HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1993/03/03 (2)
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of March 3, 1993
Page 1
I.
PUBLIC HEARING:
Consideration of the Final Environmental Impact Report
for the Rancho San Miguel General Development Plan
(EIR 90-02) (SCH-90010155)
A. BACKGROUND
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), prior to the
approval of any non-exempt project that may have a significant environmental effect,
the lead agency must prepare a Final EIR (FEIR). The final EIR-90-02 consists of the
following items:
I. The Draft Environmental Impact Report for the original proposed project;
2. Letters of comment and responses to those letters, transcripts of public hearings
and responses; and
3. Errata - incorporating textual changes needed as a result of the comments
received;
4. The Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report analyzing the "New
Plan";
5. Letters of comments to the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
and responses to those letters, transcripts of public hearings and responses and
errata;
6. Technical Appendices to the Draft Environmental Impact Report.
On February 10, 1993, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to take
testimony on the adequacy of the Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Report
(DEIR) for the Rancho San Miguel General Development Plan. The Supplement to the
DEIR addresses a revised General Development Plan application, known as the "New
Plan," which was submitted by the applicant in response to City Council and Planning
Commission concerns regarding the original proposed Rancho San Miguel project.
Prior to the Planning Commission hearing the Supplement to the Draft Environmental
Impact Report was circulated for a thirty (30) day review period. Comment letters were
received from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, California Department of
Transportation (San Diego Branch), County of San Diego Department of Planning and
Land Use, Chula Vista Elementary School District, Sierra Club, Sweetwater Community
Planning Group, Robert E. Thompson, and Michael Roark. Eleven (II) individuals
" ~ I
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of March 3, 1993 Page 2
provided public testimony at the February 10, 1993 hearing. At the conclusion of the
hearing, the Commission closed the public review period.
The "New Plan," project description is stated and illustrated in Section 2 of the
Supplement. The "New Plan" proposes various design changes to the southern portion
of the Rancho San Miguel GDP. The proposed changes were made in response to: a)
public comments received on Draft EIR-90-02 during the CEQA public review period;
b) City staff concerns over the original project's consistency with the Chula Vista
General Plan; c) public testimony received at the hearing before the Planning
Commission on September 30, 1992, and the hearing before the City Council on
October 27, 1992; and d) comments made by members of both the Planning
Commission and City Council at the two public hearings.
B. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find that the Final Environmental
Impact Report has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act of 1970, the State EIR Guidelines and the Environmental Review
Procedures of the City of Chula Vista and that the Planning Commission certify that
they have reviewed and considered the information in this document.
C. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Proiect Description - New Plan
The Rancho San Miguel "New Plan" GDP is a proposed single-family detached
residential community which will provide a range of housing products with lot sizes
varying from 7,000 square feet 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 "New Plan" GDP proposes 1,619 single-family residences, and also integrates a
14-acre neighborhood commercial site, an elementary school site; a 20.7-acre
community park; a community purpose facility; a 6-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 1,648 acres of natural open space. Discretionary actions include a
general development plan and prezoning.
/. :.::r
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of March 3, 1993
Page 3
Northern Portion
The 1,852-acre northern portion of the site principally consists of Mother Miguel
Mountain. The "New Plan" GDP is unchanged from the original proposed project
described in the Draft EIR which proposes limiting most of the development to the
foothills and plateaus on the western side of the site; the interpretive center, conference
center, and inn would be constructed on steep slopes at a higher elevation
(approximately 800 feet above mean sea level). Individual building envelopes would
be graded for each of the proposed 357 lots; the average lot size would be I acre. The
GDP proposes split level structures, stemwall foundations and post and beam
construction to minimize the impact of the homes. The applicant would include a brush
management program.
The 6-acre interpretive center would be constructed on a prominent knoll on the
northern side of the mountain. It would include trail heads, a parking lot, informational
displays, view points, a small amphitheater, and perhaps a botanical garden. The 7-acre
conference centerlretreat and inn would be constructed adjacent to the interpretive
center. It would include a 20 to 30-room building and approximately 20 small cottages,
for a total of up to 50 guest rooms, and meeting facilities for 200.
The applicant proposes to include wildlife undercrossing areas under roadways in the
northern portion to allow wildlife access to the Sweetwater Reservoir.
Significant differences between the "New Plan" and the original proposed project on the
Northern Portion of Rancho San Miguel occur in the proposed mitigation measures for
biological impacts related to potential development of the Northern Portion. As partial
mitigation of the significant adverse effects on biology at the GDP level the applicant
will be required to prepare a SPA Plan-level 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 SPA Plan-level mitigation plan shall be prepared, analyzed and included in a
Supplemental EIR for the applicant's northern 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.
The northern SPA Plan-level mitigation plan shall not be approved prior to May I, 1994
the date by which the South County Natural Community Conservation Plan ("NCCP")
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 May I, 1994,the project
/-3'
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of March 3, 1993
Page 4
applicant and the City have agreed to pursue completion and approval of the South
County NCCP beyond this expiration date; however, after the expiration date, the
applicant may make a request to the Chula Vista City Council to consider allowing the
applicant to proceed with a SPA-level mitigation plan. .
The South County NCCP, if completed and approved, may preclude development of the
northern parcel, or may provide for different criteria and standards for the preservation
and enhancement of on-site biological resources. If it does not, or the South County
NCCP does not come to fruition, the criteria set forth in the Supplement to the Draft
EIR beginning on Page 3.3-69 shall be used in creating the SPA Plan-level Mitigation
Plan. Significantly, these criteria may require preservation of up to 100 percent of the
identified sensitive habitat, plants, and animals discussed in this section of the
Supplement to the Draft EIR.
Southern Portion
The majority of the project development would take place in the southern portion. As
revised, the New Plan project now proposes 1,262 residential units for the southern
neighborhood, with plans for a l4-acre commercial center, an Il.9-acre elementary
school, a 20.7-acre community park, and two designated community purpose facilities.
Planning areas referred to below in the Project Description portion of this report is
consistent with those in Draft Final EIR 90-02.
The "New Plan" incorporates the following changes from the original proposed project.
I. Realignment of SR-125. In response to comments from the City of Chula Vista,
the Country of San Diego and the Buie Corporation, State Route ("SR") 125 has
been realigned to be consistent with the Country's General Plan location for a
prime arterial. The alignment has been designated as a "Potential Transportation
Corridor" because the SR 125 alignment has not been adopted at this time.
2. Deletion of Interchange. 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 to allow
CAL TRANS to decide upon an appropriate interchange at a later date. This
change is consistent with the Chula Vista General Plan which does not show an
interchange in this location.
3. Realignment of San Miguel Ranch 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
/- L/
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of March 3, 1993
Page 5
relocation of the kennel. the proposed modification moves the roadway off and
to the south of the Jensen's Kennels property.
