of the study area roadways are currently under San Diego County's jurisdiction, and consist primarily of two-lane highways. East H Street and San Miguel Road and the realigned portion of Proctor Valley Road through the Salt Creek I subdivision provide paved public street access to the southern portion of the site. San Miguel Road provides paved access to the northern portion. Many of the City's roadways surrounding the proposed project site are currently under construction according to buildout configuration recommended in the Chula Vista General Plan. Both the County and City General Plans anticipate major improvements to key arterials such as East H Street, Sweetwater Road, and Otay Lakes Road. Forecasted traffic volumes were compared to City standards for roadway operations in order to evaluate the need for roadway improvements to mitigate project traffic related impacts. Future levels of service for three roadways segments will be above the City's standard for traffic operations based on roadway classifications recommended in the final General Plan Circulation Element. The segment of East H Street between SR 125 and San Miguel Road is forecasted to operate at LOS D with 50,800 ADT. This forecasted volume projection under the proposed project is only 800 vehicles per day over the threshold LOS C capacity of 50,000 ADT for a six-lane prime. This represents less than a 2 percent exceedance of capacity, and does not warrant redesignation of the road to the next highest functional class, which would be a Six-Lane Expressway. Thus, no change in the adopted functional classification for this segment of road as designated by the General Plan is necessary due to this minor exceedance. A similar situation exists along Bonita Road from Central to San Miguel Road and from San Miguel Road to Sweetwater Road. In each of these cases, the exceedance is minor. The overall conclusion of the JHK analysis WPC F:\home\planning\97.92 /-/,,/ City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of September 30, 1992 Page 15 is that implementation of the project will add only minor traffic increases compared to the land uses proposed by the updated General Plan. Therefore, no significant impacts are identified for the minor exceedance of roadway segment capacities. The remainder of the roadway segments would be under capacity at General Plan buildout with the project as proposed. State Route 125 State Route (SR) 125 is envisioned as a north-south link between the international border crossing at Otay Mesa at 1-15 north of Poway. The portion near the Rancho San Miguel development is one of four toll revenue transportation project demonstration programs arising from California's AB 680 program. The proposed toll road would lie between the border crossing and SR-54 near Bonita. California Transportation Ventures, Inc. (CTV), is a company created specifically to develop the toll portion of SR 125. The corporation consists of a partnership with Parsons Brinckerhoff Development Group, Inc.; Fluor Daniel, Inc.; Transroute; and Prudential-Bache Capital Funding. CTV proposes to build, transfer to CalTrans, and operate this toll road. The road would initially be a 4-lane toll highway roughly 76 feet wide, with 2 northbound and 2 southbound lanes. Opening is envisioned for 1996. Ultimately, the highway would be approximately 178 feet wide, with 4 northbound and 4 southbound lanes, plus a center set of lanes for high occupancy vehicle or light rail transit. For this impacts discussion, it is assumed the Rancho San Miguel development is constructed and in place before SR 125 plans are finalized. If construction of the Rancho San Miguel development as currently proposed precedes SR 125 alignment selection, the feasible choices for an alignment of SR 125 past the development most likely would be limited to Proctor Valley West alignment with an interchange at proposed San Miguel Ranch Road. Although this alignment may in fact be the one selected, other alignments are still being evaluated, and the Proctor Valley West alignment may not be the route that is environmentally superior or most desirable to CalTrans. Since a preferred alignment has not been established by CalTrans and CTV, and environmental impacts of each of the alignments have not been determined, further evaluation in this EIR would not result in resolution of this issue. Therefore, in accordance with Section 15145 of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that analyses should not be pursued in an EIR if the answer remains purely speculative, discussion of potential impacts of SR 125 on the Rancho San Miguel development is terminated. WPC F:\home\planning\97.92 /--/3 City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of September 30, 1992 Page 16 Bypass Road The bypass road proposed as part of the Rancho San Miguel GDP would intersect with existing San Miguel Road approximately 4,000 feet west of the project entrance at the commercial area. The bypass road would run southeastward, routing traffic off of San Miguel Road and into the development. The developer envisions that eventually an interchange with SR 125 would be constructed at this location. The proposed roadway offers several advantages over the alternative of upgrading existing San Miguel road to carry project traffic. The proposed bypass road passes through several large parcels, and would take approximately five buildings. However, widening San Miguel Road would involve more than 30 parcels and could take numerous residences. Also, the proposed bypass road would bring traffic directly to the main project roadway (San Miguel Ranch Road) at the commercial area. Existing San Miguel Road would enter the development north of this location on the access road leading to the northern portion. It is not known at this time if the County would prefer to widen the existing San Miguel Road as planned in the County Circulation Element, or to implement a bypass road as proposed by the Rancho San Miguel GDP. If the County chooses the bypass road, specific environmental impacts will be addressed at SPA level be addressed at SPA level. However, one disadvantage of the proposed bypass road is that the County Circulation Element does not show such a bypass for San Miguel Road. This is important because the road would remain the jurisdiction of the County even after the development is annexed by the City of Chula Vista. This discrepancy with the County General Plan could be solved by an amendment to the County Circulation Element. The information contained in this EIR on the GDP and future documentation at more detailed levels of planning will be used by the County to decide on appropriate actions. If the bypass road would not be allowed by the County, an alternative to provide access to the project would be to widen the existing San Miguel Road. This action would be consistent with the County Circulation Element. Air Ouality As currently planned, the proposed project would have a significant, and only partially mitigable, cumulative impact upon air quality in the San Diego Air Basin. In addition, because the development was not included in the 1982 SIP, the new emissions would have a significant, unmitigable, project-specific impact and significant cumulative impact on local air quality. WPC F: \home\planning\97. 92 1-16 City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of September 30, 1992 Page 17 Noise Noise levels in many areas would exceed the 65 dBA standard. Placing noise walls or wall berms adjacent to major roadways will reduce impacts to below significance. Noise will have a significant cumulative effect. Public Services Utilities Impacts which are unknown at this time and which will be evaluated at the SPA level include: location of water facilities, adequacy of sewer infrastructure, location of new fire station, impacts related to placing homes in close proximity to large areas of natural vegetation and location of staging areas for the proposed trail system. Public utility impacts which can be reduced to below a level of significance by the proposed mitigation measures include: 1) water use which may be mitigated by need for water conservation measures, 2) additional police services which may be mitigated by the provision of three new officers and five additional support staff to the police force. 3) The EMS response times are projected to be greater than standard. The impact of the fact that the exact location of the new fire station is unknown and that may be mitigated by the applicant providing a second access road to the northern part of the project. Impacts related to placing homes in close proximity to large areas of natural vegetation may be mitigated by the establishment of a brush management system. The impact of the project bringing in an additional 496 elementary school children may be mitigated by the applicant providing a funding mechanism for the proposed elementary schools. The biological impacts of a proposed equestrian trail system providing pedestrian access to open space containing sensitive biological resources may be mitigated by mitigation measures described in Section 3.16 of the EIR. E. ALTERNATIVES Several of the project alternatives are summarized below. Horseshoe Bend Alternative This alternative preserves Horseshoe Bend, a significant landform and visual feature located in the western half of the project's southern portion and reduces the number of units in the southern portion from 1,297 units to 1,261 units. The purpose of the Horseshoe Bend alternative is to reduce impacts to biology-landform/visual. Impacts associated with land use and consistency with the City's General Plan, landform/visual quality, biology cultural WPC F:\home\planning\97.92 /-/7 City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of September 30, 1992 Page 18 resources/ geology soils hydrology, water quality transportation, air quality, noise and some public services would remain significant. Biolo~ically Sensitive Alternative The biologically sensitive alternative substantially reduces the acreage developed in the southern portion and eliminates all development on the northern portion in order to reduce many impacts to the biological resources associated with the project site. Approximately 461 acres of the southern portion would contain 1,600 single family dwelling units. No development would occur on the northeastern and southeastern portions of this area preserving approximately 277 acres of sensitive biological resources. The entire 1,852 acre northern portion would be preserved as open space. Implements to land use, landform/visual quality, biology, cultural resources, geology/soils, hydrology, transportation/access, air quality, noise, public services and utilities, parks, recreation and open space. (rsmgdp.pc) (rev 9/23) WPC F:\home\planning\97.92 /-/ ~ September 28, 1992 TO: FROM: Chairman and Members of Planning Commission Gordon Howard, Principal Planner ~ ~ SUBJECT: Rancho San Miguel - Environmental Attached please find CEQA Findings for the project and the applicant's Addendum. These documents have been prepared by the applicant, and must be adopted by the Commission if you wish to recommend approval of the applicant's proposed project. Also, attached is a letter from San Miguel Partners to the State Department of Fish & Game responding to the August 10, 1992 letter from the Department of Fish & Game which is contained as an attachment within the staff report. The Findings for the applicant's Addendum and the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the applicant's Addendum will be forwarded when we receive the same. GH:je RANCHO SAN MIGUEL GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PIAN EIR 90-02 CANDIDATE CEQA FINDINGS STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 21081 OF THE CAIlFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUAIl1Y ACT AND SECTIONS 15091 AND 15093 OF TITLE 14 OF THE CAIlFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS SEPTEMBER 1992 /-17 CANDIDATE CEQA FINDINGS I. INTRODUCTION Section 21081 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines requires that no project shall be approved by a public agency when significant environmental effects have been identified, unless one of the following findings is made and supported by substantial evidence in the record: a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR). b) Changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and such changes have been adopted by such other agency, or can and should be adopted by such other agency. c) Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. (See also, CEQA Guidelines section 15091). CEQA further requires that, where the decision of the public agency allows the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the Final EIR, but are not at least substantially mitigated, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the Final EIR and/or other information in the record (Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines). The following findings are made relative to the conclusions of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR 90-02) and Addendum for the proposed Rancho San Miguel General Development Plan (GDP) and all documents, maps and illustrations listed in Section IX of these findings. At this time, the project's discretionary actions include: o General Development Plan (GDP) approval; and o p.c (planned community) zoning approval. Subsequent discretionary approvals for the proposed project include, among others, annexation to the City of Chula Vista, annexation to the South Bay Irrigation District, detachment from the Otay Water District, SPA Plan approval, a development agreement and tentative maps. Rancho San Miguel is a proposed single-family detached residential community located on approximately 2,590 acres of land (1,852-acre northern portion and 738-acre southern portion) in the northern portion of the Eastern Territories as defined by the City of Chula Vista General Plan. The project site is situated on land currently under the 1 /- ;;; 0 jurisdiction of the County of San Diego; however, the site is also within the City of Chula Vista's adopted Sphere of Influence. The project includes a General Development Plan (GDP) for residential, commercial and open space uses over the project site. The property is bounded generally by Proctor Valley Road on the south and west, the Otay water treatment facility and San Miguel Mountain on the east, and the Sweetwater River and Sweetwater Reservoir on the north and northwest. The north and south portions of the project site are separated by property owned by San Diego Gas & Electric which contains the San Miguel substation complex. Much of the surrounding area is developed, or developing, with single-family and multi-family residences, commercial uses and parkland. The general character of the area to the south and southwest of the project site is proposed to be low, low-medium and medium density residential, according to the City of Chula Vista's General Plan. Mother Miguel Mountain, on the project site, is designated as open space in the City's General Plan. The project area connects to the City's Greenbelt system along Salt Creek, Otay Lakes and Otay River to the south and Sweetwater Reservoir and Sweetwater River to the west. State Route (SR) 125 is proposed to run generally northwest/southwest through the immediate project area; although the final alignment is not yet known. The Rancho San Miguel GDP assumes that the SR 125 alignment will roughly follow along existing Proctor Valley Road. This alignment is consistent with the Circulation Element of the Chula Vista General Plan. The project applicant is San Miguel Partners. The City of Chula Vista is the lead agency with discretionary approval authority over the proposed project. The proposed GDP included a total of 1,654 single-family residences and the following components: a 14-acre commercial center; an 1l.2-acre elementary school site; a 20.5-acre community park; a 7-acre conference center/retreat and inn; a 6-acre interpretive center; pedestrian and bicycle trails connecting Rancho San Miguel to the surrounding community and the Chula Vista Greenbelt; and approximately 1,653 acres of permanent natural open space. During preparation of both the proposed GDP and the Draft EIR, analysis revealed various environmental impacts of the project. This analysis consisted of comments received from City staff regarding the proposed GDP's coosistency with the City's General Plan as well as comments received from various persons and organizations during the CEQA public review period. In response, the applicant refined the project to attempt to reduce or otherwise lessen the identified impacts of the proposed GDP project. These refinements resulted in preparation of a "Mitigation Concept Plan." The Mitigation Concept Plan, which has been incorporated into a revised Rancho San Miguel GDP, is examined in the Addendum to the Final EIR and in the Response to Comments section of the Final EIR. The Mitigation Concept Plan includes design modifications to the southern portion of the project. The Mitigation Concept Plan does not affect or change the northern portion of the proposed project. The redesign reflected in the Mitigation Concept Plan proposes 1,654 single-family residences and includes the following components: a 14.0-acre relocated commercial center; an 11.9-acre elementary school site; a 20.7-acre 2 /-,;;{ ( community park; two community purpose facilities of 8.5 acres (total); a 7-acre conference center/retreat and inn; a 6-acre interpretive center; pedestrian and bicycle trails connecting Rancho San Miguel to the surrounding community and the Chula Vista Greenbelt; and approximately 1,670 acres of permanent natural open space. The Mitigation Concept Plan is environmentally superior to the project as originally proposed. The following findings are applicable to the project as analyzed in the revised GDP, the Final ElR and the Addendum. The revised project is proposed to be developed in four phases. Phase I would consist of the community park, homes, and associated neighborhood roads located in the western half of the southern portion and the southwestern end of the northern portion. Phase II would include the remainder of the homes and associated neighborhood roads in the northern portion, and additional homes and roads in the southern portion. Phase III would include the commercial development and the continued development of homes and neighborhood roads in the southern portion, as well as the completion of San Miguel Ranch Road to East H Street. Phase IV would consist of the remainder of the homes in the southern portion. II. FINDINGS The following findings are made by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista for the Rancho San Miguel project. The findings have been prepared pursuant to Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines: a) The decisionmakers, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the record and the Final EIR for the Rancho San Miguel GDP find that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final ElR. b) The decisionmakers, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR and the record, find that none of the significant environmental effects anticipated as a result of the proposed project are within the responsibility of another public agency except for hydrology/water quality, water supply and air quality. c) The decisionmakers, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the final ElR and the record, find that specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible certain mitigation measures or project alternatives as identified in the Final ElR. d) The decisionmakers have determined that any remaining significant effects on the environment found to be unavoidable are acceptable due to overriding considerations. /-..;;? ~ 3 e) The decisionmakers have independently reviewed, considered and evaluated the Final EIR and the record. On the basis of that review, the decisionmakers find that the Final EIR reflects their exercise of independent judgement over the environmental analysis contained in the Final EIR and the Addendum pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21082.1, and that the Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations are supported by documents and other substantial evidence contained within the Final EIR, the Addendum and the record. m. SIGNIFICANT, UNMlTIGABLE IMPACfS A. LAND USE Impact Under the proposed GDP, the southern portion of the development was not compatible with adjacent land uses in Bonita and northern Proctor Valley, and was found to be inconsistent with the Chula Vista General Plan in the following areas: character of development, compatibility with adjacent uses, lot sizes, encroachment into open space/greenbelt systems, overall density, preservation of landforms, clustering and landform alteration/grading. These impacts were considered significant and unmitigable in the Draft EIR During the CEQA public review period, written comments were received from City staff and various commentators regarding the land use impacts on the southern portion of the project. In response, the applicant refined the project to reduce those impacts. These project refinements resulted in the preparation of a "Mitigation Concept Plan." The Mitigation Concept Plan, which was previously presented to the City's Planning Commission at a publicly noticed meeting on April 1, 1992, has been incorporated into the Final EIR by means of an Addendum. The Mitigation Concept Plan addresses the land use issues associated with development of the southern portion of the project. City staff has prepared an updated "consistency analysis" to assess the refinements made in the Mitigation Concept Plan. The updated "consistency analysis" is part of the City's staff report for the project. In that analysis, City staff has found that development of the southern parcel would be inconsistent with the City's General Plan in the following areas: character of development, lot size, overall density, preservation of landforms, clustering and landform alteration/grading. These impacts are considered significant and unmitigable. Mitil!ation Measures No additional mitigation measures are proposed. The applicant is requesting that the revised GDP (which includes the Mitigation Concept Plan) be adopted over the originally proposed project. I~~ 4 Finding Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (see Section VI of these findings). Only the "No Project" alternative would avoid the identified land use impacts. The Horseshoe Bend alternative would reduce landform alteration/grading impacts, but not to below a level of significance. Section VII of this document contains the Statement of Overriding Considerations (pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15093) which indicates that the decisionmakers have weighed the benefits of the project against the significant unmitigated land use impacts. B. LANDFORM;VISUAL QUALI1Y ImDact Development of either the original project or the Mitigation Concept Plan would result in significant and unmitigated landform grading impacts in the southern portion of the project. Both Horseshoe Bend and Gobbler's Knob would be removed by extensive grading in the southern portion of the site. Approximately 15 lots in the southern portion would be located along the northeastern ridge immediately adjacent to SDG&E property. SDG&E plans to expand the facility that would occur within the viewshed of these lots. Placing lots in proximity to SDG&E property where residents will eventually experience industrial-type views is considered a significant and unmitigated impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are proposed for impacts due to landform grading or impacts on Horseshoe Bend and Gobbler's Knob under either the original project or the Mitigation Concept Plan. The Mitigation Concept Plan involves a redesign which proposes to add additional buffering between the 15 lots and the northeastern ridge immediately adjacent to SDG&E property. This will allow an adequate buffer to be provided, which could be enhanced through landscaping, topographic variation and home site orientation. See Section IV.B. for further discussion of mitigation measures. Finding Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (see Section VI of these findings). Only the "No Project" alternative would avoid the identified landform/visual quality impacts because Horseshoe Bend or Gobbler's Knob are graded in all the project alternatives. The Horseshoe Bend Alternative would reduce these impacts, but not to a level below significance. Section VIII of this document contains the Statement of Overriding Considerations (pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 16093) which indicates that the decisionmakers have weighed the benefits of the project against these significant unmitigated landform/visual quality impacts. 