4. Relocation of Commercial Site. In response to comments from Jensen's
Kennels, 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,
Country of San Diego, Jensen's Kennels, and public comments, the 16.4-acre
commercial site, which was originally proposed at he 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 65 residential lots at 1.9
dwelling units per acre (20,000 square foot average lot sizes).
6. Enhancement of Manufactured Slope Topographv. In response to comments
from City staff, the County of San Diego and public comments, variations in
manufactured 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. Otav Tamlant Preserve. 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 II, a cul-de-sac located in the south
central portion of the site adjacent to the SDG&E easement, the 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 Facilitv 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 Boundarv Adiustment. In response to comments from City staff,
the Sweetwater Community Planning 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 reduced the size of the
development area originally proposed in Planning Area 15.
/ or
-,J
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of March 3, 1993
Page 6
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 SDG&E property adjacent to the north.
II. New Commercial Site. In response to comments from City staff, Jensen's
Kennels, 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 (l4-acre commercial site and approximately
6 acres of affordable housing).
12. Planning Area 14 Boundarv Adiustment. In response to comments from City
staff, USFWS and CDFG, the biological issues resulting from clarifying the
boundary for Planning Area 14 were mitigated to the satisfaction ofUSFWS and
CDFG.
13. Lot Size Changes. A greater percentage (approximately 51%) of residential lots
within the Low Residential category have been provided in response to City
staffs recommended "estate" lot standard (15,000 square foot minimum lot size;
20,000 square foot average lot size). Planning Areas I, 8, 9, 10, 12A, 14 and
15 have been designated as estate areas on the southern Parcel. The distribution
of lot sizes in the Residential Low areas has been modified, as follows:
Lot Sizes Units Area
Estate North 357 357.1
South 415 281.6
772 638.7
51% 73%
Cluster 751 49% 235.5 27%
Total 1523 100% 874.2 100%
The above figures are only for the lot sizes and do not include additional units
south of East H Street.
14. Estate Lot Overlav for Planning Areas 4 and 7. In response to City staff s
recommended balance of estate lots vs. cluster lots within the Low Residential
designated areas of the project (at least half of the lots to be estate standards)
Planning Areas 4 and 7, located in the center-west portion of the Southern
/ - ~,
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of March 3, 1993
Page 7
parcel, designated for cluster development, have had an "estate lot overlay"
placed upon them. If all or a portion of the Northern Parcel estate residential
development is eliminated at the SPA plan level, then these two areas, or
portions thereof, shall be redesignated for estate lots (20,000 square feet average,
15,000 square feet minimum) so as to maintain a majority of the total lots in the
Low Residential designated areas of the project as "estate" lots. This overlay
has the potential of reducing the overall project density by up to 120 dwelling
units. Alternatively, the applicant may apply for a General Plan Amendment,
proposing redesignation of portions of the site to Low-Medium Residential in
order to maintain the consistency of the New Plan GDP to the General Plan,
which would be the subject of additional environmental analysis if such an
application is filed.
Circulation
Figure 2-3a of the Supplement illustrates the internal road network now proposed for
the Rancho San Miguel New Plan GDP development. San Miguel Ranch Road
connects San Miguel Road to East H Street in a general north-south alignment. East
H Street will pass through the southeastern tip of the southern portion. Access to the
northern portion will be provided via North Ranch Road. Residential roads will provide
access to the interior areas of the proposed site.
Figure 2-3 in the Draft EIR shows the proposed alignment of San Miguel Ranch Road
and that portion of the road that is proposed as a bypass (access) road to be located
offsite to the west and adjacent to the site. The bypass portion of San Miguel Ranch
Road is proposed to eliminate the need to widen San Miguel Road to provide site
access. County approval would be needed to implement the access road, and an
Amendment to the County's Circulation Element of the General Plan would also be
required, as this roadway is not shown in the County General Plan. However, the
access road is consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan. Consistency with
the Chula Vista and County circulation elements is discussed in more detail in the
transportation section of this Supplement. The transportation section discusses traffic
circulation in the area that will occur as a result of buildout of the General Plan and
development of the proposed project.
D. IMP ACT ANALYSIS
Attached are Table 1-2 from the original Draft EIR which summarizes the original
proposed project's impacts, and Table 1-2 from the Supplement to the Draft ErR, which
revises the original proposed project's impacts to land use, landform/visual, biology,
traffic, and parks, recreation & open space.
/- 7
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of March 3, 1993
Page 8
The "New Plan" has impacts to landformlvisual, biology, and air quality which are
significant and not mitigable. Therefore, if the proposed project is to be recommended
for approval, the Planning Commission will need to adopt a Statement of Overriding
Considerations which justify these significant and not mitigable impacts.
E. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
The original Draft EIR contains several project alternatives, which are fully described
in Section 5 of that document. The Supplement to the Draft EIR does not modify these
alternatives.
F. LATE COMMENT LETTERS
Four comment letters on Volume 3 of the Draft Supplemental EIR were received
subsequent to the Clearinghouse's 30-day review period and subsequent to the close of
the public hearing on February 8, 1993. Two of the letters were from State agencies
(California Transportation Department and California Department of Fish & Game).
One was from California Transportation Ventures and one is from City of Chula Vista
Department of Parks & Recreation (see attached).
Landscaoe Review Sheet - Parks & Recreation Department
The comments on the first page of the landscape review sheet refer to the lack of
specific information regarding trails and questions about the alignment of SR-125.
These are issues on which further detail will be provided at a later stage in the process
(SP A level). The issue regarding mountain bike use of the greenbelt is also appropriate
to analyze at the SPA level.
California Transoortation Ventures
The comments that this letter provides regarding the proposed 125 alignments,
interchanges and phasing desired of Rancho San Miguel are useful and will be
considered in further SPA level environmental analysis.
Staff will provide comments at the Planning Commission on the letters from the
Department of Transportation and California Department of Fish and Game.
(rsmfeir.gh)
(- 3'
.
.
.
.
.
,
I
I
.
I
I
.-
-----=
".-~<--". ..,~_.
SUMMARY O~ iMPACTS FROM ORIGINAL DRAFT EIR
1.4 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
The following table summarizes impacts and mitigation for those issues which are analyzed in
this Supplement. For all other issues, see Draft EIR 90-02 (V qlume 2).
Table 1-2
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Issue Impact Mitigation
Land Use Development of the northern Mitigation for this impact includes
portion of the site is potentially approval of storm water management
incompatible with the Sweetwater plans, and is discussed further in
Reservoir due to degradation of Section 3,9, Water Quality. It is
water quality from urban runoff. expected by the Sweetwater Authority
this significant impact is discussed that the plan will reduce significant
in Section 3.9, Water Quality. water quality impacts to Sweetwater
Reservoir to below a level of
significance.
Land Use Portions of the proposed trail The proposed trail system will be
(contd.) system cross SDG&E easements. reviewed at the SPA Plan level in
The City Parks & Recreation order to minimize the location of
Department discourages the trails within SDG&E easements.
placement of trails in these This measure will reduce impacts to
easements. below a level of significance.