5 ( ~,S;{ L( C. BIOLOGY Imvacts The project would result in the loss of 156 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub, which is designated as a sensitive habitat, in the southern portion. This is considered a significant impact due to the overall loss of this habitat in southern California, and because many of the sensitive plant and animal species found on site are concentrated in this habitat, including the California gnatcatcher and coast barrel cactus. Impacts to six pairs of California gnatcatchers and one pair of coastal cactus wrens would occur as a result of the proposed southern parcel development. These impacts are considered significant. Development of the southern portion of the site would result in significant unmitigated impacts to the Otay Tarplant. Impacts to approximately 144,000 Otay tarplant individuals are expected in the southern portion of the project. Dense populations of this state endangered plant are in the western and central parts of the southern parcel. This is a significant impact. An estimated 1,867 San Diego barrel cactus would be impacted by the proposed southern portion of the project. This significant population represents one of the more impressive barrel cactus stands in the County. This is a significant impact. All of the estimated 11,000 individuals of Palmers' Grappling Hook onsite would be impacted by the project. The loss of such a large population of this species is considered a significant impact. The project would result in the loss of approximately 345 individuals of California adolphia. These losses are considered significant. Development of the northern portion of the project would significantly disrupt the rich biodiversity of this site. The northern development could result in the loss of approximately 311 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub, which is designated as a sensitive habitat. This is considered a significant impact due to the overall loss of this habitat in southern California and because many of the sensitive plant and animal species found on site are concentrated in this habitat, including the California gnatcatcher and coast barrel cactus. The gnatcatcher population on the site is part of a larger core population for the entire species and the project would cause direct impacts to 40 of the existing 69 pairs onsite. Additional impacts in the north would occur to the Cactus Wren, Otay Tarplant, Palmers' Grappling Hook, and wetland habitat. Other significant impacts to wildlife include fragmentation of habitat, constricted movement corridors, and impacts from pets, lighting, noise and wild fires. ("as 6 Mitigation Measures The mitigation of Diegan sage scrub is to be accomplished by a combination of preservation in both the north and south parcels to total a 2:1 preservation to impact ratio for sage scrub habitat. Approximately 146 acres would be set aside in open space within the southern portion of the project and 166 acres within open space in the northern portion of the project, for a total of 312 acres of replacement habitat, a 2:1 mitigation replacement ratio. These measures would reduce impacts to Diegan sage scrub but not to below a level of significance at this time. The six pairs of California gnatcatchers impacted by the southern portion of the project would be mitigated by the preservation of nine pairs of gnatcatchers within identified open space areas in the project. This 1.5:1 ratio is consistent with the requirements of the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and would reduce California gnatcatcher impacts but not to below a level of significance at this time. The Mitigation Concept Plan proposes to preserve the Otay Tarplant in the southeastern corner of the western half of the southern parcel, where the most dense population of Otay Tarplant currently exists. Approximately 10 acres of proposed residential development would be set aside and 5 acres of open space proposed for development would be left as open space, for a total preserve of 15 acres, in addition to the existing SDG&E right-of-way of approximately 8 acres. The proposed mitigation area would include approximately 42,000 (29%) of the 144,000 plants occurring within the southern parcel. An additional 11,000 plants occur outside of the project area, within the SDG&E corridor. This mitigation program would attempt to enhance this population through creation of a biological preserve and management efforts to plant new seedlings and remove aggressive competitive exotic species. A long-term monitoring and maintenance program would be implemented as part of the overall program pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to be entered into with the Department of Fish & Game prior to SPA Plan approval. The MOA shall be required for any take of Otay Tarplant. The MOA will include a detailed mitigation plan, and it will be part of the applicant's SPA Plan review. Notwithstanding these mitigation efforts, the impact to the Otay Tarplant is not mitigated to below a level of significance at this time. The Mitigation Concept Plan was developed to reduce impact to the San Diego barrel cactus in order to meet the Department of Fish and Game target of preserving 60% in-situ. A full 1,380 of the cactus lost are attributable to the East H Street alignment as dictated by broader scale planning efforts which cannot be readily modified. The project applicant redesigned a portion of the southern project in order to reduce impacts to a level consistent with the target 60% preservation. In addition, the impacted cacti would be replanted in open space areas to mitigate impacts to the species. Implementation of the above program will reduce the impacts to the coast barrel cactus but not to below a level of significance at this time. Palmers' Grappling Hook occurs in a number of areas within the southern development and significant impacts to this species cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance with the project as proposed. /.- cS;? !p 7 As mitigation for impacts to the California adolphia, the Draft EIR calls for the preservation of 50% of this species in biological open space. To achieve this mitigation goal, a population of approximately 350 plants in the northern parcel would be placed into a dedicated open space area, in addition to a 40 plant population within the open space in the southern parcel. The results of this mitigation would be in excess of that required by the Draft EIR but the impacts would not be reduced to below a level of significance at this time. The one pair of coastal cactus wren which would be impacted will be mitigated by the preservation of three pairs of cactus wrens located in open space in the southern parcel. In addition, the habitat of the impacted cactus wren shall be transplanted to within the southern parcel open space, adjacent to existing cactus wren populations. A monitoring program shall be implemented to accurately determine the impacted habitat to be transplanted, and subsequently monitored to ensure successful establishment. These measures would reduce impacts to the cactus wren but not to below a level of significance at this time. Table 3.3-8 of the Draft EIR contains a list of mitigation measures for individual species located on the project. A reduction in the identified impacts in the northern parcel could take place through adoption of a mitigation plan incorporating a redesign, consistent with Table 3.3-8. However, the applicant has not agreed to a redesign incorporating the guidelines set forth in Table 3.3-8. The following general mitigation measures would further reduce impacts to biological resources due to implementation of Rancho San Miguel: Graded areas along roadways shall be hydroseeded with native plant species consistent with surrounding natural vegetation. This would help to minimize erosion and runoff, as well as improve the area aesthetically by making it visually compatible with adjacent natural areas. As part of this effort, a Revegetation Plan shall be developed with the help of a revegetation specialist with experience in coastal sage scrub and similar habitats. The Revegetation Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Chula Vista. Iceplant (Carpobrotus aequilateralus or C. edulis) shall not be used in lieu of fire-resistant native vegetation due to the slope failures associated with it. Importation of this plant introduces fire ants, which are known to reduce native harvester ant populations through competition and displacement. In addition, fire ants are unpalatable to the San Diego horned lizard and their introduction would reduce horned lizard populations. The use of non-invasive plants in landscaping areas adjacent to open space will be required for all areas outside of actual lot boundaries. Additionally, homeowners will be encouraged to use non-invasive plants in their landscaping adjacent to open space. 8 /-~ 7 Grading activities within 100 feet of areas of identified California gnatcatcher pairs, or their associated coastal sage scrub habitat, shall not be conducted during the breeding or nesting season (mid-March through July annually). Grading activities shall be supervised by a biologist. Site preparation activities, especially staging area operations and maintenance rows for heavy machinery, shall be restricted to areas not being placed in open space. Carelessness on the part of equipment operators can result in the destruction of areas that have been designated for preservation. Areas adjacent to open space shall be fenced. A debris fence shall be installed prior to excavation in areas where grading is up- slope of sensitive biological habitats. These recommendations should be incorporated into a Construction Monitoring Program approved by CDFG, USFWS, and the City. Compliance with state regulations (California AB 3180) requmng monitoring programs for development projects would require satisfaction of the following two objectives: 1. The final site plan must be reviewed by a qualified biologist for the City of Chula Vista and by CDFG for compliance with these mitigations. 2. Each phase of project implementation must be reviewed by a qualified biologist for compliance with the mitigation measures required for that phase, and a report must be filed prior to notice of completion. Finding Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (see Section VI of these findings). Only the "No Project" alternative would avoid all of the identified biological impacts. The Biologically Sensitive Alternative would reduce the impacts, but not to a level below significance. Section VIII of this document contains the Statement of Overriding Considerations (pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093) which indicates that the decisionmakers have weighed the benefits of the project against the identified significant unmitigated environmental effects. D. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 1. AIR QUALI'IY Imoacts Development of either the original project or the Mitigation Concept Plan would contribute to an unmitigated cumulative air quality impact on regional air quality because 9 /-';;;8 the proposed development was not considered when the regional air quality attainment plans were formulated for the 1982 SIP revisions for San Diego region. This conclusion also applies to any of the project alternatives. The updated SIP planned for release in 1992 will include the proposed project. Project emissions in NOx, reactive organic gases (ROG) and PMlO from vehicular and stationary sources will add to existing exceedances of state and federal ozone standards. Because San Diego currently exceeds air quality standards for several pollutants, any additional emissions will contribute to San Diego's inability to meet stated standards. Therefore, these air quality impacts are considered to be cumulative and significant. Mitigation Measures The following methods shall be incorporated into development design to reduce ROG,NOx and PM10 emissions: o All residential units shall use solar energy with back-up low NOx water heaters. o Low-NOx commercial-size water heaters shall be installed in all the larger onsite facilities, along with solar panels. o Residential and larger facility gas-fired furnaces shall be outfitted with heat transfer modules providing a 70 percent reduction in NOx emissions. o Incorporate in the landscape design low natural hydrocarbon (NHC) producing plant species (also requiring little water), such as cape myrtle and Chinese elm. To reduce air pollutant emissions from the proposed Rancho San Miguel development, natural gas water heaters installed at residential units could be equipped with solar collectors such as flat plate solar panels. Solar systems normally can provide sufficient water heating capacity during the sunny seasons. Natural gas-fired water heaters would continue to be used to supplement the solar component. On a yearly basis, solar energy could provide abut 52 percent of the energy needed for a given water heating system (SCAQMD 1989) and thus effectively reduce total annual pollutant emissions from water heaters by 52 percent. There are four basic tactics for the mitigation of air quality presented as part of San Diego's attainment plans (APCD 1986): traffic flow improvements, ridesharing, bicycling, and mass transit. Of the four, the project, as proposed, incorporates bicycling and traffic flow improvements as detailed in the City of Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan (TPP). The following additional mitigation measures shall be implemented to reduce vehicular emissions impacts: 10 / -d1 r o A ridesharing program shall be implemented within the Rancho San Miguel development. o Funding shall be provided by the Rancho San Miguel project to subsidize increased bus service in the vicinity of the proposed project. o Bicycle paths shall be included along roads as means of alternate transportation. In accordance with the Growth Management Program adopted by the City of Chula Vista on April 23, 1991 (Resolution No. 16101), an Air Quality Improvement Plan shall be prepared by the project applicant at the SPA Plan level. Finding Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final ErR (see Section VI of these findings). Only the "No Project" alternative would avoid this impact. Section VIII ofthis document contains the Statement of Overriding Considerations (pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093) which indicates that the decisionmakers have weighed the benefits of the project against the unmitigated significant environmental effects. 2. CONVERSION OF OPEN SPACE Impacts Development of either the original project or the Mitigation Concept Plan would contribute to an incremental increase in the area's conversion of open space to urban land uses. The City's General Plan designates the proposed project as a developable area. Incorporation of permanent natural open space into the project design would offSet some of the impacts related to conversion of open space to urban uses. Despite these general mitigation measures, both the original project and the Mitigation Concept Plan would contribute to a significant, unmitigated cumulative land use impact. Mitigation Measures No project-specific mitigation measures are proposed, although the incorporation of natural open space into the project design and the dedication of open space easements to the City would reduce the level of impact, but not to below a level of significance. Findinl!S Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final ErR (see Section VI of these findings). Only the "No Project" alternative would avoid this cumulative impact. Section VIII of this document contains the Statement of Overriding Considerations (pursuant to 11 /-.3 6 CEQA Guidelines Section 15093) which indicates that the decisionmakers have weighed the benefits of the project against the significant, unmitigated environmental impacts. 3. LANDFORM;VISUAL QUAU1Y Imvact The development, in combination with various development projects in the area, would unavoidably contribute to a significant cumulative effect on the existing natural landform and the area's visual quality. This impact would occur with either the original project or the Mitigation Concept Plan. Mitigation Measures General mitigation measures being incorporated into this project and other development projects in the area would serve to offset some of the identified landform/visual quality impacts. These mitigation measures include a review of grading plans by a licensed civil engineer, adherence to city grading ordinances and hillside development guidelines, contour grading, slope revegetation and restrictive grading to the building pad. Nevertheless, the project, in combination with other development projects in the area, would still contribute to a significant incremental cumulative change in natural landforms and visual quality in the area. Findings Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (see Section VI of these findings). Only the "No Project" alternative would avoid this cumulative impact. Section VIII of this document contains the Statement of Overriding Considerations (pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093) which indicates that the decisionmakers have weighed the benefits of the project against the significant, unmitigated environmental impacts. 4. BIOLOGY Impact The development would contribute to a significant incremental cumulative loss of quality biology habitat in the region. This impact would occur with either the original project or the Mitigation Plan Concept. Mitieation Measures Revegetation efforts, onsite and offsite re-creation of habitats and offsite habitat preservation programs can offset the identified cumulative impact to biological resources. Despite mitigation measures taken to preserve biological resources in this project and in other related development projects, the impact of this project and other development projects on sensitive species and habitat is cumulative and significant. 12 /.- 3( Findin~ Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final ErR (see Section VI of these findings). Only the "No Project" alternative would avoid this cumulative impact. Section VIII of this document contains the Statement of Overriding Considerations (pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093) which indicates that the decisionmakers have weighed the benefits of the project against the significant, unmitigated environmental impacts. 5. ARCHAEOLOGY Impact The development, in combination with the various development projects in the area, would unavoidably contribute to a significant cumulative adverse effect on existing cultural resources through grading, excavation and construction activities, and expose unprotected sites in open space areas to degradation due to increased human recreational activity. Mitigation Measures Despite mitigation measures such as monitoring grading activities by qualified archaeologists and paleontologists, protective easements around areas of regional archaeological/historical importance and/or data recovery programs at sites which will be affected by development-related construction or recreation activities, there is stilI a significant cumulative effect upon cultural resources. Findings Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (see Section VI of these findings). Only the "No Project" alternative would avoid this cumulative impact. Section VIII of this document contains the Statement of Overriding Considerations (pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093) which indicates that the decisionmakers have weighed the benefits of the project against the significant, unmitigated environmental impacts. 6. WATER SUPPLY Impact The development would contribute to an incremental significant cumulative impact on the region's limited water supply, as would any development on the site. Development along the Sweetwater River could also cumulatively impact recreational uses of the waterway and have an adverse affect on native plants that are part of the sensitive estuary system at the mouth of the river. These impacts apply to both the original project and the Mitigation Concept Plan. /.-3~ 13 Mitigation Measures No project-specific mitigation measures are proposed. Findings Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR (see Section VI of these findings). Only the "No Project" alternative would avoid this cumulative impact. Section VIII of this document contains the Statement of Overriding Considerations (pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093) which indicates that the decision makers have weighed the benefits of the project against the significant, unmitigated environmental impacts. 7. NONRENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES Imoact The development would contribute to a significant cumulative increase in the demand for nonrenewable energy resources. This conclusion applies to both the original project and the Mitigation Concept Plan. Mitigation Measures No project-specific mitigation measures are proposed. Findin~ Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (see Section VI of these findings). Only the "No Project" alternative would avoid this cumulative impact. Section VIII of this document contains the Statement of Overriding Considerations (pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093) which indicates that the decisionmakers have weighed the benefits of the project against the significant, unmitigated environmental impacts. lV. SIGNIFICANT MITIGATED IMPACTS A. lAND USE Impacts Development of the northern portion of the site from natural/agricultural land use to an urban land use is potentially incompatible with the Sweetwater Reservoir. The concentration of contaminants from automotive sources and urban land uses would increase. Sewage could enter the Sweetwater Reservoir or nearby streams if the development's sewer system malfunctioned or overflowed. Also, sediment deposition could increase from grading activities during project construction. 14 /-:53 As residential units are proposed next to SDG&E facilities and the utility may expand the facility in the future, potential conflicts could arise with residents adjacent to the expanded facility. This is a potential significant impact. The Mitigation Concept Plan is proposing an affordable housing element; however, a detailed program to achieve compliance with the City's provisions related to affordable housing has not been determined. Mitigation Measures For mitigation associated with impacts to Sweetwater Reservoir, the project applicant must develop stormwater management plans, including a proposed runoff protection system, for approval by the Sweetwater Authority. For specific mitigation concerning this issue, see the mitigation measures included in Section H of these Findings. To reduce land use impacts associated with locating residential lots adjacent to a large electrical substation to below a level of significance, the applicant shall implement the following measures: o Provide potential buyers considering lots adjacent to the substation and transmission lines with a white paper describing future SDG&E expansion plans,to the extent feasible. (Project applicant might sell portions of the site to others to develop housing, and it would be their obligation to advise buyers.) o Achieve general visual separation through landscaping, topography variation, and homesite orientation for houses near the SDG&E property. o Provide grading site plans and other information to SDG&E to assist them in their efforts to develop future improvements on their site and corresponding landscape or other screening programs that will minimize visual impacts to adjacent residential development to below a level of significance. The inconsistency with the affordable housing provisions of the City's General Plan will be reduced to a level below significance upon satisfaction of the City's performance criteria at the SPA Plan review level. Ensuring consistency with the affordable housing provisions will also require that the project applicant will explore, in an affordable housing program, methods to devote 10 percent of the dwelling units to low and moderate income housing; provide equivalent offsite mitigation; or pay fees as determined through the submission of a proposal as part of the SPA Plan processing. This proposal shall be responsive to the City policies concerning affordable housing that may be in effect at the time of the SPA Plan processing. 15 / - 3.Lj FindiniS Land use impacts associated with incompatibility with the Sweetwater Reservoir, residential units adjacent to the SDG&E substation, and affordable housing will be mitigated to below a level of significance with implementation of the prescribed mitigation measures. B. IANDFORM;VISUAL The designated site for the interpretive center, conference center and inn contain topography with slopes in excess of 25 percent. Grading techniques for this portion of development are not discussed in the GDP. Landform impacts associated with the interpretive center and conference center and inn are unknown at this time, and will be analyzed at the SPA level when grading plans for these facilities are available. Large and potentially conspicuous potable water storage tanks are proposed for provision of drinking water at adequate pressure. The exact locations of the tanks have not been determined at this time; therefore the impacts are unknown. Views from a small portion of East H Street, a designated scenic roadway, would be degraded by grading and development associated with the proposed project. Mitigation Measures Impacts associated with grading for proposed visitor facilities in the northern portion are unknown at this time, and shall be evaluated at the SPA Plan level. Impacts associated with siting and design of water tanks shall be evaluated at the SPA Plan level. Landscaping and development plans consistent with General Plan guidelines for scenic roadways shall be implemented. For additional buffering between residential development and the substation, the applicant should, where feasible, consider SDG&E's suggestions in addition to other techniques which shall be reviewed by the City during the SPA Plan review level, as follows: 1) Establishment of separation by development setbacks incorporating landscaped greenbelt or residential collector street; 2) Achievement of visual separation through landscaping, topographic variation, homesite orientation, and height and lot setback restrictions for houses near the substation property. 1~35 16 Findinl!S Impacts associated with siting and design of water tanks are unknown. These impacts must be evaluated and mitigated at the SPA Plan level. Impacts associated with views from the scenic roadway are mitigable to below a level of significance with implementation of the prescribed mitigation measures. C. BIOLOGY Impacts The project would result in the loss of .5 acres of wetland habitat in the southern portion. This is considered a significant impact by the California Department of Fish and Game. The project would result in the loss of approximately 30 individuals of San Diego marsh elder. Because of its location within wetlands, the impact is considered significant. The project would result in the loss of approximately 15 individuals of southwestern spiny rush in the southern portion of the project. Because of its location within wetlands, impacts to this species are considered significant. Mitigation Mitigation of wetland impacts is to be primarily accomplished by avoidance measures. In order to compensate for the .5 acre of impacted habitat, additional wetlands of a similar type will be created within an area designated as open space in the northern parcel. The wetland mitigation site would be revegetated with mule-fat, San Diego marsh elder, and southwestern spiny rush. Mitigation is to be completed on a one-to-one area and value basis as recommended in the Draft EIR, to be carried out under the direction of a qualified wetland revegetation specialist and the California Department of Fish and Game. These measures would reduce wetland impacts to below a level of significance. Impacts to San Diego marsh elder shall be mitigated by avoiding wetlands onsite to the extent practicable. Unavoidable impacts will be mitigated through a revegetation program to ensure that a minimum of 1: 1 numerical replacement of plants impacted shall occur through the revegetation. Implementation of these measures would reduce San Diego marsh elder impacts to below a level of significance. Impacts to southwestern spiny rush shall be mitigated by avoiding wetlands onsite to the extent practicable. Unavoidable impacts will be mitigated through a revegetation program to ensure that a minimum of 1: 1 numerical replacement of plants impacted shall occur through the revegetation. Implementation of these measures would reduce southwestern spiny rush impacts to below a level of significance. 17 1~30 Finding Impacts associated with the disturbance to wetlands, San Diego marsh elder and spiny rush are mitigable to below a level of significance with implementation of the prescribed measures. D. ARCHAEOLOGY Impacts The archaeology study on the San Miguel Ranch site determined that eight important sites will be directly impacted by the proposed project. Another eight sites will be indirectly impacted resulting from residential use of project open space areas. The impacts to these 16 sites are significant. Miti!!ation Measures The significant impacts to archaeological resources can be reduced to below a level of significance by implementation of the mitigation measures described at pages 3.4-24 through 3.4-27, inclusive, of the Draft ElR. The principal focus of these mitigation measures is preservation of the resource and data recovery. Findinl!S Impacts to archaeological resources are mitigable to below a level of significance with implementation of the prescribed measures. E. PALEONTOLOGY Impacts Impacts to paleontological resources occur when earthwork activities cut into geologic formations and destroy the buried fossil remains. The project area is underlain by a variety of formations,some which are known to contain fossils in the surrounding area (Proctor ValleylEastlakelBonita). Based on a review of the concept plan, it appears that extensive development would occur in those areas underlain by formations which have a moderate to high potential to contain paleontological resources, including the Otay and Sweetwater formations. Mass excavations in these formations would result insignificant impacts to paleontologic resources. Mitigation Measures To mitigate or minimize potential impacts to paleontological resources to below a level of significance, the following measures shall be implemented during project grading. 18 ('<37 1. Prior to issuance of development permits, the project applicant shall present a letter to the City of Chula Vista indicating that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to carry out an appropriate mitigation program. (A qualified paleontologist is defined as an individual with an M.S. or Ph.D. in paleontology or geology who is familiar with paleontological procedures and techniques.) 2. A qualified paleontologist shall be at any pre-grade meetings to consult with grading and excavation contractors. At this time the units (mudstone and gritstone) of the Sweetwater formation should be located for use by the paleontologist. 3. A paleontological monitor shall be onsite at all times during the original cutting of previously undisturbed sediments of highly sensitive formations (i.e. Otay and Sweetwater-mudstone portion only) to inspect cuts for contained fossils. A paleontological monitor shall be onsite on at least a half-time basis during the original cutting of previously undisturbed sediments of moderately sensitive formations (Le. debris flow deposits and Sweetwater-gritstone portion only) to inspect cuts for contained fossils. A paleontological monitor shall be onsite on at least a quarter-time basis during the original cutting of previously undisturbed sediments of low sensitivity formations (i.e. Santiago Peak volcanics-meta-sedimentary portion only) to inspect cuts for contained fossils. A paleontological monitor shall periodically inspect original cuts in deposits with an unknown resource sensitivity (i.e. stream/quaternary deposits). In the event that fossils are discovered in unknown, low or moderately sensitive formations it may be necessary to increase that per day field monitoring time. Conversely, if fossils are not being found then the monitoring should be reduced. A paleontological monitor is not needed during grading of rocks with no resource sensitivity (i.e. Santiago Peak Volcanics-meta-volcanic portion). A paleontological monitor is defined as an individual who has experience in the collection and salvage of fossil material. The paleontological monitor shall work under the direction of a qualified paleontologist. 4. When fossils are discovered, the paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) shall recover them. In most cases this fossil salvage can be completed in a short period of time. However, some fossil specimens (such as a complete large mammal skeleton) may require an extended salvage time. In these instances the paleontologist (or monitor) shall be allowed to temporarily 19 /~.3 '8 direct, divert,or halt grading to allow recovery of fossil remains in a timely manner. Because of the potential for the recovery of small fossil remains such as isolated mammal teeth, it may be necessary, in certain instances, to set up a screen-washing operation at the site. 5. Fossil remains collected during the monitoring and salvage portion of the mitigation program shall be cleaned, repaired, sorted and cataloged. 6. Prepared fossils along with copies of all pertinent field notes, photos, and maps shall then be deposited (with the owners permission) in a scientific institution with paleontological collections such as the San Diego Natural History Museum. 7. A final summary report shall be completed which outlines the results of the mitigation program. This report should include discussion ofthe methods used, stratigraphic section exposed, fossils collected, and significance of recovered fossils. 8. Selected roadcuts or large finished slopes in areas of interesting geology (e.g. Highway 125) shall be left unlandscaped if they would not be subject to erosion so they can serve as important educational and scientific reference exposures for future generations. Findings Paleontological impacts are mitigable to below a level of significance with implementation of the prescribed measures. F. GEOLOGY/SOILS Impacts The project site is subject to a seismic event with magnitude of 6.7 on the potentially active La Nadon fault. Damage to structures could occur, therefore this is a significant seismically related impact. If saturated alluvial materials are present, potential liquefaction would be a significant impact. A potential hazard exists for the reactivation of existing landslides and for slope instability caused by the presence of ancient landslides and/or weak sheared clay seams and bentonite layers within the Sweetwater and Otay formations. The presence of expansive soils could potentially result insignificant impacts to structures,building foundations, underground utilities and roads. Potential erosion impacts include damage to cut and fill slopes, exposure of underground facilities or foundations, and increased siltation downstream from stormwater runoff. 1- ..3 9' 20 Many areas of the developed project would be underlain by structural fill or surficial deposits which may be subject to compaction and/or differential settlement. Potential effects related to this phenomenon include damage to structure, roadways, and underground facilities. Several native soils on the project site exhibit corrosive potential due to acidic or alkaline soil chemistry. Potential impacts to project facilities include deterioration and eventual failure of underground concrete and metal structures. Construction in the northern portion of the site may require substantial amounts of drilling and blasting for structural excavation would could generate significant short- term impacts to public health and safety and offsite noise generation. Some seepage problems may develop in cut areas and low lying alluvial areas during the wet season. Mitigation Measures The significant impacts of the project can be reduced by the mitigation measures detailed on pages 3.5-18 to 3.5-25, inclusive, of the Draft ElK These measures include 1) preparation of supplemental geotechnical reports prior to approval of the project precise plan and prior to and during grading activities; 2) compliance with the Uniform Building code, City of Chula Vista General Plan, County of San Diego General Plan, Grading ordinance, and all other applicable guidelines; 3) excavation and recompaction or replacement of materials potentially subject to liquefaction or dynamic settlement; 4) removal or control of expansive soils using moisture control techniques or chemical stabilizers, soil stabilization and erosion control techniques; and 5) monitoring of grading operations by a qualified geotechnical consultant. Findings Impacts related to ground acceleration, liquefaction, landsliding, expansion, erosion, compaction/settlement, reactive soils, shallow bedrock, and groundwater are mitigable to a level below significance with implementation of the prescribed measures. G. HYDROLOGY Impacts Development of the project site would create large impervious surfaces such as roads, walkways, buildings, and parking lots. Runoff would occur more rapidly, and the peak runoff discharge from the site would be higher for a given rainfall event than under the present undeveloped conditions. Basin headwater areas tend to possess slope and channel gradients steeper than those in downgradient areas, and therefore, increases in overall impervious cover results in larger, more frequent, and higher velocity discharges into downstream channels. Detrimental consequences could include increased peak discharges, possible flooding, / - ~C! 21 and possible scour of the minor and major drainage ways downstream of the development. The quantity and quality of runoff from areas draining directly into Sweetwater Reservoir are of concern, as this is a storage facility for drinking water supplied. A detailed drainage study will be critical to estimate specific project impacts, and to create detailed project design plans for general storm drainage systems in the northern and southern projects area. This must be considered a significant impact until detailed drainage plans are prepared as part of a SPA plan or tentative map, and evaluated in subsequent environmental documentation. Mitigation Measures A detailed drainage report and plan must be prepared for the entire Rancho San Miguel GDP project,submirted prior to SPA approval. Implementation of an appropriate plan will reduce the significant impacts of increased runoff from the site and increased flooding downstream. The report and plans must be approved by the city engineer, and should contain the following design components and hydrological data. The facilities shall be designed in accordance with the criteria contained in the Subdivision Manual or as determined by the City Engineer. The storm water system designs shall ensure that any increase in flow velocity will not result in channel scour in natural or earthen channels, and that the increased volume will not flood existing residences and roadways downstream. Development of the Rancho San Miguel project shall comply with all applicable regulations established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as set forth in National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements for urban runoff and stormwater discharge and any regulations adopted by the City of Chula Vista thereto. The developer shall be required to obtain an NPDES construction permit from the State Water Resources Control Board and to submit pollutant control and monitoring plans to the Regional Water Quality Control board for approval prior to the issuance of grading permits. Findings Significant impacts to hydrology related to increased runoff and increasing flooding downstream are mitigable to below a level of significance through implementation of the prescribed measures. H. WATER QUALITY Impacts The project would generate substantial increases in surface runoff due to increases in impervious surfaces, and could cause significant flooding and scouring downstream. j- 9'/ 22 Water quality in the Sweetwater Reservoir may be compromised by urban runoff from the project site. The water quality impacts are considered to be significant. Mitigation Measures The project shall be subject to review and approval by the California Environmental Protection Agency (formerly State Department of Health Services). The project shall implement mitigation measures as set by Cal-EPA. Prior to or concurrent with SPA Plan approval, a diversion ditch plan,or other acceptable plan to handle drainage that might impact the Sweetwater Reservoir, shall be prepared and approved by the Sweetwater Authority and Cal-EPA. Design of these plans shall also consider providing additional capacity for concurrent or future development. The project proponent shall submit to the city an erosion control plan prepared by a registered civil engineer in accordance with City of Chula Vista design standards. The plan shall be approved prior to issuance of grading permits and shall include placement of sandbags, temporary sediment basins, and an erosion control maintenance plan. The runoff protection system now being planned will be approved and implemented by the Board of Directors of the Sweetwater Authority (Reynolds 1991). Approval of these plans for these facilities, including erosion control facilities, shall occur prior to issuance of a grading permit. The runoff protection system shall be in place and fully operational before construction for Rancho San Miguel within the Sweetwater Reservoir watershed occurs. A maintenance district shall be formed and financed by the Sweetwater Authority to ensure perpetual maintenance of the runoff protection facilities whether within the City of Chula Vista or in the County (Reynolds 1991). As part of the applicant's SPA Plan, the applicant shall prepare and submit a water quality report addressing drainage from the northern and southern portions of the development and from diverted drainage from the runoff protection system in the north. The report must address proposed plans to reduce potential water quality degradation of downstream tributaries. This issue shall be evaluated further at the SPA Plan level. Findings Water quality impacts are mitigable to below a level of significance with implementation of the prescribed measures and any mitigation measures required in the Sweetwater Authority's Draft ErR on the runoff protection system. /- -Y ~ 23 I. TRAFFIC Impacts The proposed project does not identify the functional classifications of roads that are to be constructed to serve the project. Since these roads are not included in the final General Plan Circulation Element, their functional classification has not been determined, which is considered to be a significant impact. The project applicant has proposed a bypass road which is consistent with the City's Circulation Element, but not the County's. This inconsistency is considered a significant impact. Mitil!ation Measures The proposed San Miguel Ranch Road shall be designated as a four-lane major street between East H Street and SR 125 and a four-lane Class I between SR 125 and Bonita Road. The proposed north entry road leading to the northern portion of the site from San Miguel Ranch road shall be designated as a two-lane Class 11 collector. The project applicant shall secure a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to the County's Circulation Element if the bypass road remains an element of the project prior to SPA level hearings at the City. Findings Traffic impacts related to functional classifications for proposed roads are mitigable to below a level of significance through implementation of the prescribed measures. J. AIR QUAU1Y Impact Short-term pollutant emissions will occur during the construction phase of the project. The air quality impacts are considered significant short-term impacts. Mitigation Measures To reduce short-term pollutant emissions during the construction phase, the following mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the project plan: o Heavy-dutyconstruction equipment with modified combustion/fuel injection systems for emissions control shall be utilized during grading and construction. /,~Y3 24 o Disturbed areas shall be hydroseeded, landscaped, or developed as soon as possible and as directed by the city to reduce dust generation. o Trucks hauling fill material shall be covered. o A 20 mile-per-hour speed limit shall be enforced on unpaved surfaces. o To control dust raised by grading activities, the graded area shall be watered twice a day, unless the county's current state of limited water supplies still exists at the time of construction. In this case other mitigation measures shall be considered and implemented upon City approval. Such measures may include minimizing grading by designing development to follow natural topography, phasing grading so relatively smaller areas are exposed, and revegetating graded areas as rapidly as possible. Finding The short-term pollutant emissions are mitigable to below a level of significance through implementation of the prescribed measures. K. NOISE Impact Significant impacts would occur since noise levels in many areas of the development, as designed, would exceed 65 dBA Ldn standard due to traffic noise along future Route 125 and several major roads proposed within the development. Mitigation Measures The placement of noise walls or wall/berm combinations on the top of slopes adjacent to East H Street,San Miguel Ranch Road, and Route 125 would mitigate noise impacts. The walls must be of solid masonry construction with a material weight of at least 3.5 pounds per square foot and which would not allow any air space along their entire length. Each noise wall or wall/berm combination should be placed on the building pads at the top of the slope between the residences and the adjacent impacting roadway. The required wall or wall/berm combination height ranges from 8-10 feet for residences adjacent to Route 125 or East H Street; and from 5 to 6 feet for residences adjacent to San Miguel Ranch Road. It should be noted that city regulations do not permit walls over 6 feet in height. Therefore, only the wall/berm combination would be acceptable unless project redesign were implemented. The visual impacts of the walls/berm combination to reduce noise effects will be evaluated at the SPA Plan level, when actual dimensions and design plans for the wall/berms will be available, as related to impacts on San Miguel Ranch Road and East H Street. Impacts on the development due to SR 125 will be studied as part of the EIR for whichever is built later in time, the Rancho San Miguel project or the roadway. /-L/~ 25 Findini Impacts associated with noise will be mitigated to below a level of significance through implementation of the prescribed mitigation measures. 1. PUBUC SERVICES AND UTIUTIES 1. WATER Imoacts The location of water facilities required to serve the project has not been determined. The project applicant has included certain water conservation strategies that are recommended by the City, but some strategies have not been included in the GDP. These are significant impacts of the proposed project. Mitil!:ation Measures The following mitigation measures will reduce project-related impacts: o Prior to approval of any SPA Plan within Rancho San Miguel, a Water Master Plan shall be prepared, and approved by the City Engineer. This plan shall delineate, at a more detailed level, the recommendations of the Nolte and Associates 1990 Preliminary Water Concept Plan for Rancho San Miguel. The Water Master Plan shall identify the location and sizing of specific facilities and implementation/phasing of the plan. The impacts related to the final placement of the water facilities shall be evaluated at the SPA level, including impacts to biological resources, archaeological resources, and visual quality. To reduce water consumption within the development, the project applicant shall implement the following water conservation measures: o In accordance with Ordinance No. 2448, the project applicant shall prepare a Water Conservation Plan to be submitted with the SPA Plan application, for approval by the City. This plan shall provide an analysis of water usage requirements of the proposed project, as well as a detailed plan of proposed measures for water conservation, use of reclaimed water, and other means of reducing per capita water consumption from the proposed project, as well as defining a program to monitor compliance. This plan shall be reviewed by the Resource Conservation Commission and Planning Commission, prior to final review and adoption by the City Council (Growth Management Program) City of Chula Vista, April 23, 1991, Resolution No. 16101. /-~__5 26 o Reclaimed water shall be used wherever feasible, as planned. The project applicant shall begin negotiations with the Otay Water District to ensure distribution of reclaimed water to the site. o Water conservation measures for onsite landscaping and roadside maintenance shall include, but not be limited to planting of drought tolerant vegetation and the use of irrigation systems which minimize runoff and evaporation loss. o Installation of low-flush toilets, as planned. o Installation of low-flow showers and faucets. o Insulation of hot water lines in water recirculating systems (California Energy Commission). Findinl!S Water-related impacts would be mitigated to below a level of significance with implementation of the prescribed mitigation measures. 2. SEWAGE Impact There is a physical limitation to the offsite transport of Rancho San Miguel's wastewater. The Frisbie Street trunk sewer between Corral Canyon Road and Bonita Road may not have the capacity to handle the additional Rancho San Miguel sewage flow. OWD staff have met with San Diego County and Chula Vista staff to discus capacity in the Frisbie Street trunk sewer and concepts to free capacity for development while maintaining OWD's ability to discharge 1.2 mgd. OWD has acknowledged Rancho San Miguel's right to 1.5 mgd capacity in the Frisbie Street trunk line based on existing agreements. Impacts associated with offsite transport of Rancho San Miguel wastewater are considered to be significant. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures will reduce project-related impacts: o Prior to approval of any SPA Plan within Rancho San Miguel, a Wastewater Master Plan shall be prepared subject to approval by the City Engineer. This plan shall delineate, at a more detailed level, the recommendations of the Nolte and Associates 1990 Preliminary Sewer Concept Plan for Rancho San Miguel. The Wastewater Master Plan shall identify the location and sizing of onsite and offsite sewage facilities, implementation/phasing, and funding. This report shall include a discussion of potential impacts to the Sweetwater Reservoir in the event of a break in the sewerline or sewage 27 /~~ c:; spill in the portion of the project within the Sweetwater drainage basin. The impacts related to the final placement of the sewerage facilities shall be evaluated at the SPA level including impacts to biological resources, archaeological resources, visual quality, and water quality. This should include final locations of both onsite and offsite facilities. Sewer system design shall be approved by the City's Engineering Department at SPA level. o An actual sewer flow measurement or a study to accurately estimate existing wastewater flows in the Frisbie Street trunk sewer shall be conducted before project flows can enter the system. Metering of the Frisbie Street trunk sewer shall be performed by the developer. o The project shall be subject to payment of wastewater development fees (to fund trunk sewer and other upgrades) or equivalent proportionate facility financing mechanism necessary to provide service to this project as identified by the City, when adopted. Payment shall occur prior to issuance of building permits or earlier. Findings Sewage-related impacts would be mitigated to below a level of significance with implementation of the prescribed mitigation measures. 3. POLICE PROTECTION Impact The project would require the addition of three new officers and five additional support staff to the police force. This is a significant impact. Mitil.!ation Measures The project applicant shall be responsible for fronting the necessary funds to enable the City to purchase the requisite equipment for the new police officers and support staff. If required to finance this equipment, the project applicant will be entitled to credit against all or a portion of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fees for Police Services. Findings Impacts to police protection would be mitigated to below a level of significance with implementation of the prescribed mitigation measures. 