Land Use Locating residential units adjacent Provide future residents with
(contd.) to the SDG&E Miguel substation is information concerning SDG&E
a significant impact. The utility expansion plans. Prepare a
plans to expand the facility in the comprehensive buffer plan at the SPA
future, and potential conflicts could level. Pm vide site plans to SDG&E
arise with residents adjacent to the for review. Coordinate with
facility when expansion begins. SDG&E. The applicant shall not
oppose SDG&E expansion Proposals.
These measures will reduce impacts
to below a level of significance.
1-5
/- I
UmdUse
(contd.)
General Plan
Consistency
Landforml
Visual
Umdforml
Visual (contd.)
. Umdforml
Visual (contd.)
* *
Table 1-2 (contd.)
This issue shall be evaluated at the
SPA Plan level. The project
applicant has made a commitment to
comply with the City's affordable
housing performance criteria.
Satisfaction of these criteria at the
SPA Plan level will eliminate any
general plan inconsistency.
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
1-6
-
This issue shall be evaluated at the
SPA level.
* *
Impacts to the significant landforms
in the southern portion of the site
are unmitigable with the project as
proposed.
This issue shall be evaluated at the
SPA level.
Impacts which are significant and not mitigable to below a level of significance with the
project as proposed
The project GDP does not
discuss the issue of affordable
housing, and therefore is
inconsistent with the City's
provisions relating to
affordable housing.
Grading techniques for
proposed interpretive center
and conference center on
slopes greater than 25 % are
not discussed in GDP,
therefore, the landform/visual
impacts are unknown.
Two topographic features in
the southern portion of the site
(Horseshoe Bend, Gobbler's
Knob) will be removed by
extensive grading. The
landform impacts are
considered to be significant.
Large and 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.
j- /(1
.
.
.
.
.
III
II
III
.
~
.
.
.
Table 1-2 (contd.)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Issue Impact Mitigatiqn
Landforml A limited number of lots on the Provide future residents with
Visual southern parcel will be oriented information concerning SDG&E
(contd.) toward the existing SDG&E expansion plans. Prepare a
facility. Lots along the northern comprehensive buffer plan at the
perimeter of the southern parcel SPA level. Provide site plans to
overlooking Wild Man's Canyon SDG&E for review. Coordinate
will be impacted by planned with SDG&E. The applicant shall
expansion of the SDG&E not oppose SDG&E expansion
facility. This is a significant proposals. It is anticipated that
impact. these measures may reduce impacts
to below a level of significance at
the SPA level of analysis. A
determination of the level of
significance will be made at that
time.
Landforml Views from a small portion of Implementation of landscaping and
Visual East H Street, a designated development plans consistent with
(contd.) scenic roadway, would be General Plan guidelines for scenic
degraded by grading and roadways would reduce impacts to
development associated with the below a level of signi ficance.
proposed proj ect. The impacts
are significant.
Biology The project would disrupt the * *
rich biodiversity of the site. Impacts to biodiversity of the site
This is a significant impact. are not mitigable with the project as
proposed.
* *
Impacts which are significant and not mitigable to below a level of significance with the
project as proposed
1-7
1-//
Issue
Biology
(contd.)
Biology
(contd.)
* *
Table 1-2 (contd.)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Impact
The project would
result in the loss of
3.1 acres of wetland
habitat. This is
considered to be a
significant impact by
the California
Department of Fish
& Game (CDFG)
due to the high
sensitivity of this
habitat.
The project would
result in the loss of
467 acres of diegan
coastal sage scrub
habitat. This is
considered to be 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.
Mitigation
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
would be reduced. Where impacts cannot be avoided,
on site creation of wetland habitat is required at a
replacement ratio agreed upon with CDFG, to b",
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.
* *
The impacts to coastal sage scrub are significant and
unmitigable with the project as proposed. The impacts
will be partially mitigated by the following measures.
Commitment by the applicant to participate in the
South Bay Natural Communities Conservation Program
(NCCP) and abide by its conclusions. Placement of
biological mitigation criteria on the northern parcel (in
case the NCCP does not corne to fruition) which will
allow the City of Chula Vista to require preservation
of between 85% and 100% of all Diegan Sage Scrub
habitat on the northern parcel. Hydroseed graded
areas with native plant species. Restrict site
preparation activities to areas not designated as open
space. Phasing plans and the final site plan must be
reviewed by a qualified city biologist and the CDFG
for compliance with the adopted Mitigation Monitoring
Program. Alternative projects which would also
partially reduce impacts are discussed in Section 5 of
the Draft EIR (Volume I). Impacts to this sensitive
habitat remain significant even with implementation of
these measures.
Impacts which are significant and not mitigable to below a level of significance with the
project as proposed
1-8
//q:.
~
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
II
.
.
.
.
.
Issue
Biology
(contd.)
Biology
(contd.)
Biology
(contd.)
Table 1-2 (contd.)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Impact
Otay tarweed: Roughly 70
percent of an estimated
total of 200,000
individuals would be
impacted by the project.
Dense populations of this
state endangered plant are
in the western and central
parts of the southern
portion. This is a
significant impact.
Palmer's erappline hook:
All of the estimated
11 ,000 indi vid uals on the
site would be impacted by
the project. The loss of
such a large population of
this species is a significant
impact.
Coast Barrel Cactus:
Roughly 80% of an
estimated 8,000 individuals
would be impacted by the
project. This site
represents one of the more
impressive barrel cactus
populations in the County.
This is a significant
impact.
Mitigation
,
* *
Impacts to Otay tarweed are unmitigable with the
project as proposed. Partial mitigation shall be
achieved by the preservation of a contiguous
preserve area of approximately 42,000 of
144,000 plants on the southern parcel, and
preservation of approximately 10,000 plants on
the northern parcel. Additionally, further
preservation of Otay tarplant on the northern
parcel may be required (between 65 % and 100%
of remaining plants). Impacts to Otay Tarweed
remain significant even with implementation of
these measures.
* *
Impacts to Palmer's grappling hook are
unmitigable with the project as proposed. Partial
mitigation shall be achieved by preservation of
approximately 1,000 plants on the northern
parcel. Impacts to this sensitive plant remain
significant even with implementation of these
measures.
Preserve approximately 40% of the 2,892 cacti
on the southern parcel in situ, with
transplantation of the remainder. Preserve an
additional 1,226 cacti on the northern parcel as
mitigation for southern parcel impacts. Require
preservation of at least 60 % of remaining cacti
on the northern parcel, with trans-plantation of
the remainder, at the SPA plan level. This is a
significant impact at the. General Development
Plan level. It is anticipated that these measures
may reduce impacts to below a level of
significance at the SPA level of analysis. A
determination of the level of significance will be
made at that time.
* Impacts wnl~n are slgml1cant and not mltlgable to below a level at slgmhcance with the
project as proposed
1-9
/,-/3
Issue
Biology
(contd.)