1- "1'7 28 4. FIRE PROTECTION Impact The exact location of the new fire station to serve the project area has not been determined by the City of Chula Vista at this time. Several scenarios for the location of the station are proposed and analyzed. Fire service response times would be inadequate for the northern portion of the site under several scenarios. Constraints to fire protection in the northern portion include the negative impacts associated with the provision of only one access road to serve the entire 1,852-acre northern portion,limited maneuverability for fire trucks once in the northern portion, slowing down to access gated communities and steep roads. In addition, fire protection for the proposed conference and interpretive centers cannot be determined without more detailed information on these facilities. The impacts are significant. The danger of brush fires represents potentially significant fire hazard impacts to dwellings that are located near hillsides. This is a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures Impacts related to the proposed conference and interpretive centers cannot be mitigated without more detailed information regarding usage and sizing of the facilities. These impacts shall be fully analyzed at the SPA Plan review level. All other impacts to fire protection would be reduced upon implementation of the following mitigation measures. o The project applicant shall provide a second access road to the northern portion if the new fire station is located in EastLake I (Chase 1991). The Chula Vista Fire Department strongly recommends that the second access road be provided under any of the scenarios given the constraints to fire protection that exist in the northern portion (Gove 1991). o Fire sprinklers shall be installed in all buildings and residences in the northern portion of the site (Gove 1991). o A control system shall be installed that utilizes a special light on the fire truck to open gates for the gated communities electronically (Yokley 1991). o The applicant shall be required to provide a brush rig for the Chula Vista fire department, in accordance with the Public Facilities DIF - Fire Suppression System. The brush rig should be on-hand prior to any building permit being issued by the City for the northern portion of the project. For providing the brush rig, the developer shall be entitled to a credit against all or a portion of their share of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee related to the fire suppression system and/or a repayment from future DIF fees collected by the City (Chase 1991). 29 /- y~ o Implement an acceptable brush management plan, as proposed by the applicant. Impacts of the plan shall be evaluated at the SPA level. Finding Impacts to fire protection would be mitigated to below a level of significance through implementation of the prescribed mitigation measures. 5. EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES (EMS) PROTECTION Impacts EMS response times would be greater than city standards in the northern portion of the site. This impact is significant. Mitil!ation Measures Provide a second access road to the northern portion that enables emergency medical technicians to reach the required number of units within 10 minutes. Findings Impacts to EMS protection would be mitigated to below a level of significance through implementation of the prescribed mitigation measure. 6. SCHOOLS Imoact The project could bring 496 additional elementary school students to the district. An elementary school is proposed by the project; however, financing for this facility has not been determined. The impacts from the project are considered significant. Mitil!ation Measures Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce project-related impacts: o As required by state law, the developer must pay school fees of $1.58 per square foot of habitable space for residential development and $0.26 per square foot of commercial development (Heydt 1990). Payment of development fees would not be adequate to fully mitigate the impacts to elementary and high schools in the area. o Prior to SPA Plan approval, the project applicant shall provide documentation from CVCSD that the proposed elementary school site location is acceptable to the district. Funding for the school shall be in 30 /- .y I compliance with CVCSD procedures and will most likely involve the Mello- Roos Community Facilities District financing method. o Prior to SPA Plan approval, the project proponent shall provide documentation to the City confirming satisfaction of SUHSD facility funding requirements to offset student generation impacts. Funding would be satisfied through the Mello Roos Community Facilities District financing method or other means acceptable to SUHSD. o Prior to issuance of any building permits for Rancho San Miguel, the project proponent shall obtain written verification from CVCSD and SUHSD that adequate school facilities and associated financing will be provided for students generated from the project. Payment of development fees would not be adequate to fully mitigate the impacts to elementary and high schools in the area. The project applicant shall provide the financing mechanisms for both elementary and high schools. Possible measures to achieve this are discussed at pages 3.15-33 through 3.15-34, inclusive, of the Draft EIR. Finding Impacts to schools would be mitigated to below a level of significance through implementation of the prescribed mitigation measures. M. PARKS, RECREATION, AND OPEN SPACE Imoacts The project proposes an integrated hiking and equestrian trail system that connects to the County's regional system. The system would provide access into areas designated as open space that contain sensitive biological resources, creating significant biological impacts. Portions of the trail system are in SDG&E power transmission easements, which has limited acceptability to the City's Parks and Recreation Department pursuant to the Department's policy statement contained in the Final EIR. This may result in a significant trail inconsistency impact. This would be fully examined prior to SPA level approval. Approximately 42.6 acres of the site currently designated as open space would be developed in the southern portion. It is the recommendation of staff that this development be allowed since the proposed expansion has no negative adverse impacts upon the General Plan. 31 /-- ~o Miti~ation Measures The biological impacts of the proposed trail system are mitigable upon implementation of the following mitigation measures: o The trail system layout and site specific designs shall be prepared in coordination with the City's Park and Recreation Department and the Environmental Coordinator. Impacts of the trails must be evaluated at the SPA level. o The trail system shall be managed and policed in a manner that will be consistent with the objective of protecting the habitat and associated plant and animal species from harm. o A list of rules regarding proper trail use shall be posted at the interpretative center and also at strategic locations along the trail system. o Dog-owners shall not be allowed to bring their pets onto any trails within the trail system that occur in open space areas, on or off leash. o Use of the open space area shall be limited to designated trails. o No collecting or molestation of natural resources shall be allowed (e.g. Horned lizards, cactus, flowers). o Open fires, smoking, and weapons shall not be allowed in the open space areas and trail system. o Mountain bikes shall also be prohibited, due to the extreme sensitivity and regional value of the biological resources in the areas traversed by the trail, and because mountain biking often generates off trail impacts. o Certain portions of the trail system that traverse sensitive habitat shall be subject to periodic closure to help protect wildlife and allow recovery of the habitat. o The portion of the trail system that crosses the most eastern areas of the SDG&E property shall be rerouted as far east as is feasible (possibly utilizing an existing jeep trail) to avoid a Golden Eagle perching site located in the area. o Areas the trails access shall be periodically to ascertain damage from overuse. If it is determined that an area is being degraded the associated trail shall be closed periodically to allow for recovery from use. 32 (- s / o All trails shall be constructed to prevent the channeling of urban runoff into the surrounding open space and Sweetwater Reservoir, to the extent feasible. No mitigation is required for developing 42.6 acres of land currently designated as open space. Findings Park and Recreation impacts are mitigable to levels below significance with implementation of the prescribed measures. V. INSIGNIFICANT IMPACTS In accordance with the evaluation provided in EIR 90-02, the following issues have been determined to be insignificant: 1. Mineral Resources 2. Conversion of Agricultural Lands 3. Community Social Factors 4. Fiscal Analysis 5. Public Services and Utilities (gas & electric, solid waste, parks, middle and junior high schools) VI. INFEASffiIIl1Y OF MITIGATION MEASURES AND ALTERNATIVES CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines require that an ElR include a description of a reasonable range of alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project. The EIR must also include an evaluation of the "no project" alternative. The discussion of alternatives must focus on alternatives "capable of eliminating any significant adverse environmental effects or reducing them to a level of insignificance." CEQA Guidelines section 15126(d){3). In addition, the CEQA Guidelines require that the ElR describe reasonable and feasible mitigation measures which could minimize significant adverse impacts. CEQA Guidelines section 15126(c). The EIR examines a total of seven alternatives to the proposed project. Each of these project alternatives is considered infeasible by the project applicant. The EIR also includes various mitigation measures proposed to minimize the identified significant adverse impacts of the proposed project. Some of these mitigation measures, identified below, are considered infeasible by the applicant. 33 / - .:s q;> The discussion below focuses on the alternatives and the mitigation measures to the proposed project and the reasons why certain alternatives and mitigation measures were found to be infeasible. A. ALTERNATIVES 1. No Project Alternative The No Project Alternative was identified as an alternative which would avoid all of the significant unmitigated impacts of the proposed project. The No Project alternative is considered infeasible for the following reasons. The No Project Alternative would not be consistent with the City's General Plan which designates the project area for future urban development, including residential, school, commercial and park uses. In addition, this alternative would not meet the objectives of the Eastern Territories Element of the General Plan, which call for the creation of a balanced community of residential, commercial, industrial and open space uses. The project is projected to have an overall positive fiscal impact on the City of Chula Vista. Operating revenues are projected to exceed operating costs over a ten year period. After buildout, the project is projected to result in a positive fiscal benefit of $530,897 per year in current dollars. This positive fiscal benefit to the City would not be realized by adopting this alternative. This alternative would also be inconsistent with the objectives of the project, which include the creation of high-guality residential development offering a diverse range of housing types in distinct neighborhoods; the establishment of a large-lot residential community in the northern portion of the proposed project while, at the same time, integrating that development with permanent natural open space; provision of a commercial center, community park and elementary school to serve the needs of Rancho San Miguel and adjacent communities; and implementation of significant elements of the City's General Plan, including preservation of open space corridors and extension of the City's greenbelt through the provision of approximately 1,670 acres of permanent natural open space. 2. Horseshoe Bend Alternative This alternative preserves Horseshoe Bend, a V-shaped landform located in the western half of the southern portion of the project. The northern portion would remain the same as in the proposed project. This alternative would preserve approximately 35- 40 acres more open space than the proposed project. This alternative would also reduce some of the landform/visual impacts as identified in the ErR. This alternative is considered to be infeasible for the following reasons. Significant land use impacts would remain with this alternative. Certain impacts would increase such as incompatibility with neighboring areas, an increase in clustering, a reduction in lot sizes, and a residential character inconsistent with the Low Residential designation in the General Plan. Notwithstanding the increased preservation of Horseshoe Bend, the grading of Gobbler's Knob would remain a significant impact. Significant biological and 34 /-53 air quality impacts would also remain. The alternative is also inconsistent with the project objectives. 3. The Coon Canyon Alternative This alternative preserves Coon Canyon, a major drainage course located in the northern portion that flows into Sweetwater Reservoir. The purpose of the Coon Canyon Alternative is to reduce biological impacts associated with the proposed project in the northern portion. This alternative would accommodate 1,606 units as opposed to the project's 1,654 units. The northern portion would contain approximately 276 dwelling units on 276 acres on the western slope of Mother Miguel Mountain. The proposed interpretative center, conference center and inn would not be included in this alternative. The southern portion would contain approximately 30 more dwelling units than the proposed project and development would occur on the entire 738.2-acre southern parcel. This alternative is considered infeasible for the following reasons. This alternative would create significant land use impacts due to proposed development of areas on the eastern side of the southern portion currently designated at open space. Visual impacts to the northern portion would be reduced by implementing this alternative; however, visual impacts in the southern portion would increase. This alternative would reduce impacts to two sensitive habitats, Diegan coastal sage scrub and wetlands, but increase impacts to non-native grassland habitat, which is not considered sensitive. Impacts to Diegan coastal sage scrub and wetland habitat would also remain significant. This alternative would also increase direct impacts to five important archeological sites in the southern portion of the project. The alternative would also reduce the positive fiscal benefits to be realized by the City because of the deletion of the conference center, inn and interpretative center. Under this alternative, all other aspects of the proposed project would remain generally the same, and the remaining significant impacts identified would still occur, or be exacerbated in the south, including inconsistencies with the General Plan. The alternative is also inconsistent with the project objectives. 4. Biologically Sensitive Alternative The Biologically Sensitive Alternative substantially reduces the number of acres developed in the southern portion and eliminates all development in the northern portion in order to reduce many of the impacts to the biological resources associated with the project site. This alternative would preserve 2,129 acres as open space as compared to 1,653 acres preserved under the proposed project. Impacts to archaeological resources would also be substantially reduced by this alternative. However, the number of units in the southern portion would increase from 1,297 to 1,600 units. This alternative would also substantially reduce the amount of runoff projected for the site compared to the proposed project. The Sweetwater Reservoir would not be impacted from urban runoff as a result of this alternative. The project would be more compact in design, allowing for more efficient circulation, particularly for pedestrian trips. This alternative would represent less of a demand on public services in the area since development would be concentrated in a smaller area, thus reducing the distance required to extend utilities. 35 1- 5 L/' This alternative is considered infeasible for the following reasons. The increase in housing densities in the southern portion (from 1,297 to 1,600 units) is not consistent with the City's General Plan. This overall increase in density to 3.5 dwelling units per acre would increase land use and compatibility issues under this alternative. In addition, a General Plan Amendment (GPA) would be required before this alternative could be adopted. Although a GPA is not considered infeasible, it is not part of the project at this time. Several impacts would be reduced by this alternative; however, some impacts would still remain significant. These impacts include landform/visual quality (significant because Horseshoe Bend and Gobbler's Knob would be extensively graded), biological resources (still significant mainly due to the presence of large concentrations of Otay Tarplant, a state endangered plant), cultural resources, geology/soils, hydrology and public services and utilities. All of the other impacts of this alternative are similar to the proposed project. Therefore, the Biologically Sensitive Alternative, while environmentally superior to the other design alternatives, does not eliminate the majority of the impacts that would occur with development on this site. The alternative would also reduce the positive fiscal benefits to be realized by the City because of the deletion of the conference center, inn and interpretative center. The alternative is also inconsistent with the project objectives. These project objectives include the establishment of a large-lot residential community in the northern portion of the site that integrates development with natural open space, and the provision of a conference center, inn and interpretative center in the northern portion of the project site to serve the surrounding community and visitors to the area. 5. South Only Development Alternative The South Only Development Alternative limits development of the project site to the southern portion. The entire 1,852-acre northern portion would be preserved as open space. Development in the southern portion would be the same as for the proposed project, although the number of dwelling units would be increased. Impacts to water quality would be eliminated with this alternative since development would not occur in the northern portion, and the potential for contamination of the Sweetwater Reservoir would not occur. This alternative is considered infeasible for the following reasons. This alternative would still create significant land use impacts as identified in the ElR. Compatibility with surrounding land uses and consistency with the General Plan would be exacerbated with this alternative because of the increase in dwelling units. The landform/visual quality impacts identified in the EIR for the southern portion would be the same as for the proposed project. Horseshoe Bend and Gobbler's Knob would still be removed by mass grading which is a significant unmitigable impact. Visual impacts would still occur along the northern ridgeline of the southern portion adjacent to the SDG&E substation for a limited number of lots when the SDG&E facilities are expanded. Views along a small portion of East H Street would still be degraded by development along this scenic highway. These impacts are considered significant. All biological impacts identified in the ElR for the southern portion would still occur. Significant impacts to cultural resources, geology/soils, air quality, and other identified impacts would be reduced but not to a level of insignificance. 36 /- 5.5 Fiscal benefits to the City would be reduced through deletion of the conference center and inn, and recreational benefits would be reduced through deletion of the interpretive center. The alternative is also inconsistent with the project objectives. 6. SR 125 Alternative The SR 125 Alternative W5 examines the proposed project based on alternate alignment of future SR 125. Instead of forming the western boundary of the proposed project's southern portion, SR 125 would travel to the eastern half of the southern portion in a north/south alignment. This alignment would then travel through SDG&E property to the north of the substation and immediately adjacent to the southwestern corner of the northern portion of the project site. The purpose of this alternative is to propose a residential development design which would accommodate this alternative freeway alignment. This alternative would change the eastern half of the southern portion and the southwestern corner of the northern portion of the project site. All other aspects of the project would remain as proposed. This alternative is considered infeasible for the following reasons. If the proposed project is designed and constructed prior to resolution of the freeway alignment, the W5 alternative would create significant negative impacts on the project. The eastern edge of the project would be separated from the rest of the project by SR 125, creating a segregated neighborhood which should be avoided. The homesites located immediately adjacent to the freeway alignment in the northern and southern portions would also be affected by adverse noise conditions and other compatibility issues. If this alternative were adopted, the proposed project could be impacted by traffic from Chula Vista accessing SR 125 unless arterials were designed that bypassed the project. Market incentives to locate the proposed commercial area or additional commercial land uses closer to the freeway would also exist, which would change the commercial type from neighborhood to freeway commercial. Significant impacts would remain due to landform/visual quality, biology, air quality and noise factors. This alternative is also inconsistent with the City's General Plan and the project objectives. 7. SR 125 Alternative W6 The SR 125 Alternative alignment W6 would travel through the western half of the southern portion of the project, instead of bordering the western boundary. This alternative would affect only the southern portion of the project site, and the alternative would be similar in concept to the proposed project regarding the number of dwelling units and the mix of land uses. This alternative is considered infeasible for the following reasons. Land use compatibility issues would increase as more of the dwelling units would be affected by their proximity to the proposed freeway since it would bisect the western neighborhood. Measures would have to be implemented to reduce noise, visual, and other impacts related to freeway incompatibility. The following significant impacts would still exist under this alternative: landform/visual quality, biology and air quality. All other impacts 37 /- .S?~ identified in this EIR would remain the same. This alternative is also inconsistent with the City's General Plan and the project objectives. B. MITIGATION MEASURES The following mitigation measures were identified in the Draft EIR, but are considered infeasible by the project applicant: (a) In the Land Use section at page 3.1-26, the Draft EIR states that "all of the recommendations in the City's consistency analysis shall be implemented." This recommended measure refers to the City's initial "consistency analysis." Since that time, the City has updated its consistency analysis in response to the applicant's Mitigation Concept Plan. Therefore, the City's initial consistency analysis is no longer applicable and would be infeasible due to the refinements made in the Mitigation Concept Plan. (b) In the LandformNisual Quality section at page 3.2-18, the Draft EIR states that "the applicant must demonstrate compliance with hillside development guidelines during the SPA plan review to the satisfaction of city planning staff." This recommended measure is considered infeasible by the project applicant because the applicant believes that the General Plan does not identify either Horseshoe Bend or Gobbler's Knob as landforms requiring preservation in accordance with the hillside development section of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan. VlI. ADOPTION OF MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM As required by Assembly Bill 3180 and Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the Decisionmakers hereby adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program ("Program"), set forth in Exhibit B of EIR 90-02 incorporated herein by reference. The Decisionmakers find that the program is designed to insure that, during project implementation, the project applicant, and other responsible parties, implement the project components and comply with the feasible mitigation measures identified in EIR 90-02. The Program will serve a dual purpose of: l)verifying completion of the Mitigation Measures for the proposed project; and b) generating information on the effectiveness of the Mitigation Measures to guide future decisions. The program includes the following: 1. Monitoring team qualifications; 2. Specific monitoring activities; 3. Reporting system; and 4. Criteria for evaluating the success of the Mitigation Measures. /-57 38 VIII. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS BACKGROUND The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines provide: "(a) CEQA requires the decision-maker to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered 'acceptable.' (b) Where the decision of the public agency allows the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final ErR but are not at least substantially mitigated, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final ErR and/or other information in the record. This statement may be necessary if the agency also makes a finding under Section 15091(a) (2) or (a) (3). (c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the Notice of Determination." (Guidelines Section 15093.) THE STATEMENT The City finds that the mitigation measures discussed in the CEQA findings, when implemented, avoid or substantially lessen most of the significant effects identified in final ErR 90-02 for Rancho San Miguel. Nonetheless, certain significant effects of the Rancho San Miguel project are unavoidable even after incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures. These unavoidable effects include: land use, landform/visual quality, biology and cumulative impacts to air quality. In approving this project, the City has balanced the benefits of the Rancho San Miguel project against these unavoidable environmental effects. In this regard, the City finds that all feasible mitigation measures identified in the CEQA findings, have been or will be implemented with the project, and any significant remaining unavoidable effects are acceptable due to the following specific planning, social, economic or other considerations, all of which are based upon the facts set forth below, the CEQA findings, final EIR 90-02, and the record of the proceedings for this project. 1. Rancho San Miguel, a planned residential community in the City of Chula Vista's Eastern Territories, is consistent with the demand for housing in Chula Vista. The project is a well-balanced residential community that will provide local residents of Chula Vista and residents in the region the choice of high-quality, diverse housing types in accordance with the following policies contained within the City's General Plan Update: /- 5 2' 39 o Encourage the development of a diversity of housing types and prices. o Encourage planned developments, with a coordinated mix of urban uses, open space and amenities. o For new developments in Eastern Territories, the predominant character should be low medium density, single-family housing. Where appropriate in terms of physical setting encourage development of quality, large-lot housing. Rancho San Miguel addressed each of these General Plan policies. As a planned community the project provides a diverse range of housing types in distinct, complimentary neighborhoods within the Low Residential category with minimum lot sizes ranging from 7,000 square feet in the clustered neighborhoods, 8,000 and 10,000 square feet in the mid-size lots, and 15,000 square feet to three-quarters of an acre in the low density estate neighborhoods. Rancho San Miguel, which is uniquely situated between the urbanized areas of Chula Vista to the south and west and the undeveloped areas to the east, is predominantly a residential community which will provide residents of Chula Vista with high quality, upper- end housing products which are currently limited in the South Bay area. Rancho San Miguel will also provide important transitions from the higher density developments adjacent to future SR 125 to the lower density estates in the northern portion of Rancho San Miguel. Development within Rancho San Miguel will transition from clustered development in the western portion of the property to mid-size and estate lots in the eastern portion of the southern parcel and low density estate lots in the northern parcel of the site. 2. The project provides logical community land uses, enhances opportunities for the long-term productivity of the community of Chula Vista and the surrounding region, and maintains and conserves valuable resources, all of which are consistent with the City's long-term planning goals. The variety of single family uses in close proximity to existing and proposed commercial and industrial uses will provide opportunities for persons to reside in areas adjacent to employment facilities and, thus, will help to relieve typical employment community impacts, such as traffic, noise and air quality effects. 3. The project provides needed commercial facilities consistent with the policy in the City's General Plan Update to provide for community and neighborhood commercial centers in developing areas convenient to new neighborhoods. Rancho San Miguel addresses this policy by providing a 14-acre commercial site located on East H Street central to this project as well as to Salt Creek I and Salt Creek Ranch. This facility will meet the City's goal of improving and increasing the retail base of the City while making the City an attractive place to shop. The facility's location will serve a wide area and will help relieve numerous impacts such as traffic and air quality effects. 40 /- S '7 4. The Rancho San Miguel project supplies the final link in the Greenbelt called for in the General Plan Update. The General Plan Update calls for creation of a continuous, 28-mile Greenbelt around the City of Chula Vista. The Greenbelt provides a unique opportunity to develop a significant network of open space, trails, and recreational activities for the citizens of Chula Vista and residents in the surrounding region. In essence, the Greenbelt represents a continuous open space area which visually and functionally links all the communities and the principal parks and recreational resources of the City including active recreational facilities, natural open space, wildlife habitats and a connecting trail system. This continuous system begins at the Chula Vista Bayfront, extends through Otay River Valley to the Otay Lakes, north through the Otay Lakes area and along Salt Creek to Mother Miguel Mountain and Sweetwater Reservoir and west along the Sweetwater Regional Park to the Bayfront. 5. The project will result in construction of a number of roads which are integral parts of the City's General Plan Circulation Element. For example, roadway improvements will involve construction of San Miguel Rancho Road and East H Street to ultimate standards through the project. The project will also contribute to offSite roadway improvements on a fair share basis with other area developers by participation in the Eastern Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan (ECVfPP). Significant landscaping buffer areas will be provided along major roads in accordance with the City's Circulation element. The project will incorporate pedestrian and bicycle pathways and equestrian paths or trails within transportation corridors as recommended by the City's Circulation Element. 6. The project preserves approximately 1,670 acres of natural open space constituting approximately 64% of the project site. Implementation of the project will provide for the long-term preservation of numerous sensitive biological resources located in the natural open space areas and provide for wildlife corridor links in those areas . 7. The project will provide connecting links to equestrian and hiking trails between Salt Creek and the County Regional Park system along Sweetwater River and from Bonita Highlands north to the Sweetwater River and Rancho San Diego. 8. The project provides a major community park facility of 20.7 acres. The facilities will provide capacity for both this project as well as surrounding communities, and will be complimentary to future proposed parks in Salt Creek Ranch and Eastlake. In addition, linkage to the Chula Vista Greenbelt will be provided. 9. The project meets the desires of the General Plan to preserve significant natural features and landforms. These landforms include Mother Miguel Mountain, Wild Man's Canyon and the ridgeline separating Rancho San Miguel from Salt Creek Ranch. Each of these landforms will be included within the Chula Vista Greenbelt and will be part of a recreation oriented open space network of trails and equestrian paths. /- <'P 0 41 10. The project will add an important connecting link in the transportation system for future SR 125, with San Miguel Ranch Road providing a link between East H Street and Bonita Road as envisioned by the General Plan. 11. The project proposes minimal grading in the northern portion ofthe project with all homesites sensitively planned and construction techniques utilized such as stemwall foundations, post and beam construction and multiple level structures, to ensure responsiveness to natural topography. The project emphasizes wide lots and the use of natural colors and hues to assist in blending the residential housing into the hillsides, for maintenance of the rural character. 12. The project will result in a comprehensive planned community providing a logical extension of City services, including public transportation, law enforcement, fire protection and public utilities. 13. The project helps fulfill the need for community facilities by providing two community purpose sites (8.5 acres) for the citizens of Chula Vista and the region. 14. The project advances the City's environmental goals by encouraging water conservation and reclamation programs, mass transit facilities and an extensive trail system. 15. The project also contains a number of other additional overriding public benefits, such as: o Incorporation of an elementary school site into the design of the project (11.9 acres). o A commitment to provide financing contributions to the high school proposed to be located on Otay Ranch, and serving the needs of this and other projects, through Mello-Roos or other acceptable financing methods. o Use of native plant and landscaping materials to the greatest extent possible to emphasize the rural nature of the project, with the emphasis upon drought tolerant plants. The use of reclaimed water will be provided as feasible for watering purposes. o A commitment at the GDP level to prepare plans for various community facilities, including a water master plan addressing the location, sizing, phasing and financing of water supply facilities; a sewer master plan addressing the location, sizing, phasing and financing of wastewater collection facilities; and a reservoir protection plan to preserve water quality in the Sweetwater Reservoir. Additionally, an Air Quality Improvement Plan shall be prepared assessing alternatives for mitigation of air quality impacts. 42 j'. ~ ( For these reasons, on balance, the City finds that there are planning, social, economic and other considerations resulting from this project that serve to override and outweigh the project's unavoidable significant environmental effects and, thus, the adverse environmental effects are considered acceptable. 43 / - & q::. IX. the record For the purposes of CEQA and these findings, the record of the decisionmakers relating to these actions include the following: Beauchamp, R. M. 1986. A Flora of San Dieqo Countv. Sweetwater River Press. Beauchamp, R.M. and J.P. Rieger. 1974. wildlife and Vegetation Survey of the Bonita Miguel Site, San Diego County, California. In Bonita Miguel Master Plan: An amendment to the General Plan, San Diego County. Boyle Engineering. 1989. Sweetwater Reservoir Urban Runoff Diversion System Preliminary Design Report. April. Brown, Arthur R. and Robert W. Geoloqv of the San Jacinto Geological Society Annual No.9. Ruff, editors. 1981. Mountains, South Coast Field Trip Guidebook California Air Resource Board (CARB). 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988. California Air Quality Data. California Air Resources Board (CARB) . 1987. "Information for Applying the State Ambient Air Quality Standards for PMIO to the Permitting of New and Modified stationary Sources, sacramento, California. California Air Resources Board (CARB). 1988. EMFAC7D Factors/Burden 7A Activity, San Diego Air Basin, year 2000, July 13. California Department of Fish and Game Designated Endangered or Rare Resources Agency. (CDFG) . Plants. 1990a. The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). Special Animals. The Resources Agency. 1990b. California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA). 1981. Important Farmlands Inventory as applied to the State of California, February. California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG). 1983. Mineral Land Classification: Aggregate Materials /-~ in the Western San Production-Consumption Region. Diego County Species Report 153. California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG). 1987. Mines and Mineral Producers Active in California During 1986. Special Publication 93. California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG). 1988. Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Special Publication 42. Carnevale, Sue. 1991. SANDAG. Personal communication, June 25. Chase, Marty. 1991. Memo to Doug Reid. Chopp, Elizabeth. 1991. city of Chula vista. Personal communication. Chula Vista, city of. 1974. General Plan. June. Noise Element of the Chula vista, City of. Canyon sectional Inc. February. 1979. El Rancho Del Rey Long Area Plan FEIR. Prepared by MSA, Chula Vista, City of. 1982a. by WESTEC Services, Inc. EastLake FEIR. February. Prepared Chula Vista, City of. 1982b. Housing Element. Chula Vista, City of. 1987. Evaluation of the Adequacy of the EIR for the Revised Rancho Del Rey SPA I Plan. Prepared by WESTEC Services, Inc. October. Chula Vista, Meadows Recon. City of. Pre zoning February. 1988a. DEIR for the Bonita and Annexation. Prepared by Chula Vista, city of. General Plan. 1988b. Noise Element of the Chula vista, city of. 1989. Sunbow General Development Plan Pre-Zone. Prepared by ERCE. Chula Vista, City of. General Plan. 1989a. ci ty of Chula vista Chula Vista, City of. 1989b. EastLake Greens SPA Plan and EastLake Trails Pre-Zone and Annexation Final SEIR. Prepared by ERCE. June. Chula vista, city of. 1989c. Municipal Code. /- cPL/ Chula Vista, city of. Prepared by ERCE. 1989d. Salt Creek I Final SEIR. August. Chula Vista, City of. 198ge. Salt Creek I. of the city Council of Chula vista Supplemental EIR No. 89-6, August. Resolution Re: Final Chula vista, City of. Proposed Budget. 1990-91. ci ty of Chula vista Chula vista, city of. 1990. Salt Creek Annexation/General Development Plan/Pre-Zone EIR. Prepared by ERCE. August. Ranch Final Chula Vista, City of. 1991. San Miguel Ranch General Plan Consistency Analysis, Draft. Prepared by Ed Batchelder, Garry williams, Bud Gray. July 24. Crowell, John C. 1975. San Andreas Fault in Southern California, CDMG Special Report 118. Cultural Systems Research, Inc. (CSRI). 1982. Miguel Substation Area Project, Reconnaissance Letter Report. Proposed Surface Daoust, Roger L. 1991. city of Chula vista. Doug Reid, November 15. Memo to Davis, McMillan, and Susan Hector. 1989a. A Cultural Resource survey of a Portion of the Rancho San Miguel Property. Prepared by RECON. Davis, McMillan, and Susan Hector. A Cultural Resource Survey and Archaeological Testing of a 20-acre Portion of the Rancho San Miguel Property, Bonita, California. Prepared by RECON. Davis, McMillan, John LR Whitehouse, and Susan Hector. 1989. Cultural Resources Survey of the Rancho San Miguel Property (Central Portion), Bonita, California. Prepared by RECON. Davis, McMillan, William R. Manley, John LR Whitehouse, and Susan Hector. 1989. Archaeological Testing of the Rancho San Miguel Property (Southern Portion), Bonita, California. Prepared by RECON. Decker, Gary. 1991. Otay Water District Engineering and Planning Department Head. Letter to Roger Walsh, county of San Diego Department of Public Works. May 1. /-&,3' Emmel, T.C. and J.F. Emmel. 1973. The Butterflies of Southern California. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Science Series 26. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1985. AP-42 Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors, Volume 1, 4th Edition, September. ERCE. 1990. Strategies Escondido. April. Air Quality Mitigation and Offset for a Residential Development in Report prepared for Leisure Technology. Evans, Goffman, and McCormick. 1973. Preliminary Summary of Geotechnical Findings Bonita Miguel, San Diego County, California. Prepared for Moreland Investment Co. September. Everett, W. T. 1979. Threatened, Declining and Sensitive Bird Species in San Diego County. San Dieqo Audubon Societv, Sketches, June. Federal Highway Administration's stamina 2.0 Noise Prediction Model. Federal Highway Traffic FHWA-RD-77-108. Noise Prediction Model, Federal Highway Traffic FHWA-RD-77-108. Noise Prediction Model, Gastil, Gordon and Richard Higley. 1977. Diego Area Stratigraphy. Department Sciences San Diego State University. Guide to San of Geological December 10. Gatzke, Mispagel and Dillon, Attorneys & Counselors at Law. 1991. Comments to the Interim Review Draft EIR for Rancho San Miguel (August 1991). November 15. Geocon, Inc. 1986. Investigation for California. May. Preliminary Soil and Geologic Bonita Miguel, San Diego County, Gove, Carol. Personal 8. 1991. Chula vista Fire Department. communication. March 29, April 8, August Gray, Bud. 1990. Review of Rancho San Miguel General Development Plan, Final Issues Report. Greensfelder, Roger W. Acceleration From Map Sheet 23. 1974. Maximum Credible Rock Earthquakes in California CDMG /- cC ~ Harris, cyril M. 1979 Handbook of Noise Control 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill, Inc. Heilman, Richard. 1990. San Diego Gas and Electric. Letter to Keller Environmental Associates. May 9. Heydt, Henry. Education. 1990. California State Department of Personal communication, September 18. Higgins, E.B. 1949. Annotated Distributional the Ferns and Flowering Plants of San Diego Occas. Papers. San Diego society of History. No.8. List of County. Natural Holland, R. F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. Nongame-Heritage Program, California Department of Fish and Game. October. Hurt, Larry. 1990. County of San Diego. communication, December. Personal J.M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc. 1989a. Sweetwater Authority South Side Sweetwater Reservoir Runoff Protection Study. Technical Memorandum #1: Data Collection and criteria Establishment. August. J.M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc. Sweetwater Authority South Side Sweetwater Reservoir Runoff Protection Study. Technical Memorandum #2: Preliminary Engineering Analysis. October. J.M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc. 1990a. Sweetwater Authority South Side Sweetwater Reservoir Runoff Protection Study. Technical Memorandum #3: Hydrological Analysis. January J.M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc. 1990b. Sweetwater Reservoir Urban Runoff Diversion System (Draft Preliminary Design Report for Souths ide Runoff Collection System). April. John McTighe & Associates. 1991. city of Chula vista Rancho San Miguel Fiscal Impact Analysis. Kaldenberg, Russell L., and Charles S. Bull. Archaeological Resource Impact Report Southern Portion of Rancho Bonita Miguel. by RECON. 1975. An for the Prepared /- cc, 7 Kennedy, Michael P. 1977. Geology of the National city, Imperial Beach, and otay Mesa quadrangles. Southern San Diego Metropolitan Area, California. California Division of Mines and Geology. Map Sheet 29. Kennedy, Michael P. and Garry Peterson. of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, Bulletin No. 200. 1975. Geology California CDMG Kuper, H. T. and R. Gordon Gastil. 1977. Reconnaissance of Marine Sedimentary Rocks of Southwestern San Diego County: In Farrand G. T. (ed) Geoloqv of Southwestern San Dieqo Countv. California and Northwestern Baia California. San Diego Association of Geologists Field Trip Guidebook. Ladera Associates Inc. 1989b. Concept Plan Neighborhood "A" 1989. Rancho San 1:200 Scale Miguel July 7, Ladera Associates Inc. 1990. Rancho San Miguel Concept Plan Neighborhood "B" 1:200 Scale November 5, 1990; Revised December 12, 1990. Ladera Associates, Inc. 1989a. Drainage Calculations for Bonita Miguel Property. Letter to Wayne Loftus. November 15. Lembeck, M. 1978. Bobcat Study, San Diego County. California Department of Fish and Game, Nongame wildlife Investigations, Study IV, Job 1.7. Lopez, Samuel. 1991. Chula vista Fire Department. Personal communication to ERCE, April 23. Luke-Dudeck civil Urban Runoff Reservoir. Engineers. Control 1982. Design Study. Facilities, Sweetwater Luke-Dudek civil Engineers. 1981. Urban Runoff Study, Middle Sweetwater Hydrologic Subunit. McCuen, Richard. Usinq SCS Englecliff, 1982. A Guide to Hvdroloqic Analvsis Methods. Prentice Hall, Inc. New Jersey. Morgan, M. Granger. 1989. Electric and magnetic fields from 60 hertz electric power: What do we know about possible health risks? Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. /- /P f5 Munz, P. A. 1974. A Flora of Southern California. University of California Press, Berkeley. Nair, Indira, M. Granger Morgan, H. Keith Florig. 1990. Biological effects of power frequency electric and magnetic fields. Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, background paper. Prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment. Nolte & Associates. 1990a. Preliminary Sewer Concept Plan for Rancho San Miguel. April. Nolte & Associates. 1990b. Preliminary Water Concept Plan for Rancho San Miguel. April. Oberbauer, Tom. 1990. County of San Diego. Personal communication, December. P&D Technologies. 1990. San Miguel Project, February. Traffic Evaluation, Rancho Chula vista, California. Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc. 1989a. Report of a Biological Assessment of the Rancho San Miguel Property San Diego County, California. Prepared for San Miguel Partners, San Diego, California. Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc. 1989b. Study of California Gnatcatchers (Polioptila californica) at Rancho San Miguel San Diego, California. Prepared for San Miguel Partners, San Diego, California. Paleo Services. Resources. 1990. July. Rancho San Miguel Paleo Puskas, John. 1990. County of San Diego. communication, December. Personal Rea, A. and K. Distribution, Cactus Wren. Weaver. 1991. and Status of the Western Birds 21: The Taxonomy, Coastal California 81-126. Real, Charles L. Parke. California, September. R., Tousson R. Toppozada, and David 1978. Earthquake Epicenter Map of 1900-1974, California Geoloqv, Reinen, R. H. 1978. Notice of Exercise of section 404 Jurisdiction over certain streams and Wetlands in California. Los Angeles District, Corps of Engineers. July 15. /-4)7 Remsen, V. 1978. The Species of Special Concern List: An Annotated List of Declining or Vulnerable Birds in California. Western Field Ornitholoqist, Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, uni versi ty of California, Berkeley. Reynolds, Dick, Chief Engineer of Sweetwater Authority. 1991. Telephone conversation with Barbara Reid, Associate Planner, City of Chula Vista, November 22. Rosenberg, Hal, Traffic Engineer, city of Chula vista. 1991. Personal communication with Barbara Reid, Associate Planner, City of Chula Vista, December 11. San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 1988. Series 7 Regional Growth Forecast, 1986-2010, July. San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 1990. Final Sweetwater River Habitat Conservation Plan. July. San Diego County Traffic Engineering, 1990. Telephone Conversation with John Puskas and Larry Hurt. December, 1990. ADT for Proctor Valley Road west of Melody Road counted in June, 1989. San Diego Herpetological society (SDHS). 1980. Survey and status of endangered and threatened species of reptiles natively occurring in San Diego County. Prepared for Fish and wildlife Committee, San Diego Department of Agriculture. San Diego Union. 1991. April 1. February 15. 50% Water Cut Starts on San Diego, City of. 1974. City of San Diego Seismic Safety Element, updated 1983. San Diego, City of. Modifications to the Recommended Plan, V. 1990. Project Report for Metropolitan Sewerage System, XI. May. San Diego, EIR. Inc. County of. 1975. Bonita Miguel Master Plan Prepared by Community Science Technology, San Diego, County of. 1980. Conservation Element of the General Plan. San Diego, County of. 1985. Zoning Ordinance. San Diego, county of. 1987. Final Environmental Impact /- ? c; Report for Rancho San Diego Specific Plan Amendment. Prepared by Brian F. Mooney Associates. San Diego, County of. 1988. Sweetwater Community Plan. San Diego, County of and City of Chula vista. 1991. otay Ranch DEIR (Checkprint). Prepared by ERCE. San Miguel Partners. 1990. General Development Plan. Santa Barbara Air Pollution Control District (SBAPCD). 1989. Draft 1989 Air Quality Management Plan, Stationary Source Control Measures, November. Savitz, D. A. 1987. Case-control study of childhood cancer and exposure to electromagnetic fields. Technical Report, prepared for the New York State Power Lines Project, Albany, New York, Health Research. Scott, T. 1991. Personal communication to PSBS. SDG&E (San Diego Gas and Electric). Substation Master Plan. 1981. Miguel Seed, H.B. and I. M. Idriss. 1970. A Simplified Procedure for Evaluating Soil Liquefaction Potential EERC Report No., 70-9, November. Sherburne, R. W., R. T. Boyland and David L. Parke. 1985. Seismicity of California, April 1979 through October 1982, California Geology 38(4). Shurson, Kate, 1991. Chula vista City school District. Letter to ERCE, April 5. siino, David S. 1991. San Diego Gas and Electric. Letter to ERCE, July 29. siino, David. 1989. San Diego Gas and Electric. Letter to Wayne Loftus of San Miguel Partners, May 25. Silva, Thomas. District. 1990. Sweetwater Union High School Letter to Robert Leiter, May 22. Silva, Thomas. District. 1991. Sweetwater Union High School Personal communication, August 6. Smith, J. P. and Endangered California Publication K. Berg. Vascular Native No.1, 4th 1988. Inventory of Rare and Plants of California. Plant Society, Special edition. /. ?/ Smyth Jim. 1991. communication. Sweetwater Authority. Personal South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 1988. Draft Air Quality Management Plan 1988 Revision; Draft Appendix IV-A. Tier I and Tier II Control Measures, June. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 1989. Final Air Quality Management Plan 1989 Revision; Final Appendix IV-A. Tier I, Tier II, and Contingency Control Measures, March. Swanson, Clifford. 1991. city of Chula Vista. Memo to Doug Reid, Environmental Review Coordinator, city of Chula Vista, March 27. Sweetwater Authority. Letter to ERCE, February 22. Sweetwater Environmental Biologists (SEB). 1984. Report on Surveys Conducted for the Least Bell's Vireo along the Sweetwater River. Unpublished report. Tate, J., Jr. 1986. The Blue List of 1986. American Birds 40:227-236. Toppozada, T. R., Charles Real and Diane C. Pierzinski. 1979. Seismicity of California January 1975 through March 1979. California Geology 32 (7). Torma, Arnold. 