Biology
(contd.)
Biology
(contd.)
Biology
(contd.)
.
Mitigation,
Preserve approximately 40 adolphia in
the eastern portion of the southern
parcel. Preserve approximately 350
adolphia on the northern parcel as
mitigation for impacts to the southern
parcel. Require preservation of 50 %
to 100% of all adolphia on the
northern parcel at the SPA plan level.
This is a significant impact at the
General Development Plan level. It is
anticipated that these measures will
reduce impacts to below a level of
significance at the SPA level of
analysis. A determination of the level
of significance will be made at that
time.
II
II
II
II
II
~
Table 1-2 (contd.)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Impact
California adolphia: Roughly
345 individuals would be
impacted by the project. This
is a significant impact.
San Diego marsh elder:
Roughly 90% of an estimated
total of 340 individuals would
be impacted by the project.
this is a significant impact.
Spiny rush: Roughly 50% of
an estimated 400 individuals
would be impacted by the
project. This is a significant
impact.
Impacts to the following
sensitive plants either do not
occur or are not considered to
be significant: Munz's Sage,
mesa club moss, San Diego
sunflower, variegated dudleya,
Cleveland's golden star,
Palmer sagebrush, San Diego
needle grass, and western
dichondra.
1-10
Avoid wetlands, where this plant
occurs, to the extent practicable.
Implement a revegetation program for
plants that are impacted. These
measures will reduce impacts to below
a level of significance.
A void wetlands, where the plant
occurs, to the extent practicable.
Enhance wetland areas to include
revegetation of spiny rush for plants
that are impacted. These measures
will reduce impacts to below a level of
signi ficance.
No mitigation is required.
/-/""/
.
.
.
Table 1-2 (contd.)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
The impacts to the cactus wren are
unmitigable with the project as proposed.
Partial mitigation measures include the
following. Preserve 3 of 4 existing
occupied territories on the southern
parcel. Require participation in the South
County Natural Communities
Conservation Program (NCCP) and abide
by its conclusions. If the NCCP does not
come to fruition, require preservation of
at least 6 of 7 cactus wren ten itories on
the northern parcel at the SPA plan level.
Impacts to this sensitive species remains
significant even with the implementation
of these measures.
nificant and not mltIgable to below a level at slgmhcance with the
.
.
.
.
Issue
Impact
California gnatcatcher: The
project would have
significant impacts on the
California gnatcatcher. The
gnatcatcher population on
the proposed site is part of a
larger core population for
the entire species. The
project would cause direct
impacts to 40 of the existing
69 pairs onsite. Other
significant impacts to
wildlife include
fragmentation of habitat,
constricted movement
corridors, and impacts from
pets, lighting, noise, and
wildfires. This is a
significant impact.
Biology
(contd.)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Biology
(contd.)
Cactus Wren: The project
will impact 7 of 13 occupied
cactus wren territories on
site. This is a significant
impact.
.
.
.
.
* *
Impacts which are Slg
project as proposed
.
,
Mitigation
* *
The impacts to the California gnatcatcher
are unmitigable for the project as
proposed. Partial mitigation measures
include the following. Mitigate for the
loss of 6 gnatcatcher pairs on the southern
parcel by preserving 9 pairs of
gnatcatchers on the northern parcel at this
time. Require participation in the South
County Natural Communities
Conservation Program (NCCP) and abide
by its conclusions. If the NCCP does not
come to fruition, require preservation of
an additional 80% to 100% of existing
pairs, 80% to 100% of occupied
gnatcatcher habitat, and 50 % to 100 % of
unoccupied gnatcatcher habitat on the
northern parcel at the SPA plan level.
Impacts to this sensitive species remains
significant even with the implementation
of these measures.
* *
1-11
1- /5
Table 1-2 (contd.)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Issue Impact Mitiga'tion
Traffic Traffic that would be generated Impacts can be reduced to below a
by the project is only slightly significance by designating project-
higher than that project by the proposed roads as described in
General Plan. Therefore, the Section 3.10.
impacts are not significant.
Road classifications for project-
proposed roads have not been
determined, and are not
designated in the circulation
element of the General Plan, and
the impacts are significant.
Parks, The project proposes a 20.7 acre No mitigation is required.
Recreation, and community park, which would
Open Space satisfy city threshold standards
requiring 3 acres of park land
per 1,000 residents.
Parks, The project proposes an The biological impacts of the
Recreation, and integrated hiking and equestrian proposed trail system can be
Open Space trail system that connects to the mitigated to below significance
County's regional system. The upon implementation of the
trail system would provide mitigation measures described in
access into areas designated as Section 3.16
open space that contain sensitive
biological resources, creating
significant biological impacts.
Parks, Portions of the trail system are The trail system layout and site
Recreation, and in the SDG&E power specific designs shall be prepared
Open Space transmission easement. The in coordination with the City's
City Parks & Recreation Parks and Recreation Department
Department discourages the and the Environmental
placement of trails in these Coordinator. Impacts of revised
easements. portions of the trails must be
evaluated at the SPA level.
Parks, The location of staging areas for The location of the staging areas
Recreation, and the proposed trail system have shall be determined and the
Open not been finalized, and the impacts evaluated at the SPA
impacts are unknown. level.
1-12
/-/0
\
--
--
--
,.
Table 1-2 (contd.)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
,
Issue Impact Mitigation
Parks, Approximately 64% of the site is No mitigation is required for
Recreation, and designated as open space. No areas designated to be open
Open Space significant impacts were identified space.
for this acreage. However, about
43 acres of land currently
designated as open space would
be developed in the sou thern
portion.
~
.
. j- /'1
1-13
.
~
I
I
I
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS FROM SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT EIR
Table 1-2
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Issue
Impact
Mitigation(l)
Land Use
Development of the northern
portion of the site is potentially
incompatible with the Sweet-
water Reservoir due to degrada-
tion of water quality from urban
runoff. This significant impact
is discussed in Section 3.9,
Water Quality.
Portions of the proposed trail
system cross SDG&E
easements, which is not
acceptable to the City's Parks
and Recreation Department.
This represents a significant
impact for the GDP.
Locating residential units adja-
cent to the SDG&E Miguel sub-
station is a significant impact.
The utility plans to expand the
facility in the future, and poten-
tial conflicts could arise with
residents adjacent to the facility
when expansion begins.
Mitigation for this impact includes
approval of storm water manage-
ment plans, and is discussed
further in Section 3.9, Water
Quality. It is expected by the
Sweetwater Authority that the
plan will reduce significant water
quality impacts to Sweetwater
Reservoir to below a level of
significance.
The proposed trail system must
be modified at SPA level to locate
all trails entirely within the project
boundaries. This measure will
reduce impacts to below a level of
significance.
Provide future residents adjacent
to the substation with a white
paper describing SDG&E expan-
sion plans. Achieve general
visual separation through land-
scaping, topography variation,
and homesite orientation for units
adjacent to the substation.