1991. P&D Technologies. Personal communication and fax transmittal, January 16. united States Fish and wildlife Service (USFWS). 1989. Endangered and Threatened wildlife and Plants, Federal Register, 50:17.11 and 17.12, January 1. united States Geologic Survey (USGS). for Estimating Earthquake Professional Paper 1114. United States Soil Conservation Service (USGS). 1973. Soil Survey of the San Diego Area, December. 1980. Procedures Ground Motions, united States soil Conservation service (USGS). 1980. Memorandum on Prime Agricultural Land. Unitt, P. 1984. The Birds of San Diego County. Memoir 13, San Diego Society of Natural History. Valenzuela, Jess. 1991. City of Chula vista. Letter to Barbara Reid, March 21. /- ?di2 Valenzuela, Jess. 1991. Memorandum to Barbara Reid Re: Rancho San Miguel DEIR. November 19. Weaver, K. 1988. Independent Consultant. communication. Personal Weber, F.H., Jr. of San Diego Report Vol. 3. 1963. Geology and Mineral Resources County, California. CDMG County Weber, Harold F. 1987. Whittier Narrows Earthquake, Los Angeles County, October 1 and 4, 1987, in California Geology 40(12). WESTEC Services, Inc. 1987. Biological Resources Report and Impact Analysis, Rancho San Diego Specific Plan. Prepared for Home Capital Corporation, San Diego, California. Williams, D.F. 1986. Mammalian Species of Special Concern in California. California Department of Fish and Game. wildlife Management Division Administrative Report 86-1. Wirth Environmental Services. 1986. Bonita-Miguel Substation: Archaeological Investigations into the History and Prehistory of the Substation Area. Yokley, Richard. 1991. Bonita/Sunnyside Fire District. Personal communication to ERCE, April 23. Also included as part of the Decisionmaker's record are the following: 1. Final EIR 90-02, Rancho San Miguel General Development Plan (1992), including all related appendices. 2. Documentary and oral evidence presented to the decisionmakers during public hearings on EIR 90-02, as well as any other evidence presented at various hearings regarding the project. 3. Matters of common knowledge to the Planning Commission and/or City Council, including these and all other formally adopted policies and ordinances: /--7.3 a. The EIR 88-2 b. The vista c. The Vista. City of Chula vista General Plan - and Zoning Ordinance of the City of Chula Municipal Code of the City of Chula /- ?L/ SEP-25-92 FRI 10:28 P.02 ADDENDUM RANCHO SAN MIGUEL GDP DRAFT EIR 1.1 IN1RODUCTION 1.1.1 Purpose, Procedures, and Scope This Addendum to Draft EIR 90.02 (State Clearinghouse No. 90010155) is prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15164. The purpose of an addendum to an EIR is to comply with CEQA in instances in which the EIR requires "minor technical changes or additions that do not raise important new issues about the project's significant effects on the environment," and where no factors are present that would require the preparation of either a subsequent or supplemental EIR (Section 15164[a]). "An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the Final EIR" (Section 15164[b]). ''The decision.making body shall consider the addendum with the Final EIR prior to making a decision on the project." (Section 15164[c]). This Addendum evaluates refinements made to the original proposed project evaluated in Draft EIR 90.02. These project refinements were developed in response to comments received from City staff and various commentators during the CEQA public review period, and they resulted in the preparation of a "Mitigation Concept Plan", folIowing additional workshop sessions with staff. A description of the Mitigation Concept Plan, which was previously presented to the City's Planning Commission at a publicly noticed meeting on April 1, 1992, is provided below, followed by an environmental evaluation of the plan to determine if it creates any significant new impacts to the project or its circumstances over those previously analyzed in the Draft EIR. The environmental issues analyzed in this Addendum include land use, transportation/access, parks, recreation and open space and biological issues. The land use issues relate to the project's consistency with the Chula Vista General Plan. Although significant progress has been made, the applicant and City staff disagree over the interpretation and application of the General Plan as to certain specified issues. This This Addendum will address the applicant's position that the General Plan policies can be interpreted in a manner which allows the decisionmakers to find that the project is fulIy consistent with the General Plan. The Addendum also includes a proposed mitigation plan for the identified impacts to biological resources in the northern portion of the project. The City of Chula Vista will consider this Addendum, included in Final EIR 90-02, when making decisions on the project. This addendum, the response provided by San Miguel Partners on February 5, 1992 to the Draft EIR (dated February 5, 1992), and the response to staff comments provided by san Miguel Partners (dated September 25, 1992) provides the record from which the decisionmakers can determine that the project complies with the applicable General Plan objectives. 1 j-?5 , S~F.-25-92 FRI 10:2~ -. ~:w. 1.1.2 Description of the Mitigation Concept Plan The Mitigation Concept Plan incorporates modifications into the Rancho San Miguel GDP as a response to issues raised in Draft EIR 90.92 during the CEQA public review period. Figure 1.1 illustrates the Mitigation Concept Plan for the southern portion of the project. This plan does not affect or change the northern portion, which remains as it is proposed in EIR 90-02. The southern portion was modified to incorporate 13 changes to the original GDP. These changes are described below and are represented by a corresponding number on Figure 1.1. The planning areas referenced in the description are shown in Figure 3.1-6 of the Draft EIR. 1. ~ment of SR 125. In response to comments from the City of Chula Vista, the County of San Diego and the Buie Corporation, SR 125 has been realigned to be consistent with the County's General Plan location for a prime arterial. The alignment has been designated as a "Potential Transportation Corridor" because the alignment for SR 125 has not been selected at this time. 2. Deletion of Interchan~e. In response to comments from the City of Chula Vista, the County of San Diego and the Buie Corporation, the proposed interchange at San Miguel Ranch Road and SR 125 has been deleted from the GDP thereby leaving the decision to CAL TRANS to select an appropriate interchange at a later date. This change is consistent with the Chula Vista General Plan which docs not show an interchange in this location. 3. Realignment of San Mi~Jel R~nch Road. In response to comments from City staff and Jensen's Kennels, Inc, the western alignment of San Miguel Ranch Road has been moved approximately 650 feet to the south. The original roadway alignment crossed the Jensen's Kennels property, effectively requiring that the kennel be relocated. The proposed alignment modification moves the roadway off and to the south of the Jensen's Kennels property. 4. Relocation of Commerci&1 Site. In response to comments from Jensen's Kennels, Inc., SDG&E, City staff and public comments, the commercial site originally proposed at the intersection of SR 125 and San Miguel Ranch Road has been relocated to the southeast corner of East H Street and San Miguel Ranch Road. 5. Replacement of Commercial Site. In response to comments from City staff, County of San Diego, Jensen's Kennels, Inc. and public comments, the 16.4- acre commercial site, which was originally proposed at the intersection of SR 125 and San Miguel Ranch Road, has been replaced with large-lot residential units. The relocation of San Miguel Ranch Road further south (paragraph No.3 above) creates a 33-acre site which is now proposed for 81 residential lots of 10,000 square feett minimum, at 2.4 dwelling units per acre. 2 j- '70 ...... -=:.EF>- .2,,:=.-~..,.:=~ F-F~ I 10: ~ p_ 04 6. Enhancement of Slope Topoiraphy. In response to comments from City staff, the County of San Diego and public comments, minor variations in slope topography have been added between SR 125 and Planning Areas 2 and 3, which are located along the western edge adjacent to the SR 125 alignment. 7. Ota,y Ta1;Plant PreseJ"Ye. In response to comments from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the County of San Diego, the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), and public comments, a 15-acre Otay Tarplant preserve has been added by eliminating Planning Area 11, a cul- de-sac located in the south central portion of the site contiguous to the SDG&E easement, and 30 units or 10 acres in Planning Area 3, across from Planning Area 11 and along the SDG&E easement. This creates an open space area on both sides of the SDG&E easement. 8. Public Facility Sites. In response to comments from City staff. two public facility sites have been added to the GDP, one adjacent to Planning Area 12 and one adjacent to Planning Area 15, north of East H Street. 9. Open Space Boundary Adjustment. In response to comments from City staff. the Sweetwater Community Plannini Group, the County of San Diego and public comments, the open space boundary along the eastern edge of the project has been adjusted to create additional open space by reducing the size of the development area originally proposed in Planning Area 15. 10. Open Space Buffer. In response to comments from City staff and SDG&E, a new open space buffer is proposed between the residential units at the northern edge of Planning Area 14 and the SDG&E property adjacent to the north. 11. New Commercial Site. In response to comments from City staff, Jensen's Kennels, Inc. and public comments, and as described in paragraph No. 4 above. the original commercial site has been relocated to the southeast corner of San Miguel Road and East H Street. This change eliminated Planning Area 16 and replaced it with a mixed use area (14-acre commercial site and 6 plus acres of affordable housing). 12. Planning Area 14 Boundal)' Adjustment. In response to comments from City staff, USFWS and CDFG, the biological issues resulting from the expansion of the boundary for Planning Area 14 were mitigated to the satisfaction of USFWS and CDFG. City staff has also determined that a GPA is not required for this boundazy adjustment. 3 /--77 ~ I' _' f- f.'." 1 1'-"t:? t F' . eo~ 13. Lot Size Chan~~. In response to City staff, and as a result of pruposed modifications to the commercial site area (paragraph No. 5 above), the distribution of residential lot sizes was slightly modified, as follows: Percentage of 1.l.nit5 mA Lot Sizes 3/4 acre minimum 15,000 sq. ft. minimum 10,000 sq. ft. minimum 8,000 sq. ft. minimum 7,000 sq. ft. minimum 1.1.3 Summary Comparison of Impacts The changes in the Rancho San Miguel GDP mitigates some environmental impacts cited in the Draft EIR for the southern portion. Northern portion impacts will remain the same. 23% 11% 5% 23% 38% 41% 11% 4% 17% 28% The environmental issues affected by implementation of the Mitigation Concept Plan include Land Use, Biology, Landform/Visual Quality, Transportation/Access, Parks, Recreation, and Open Space. These issues are discussed in further detail below. The other environmental topics analyzed in Draft EIR 90-02, including Archae010gy /History /Paleontolugy, Ge010gy /Soils, Mineral Resources, Conversion of Agricultural Lands, Hydrology, Water Quality, Air Quality, Noise, Community Social Factors, Fiscal and Public Services, will not change as a result of the Mitigation Concept Plan and, thus, are not discussed in this Addendum. 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1.2.1 Land Use Conformance to City of Chyla Vista Genera1 Plan The Draft EIR identified a number of General Plan consistency issues. These issues were also outlined in a staff.prepared memorandum dated July 24, 1991, entitled "San Miguel Ranch General Consistency Analysis." This analysis was then updated by staff in a March 24,1992 issue paper entitled, "San Miguel Ranch General Plan Consistency Issues Report". City staffs latest update is found in the staff report to the GDP hearing dated September 30, 1992, and in an issue paper entitled "Mitigation Concept Plan General Plan Consistency Issues", which is an exhibit to the staff report. Based upon this analysis, City staff has concluded that of the six original issues, four General Plan conformance issues remain; and two of the issues have been reduced in scope or can be further analyzed at the SPA Plan hearings, due to changes made in the Mitigation Concept Plan. In addition, the project applicant has modified its position with respect to two of the six outstanding General Plan issues. Specifical1y, the appJicant has reconsidered its position with respect to lot sizes under "Character of Development" by agreeing to redesign the minimum 8,000 4 /. ? 'i3" J .... . . ~ ~'I ...,..._ - --- square foot lots to mimmum 9,000 square foot lots prior to SPA Plan approval (see paragraph No. 1 below). The applicant will also adjust the lot sizes in Planning Area 8 from clustered to mid-size lots, with the reduction in density of 9 units being added to Planning Area 4. In addition, the applicant has agreed not to exceed the mid-point density (see paragraph No. 2 below). By making these three concessions, the General Plan conformance issues have been reduced to four issues. They are: character of development (Section 4.1, Land Use Element); establishment of residential densities (Section 6.2, Land Use Element); clustering of residential development (Section 6.3, Land Use Element); and hillside development (Section 6.5, Land Use Element). All of six of the General Plan issues are discussed further below. 1) Plaracter of Develo,?ment (Section 4.1 of the Land Use Element) Section 4.1 of the General Plan establishes the residential land use categories and the range of density permitted within the category. A Residential Low designation exists over all of the project, excluding the small portion south of H Street. Section 4.1 states that: "This category includes single.family detached dwellings on large rural, and estate-type lots. This is the predominant character of existing residential neighborhoods within and adjacent to the Sweetwater Valley." The proposed project is located within the Eastern Territories Area Plan. With respect to "residential character" section 5.1 of the Eastern Territories Area Plan states: "the Eastern Territories is seen as an extension of the residential character of the existing areas of Chuls Vista. The predominant residential type is single- family detached in the low and low-medium residential density categories. Neighborhoods that are characterized by this single-family density are located throughout the Eastern Territories." The General Plan does not restrict any lot size other than for clustered lots which must be a minimum of 7,000 square feet. The proposed lot sizes in the Low Residential areas of the project include: a) 3/4 acre minimum, average 1 acre; b) 15,000 square foot estate lots, average 18,750 square feet; c) 10,000 square foot estate lots, average 14,000 square feet; d) 8,000 square foot luxury lots, average 12,000 square feet; and e) 7,000 square foot clustered lots, average 9,800 square feet. Developments in the existing areas of the City and in the Eastern Territories predominantly contain lots with frontages of 50'-60' and lot sizes ranging from a minimum of 7,000 sq. it. in the Residential Low category. Typical lots in the Sweetwater Valley area range from a minimum of 9,000 sq. ft., although with expanded lot widths. The applicant has used this information to propose wider lots than currently exist in the Eastern Territories, and lot sizes consistent with those in the Sweetwater Valley area. Compared to the other Eastern Territories projects such as Sunbow, Rancho del Ray, Eastlake, Salt Creek I and Salt Creek Ranch, the 5 /- ? '1 ,~,,_'.'<'."..'^,i"'~"'''',:,~ . . . .. ... I ..... I ... . _ r " proposed lot sizes for Rancho San Miguel are considerably larger than equivalent Eastern Territories development. City staff has concluded that the proposed 8,000.sq. ft. minimum non-clustered lots is inconsistent with the "large rura~ and estate-type lots" called for by the Residential Low category. During the City Council decision on the Salt Creek Ranch GDP the recommendation for a "mid.size" lot was made. As a result, staff has determined that a lot size of a minimum 10,000 square feet would be an appropriate mid-size lot, Staff has also concluded that the distribution of the lots within the project should include at least 50% estate lots that meet the Residential Estate zone standard for size, 25% or more as "mid-size" lots, and 25% as clustered lots with a minimum lot size of 7,000 square feet. The applicant has agreed to adjust the lot sizes from 8,000 sq. ft. to 9,000 sq. ft. and, in Planning Area 8, from 7,000 sq. ft. to 9,000 sq. ft. This would change the lot size from clustered to mid-size lots, and would result in a reduction of density in Planning Area 8 of 9 units. These 9 units would be added to Planning Area 4, as additional clustered lots. Through this adjustment, the lot size distribution would be as follows: Minimum Number Percentage of Lot Si1,e of Lots Aw lms AID Estate 3/4 acre 357 357.1 23% 41% 15,000 sf 174 92.4 11% 11% Mid-Size 10,000 sf 81 33.1 5% 4% 9,000 sf 455 209.3 29% 24% Cluster 7,000 sf 491 182.3 32% 21% As a result of the foregoing changes, the applicant has provided 34% of the lots and 52% of the area as estate lots, 34% of the lots and 28% of the area as mid.size lots, and,32% of the lots and 21% of the area as cluster lots. Although this is not fully consistent with the staff recommendation, the overall lot sizing and area useage is reflective of the character of development required by the Residential Low designation. 2) p\l~lation of Mid~Qint and Densi~ Transfer (Section 6.2 of the Land Use Element) Section 6.2 of the General Plan states that a "transfer of density is permitted from an open space area designated on the General Plan, within the boundaries of a project. This density may be transferred to a residential development area at the rate of one dwelling unit per 10 acres." The project contains approximately 1,490 acres of open space in the northern parcel, which is consistent with the designation on the General Plan. A density transfer is 6 j- ~D 'e-" L .. . -, -. . ,.." I 20: .!'5.4 """ .... -- thereby permitted for 149 units. The applicant is proposing to transfer these units to an area within the southern portions of the project consistent with the requirement in the General Plan that the density transfer occur "within the boundaries of a project". Further, at the time of the General Plan Update, no limit was placed upon transferring open space density in the applicant's project by the City Council, nor within the General Plan text. For that reason, the open space density transfer opportunity remains. Of the 149 unit transfer opportunity, the applicant is seeking to transfer only 35 units. The applicant has agreed not to exceed mid-point density. Therefore, if the open space density transfer is not available, the applicant will reduce the density in Neighborhood B from 1,201 units to 1,166 units. The project's total density would then be 1,619 units, which is consistent with the calculation of mid-point density under the General Plan. 3) r^~tab1ishing Residential Dcnsities (Section 6.2 of the Land Use Element) This section sets forth the criteria used in determining the appropriate gross density for project implementation within any given range. The section states that: "There is no density within the range which is assumed to be more desirable than any other, whether that density be at the lower or higher end of the range. In establishing densities, a primary objective is to achieve an overall density equilibrium. This achievement of equilibrium is essential to the promotion of order, amenity, diversity, and urban vitality," The appropriate density for the proposed project is assumed to be "baseline" and "may move toward the upper end of the range" depending upon the project's adherence to the following issues: a) Compatibility with existing and proposed surrounding land use patterns; b) Sensitive response to the physical characteristics of the site; and c) Achievement of a variety of housing types. The proposed density in the Residential Low areas of the project is 1.7 units per acre (1,558 units on 933.5 acres), a density which is below the "mid-point" of 2 du/acre. The project adheres to the stated issues as follows: 1. Compatibilitv with ~'istini and Proposed Land Uses The existing and proposed land use patterns in the project area include developments in the Eastern Territories such as Salt Creek I to the south at 6 du/acre, Bonita Meadows to the west at an estimated 3-4 du/acre, and Salt Creek Ranch to the southeast at 3.6 du/acre. The proposed 1.7 du/acre for this project is therefore significantly less than the density in adjacent projects. /.- 8/ 7 , ';"i~~,,,.;:.,..,~~'i:'f:l.!%;',":?ft:~?:.:~,',",,, , ,- - , .:: ''''''.. "'.-.~-, ", ";--~ . . . ,-. I...,: ~ . ..~.- While lot sizes in the neighboring Bonita area are larger (1 acre minimum), the adjacent northern parcel contains lots consistent with this lot sizing, and a buffer of half acre lots is proposed on the small interface located on the northwest side of the southern parcel adjacent to Bonita. The proposed lot sizes in the southern portion of the project are considerably larger than those proposed or developed in the neighboring Bonita Meadows, Salt Creek I and Salt Creek Ranch projects. 2. Sensitive Re~ponse to the Physical Characteristics of the Site Section 6.2 examines five issues for analysis in determining the sensitive response of the project to the physical characteristics, as follows: a) Landform Dreservation. Neither Horseshoe Bend nor Gobbler's Knob fit within Goal 5; Objective 20, 21 or 22 of the General Plan as being a significant natural feature or landform that requires preservation. Further, neither is mentioned as a prominent feature within Section 5.6 of the Eastern Territories Area Plan. Finally, the landforms are not within designated open space areas as shown on the General Plan. In fact, both Horseshoe Bend and Gobbler's Knob have been designated as Residential Low on the General Plan Land Use Map. The proposed grading of Horseshoe Bend and Gobbler's Knob is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan, and the applicant's proposed Grading Plan attempts to mirror the landform, indicating a sensitive response consistent with the objectives of the General plan. In addition, approximately 2S acres of Horseshoe Bend will be preserved as open space within the project. The northern portion of the site proposes minimal grading, using contour grading methods and minimal site disturbance without mass grading. b) prculation Patterns The proposed street pattern is consistent with that required in the Circulation Element, including the provision of the major arterial, San Miguel Ranch Road. c) Relationship to ODen SDace/Greenbe1t Systems The project provides the final link in the Chula Vista Greenbelt, and includes internal trails and pathways to provide access to the residents to this major Greenbelt system. The proposed project also preserves as open space areas designated for development under the General Plan, including the preservation of over 2S acres of Horseshoe Bend. The project will provide for the dedication of over 1,670 acres of open space, con.~tituting approximately 64% of the project site. d) Environmental Considerations and Nat\)r~1 Amenities The proposed project preserves as undisturbed natural open space the landforms of Mother Miguel Mountain, Wild Man's Canyon, and the ridgeIine separating San Miguel Ranch from Salt Creek Ranch as required by the General Plan. 8 /- ;:5 q> ~:iii'~ ...- -.f' , t- 1 1"': "'. ~ J 0 Within the substantial 1,670 acres of natural open space there is the potential for development of trails, equestrian paths, and permanent viewshed preservation. Visual and. Functional Duality. The abutting open space is well integrated within the project, including access to the Chula Vista Greenbelt. The clustered area in the southern parcel is centered around a school and park facility, with 3 radiating wedges of greenbelt area to further enhance accesS to these facilities and for visual aesthetics. The principal visual landforms of Mother Miguel Mountain and the ridgeline separating San Miguel Ranch from Salt Creek Ranch are left in an undisturbed state, maintaining visual integrity. The proposed project respects site topography by creating a number of plateaus in the southern parcel which match to the greatest extent possible the existing topography, thereby minimizing visible slope banks. In the northern parcel, minimal grading is proposed to ensure natural topography is respected. 3. Achievement of a Variety of Housini 1Y1Jes e) The project provides lots with minimum 3/4 acre, 15,000 sq. ft., 10,000 sq. ft., 9,000 sq. ft., and 7,000 sq. ft. lots in 13 separate neighborhoods. The average lot sizes in each neighborhood range from a low of 9,800 sq. ft. to a high of 1 acre. The diversity of lot sizes within any given neighborhood provides for a variety of lot layouts and sensitive response to the topography. Further, the proposed lot widths are considerably wider than currently exist within the Eastern Territories, ranging from minimum lot widths of 70 feet to 125 feet, and average lot widths of 75-140 feet. This variety of lot widths and sizes will provide extensive diversity in housing opportunities for a wide range of Chula Vista residents. Further, the neighborhoods are integrated with transportation facilities, natural open space, and surrounding land uses as to form a transition from the higher densities located to the south, southwest and southeast of the project to the open space areas north and east of the northern parcel. The applicant has demonstrated compatibility with existing and proposed surrounding land use patterns, a sensitive response to the physical characteristics of the site, and the achievement of a variety of housing types consistent with the character of the range, at a mid-point density. 