Provide grading site plans and
other information to SDG&E to
assist them in developing future
improvements on their site. These
measures will reduce impacts to
below a level of significance.
(1) Impacts which are significant and not mitigable to below a level of significance with the project as
proposed are designated by..
1-12
/-/)::)
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
J
I
J
!
Table 1-2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Issue
Impact
Mitigation(l)
Consistency Issues
Based on the City's consistency
analysis, development in the
southern portion was found to
be inconsistent with the Chula
Vista General Plan in several
areas: character of
development, compatibility with
adjacent use, lot sizes,
encroachment into open
space/greenbelt systems, overall
density, preservation of
significant landforms,
clustering, and landform
alteration/grading. The impacts
are considered to be significant.
....
Impacts related to inconsistencies
with the General Plan are
unmitigable with the project as
proposed.
The project GDP does not
discuss the issue of affordable
housing and therefore is
inconsistent with the City's
provisions relating to affordable
housing.
This issue shall be evaluated at the
SPA level. The project applicant
has made a cOmmitment to comply
with the City's affordable housing
perfonnance criteria. Satisfaction
of these criteria at SPA level will
eliminate the General Plan
inconsistency.
Landfonn/VisuaI
Grading techniques for pro-
posed interpretive center and
conference center on slopes
greater than 25% are not dis-
cussed in GPD, therefore, the
landform/visual impacts are
unknown.
This issue shall be evaluated at the
SPA level.
(I) Impacts which are significant and not mitigable to below a level of significance with the project as
~ are desigDated by ...
1.13
/- / f
Table 1-2 (Continued)
--
I
Impact
Mitigation(l)
I
I
J
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
I
;
I
I
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Issue
,
I
j
!
i
i
Landfonn/Visual
(Continued)
Significant topographic features
in the southern portion of the
site (Horseshoe Bend, Gobblers
Knob) will be removed by
extensive grading. The land-
form impacts are considered to
be significant.
Large and conspicuous potable
water storage tanks are pro-
posed 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.
About 15 lots in the southern
portion would be located along
the northeastern ridge
immediately adjacent to SDG&E
property. SDG&E has plans
for expansion of the facility that
would occur within the
viewshed of these lots. Placing
lots in close proximity to
SDG&E property where resi-
dents will eventually experience
industrial-type views is consid-
ered to be a significant impact
for homes located along this
ridgeline which overlooks Wild
Man's Canyon.
**
Impacts to the significant land-
forms in the southern portion of
the site are unmitigable with the
project as proposed.
This issue shall be evaluated at the
SPA level.
**
The impacts of placing homes in
close proximity to the future
expansion area of the SDG&E
substation in the southern portion
along the ridge overlooking
Wildman's Canyon are un-
mitigable with the project as
proposed. Measures that would
reduce impacts but not to below
significance would be to buffer
development in the area in ques-
tion through landscaping, topo-
graphy variation. and homesite
orientation. Leaving this area in
open space. as shown on the
General Plan, instead of allowing
the General Plan Amendment to
the Land Use Element would
prevent this impact.
(1) Impacts which are significant and not miligable to below a level of significance with the project as
puposed are designated by ..
I
I
,
,
,
1.14
/- Ole"'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
I
--
Table 1-2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Issue
Impact
Landform/VisuaI
(Continued)
Mitigation(l)
Biology
Views from a small portion of
East H Street, a designated
scenic roadway, would be
degraded by grading and devel-
opment associated with the
proposed project. The impacts
are significant.
The project would result in the
loss of 3.1 acres of wetland
habitat. This is considered to be
a significant impact by the
California Department of Fish
and Game (CDFG) due to the
high sensitivity of this habitat.
The project would disrupt the
rich biodiversity of the site.
This is a significant impact.
Implementation of landscaping
and development plans consistent
with General Plan guidelines for
scenic roadways would reduce
impacts to below a level of
significance.
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.
**
Impacts to the biodiversity of the
site are not mitigable with the
project as proposed.
(I) Impacts which are significant and not mitigable to below a level of significance with !.he project as
proposed are designated by..
1-15
I. ~(
i
I
I
!
Table 1.2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Impact
Mitigation(l)
Issue
Biology
(Continued)
The project would result in the
loss of 467 acres of Diegan
coastal sage scrub, designated
as a sensitive habitat. This is
considered to be 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 onsite are concen-
trated in this habitat, including
the California gnatcatcher and
coast barrel cactus.
Otay tarweed: Roughly 70 to
80 percent of an estimated total
of 200,000 individuals would
be impacted by the project.
Dense populations of this state
endangered plant are in the
western and central parts of the
southern portion. This is a
significant impact.
Coast barrel cactus: Roughly
80 percent of an estimated
8,000 individuals would be
impacted by the project. This
site represents one of the more
impressive barrel cactus
populations in the county. This
is a significant impact.
**
The impacts to coastal sage scrub
habitat are unmitigable with the
project as proposed. Alternative
projects which would partially
reduce impacts are discussed in
Section 5. The following general
mitigation measures will serve to
partially reduce impacts. Hydro-
seed graded areas wi th native
plant species. Restrict site prep-
aration activities to areas not
designated as open space. Phas-
ing plans and the final site plan
must be reviewed by a qualified
city biologist and the CDFG for
compliance with the adopted
Mitigation Monitoring program.
Impacts to this sensitive habitat
remain significant even with
implementation of these measures.
**
Impacts to Otay tarweed are
unmitigable with the project as
proposed.
**
Impacts to coast barrel cactus are
unmitigable with the project as
proposed.
(1) Impacts which are significant and not mitigable to below a level of significance with the project as
proposed are designaled by ..
1-16
--""~-"-~-~"'''''-'-
I - ,~;;;?
I
.
I
.
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 1-2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Issue
Impact
Biology
(Continued)
Mitigation(I)
Palmers' fP1Ipplinll hook: All of
the estimated 11,000 individuals
on the site would be impacted
by the project. The loss of such
a large population of this
species is a significant impact.
California adolphia: Roughly
85 percent of an estimated total
of 350 individuals would be
impacted by the project. This is
a significant impact.
San Diello marsh elder:
Roughly 90 percent of an
estimated total of 340
individuals would be impacted
by the project. This is a
significant impact.
Spinv rush: Roughly 50
percent of an estimated total of
400 in-iividuals would be
impacted by the project. This is
a significant impact.
Impacts to the following
sensitive plants either do not
occur or are not considered to
be significant: Munz's sage,
mesa clubmoss, San Diego
sunflower, variegated dudleya,
Cleveland's golden star, Palmer
sagebrush, San Diego needle
grass, and western dichondra.
**
Impacts to Palmer's grappling
hook are unmitigable with the
project as proposed.
**
Impacts to California adolphia are
unmitigable with the project as
proposed.
A void wetlands, where this plant
occurs, to the extent practicable.
Implement a revegetation program
for plants that are impacted.