4) Clusterinl! of Residential Dcvclo.pmcnt. (Section 6.3 of the Land Use Element). Section 6.3 states "The concept of residential clustering involves the aggregation of dwelling units onto a reduced land area in order to achieve a more sensitive response to the site, and provide additional amenity for the project residents, in the form of open space and recreational opportunities." The General Plan encourages clustering of residential development where the clustering accomplishes the following: 9 j- If.3 ','" .Ii ~.EF.-~~-92 F~~l 10:37 P _ 11 "1) 2) 3) Preservation of the natural landform, Aggregation of open space within the development for amenity and recreational purposes; and Enhancement of land use order, visual and functional quality, and livability of the project." The project meets these requirements as follows: 1) Preservation of natural landform - Since the General Plan designates Horseshoe Bend and Gobbler's Knob as being within areas specifically designated for residential development in the Land Use Plan, the preservation of over 25 acres of Horseshoe Bend is the appropriate use of aggregation of dwelling units on a reduced land area. In addition, the set-aside of 10 acres for an Otay tarplant preserve creates an additional open space area being maintained in its natural state. 2) Aggregation of open space within the development for amenity and recreational purposes -- The clustered areas are focused around a school and park facility consisting of approximately 32.6 acres, with numerous greenbelts radiating out from the central core. Surrounding the cluster are additional open space areas through the preservation of Horseshoe Bend and the biological preserve, creating enhanced open space opportunities for the residents. The greenbelt areas range in width from 50.200', providing numerous mini park opportunities as well as connections to the Chula Vista Greenbelt System. 3) Enhancement of land use order, visual and functional quality, and Uvability, of the project -- The project has preserved over 35 acres as additional open space, all of which is currently designated for residential development. In addition, the proposed greenbelt system including the central common green of 31 acres, enhances land use order and visual and functional quality and, through the linkages to the Chula Vista Greenbelt System, livability, while providing a community focus. Design elements have been specifically incorporated to maintain the character of the clustered area. Average lot sizes of 9,800 square feet result in a density range from 1.7 to 3.1 du/acre, well below the maximum density of 4.5 du/acre permitted under the General Plan. Finally, proposed minimum lot widths of 70' is a standard far in excess of other Eastern Territories developments where average lot width is 50.60'. Approximately 38% of the project units are proposed for clustering on 28% of the development area, and are subject to significant design guidelines to ensure the project maintains its Residential Low character. The aggregated open space at 30% of the clustered land area compares favorably to the recent Council approval of Salt Creek Ranch where only 12% and 19% of the clustered area was aggregated open space in Neighborhoods 7B and 8, respectively. 10 /-'37 J SEP-25-92 FRI 10:38 P ~ 1:2 5) Bi11side Dcvcl(1)ment (Section 6.5 of the Land Use Element) Section 6.5 states "It is the intent of the General Plan to focus urban development on the City's mesa land and respect, preserve and maintain natural, topographic features. Significant, highly visible hillsides in particular are a fairly rare topographic feature in the general plan area." Figure 1-3 of the General Plan indicates that the southern parcel is within the rolling hills and broken mesas area on which "the intent of the General Plan" is "to focus urban development" . The significant landforms are defined in GoalS, Objective 20, 21, and 22 of the General Plan, in addition to Planning and Design Proposal 5.6 of the Eastern Territories Area Plan. Section 6.5 provides in subsection 6(f) further guidelines as to significant hillsides that should be preserved. None of the foregoing sections specifically require Horseshoe Bend and Gobbler's Knob to be preserved, nor do those two landforms fit within the designation of a unique finger canyon, area of native trees or mature man-made groves, rock outcroppings, or ridgeline and dominant topographic feature that is highly visible from adjacent public areas or a part of an open space linkage system, as required in Section 6.5. The applicant has attempted to sensitively grade the southern portion of the property including clustering development, mirroring existing topography with its grading, varying lot sizes, placing streets in relationship to existing contours, using landform grading techniques, minimizing large cuts and fills, and preserving the landforms of Mother Miguel Mountain and the ridgeline between San Miguel Ranch and Salt Creek Ranch. 6) Land Developmcnt (Section 7.7 of the Land Use Element) Landfonn grading is defined as "a contour grading method which creates artificial slopes with curves and varying slope ratios designed to simulate the appearance of natural surrounding terrain." The Mitigation Concept Plan modifies the proposed slopes interfacing between planning Areas 2 and 3 and the potential transportation corridor to more fully reflect landform grading techniques. The north parcel consists of entirely landform grading techniques. Much of Horseshoe Bend consists of slopes of 2:1 or greater steepness, making it impossible to develop housing within the existing topography. Further, the number of minor finger canyons also eliminates design options in dealing with the existing site. In order to maintain lower density overall on the prOject and to maximize lot sizes, thereby producing a "significant contribution to the high quality site planning goals...established overall by the General Plan," the applicant has proposed grading of Horseshoe Bend in a manner consistent to result in a simulation of the appearance of the surrounding natural terrain and the pre-existing condition of Horseshoe Bend. As approved by the Planning Commission 11 /~ 8.5 Ii ,I 'S. L F" -" :-:.~. - 'SO:':-- F f'..: I 1 '" : :3 9 PO. 1 =3 at the Telegraph Canyon Estates GDP, the applicant is proposing a maximum height of 30' on the internal slopes throughout the graded plateaus in the southern parcel. Final analysis of the landform grading techniques used will be undertaken at the SPA level of analysis. 1.2.2 Transportation! Access The relocation of the commercial site from the intersection of SR 125 and San Miguel Ranch Road would route more local traffic generated by the project onto East H Street, adjacent to other existing commercial areas, rather than on San Miguel Road. At the GDP level, traffic impacts are evaluated in relation to the adopted General Plan and potential chaIli:es in traffic projections. The Draft EIR concluded that the project will only minimally increase traffic in the area, as compared to the General Plan traffic projections, and impacts were not considered significant Local and interim project traffic/access patterns are evaluated at the SPA level when more detailed land use and traffic plans are available. Therefore, although moving the commercial site is an improvement, the relocation of the commercial site does not mitigate any significant impacts identified in the Draft EIR. 1.2.3 Parks, Recreation, and Open Space The Draft EIR identifies three areas where the proposed residential development encroaches into the greenbelt/open space land use designation. The Mitigation Concept Plan deletes the encroachment within two of these areas,and it is the recommendation of staff that development in the third area, a portion of Planning Area 14, be allowed. The proposed expansion would have no adverse impacts upon the General Plan, the biological concerns have been mitigated, and since the General Plan lines are meant to allow for flexibility, such an adjustment may be undertaken without the need for a General Plan Amendment. 1.2.4 Biological Resourccs The Mitigation Concept Plan proposes a preserve for the Otay tarplant where the most dense population currently exists. Approximately 10 acres of residential development opportunity will be foregone in addition to 5 acres of open space proposed as a development opportunity will be left as open space, for a total preserve of lS acres, in addition to the existing SDG&E right-of-way of approximately 8 acres. The proposed mitigation area would include approximately 42,000 (29%) of the 144,000 plants occurring within the southern parcel. An additional11,OOO plants occur within the SDG&E corridor. The mitigation program would attempt to enhance this population through the creation of a biological preserve and management efforts to plant new seedlings and remove aggressive competitive exotic species. A long term monitoring and maintenance program would be implemented as part of the overall program pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement to be entered into prior to SPA level approvals. Notwithstanding these mitigation efforts, the impact to this biological resource cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance. 12 /- Z;' ? J ':::_1:;..." -"~:"'::.- SO'-:;'- FF<" 1 1 C'I: 4121 po _ 14 The Mitigation Concept Plan was developed to reduce the impact to the San Diego barrel cactus in order to meet the Department of Fish and Game target to preserve 60% in-situ. A full 1,380 of the cactus lost are attributable to the East H Street alignment as dictated by broader scale planning efforts which cannot be readily modified. The project applicant redesigned a portion of the southern project by leaving a portion of Planning Area 15 as open space in order to reduce impacts to a level consistent with the target 60% preservation. In addition, impacted cacti would be replanted in open space areas to mitigate impacts to the species. Implementation of the foregoing program will reduce the impacts to the coast barrel cactus to below a level of significance. Table 3.3-8 of the Draft EIR contains a list of mitigation measures for individual species located on the project. A reduction in the identified impacts in the northern parcel could take place through adoption of a mitigation plan incorporating a redesign, consistent with Table 3.3-8. However, the applicant has not agreed to a redesign incorporating the guidelines set forth in Table 3.3-8 due to the lack of specificity of the measures outlined in Table 3.3-8. However, the applicant has utilized Table 3.3-8 as a basis for the preparation of a proposed mitigation plan for the northern parcel. This plan includes defined criteria to enable a redesign to be undertaken prior to SPA Plan approval. Such redesign would be included in a Supplemental EIR on the SPA Plan, and the City of Chula Vista, as lead agency, shan retain final discretionary review and approval authority. The proposed mitigation plan is outlined below. ~ORIHBRN MIT1GATION PIAN Introduction As indicated in Tables 3.3-5 (habitat impacts), 3.3-6 (plant impacts) and 3.3-7 (wildlife impacts), the project, as proposed, would significantly impact sensitive vegetation habitat, six sensitive plant species and two sensitive wildlife species. Specifically, the proposed project would significantly impact the following: 1. Diegan coastal sage scrub: 2. Dry marsh and mulefat shrubland wetlands; 3. Non-native grassland contaixrlng sensitive plant species; 4. California gnatcatcher; S. Cactus wren; 6. Otay tarplant; 7. Coast barrel cactus; 8. Palmer's grappling hookj 9. California adolphia; 10. San Diego marsh elder; and 11. Spiny rush. Because the proposed project is at a General Development Plan ("GDP") level of review, a "worst case" approach was used to identify impacts to biological resources to the entire project. This approach assumed that each entire lot within the large lot development 13 1-- '6 7 '=....0 L. f.-. ~.- - .--' .;;,.~. F.... 1 1 ~ :-- P _ 1 ~ areas in the north would be fully impacted by development. The applicant is, however, proposing to limit development v,ithin each lot to an area of approximately 12,000 sq. ft. or less. Under the California Envirorunental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the measures which could minimize identified impacts to biological resources in the northern parcel include the adoption of alternatives to the proposed project, or the adoption of a mitigation plan incorporating a redesign of the northern parcel. Two of the project alternatives identified in the Draft EIR, the biologically sensitive alternative and the south only development alternative, would eliminate all proposed development in the northern parcel. Under each of those alternatives, the entire 1,852-acre northern parcel would be part of an open space area encompassing Mother Miguel Mountain. See, Draft EIR, Section 5. These two alternatives would eliminate impacts to sensitive species and biological corridors in the northern parcel. Aside from the identified project alternatives, a reduction in the identified impacts could take place through adoption of a mitigation plan incorporating a redesign of the northern parcel. The project applicant is proposing to reduce identified impacts to biological resources through adoption of a mitigation plan for the northern parcel. The mitigation plan for the northern parcel is intended to be developed further at the SPA Plan level of review, which is the next phase of the envirorunental review process for the project. At the initial GDP level of review, however, it is important to establish the mitigation criteria and planning framework to ensure that a programmatic mitigation plan is provided. In this way, the planning context is in place for completion of the mitigation plan at the SPA Plan level. The final mitigation plan will be open to subsequent review and environmental analysis by the City of Chula Vista, federal and state reviewing agencies and all other interested persons. The mitigation plan, which will be made part of the applicant's Sectional Planning AIea ("SPA") Plan, shall satisfy all of the criteria set forth below. Mitigation Plan 1. Commitment to Prepare Mitii:l\tion Plan The project applicant shall prepare a mitigation plan that incorporates a redesign of the proposed development in the northern parcel, emphasizing a resource preserve design. Coordination with personnel from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ("USFWS"), the Department of Fish and Game ("DFG"), the City of Chula Vista and the County of San Diego shall take place during preparation of this mitigation plan. The mitigation plan shall be prepared, analyzed and included in a SupplementaI Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the applicant's SPA Plan. The City of Chula Vista, as the lead agency, shall retain final discretionary review and approval authority with respect to the mitigation plan and Supplemental EIR for the SPA Plan. j-gg J 14 ",,- .~.~ . , . ,. .-" I I"~: ~ IF.. I.. The SPA Plan-level mitigation plan shall not be approved prior to November 1, 1993, the date by which the South County Natural Community Conservation Plan (otNCCpot) is anticipated to be adopted by the City of Chula Vista and approved by the DFG and USFWS. In the event that the South County NCCP is not adopted and approved by the City of Chula Vista, the DFG and USFWS on or before November I, 1993, the applicant's SPA Plan-level mitigation plan may be considered for approval by the City of Chula Vista as part of the applicant's SPA Plan. The SPA Plan-level mitigation plan shall be considered prior to annexation of the northern parcel into the Chula Vista corporate boundary. The preparation of the SPA Plan-level mitigation plan shall be a condition of approval of the San Miguel Ranch GDP, consistent with the criteria set forth below. 2. CTiteria to be Used in Evaluatinl: the Mitiiation Plan The South County NCCP, if completed and approved,may preclude development of the northern parcel. If it does not, the following criteria shall be used in creating the SPA Plan-level mitigation plan. In preparing the SPA Plan-level mitigation plan, the project applicant shall use the following guidelines as the applicable criteria for mitigating impacts to the identified biological resources in the northern parcel: (i) Diegan coastal sage scrub Impacts to onsite coastal sage scrub cannot be mitigated with the project as proposed. Sensitive species that are a part of this habitat onsite include important populations of coast barrel cactus, Munz's sage, California gnatcatcher and cactus wren. These species are concentrated in the coastal sage scrub habitat designated for development under the project, as proposed. The project must be redesigned to preserve at least 85% of all onsite coastal sage scrub habitat in contiguous, unfragmented areas. Any loss of coastal sage scrub shaH be mitigated onsite through the creation of open space preserves at a mitigation ratio of 4:1, and subject to along term maintenance and management program. This measure will reduce, but not completely avoid, significant and unmitigable impacts. Reduction to insignificance can only be attained through onsite preservation of all coastal sage scrub on the northern parcel. While this 4:1 mitigation ratio is greater than that proposed for the southern parcel, it is justified by the greater bio-diversity on the northern parcel, which makes this area a much 15 /- g 9 J..... _ ..,~- . . I ,. _ _' ... _' f..... J 1 L" : . (ii ) Wetlands (iii) Non-native grassland (iv) California gnatcatcher p _ 1. ,. more important regional location for Diegan coastal sage sCTUb habitat. Impacts to wetlands cannot be mitigated with the project as proposed. The wetlands occur within the site drainages of the north parcel. At the GDP review level, the worst case scenario for impacts was assumed within large lot development areas in the northern parcel which included the assumption that each entire lot would be impacted by development. The Draft EIR specifically notes that impacts in the northern parcel can be reduced significantly, and that impacts must be avoided to the extent practicable. The reduction of impacts would occur during the SPA Plan review level, and any impacts may require a 1603 agreement and possible a 404 permit. Until these minimization measures are resolved at the SPA level, a specific revegetation plan cannot yet be developed. The recommended mitigation replacement ratio is a minimum of 1;1. This ratio is based upon the generally low to moderate quality of wetland habitats being impacted, and is not inconsistent with acceptable mitigation measures for impacts to similar quality wetlands in southern California. The ratio is considered the minimum to meet the "no net loss" criteria for both federal and state reviewing agencies. See below for mitigation criteria relating to Palmer's grappling hook and Otay tarplant. Impacts to the California gnatcatcher cannot be mitigated with the project as proposed. Mitigation for losses of the California gnatcatcher can be accomplished only through dedication of important tracts of the species' habitat into natural open space. These tracts must be linked in a network to allow for the birds' dispersal, maintenance of populations sufficiently large to be self.sustaining, and population recovery after the fires which inevitably sweep through native scrub. Because Rancho San Miguel is a major part of a core habitat, reductions to below a level of significance can be accomplished only through a project 16 j-- 70 i ,>-..........A ,'~ .._ t , - _ .... _. f f'"..1 J"': ' p ~ 1 Eo (v) Cactus wren redesign that leaves a significant majority of the pairs and their habitat in natural open space. The project shall be redesigned to leave at least 80% of the exiting pairs, 800/0 of occupied $natcatcher habitat, and 50% of unoccupied potential breeding gnatcatcher habitat in natural, contiguous, unfragmented open space. An.ylosses of existing pairs, occupied gnatcatcher habitat, or unoccupied potential breeding gnatcatcher habitat shall be mitigated onsite through the creation of permanent open space preserves at a mitigation ratio of 2:1, and subject to a long term maintenance and management program. This measure will reduce, but not completely avoid. significant and unmitigable biological impacts. Reduction to insignificance can only be attained through onsite preservation of all existing pairs, occupied gnatcatcher habitat, and unoccupied potential breeding gnatcatcher habitat on the northern parcel. While this mitigation ratio of2:1 is greater than that proposed for the southern parcel, it is justified by the greater bio-diversity on the northern parcel, which makes this area a much more important regional location for California gnatcatchers. Impacts to the cactus wren cannot be mitigated with the project as proposed. To reduce, but not completely avoid significant and unmitigable impacts, the project must be redesigned to impact no more than one pair of cactus wren. All remaining occupied cactus thickets containing six pairs of cactus wrens shall be placed within contiguous biological open space. In addition, cactus stands which are to impacted by the project will be transplanted to expand and enhance the cactus wren populations in areas adjacent to existing populations in the north. To determine the appropriate mitigation area, a qualified biologist shall monitor the activity patterns of the impacted cactus wren and in the remaining territories in the north to determine boundaries of the home ranges and to characterize the important elements of home range usage. Subsequent to the resloration, the mitigation area shall be monitored for a period of three years to ensure successful establishment of the habitat. Existing occupied thickets lie in 17 I~'fl 'C>"'J,....... , ...' (vi) OtA~ till Vl.wt (vii) Coast barrel cactus (viii) Palmer's grappling hook - the west central and north portions of the north section. Loss oi such a large population of Otay tarplant cannot be mitigated with the project as proposed. Therefore, if a significant adverse impact is to be avoided, a minimum of 80% of this plant species ~huulu be retained in open space, including the areas supporting the largest number of Otay tarplant. For impacts which go beyond the 20% recommended above, a vegetation/restoration program could --'be implemented which would examine the potential for re-introducing this species into disturbed areas within proposed open space for the project. AIJ.y restoration efforts would require working closely with the CDFG. A minimum of 65% of the Otay tarplant shall be retained in open space, even if a restoration program is implemented. Such a redesign would reduce impacts to this Gpccics to },elow a level of significance. No revegetation or restoration of the Otay tarplant should be considered as a mitigation option until it can be demonstrated that such measures will produce long tei'HI populations. Loss of such large populations of barrel cacti cannot be mitigated with the project as proposed. Therefore, if a significant adverse impact is to be avoided, the areas supporting the largest numbers of barrel cacti should be excluded from the development area. These areas are in the west- central and northwest parts of the north section. Project redesign to avoid these areas would reduce impacts to below a level of significance. A minimum preservation level of 60% in situ and transplantation of the remaillillg cacti to proposed open space areas onsite shall be required. Analysis of whether impacts are reduced to below a level of significance shall be undertaken prior to SPA review. Significant impacts to this plant cannot be mitigated with the project as proposed. The project should be redesigned to retain at least 50% of the areas where most of the Palmer's grappling hook occurs as biological open spnce. These areas Rre in the w.st-oentral pllrts of the DOl' thew 18 /- yO(. . --'- . "--"~ -'- -'- ~ ~-'~-' (ix) California adolphia (x) Marsh elder (xi) Spiny rush section. Use existing easements as possible enhancement areas. Redesigning the project as suggested would reduce impacts to this species to below a level of significance. Significant impacts to this plant cannot be mitig3.ted with the projc~ as propos~d. The lu~~ of significant populations of this plant can be reduced only by excluding the important plant patches from the development area. The project should be redesigned to protect at least 50% in biological open space. Such redesign would reduce impacts to below a level of significance. Wetlands onsite should be avoided to the extent practicable. Unavoidable impar.ts.-...c'cuId be mitigated through a revegetation program. Wetlands onsite should be avoided to the extent practicable. Unavoidable impacts to spiny rush could be mitigated through enhancement of wetland areas to include revegetation of spiny rush. 3. Additional Mitigation Mea~ures In addition, the mitigation plan shall incorporate the folJowing general mitigation measures to f\Inner reduce imp~~t~ to the identified biologicnl rcSOurCC9 upon implementation of a redesign of the northern parcel. The potential loss or degradation of wetland habitat is considered significant by CDFG. Any fming of wetlands would requirc 0. 1603 agr~~n~~l1t beolwec:u the project applicant and CDFG. A pre-discharge Notification would have to be submitted to the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) if statutory thresholds are exceeded, and a 404 permit may be required. A no net loss of wetland habitat is required by CDFG and ACQE. Impacts to wetlands must be avoided to the extent practicable. Impacts within the project can be reduced by placement of wetlands occurring within proposed residential lots in open space easement~ !lml providinB 11 rlt':r'Jl1 lit t', buffers. Whar. impllct& cannot be avoided, ew,l'Y eoffu. t should be made to minImize these impacts. All unavoidable impacts shall be mitip;ated by onsite creation of wd!.1I1u habhat. I)rainages tbat receive run-off from housing may he ~uu~juc:rt,d for the location of created wetlands. Minimization of impacts could be accompli$hed with a comprehensive program to replace and cnhance wetland habilat under a wetlllnd revegetation plan crc:ated by a wetland revegetation 5peciali5t and apprnvt':rI by CDFG and ACOE, it necessary, and the City of Chula Vista. Total created wetland would have to be at a replacement ratio of a minimum of 1:1. - - 19 l~f3 - . :::;.EF - 2<:::'-.::;'2 J'Ir::'H .1 2;;.;':'0.1 F ~ I-~.-+ ~ Graded areas along roadways shall be hydroseeded with native plant species consistent with surrounding natural vegetation. This would help to minimize erosion and runoff, as well as improve the area aesthetically by making it visuaUy compatible with aJja"t:lll Ilalural areas. As pan of this effort, a revegetation plan shal! be developed with the help of a revegetation specialist with experience in coastal sage scrub and similar hnbitnK The Rt;'vt;'gt;'tition Plan ,hall be reviflw~lIj 11m! IIpprnvI'.I1 by the City 6f Chuls. vista. - - The use of non-invasive plants in landscaping areas adjacent to open space will be required for all areas outside of actual lot boundaries. Additionally, homeowners will be encouraged to use non-invasive species in their landscaping adjacent to open space. Iceplant (Carpobrotus aequilatralus or C. edulis) shall not be used in lieu of fire- resistant native revegetation due to the slope failures associated with it. Importation of this pl:mt introduccG firc Qnts, whieh are known to I'ed".:e Hali.e: Lou vt:~l<::r lint pupulatlon through comp~tition a.nd displacement. In ar1c1itinn, fir/', ant~ are: unpalatable to the S:m Diego horned lizard and their introduction would reduce horned lizard populations. Grading activities within 100 feet of areas of identified California gnatcatcher pairs, or their associated coastal sage scrub habitat, shall not be conducted during the breeding or nesting season (mid-March through July annually). O..adillg activities shall be supervised by a biologist. Site preparation activities, especially staging area operations and maintenance rows for heavy machinery, shall be restricted to areas not beins placed in open space. Carelessness on the part of equipment operators can result in the destruction of areas that have been designated for preservation. Areas adjat;eut to open space shall be fenced. A debris fenco:: shall be installed prior to excavation in areas where gl'adil\g i$ up-~lupe of sensiti\'e biological babitats. These recommenuations should be incorporated into a construction monitoring program approved by the City of Chula Vista. Compliance with state regulations (California AB 3180) requiring monitoring programs for development projects would require satisfaction of the following two objectives: 1. The final site plan must be reviewed by a qualified biologist for the City of Chula Vista and by CDFO for compliance with these mitigation measures. 2. Each phase of project implementation must be reviewed by a qualified biologist for compliance with the mitigation measures required for that phase. and a report must be filed prior to notice of completion. 4. NCCP ReQJ.lirement The project applicant, the City of Chula Vista and the County of San Diego have each entered into "Enrollment Agreements" with the DFG for thc South County NCCP 2U /-1"/ SEF"-28-92 MOt~ 12:02 F".05 Plan. This Plan, which is authorized by state law (Fish and Game Code subsection 2800 et seq.), is sponsored by the California Resources Agency III1d the DFG and will be implemented in cooperation with the USFWS. Close cooperation between the three agencieE in the NCCP prO~~H ,5 tU:'~H::U through a Memoranaum 01 Understanding entered into between the agencie~ un December 4, 1991. The South County NCCP Plan is intended to identify III1d provide for the sub- regional protection and perpetuation of coastal sage scrub habitat and designated "target" species supported by that habitat while, at the same time, allowing compatible and RI1I1Tn[1ri1rll' deuelopmont QlI.d !.swta. .1.$ ~,,( Cv.ll. 1.. !J"",lvu 1M' ui we rlsn ana uame Code. The purpose of enrol1ing in this plan is to: (a) complete the field surveys, research and planning necessary to prepar~ a lOlli-term hahitAt management pllln within the designated pres~rve area; and (b) protect ~nrolled mll~ra1 ~!\i~ scrub hihit~t during the HI.month phnrung period for the plan, wh..:;\. Le~all un May t, 1992. The;: Soulh County N'c(.:t' Klan is also intended to be consistent with the findings and declaration$ ~ontained in thr. r:nahling legislation. TheEl findings declare that the NCCP process will achieve a number of significant public benefits, including: (a) promoting coordination and cooperation among public agencies, landowners and other private interests; (b) providing a mechanism fOf landowners and development proponents to effectively participate in the resource convefsation planning process; (c) providing regional planning focus which can effectively address cumulative impact concerns, minimize wildlife habitat fragmentation and promote multiple species manai!;emenl ftnd conservation; (11) jJwviu!ng an option for klentitying and ensuring appropriate miti~ation for impacts on fish tl!1d wi1dlif~; 111'1 Of'!;':'" Cv. iJeudL'ylug and ensuring approprIate mitigation for impacts on fish and wildlife; (e) promoting the conservation of broad based natural communities and ~pecies diversity; and (1) providing for efficient use and protection of natural and economic resources while promoting grater public awareness of important elements of the state's critical resources. To implement these legislative findings, the planning process will focus on preparation and approval of the South County NCCP plan to ensure the long-term protection and perpetuation of sufficient amount of coastal sage scrub habitat within a designated preserve area to ensure the long-t~rm survival of de~ienllTc".rt "targl't" species associated with that habitat. The target species for coastal sage scrub include the California gnatcatcher, cactus wren and orauge-throated whiptail. Figure 1 is a Concept Plan of the San Miguel Ranch site. This figure shows the boundary of the northern portion of the project which has been enrolled in the South County NCCP Plan. The applicaot has already completed biological field surveys and is continuing to study the northern parcel as required by the Scientific Review Panel (SRP), which was formed in connection with the recently enacted NCCP legislation. Any additional biological field surveying will be consistent with those guidelines to be applied to the property and approved by the SRP. 21 /- Y5 - - - The ~O\1th COllnty Nf.:f.:r PIAn will include the following componentD! (0) Q sue- regional habitat description and ,malysis (with clearly mApped boundarie$); (b) :I. d,fined preserve areas; (c) long-term conservation and management strate/1:ies; and (~) teo;:hniQlles CUI IIIIJlh':mr,nrATlon of coa$tal E:l.g. scrub hnbitat protcctioft mtasur~s, hl..:lud;ul! a mitigatiun monitoring program that complies with CEQA. The City of f.:hnlA VistA shall revie'\! the South County NCCP Plnft as it ap,lied to the !\pplicant's northern pAr~~l concurrent with its approval of tho SPA Plan for tb~ propOGcd projcct. During thlit A..viliW i/CU\;!:ss,the (';lty will consult with the County O( S;\n Dit:gu. After approval oi tbe :South County NCCP Plan for the applicant's northern parcel, the City of Chula Vista and the County of San Diego will jointly submit that portion of the plan to the DFG for review. If the DFG approved the plan for the northern parcel, the DFG will forward it to the USFWS for review. If the DFG or USFWS comments on the plan, a written report shall be prepared outlining the suggested modifications that would result in DFG and USFWS approval of the plan. This report shall be submitted to the applicant, the City of Chula Vista and the County of San Diego for review and action. The review and final approval process foc the South County NCCP Plan is anticipated to take place within an 1S-month NCCP planning period, which commenced on May 1, 1992 and expires on Novembec 1, 1993. In the event that the South County NCCP is not adopted by the City of Chula Vista and approved by the DFG and USFWS on or before Nnvr.mbM 1, 1993, the :l.pplic:mt's SFA Plan-Icvcl mitigation piau mi.\y UIi \:u!I~iut:n:d for approval by the City of Chula Vista as a pact of the applicant's SPA Plan. 5. Potential Density Transfer City staff and the applicant currently disagree over whether an opportunity exists under the City's General Plan fOr the project applir.Ant tn r~qllest a d~nsity trinsf,r of Eome or all of the residential den~ity from the northern to the southern portion of the project. During the San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan approval process,the Planning Commission and the c;ity COl.lncil of the Ory of Chuln. Vista will h:we the full tlnd solc d!s~retlon to d~tculJlu" whether oc not the applicant has the opportunity to transfer some or all of the residential density from the northern to the southern portion of the proposed project pursuant to the City's General Plan. The applle,Rnt further reselVCS the right to forcgo its developnlent ':'pyu. lUHili,,~ un the northern portion of the proposed project, and to simply forego its right to transfer residential d~!\5ily r, UIIl the northern to the southern portion of the proposed project. - - 22 /- /'(0 . . . 0_" -'- __0 _ --.- ,_0 . ~ __0--'- SAN MIGUEL PARTNERS Developer of San Miguel Ranch August 26, 1992 Department of Fish & Game 330 Golden Shore Suite 50 Long Beach, CA 90802 Attention: GleIm Black, Supervisor Natural Heritage Program, Region 5 Dear Mr. Black: This is intended to respond to 'lour letter of August 10, 1992 in order to correct certain misunderstandings set forth in your letter, as well as to il1ustrate the effect of applying the Department of Fish & Game's "criteria" to the northern parcel of San Miguel Ranch. As background, we have been working with the City of Chula Vista, the Department of Fish & Game ("DFG"), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ("USFWS"), and the EIR consultant ("Ogden") for over two years to attempt to reach a mutually satisfactory resolution of the biological issues. As 'Iou may know, on July 30, 1992, we met with personnel from the City (Bob Leiter, Barbara Reid and Rich Rudolf), the USFWS (Nancy Gilbert), and DFG (Terri Stewart) and Ogden (Katherine Hon) to review our latest northern mitigation plan (7/1/92 version). We had previously submitted two earlier versions of the northern mitigation plan, both of which were rejected by USFWS. At that meeting, the participants discussed the applicant's desire to reduce biological impacts to below a level of significance under CEQA. In response to concerns about the project satisfying that CEQA "significance" level, we agreed to reconsider our prior position in response to the concerns expressed at the meeting. In addition it was agreed at the meeting that San Miguel Partners, the USFWS and DFG would each provide suggested "criteria" to the City for possible inclusion in the mitigation plan. Once the "criteria" waS exchanged, it was our understanding that both the City and Ogden would review the criteria and then incorporate it into a final mitigation plan for the northern parcel. At the conclusion of the meeting, it was also agreed that /-17 4350 L. ),,1]. V,11.ge Drive, Suite Q50 . San D,es" Calif"""i. ~2122 . FAX (619) 535-U06 . (619) 546-5041 Glenn Black, Department of Fish & Game August 26, 1992 Page 2 San Miguel Partners, the DFG and the USFWS would utilize Table 3.1.8 from the Draft EIR as the basis for preparing the criteria to be used in the mitigation plan. & 'Iou know, we provided the City, the DFG and the USFWS witb our revised mitigation plan on August 10, 1992. The revised plan includes criteria which was taken, in part, from Table 3.1-8 of the Draft EIR. In addition, the revised plan does not seek to bring the biological impacts below a level of significance for CEQA purposes. Instead, the revised plan expressly provides that biological impacts will remain "significant" at the GDP level so that the appropriate mitigation criteria could be further examined and a plan completed prior to SPA Plan approval. We have enclosed a copy of our revised mitigation plan in the event that One was not provided to you. We did nOt receive your letter until the morning of our next scheduled meeting, Tuesday, August 11, 1992. Needless to say, we were extremely disappointed with the contents of your letter. First of all, 'lour letter does not adequately set forth the understanding of the parties concerning the use of the criteria to be developed by the parties. We never agreed that DFG's criteria would be used as a basis for the northern mitigation plan. Instead, we were all to prepare Our o.....n criteria, based upon Table 3.1-8 of the Draft EIR, and then submit the criteria to the City for its review and consideration. It was our understanding that the parties would then attempt to agree upon a set of criteria to be incorporated into the final mitigation plan. It is now pra<.iically impossible to follow this sugges ted format for several reasons. First, your letter assumes that the only way to ensure an "acceptable" mitigation plan is to have "no impacts" to sensitive biological resources in the northern parcel. Not only is such a position arbitrary, it is also not consistent with previous mitigation plans which DFG have approved, and which have included impacts to certain sensitive species, plants or habitats. Such a position entirely forec1oses the option of reaching a solution which is sensitive to both the need for an appropriate preserve, as well as the applicant's right to develop the property. & 'Iou will recall, the applicant has already received a General Plan designation for 357 lots on the area represented within the development bubbles on the northern parcel. This right must be considered in determining appropriate criteria to strike a balance between the needs of a preserve and, as provided in CEQA, the "right of every Californian to decent housing", Second, your so-called "criteria" are nothing more than an effort to prevent any development in the northern portion of our property. If the DFG is suggesting that no development occur on our northern parcel, then 'Iou should /- ? g> ,. L t ~~-J I r-1'^,1 i ':::. _-t--t- Glenn Black, Department of Fish & Game August 26, 1992 Page 3 advise the City, as the lead agency, that the adoption of DFG's criteria will most probably result in a taking of our property, entitling us to compensation for the use of our pmperty as a preserve. In addition, we belie\ e that 'lour statements of 'Justification" reflect opinions, and are not based or scientific fact nor legal requirements. The DFG does not have adopted p,licies which are consistent with either the so-called criteria or the justifkations, and thus there is no legal foundation for the "criteria" or the "justilication" statements. It must also be pointed out that we are dealing with a m,mber of species, many of which are not listed or even proposed for listing ~rith DFG or USFWS. Others which are proposed have not reached protecte j status, and in the case of tbe California Gnatcatcher, the DFG has spedf cally rejected the listing of this species at this time. Accordingly, these "c riteria" are extremely onerous relative to the status of many of the species' mder discussion. The "criteria" is particularly onerous when DFG acknowledges, as it should, that it is not the sole responsibility of property owners who are proposing "new" development to compensate for the overall reduction or disappearance of sensitive species or habitat - a process which began many, nany years ago. Fourthly,l am distressed by the efforts of DFG to suggest that certain species are at risk, when SUdl was not the finding of the Draft EIR. For example, the Golden Eagle \las found not to be significantly impacted, with no mitigation required, 'let DFG has elevated this species in criteria #9. Similarly, revegetatic n programs are specifically acknowledged as being an adequate form of mitigation for the San Diego Marsh Elder and the Spiny Rush, while Adolphia has a specific mitigation requirement of preserving 50% in biological open space. Finally, your letter is not consistent with previously stated policies made to the applicant by DFi}. ~ an example is the policy quoted under criteria #6, that DFG "recommendations previously made state 60% preserved in situ" for the coast Jarrel cactus is the appropriate level of mitigation. Notwithstanding this earlier criteria, a no impact requirement is imposed on the north when only 230/0 of the barrel cactus individuals are being transplanted, suggesl ing a 77% in situ preservation. To be numerically consistent with previ(lus recorrunendations, it would appear that an impact to at least 1333 cactus (which impact is limited to transplanting) would be available. Justification for a no impact finding is therefore inconsistent with the policy stated in tl1 e letter, as specifically applied to the applicant's project. Many of the criter:a do not sensitively study the area proposed for development by the ,Ipplicant, nor consider the benefits of the open space /- '1 r '.::. L /-- - .-: -1- -- ',c_' ~ I H U l~.: 4 ~, t-'_. ~ "-' ':_, Glenn Black, Department of Fish & Game August 26, 1992 Page 4 being left in their natural condition as a result of a focused and limited area of development. Accordingly, a number of the criteria arc not relevant to the project at hand, but are simply used as additional "scare tactics" to obviate the ability of the applicant to develop any portion of the northern parcel. Notwithstanding my disbelief in the "criteria" you proposed, or the reasonableness of same, I felt it appropriate to prepare a study based upon those criteria to determine what portion of the northern property would be "developable". I have enclosed maps, which have beeD taken from the Draft ErR and have been colored to reflect the "no impact" criteria in your letter. Map #1 reflects wetlands and certain plant species, as indicated by the colored portions of the map. The second map indicates wildlife corridors, along with cactus wren, horned lizard, and raptor habitats, as well as the plant species hemizonia conjugens. The third map indicates occupied gnatcatcher habitat and disbursal/feeding areas for the gnatcatcher. All of the areas indicated on each of these maps have been colored to reflect the "no impact" requirement stated in your "criteria." Drawing 'lour attention to map #4, the impact of this "criteria" to the development bubble under the Chula Vista General Plan can be easily seen. The total development bubble is colored yellow to indicate the 357 acres of development opportunity held by the applicant. The highlighted pink area constitutes that portion of the development bubble not affected by the resources and the "no impact" criteria of DFG. ~ you can see, only a small portion of the development site constituting approximately 35 acres remains potentially capable of being developed under this "criteria," However, even development of these sites would not be possible based upon the "no impact" criteria, due to the impossibility of bringing roads and services to these areas. Thus, of a total area constituting 1852 acres, only 35 acres are capable of potential development, and these acres are inaccessible due to the no impact "criteria" of DFG. Numerically, the unimpacted portion of the northern site is less than two percent of the overall land area, and ten percent of the potential development area. However, the useable development area constitutes zero percent under the DFG "criteria." It would appear from the foregoing that DFG and USFWS have jointly entered into a program to ensure no development on the northern parcel by creating criteria which are impossible to meet. The end result of this action is a "taking" of our property as all development potential has been lost, without compensation. Such actions are clearly indicative of the lack of good faith which has been exhibited over the last two years during the applicant's attempts to work with DFG and USFWS to find a reasoned and reasonable solution to the protection of sensitive species and habitat onsite. /-/0--0 Glenn Black, Department of Fish & Game August 26, 1992 Page 5 Adding insult to injury, the recommendations contained in point number 10 and number 11 of 'lour letter ensure total closure on the issue of reaching a middle ground solution. These broadly worded requirements place our project in jeopardy not based upon development that may be proposed by the applicant, but on undefined, and impossible to define, regional effects totally determined at the writer's election. Such a concept is directly against the NCCP Program which specifically acknowledges the need to cooperatively resolve issues between regional preserves for habitat preservation, and the rights of land owners to develop their property pursuant to existing entitlements. For 'lour information, this property has been enrolled in the NCCP Program, reflective of the applicant's desire to be pro-active in resolving biological issues. However, to be given a letter restricting all impacts on the property, with a notation that further restrictions may be placed on the applicant pursuant to the NCCP Program is both inappropriate and inconsistent with the relevant legislation. Any desire of the applicant to remain within the NCCP Program is tempered when your letter indicates no positive benefits can result from that program, only further restrictions. Your letter has provided no criteria whatsoever, simply a method to ensure implementation of the "no project" alternative. It is not responsive to the intention of the parties to create a method by which a mitigation plan could be devised nor does it consider the applicant's property rights. For these reasons, we ask that you withdraw your letter and respond to our northern mitigation plan, as revised on August 10, 1992. By taking this approach, perhaps it is still possible to salvage our attempts to negotiate a "solution" with the DFG and USFWS. Yours truly, San Miguel Partners Per: First City California-II, Managing Partner j)~~~ David G. Nairne Senior Vice President DGN/kw Attachments c: See distribution list attached /~/C> ( Glenn Black, Department of Fish & Game August 26, 1992 Page 5 cc:(w/enc1) Dick Zembal, Deputy Field Supervisor USFWS (Carlsbad) Nancy Gilbert, USFWS (Carlsbad) Terri Stewart, Associate Wildlife Biologist Larry Eng, NCCP Coordinator Carol Whiteside, Resources Agency of California Robert Leiter, Planning Director, City of Chula Vista Mark Dillon, San Miguel Partners /-10<< MAP #1 / ~ I 03 F,ec LEGEND \ ~ . eOUNOAAY O~ ~'r~C:IJ. ~ v,rrr:irsClns, ~'IST:=,iB1,.:TION WITH APPROXIMATE NUMBERS F . ISOLATeO "''"'''CW' v{,iC...",. INOIVIOUALS H H .. I$OLATEO Hat;S~Ol1ftl. Qaftrl~ri 10,GOO INOIVIOWALS (oe100 Indlyh.1ua!!.) . -, C!~. -). HafPD90f'!tJl:. p:.lm..,.,' ....... GENERALIZEO OISTRIBUTION (10.000. Individu~') e. Adelphi. .allleml... GENEPlAL.JZEC OISTRIBUT!CN "(j'""\. 5"vl. "'u",;;GeNe~A~IZeO ~ CISTRIBUTION ~.V., . Vi{)lJiaftJ IlJcf(jI.~ ~C:NEAAL!Z=~ "-.P' OISTRIBUTlON J . JUf'lCUS,:l.ItIJS aENE~AL.!ZeD CISTRISUTION ~ . /., h'Y"'an. GENERALllEO ~ OISTRIBUTION III WeTLANOS t::.:;::::.:;~ CHAPAM~AL. CJ E OIEGAN COAST'~SAGe SCRUB NON.NA;WE GRASSLANO MAP #% / ), \ ......:"'t~<: ;', r,"! ."~I\' I ~ .' .', , , I'" I ~.i \. l i ! t' ~ ~'. i "...,' ~,}t. ."., \'-{~...., !t'" ... ..-, .'", /. \ ,0 . Gk"" '.,Xy d,:' :. .u~ ,.:..{t~~ ii '.. +. \ / , I .,...(~ ) .,1) , \, -J'. ..' ';' ,,;,.(\; /7"''''':,.,.''- 1),,1':'1 , ' '. y' , , ~ .' 'I I t ... :;:J. .,,' I ... \--- .,' , , "\."y t 'I / " , ,.", 'I I, ./ ,~. .~~ '''\''1':'_.. '1, / "'"11'''' ,""- :, " ".'.'\;'f \ J ," I ,... " 'r ' i (,', "I.... :.-'L: ,'" .' ". "'",,' 'I~ '. .\" t' ,) "',1"'-,". ;::: .~' ':\ :""\ '~ \:~;'", ":', . /:/'" . ";(1' I, ~;. ~>f!, j:'.' ,.;'.',',,:1 .', : . \~;. . .~, 'c :';','1 ',~ '<,i '1'.i1 "1 ~: "~'I .' ~"< , " ",,I. , I , :' ~,..;' 'I' . .::-;;':',' \,,', , )'" '. .-.'1 \ 'I ;;':,1,;:1', '':Ij ',' ;,'r .. ~ . r " ~"..\ 'v ",.1. ',,'I , , ,\)\\ \\ ".," 'r' )".)f III'''! 'I 1,'.1,....'...5 I, I. I \" . '.',,' '.".1 ~ r:"" \,' / ./. I "irA 1/' f ,_, LEGEND .".;' LARGE MAMMAL MOVEMENT CORRIDORS @ Homlzonin conjugflfl$ (Approximate population) Iii LARGE MAMMAL HIGH use AREA e CACTUS W~EN TERRITORV . SAN DIEGO HORNED LIlAnD II RAPTOR NEST SITES o HISTORIC GOLDEN EAGLE NEST SITES . GOLDEN EAGLE PERCH [tD A~EA OF DEVELOPMENT 1-/i:J~ ~:::.E F-- ...::.4--9 THU 1 :5 : 4';;,0 ~ R !- "-'-~ '. ; .-' MAP #3 'I ' ~., . ..~." , . " ..~. . '1)':"'1\"- '\:': -""I. ;'..." ..- ~ J:.,.\\(\I:.,,:, ~~ ~'i~~~:" \,' .. .~~ ,,~;~\~..,(:?;#}'~tt \! .:. '" ,'1, '~;~\'.f../'/t I ~ , ~"..,\'" '.M' .. ,,""I.~',~'9 '~~~~~) ~ ",,,~~'::i"" .:~;~")"liiiJF. .: ~ 'r{((/,,.,,j ~~,'\I((I"t.,,1 '~:1I'.I~'\'~""'" ':/~ ~'.'i~' .I~ ~~,.,' \.... ~~,. .~Jit~j\1 ,,~;;,:;:,,"'i"lr"'('-".;'I' ...... ~\I.i.. ." ~ C"" 'YI".;i'L\'~~{:"" " ~,:",,:~,:j.':~'.'~~'7" : ,'!'I I : \, " :. I ;,~ .. , ~.~.!',\,\,..,elt..:,,;'~ I I" ' '."/.'" ,;,....~,\\ t,.:-' I ''\, .,.......'..",: ",." '-. """.I:"~~:"" '; I ~:'''' . ,,~,,~,......~:.:t~~,..'::r~ ,:",.,' n_" . ~)" .. ,', I 'l'l.w '- . . ," "::')f.J;0~;~';;:;~ ,r, '..~, ."",, ' I I': '\, I""""L\.' .-,' I.. .;,{ \~. . : '.;:.i::<?~.; J.. '. h' \~'I'~: : ,:""" "~~~. (-.'," I '\"~' '," . ; ,\', I ':~~:,.. ~,.' '. " t' , I ." . ~ ','.1,:;., !'; / J . I . .' ,,"r". , . . . . ". " , 1,,- . "\'1,,'.0:= :~~, , . . .' ...,.,' .: "1 ~ ,::1" '. .' ., , ., ," : ~ ~ . ., :'/ ., ,:i ..,\...,..... / '.' . ,,~ ')'" ~ .'1'.:' .......' , . , ~ ,'. , .,/ " , .. ~ LEGEND CCCU~IEO GNAT VNOCCU~IE CATCHER HAe:TAT GNATCATCH~:~X~~TW" BREeOING CIS~ERSA FOR GNAT~m~~~G AReAS ONA reArCHER AREA OF 0 TeFlRITORY E'Iet.CP>,\ENT / ~ ) 0';;- . I]] -. MAP #4 .' 1/' , \ \ \ ," ~.' '1\ .. , (' .\'/' i . "" t ""a,' :.~ , , "".." I I" :......1 . " '. ','. ( .' .J \ ',,',, '.,' , J~/o c;, ~,~,i':;,,! LEGEND ..\""""". occuPleo GNATCA:rc , '\ .,\ ~NOC?UPIEO. HER HAalTAT ~ \,IN....T''''AI\.,,;rtt::H OTENT:ALs.;:e=OI ' OISP'.S HA~IfAr - NG .~ ALJFE' FOR GNATCATC~~~GAREAS GNATCATCHER T [IT] AREA O. 0 ERRITORY . EVElCPMENT .