These measures will reduce
impacts to below a level of
significance.
A void wetlands, where the plant
occurs, to the extent practicable.
Enhance wetland areas to include
revegetation of spiny rush for
plants that are impacted. These
measures will reduce impacts to
below a level of significance.
No mitigation is required.
(1) Impacts which are significant and not mitigable to below a level of significance with the project as
proposed are designated by..
1.17
/- ,73
Table 1-2 (Continued)
Mitigation(l)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Issue
Impact
Biology
(Continued)
The project would have sig-
nificant impacts on two
sensitive wildlife species, the
California gnatcatcher and the
cactus wren. The gnatcatcher
population on the proposed si te
is part of a larger core popula-
tion for the entire species. The
project would cause direct
impacts to 40 of the existing 69
pairs onsite. Other significant
impacts to wildlife include frag-
mentation of habitat, constricted
movement corridors, and
impacts from pets, lighting,
noise and wildfires.
Archaeology
The archaeological study deter-
mined that eight important sites
will be directly impacted by the
proposed project. Eight sites
will be indirectly impacted
resulting from residential use of
project open space areas. The
impacts to these sites are
significant.
**
The impacts to the California
gnatcatcher and the cactus wren
are unmitigable with the project as
proposed.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
f.
I
.
II
The significant impacts to
archaeological resources can be
reduced to below a level of sig-
nificance by implementation of the
mitigation measures described
in Section 3.4. The principal
focus of these measures is
preservation of the resource and
data recovery.
(1) Impacts which are significant and not mitigable to below a level of significance with the project as
proposed are designaled by **
1.18
/..;;;;?~
I
.
I
I
I
I
_._=,..~---~=".~~- --...., -""-..~.~'..~.
Table 1-2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Issue
Impact
Paleontology
Mitigation(l)
The project would result in
extensive development in areas
where the underlying forma-
tions have a moderate to high
potential to contain paleonto-
logical resources. Mass excava-
tion in these formations would
result in significant impacts.
Geology/Soils
Geotechnical constraints onsite
present impacts that include
ground acceleration,
liquefaction, landsliding, ex-
pansion, erosion, compaction
and settlement, reactive soils,
shallow bedrock, and ground
water. These impacts are
significant.
The significant impacts to paleon-
tological resources can be reduced
to below a level of significance by
the mitigation measures detailed in
Section 3.4, Archaeology/Paleon_
tology. These measures include
verification to the Ci ty that a
qualified paleontologist has been
retained by the project applicant to
carry out the mitigation program
and monitor original cutting of
sensitive formations, and prepara-
tion of a final report summarizing
the results of the mitigation
program.
The significant impacts of the pro-
ject can be reduced to below a
level of significance by the miti-
gation measures detailed in Sec-
tion 3.5, GeologY/Soils. These
measures include preparation of
supplemental geotechnical reports
prior to approval of the project
precise plan and prior to and
during grading activities;
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; excavation and
recompaction or replacement of
materials potentially subject to
liquefaction or dynamic settle-
ment; removal or control of
(I) Impacts which are significant and not mitigable to below a level of significance with the project as
JrOposed are designated by..
1-19
/-~5
Table 1-2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Issue
Mitigation(l)
Impact
Geology/Soils
(Continued)
Mineral Resources
Conversion of
Agricultural Lands
i
j
j
,
j
expansi ve soils using moisture
control techniques or chemical
stabilizers; slope stabilization and
erosion control techniques; and
monitoring of grading operations
by a qualified geotechnical
consultant.
Potential impacts to mineral No mitigation is required.
resources from the proposed
project are not considered to be
significant due to low resource
development potentials, lack of
existing mineral development
onsite, and the region's wide-
spread extent of geologic
deposits.
No prime fannland or existing No mitigation is required.
agricultural production would
be eliminated due to the pro-
posed project. No significant
impacts to agricultural resources
are identified.
(1) Impacts which are significant and not mitigable to below a level of significance with the project as
proposed are designaled by ..
/- 76
1.20
.
I
I
(
,
Table 1-2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Issue
Impact
Hydrology
Mitigation(l)
The project would generate
substantial increases in surface
runoff due to increases in
impervious surfaces, and
could cause significanl flooding
and scouring downstream.
Water quality in the Sweetwater
Reservoir may be compromised
by urban runoff from the project
site. The hydrology impacts are
considered to be significant.
Water Quality
The project could cause
increases in containment con-
centrations in Sweetwater Res-
ervoir resulting from conversion
of undeveloped land to urban
uses. There is a potential for
sewage to enter the Sweetwater
Reservoir or nearby streams if
the development's sanitary
sewer system malfunctioned or
overflowed.
A detailed drainage report and
plan subject to approval by City
Engineer must be submitted prior
to SPA approval. Drainage
design must include plans for
runoff conveyance, sediment
control, routing of runoff to avoid
compounding peak discharge, and
protection of natural channels
from scouring, as well as
protection of Sweetwater Reser-
voir from street contaminants.
Upon approval and implemen-
tation of the drainage design plan,
and the runoff protection program
being designed and implemented
by the Sweetwater Authority,
impacts would be reduced to
below a level of significance.
Mitigation measures discussed in
Section 3.9 include the following:
Prior to or concurrent with SPA
Plan approval, an acceptable
runoff protection system plan
shall be prepared and approved by
the Sweetwater Authority and the
California Department of Health
Services. This plan will be
submitted to the City of Chula
Vista for review and comment. It
is anticipated by the Sweetwater
Authority that the plan will reduce
significant water quality impacts
to Sweetwater Reservoir to below
a level of significance.
(1) Impacts which are significant and not mitigable to below a level of significance with the project as
jXOpOSed are designated by..
1-21
/ -:;;;> 7
Table 1-2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Issue
Impact
Mitigation(l)
Water Quality
(Continued)
Sediment deposition may
increase following construction
activities, and water quality in
tributaries draining the develop-
ment may degrade. The
proposed runoff protection
system for the reservoir will
divert runoff to Sweetwater
River, increasing grease, oil,
and fuel concentrations in the
river. The impacts to water
quality are considered to be
significant.
I
,
!
I
I
j
,
i
J
i
,
i
i
I
Traffic
Traffic that would be generated
by the project is only slightly
higher than that projected by the
General Plan. Therefore, the
impacts are not significant.
Road classifications for project-
proposed roads have not been
determined, and are not
designated in the circulation
element of the General Plan,
and the impacts are significant.
A detailed water quality plan
subject to approval by the City
Engineer, and City Environmental
Review Coordinator must be
submitted prior to GDP approval.
The report must address project
specific and cumulative impacts
and mitigation plans to reduce
onsite. reservoir, and downstream
water contamination. Significant
impacts would be reduced to
below a level of significance by
implementation of an approved
plan which addresses all
significant water quality issues.
Impacts can be reduced to below
significance by designating
project-proposed roads as
described in Section 3.10.
(1) Impacts which are significant and not mitigable to below a level of significance with the project as
proposed are designated by..
1.22
I . ;;:; g'
...
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
II
.
II
.
.
.
I
.
.
.
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
-
Table 1-2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Issue
Impact
Air Quality
Mitigation(I)
The entire Rancho San Miguel
project area is not consistent
with 1982 SIP air quality attain-
ment regulations since the
majority of the area was
designated undeveloped by the
SANDAG Series V growth
forecast, the basis for the SIP.
However, the updated SIP
planned for release in 1992 will
include the proposed project.
The project would have
cumulative and significant
impacts on the region's air
quality strategy to meet existing
federal and state standards.
Project emissions of NOx, reac-
tive organic gases (ROG), and
PM 10 from vehicular and
stationary sources will add to
existing violations of state and
federal ozone standards.
Because San Diego currently
violates air quality standards for
several pollutants, any addi-
tional emissions will contribute
to San Diego's inability to meet
stated standards. Therefore,
these air quality impacts are
considered to be cumulative and
significant.
**
Based on 1982 SIP regulations,
the project would increase air
pollution in the region, and
therefore, hinder strategies to meet
air quality standards. The impacts
are considered to be only partially
mitigable by the measures outlined
below and detailed in Section 3.11
Air Quality, and remain
significant.
**
The following mitigation meas-
ures will only partially reduce air
quality impacts. Design fIreplaces
or other wood burning appliances,
and natural gas burning appliances
such as water heaters and
furnaces, to adhere to the
standards set by the county, state,
and EPA. Use solar water-
heating technology to the greatest
extent possible in all residential
units, with backup 10w-NOx
water heaters. Install low NOx
commercial-size water heaters in
larger onsite facilities to be used in
conjunction with solar water-
(I) Impacts which are significant and not mitigable to below a level of significance with the project as
~ are designated by **
1-23
/- c? ,r
---'-'___"_"__"'_~'_"m,~,'~ _
-
~ ~.. .~.-~~.,.
Table 1-2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
17
.
,
.
I
Issue
Impact
Mitigation(1)
Air Quality
(Continued)
Short-tenn pollutant emissions
will occur during the construc-
tion phase of the project. The
air quality impacts are consid-
ered to be significant short-tenn
impacts.
heating technology. Outfit gas-
fired furnaces with NOx reducing
heat transfer modules. Incorpo-
rate low natural hydrocarbon
(NHC) drought-tolerant plant
species into the landscape design.
To reduce vehicular emissions the
following measures shall be
implemented: a ride sharing pro-
gram within the development,
increased bus service wi th funds
provided by the developer as
subsidy, inclusion of bike paths
along roads, and bike lockers at
bus stops. Due to uncertainties
regarding the effectiveness of the
above mitigation measures,
pollutant emission impacts are
considered to be only partially
mitigable and remain significant.
The following measures shall be
incorporated into the project plan
to reduce significant short-term
impacts to below a level of
significance. Use heavy-duty
construction equipment with
modified systems for emissions
control. Landscape, hydroseed,
or develop disturbed areas as
soon as possible. Cover trucks
hauling fill material. Enforce a
20-mile-per-hour speed limit on
unpaved surfaces. Water graded
areas to control dust unless
drought conditions prevail.
(1) Impacts which are significant and not mitigable 10 below a level of significance with the project as
proposed are designaIed by..
1-24
/- .50
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
II
,
--
.
II
.
.-
.
.
.
.
.
.
I
.
~
I
i
Table 1-2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Issue
Impact
Noise
Mirigarion(l)
Community Social
Factors
Fiscal Analysis
Public Services
and Utilities
Noise levels in many areas of
the development would exceed
the 65 dBA Ldn standard. The
impacts are significant
Increases in housing stock,
population, limited employment
opponunities, and a pattern of
predominantly residential
growth due to development of
the project are anticipated under
SANDAG Series VII growth
forecasts. Therefore, impacts
are not significant.
The project's cumulative oper-
ating revenues are projected to
exceed cumulative operating
costs, resulting in a positive
fiscal impact to the City of
Chula Vista.
The location of water facilities
required to serve the project has
not been detennined, therefore,
the impacts are unknown.
Placing noise walls or wall/berrn
combinations on the top of slopes
adjacent to major roadways, as
indicated on Figure 3.12-4, will
reduce impacts to below
significance. However some of
the waIls must be 8 to IO feet
high to reduce exterior noise at
homes to appropriate levels (e.g.
along SR 125 and H Street), and
waIls over 6 feet high are not
acceptable to the City. Therefore,
only a waIllberm combination
would be acceptable in these
areas.
No mirigation is required.
No mirigation is required.
Prior to approval of the SPA Plan
the applicant shall provide a Water
Master Plan to be approved by the
City. The impacts of the water
facilities shall then be evaluated at
the SPA level
(I) Impacts which ace significant and not mitigable to below a level of significance with the project as
JXUposed are designated by..
1-25
/ - 3/
--4
I
,
1
,
1
!
,
1
I
Table 1-2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Impact
Issue
Mitigation(l)
Significant impacts would be
reduced to below significance by
implementation of the following
water conservation measures.
The applicant shall prepare a
Water Conservation Plan for City
approval, and include strategies
such as the use of reclaimed water
where feasible, of drought
tolerant vegetation in areas to be
landscaped, of water conserving
irrigation systems, and the
installation of low-flush toilets
and low-flow showers and
faucets.
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. This is a
significant impact.
Public Services
and Utilities
(Continued)
Adequacy of sewer infrastruc-
ture to serve the project is
unknown at this time.
Prior to approval of the SPA Plan
the applicant shall provide a
Wastewater Master Plan subject to
review and approval by the city
engineering department. The
impacts of the sewer system shall
then be evaluated at the SPA
level.
The project would require
approximately II percent of the
City's unused capacity in the
METRO sewage treatment
system. This is not a significant
impact.
No mitigation is required.
(1) Impacts which are significant and not mitigable to below a level of significance with the project as
"'~ are designated by..
/-362
1-26
~
I
I
I
I
,
t
I
..-
Table 1-2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Issue
Impact
Mitigation(l)
Public Services
and Utilities
(Continued)
The project would require the
addition of three new officers
and five additional support staff
to the police force. This is a
significant 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, slowdown to access
gated communities, and steep
roads. In addition, fire pro-
tection for the proposed con-
ference and interpretive centers
cannot be determined without
more detailed information on
these facilities. The impacts are
significant.
The project applicant shall be
responsible for fronting the
necessary funds to enable the City
to purchase the requisite
equipment for the new officers
and support staff. If required to
fmance this equipment, the project
applicant will be entitled to a
credit against all or a portion of
the Public Facilities Development
Impact Fee for Police.
The applicant shall provide a
second access road for the
northern portion of the project.
The applicant shall install fire
sprinklers in all buildings and
residences in the northern portion
of the site. To access the gated
communities the applicant shall
install a light activated control
system in cooperation with the
fire department. These measures
would reduce impacts to below
significance. Fire protection for
the proposed conference and
interpretive centers shall be
determined and evaluated at the
SPA level.
(I) Impacts which are significant and not miugable to below a level of significance with the project as
proposed are designa/ed by..
1-27
/~ :2,3
J
T~iJle 1-2 (Continued)
--
Issue
Impact
Mitigation(l)
I
t
!
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
!
Public Services
and Utilities
(Continued)
Impacts related to placing
homes in close proximity to
large areas of natural vegetation
are unknown pending submittal
of a brush management plan.
f
i:
,
,
,
!
'':
Emergency Medical Service
(EMS) response times would be
greater than City standards in
the northern ponion of the site.
The impacts are significant.
,
!
I
j
I
i
i
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
to be significant.
I
!
I
I
I
I
!
t
The number of middle and
junior high school students
generated by the project can be
accommodated by existing
facilities, therefore, no impacts
are identified.
A brush management shall be
submitted prior to approval of the
SPA plan. Impacts of the brush
management plan shall be
evaluated at this SPA level.
The applicant shall provide a
second north entry road that
enables EMS vehicles to reach the
northern portion of the site within
acceptable response times. This
measure would reduce impacts to
below significance.
The applicant shall provide the
funding mechanism for the
proposed elementary school using
options described in Section 3.15.
Prior to SPA approval the appli-
cant shall provide documentation
that adequate school facilities and
associated financing will be
provided. These measures will
reduce impacts to below sig-
nificance.
No mitigation is required.
if
I
(1) Impacts which are significant and nol mitigable to below a level of significance with the projecl as
proposed are designared by"
1-28
/ - 3 L/
.
Table 1-2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Issue
Mitigation(l)
Impact
Public Services
and Utilities
(Continued)
.
.
.
.
.
,
,
.
I
I
I
I
~
,
The project applicant shall provide
documentation to the City and
SUHSD that adequate school
facilities and associated financing
will be provided prior to approval
of the SPA plan. These measures
will reduce impacts to below
significance.
The project could bring 318
additional high school students
to the district. Existing high
schools in the vicinity are func-
tioning at or above maximum
capacity. An agreement has
been reached with Baldwin
developers for a new high
school to be located within the
Otay Ranch development,
however, funding for this
facility has not b.:en determined.
Therefore, the impacts from the
project are considered to be
significant.
The project would require the No mitigation is required.
extension of delivery lines into
the project site to accommodate
the increased demand for
energy. SDG&E is committed
to providing energy to the
project site, and would supply
the needed extensions. There-
fore, impacts are not significant.
The project would generate No mitigation is required.
43,418 pounds of solid waste
per day. The Otay Landfill will
accommodate disposal of solid
waste in the area until capacity
is reached. Currently, the
county is evaluating landfill
sites to accommodate future
refuse. The impacts of the
project are not considered to be
significant.
(I) Impacts which are significant and not mitigable to below a level of significance with the project as
proposed are designaled by..
1-29
1-35
-
f
~
',;;
i
f
,
~
,
I
I
~ -"' --,...,_..,~~,._,-.~ iN '~.
'""',_."" < " <<,-<~.<-~-
<.::""......
<-
I
I
I
~
.
Table 1-2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Issue
Impact Mitigation(1)
Parks, Recreation,
and Open Space
The project proposes a 20.5 No mitigation is required.
acre community park, which
would satisfy city threshold
standards requiring 3 acres of
parkland per 1,000 residents.
The project proposes an
integrated hiking and equestrian
trail system that connects to the
County's regional system. The
trail 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 is not
acceptable to the City's Parks
and Recreation Department.
This is a significant impact.
The location of staging areas for
the proposed trail system have
not been finalized. and the
impacts are unknown.
The biological impacts of the
proposed trail system can be
mitigated to below significance
upon implementation of the
mitigation measures described in
Section 3.16.
I
I
1
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
.
.
The applicant must provide a
revised site plan that identifies a
new trail layout. with no trails in
transmission easements, as part of
the SPA plan. The trail system
layout and site specific designs
shall be prepared in coordination
with the City's Parks and
Recreation Department and the
Environmental Coordinator.
Impacts of revised portions of the
trails must be evaluated at the
SPA level.
The location of the staging areas
shall be determined and the
impacts evaluated at the SPA
level.
(I) Impacts which are significant and not mitigable to below a level of significance with the project as
P'IJPOSed are designated by ..
1.30
/- '3 ~
Table 1-2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Issue
Impact
Mitigation(l)
Parks, Recreation,
and Open Space
(Continued)
Approximately 64 percent of the
site is designated as open space.
No significant impacts were
identified for this acreage.
However, about 50 acres of
land currently designated as
open space would be developed
in the southern portion. This is
a significant impact.
..
.
.
.
II
.
II
,.
No mitigation is required for areas
designated to be open space.
Approval of an amendment to the
General Plan Land Use Element
would mitigate the impact of
developing 50 acres of land
currently designated as open
space. This mitigation would
have a spin-off impact of
eliminating an important buffer
between the proposed
development and future SDG&E
facilities.
(1) Impacts which are significant and not mitigable to below a level of significance with the project as
...~ are designaled by..
1.31
j- 37
~ ~ f?.
~~~~
--..;~.......~
~~~......
--~-
CllY OF
CHULA VISTA
PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
LAN D seA PER E V I E W SHE E T:
Dear Applicant:
Date:
. ..., .\.,. 1!12..... . .
.. ~..,. .t~-.;:)......
Project Name:
.. :~':'~ii...;.,;:: ~~t: :';'I'~': '.;.,'::::: .~... ~: :~~:rL:::::::.
. . . F """"""'rn-' . . ....,..,.. . .1:'1\ . . . . . '-i' . 'r-r 1--' . . . . . . ,
. ... .. ....................... . .-.. -=:;',; '~II.o;':":'f'"""""'.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~~.. ~.~.;.......
This project has been reviewed for compliance with the City :>f Chula Vista Parks and Recreation Department landscape standards and
requirements. The following comments were generated during a review of the plan(s) for the above referenced project. The ttems
identified below are general descriptions of the specific comments that are on the red-lined pions that are being returned for corrections
Please return the following when resubmitting Original red-lined plans. revised plans and the review sheet, Plan checks wi!! be scheduled
according to submittal date
Comments
:~:
. ~. Ii ._-'2.. .. .. ~.. -_- . : "'IS' ;':'~~'S'I>'::~: ~-;:: :~:,.;.::~: ~":"\. ....:::::
. '~ '. \ ~ . . ~. ~ . I'~ . .. ~~ ~. .~ . . ~~\~. . .~. . ~ . .t~. . . . .
.... .... ........... ........ .. .. ....... .............
. . ~~h/j)~ . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
: ::T':"~...,......::: .....::"?b::: :I..~:::~:: ~T': :\'~.;I(~:
ri~';".~"";: :_:'i: :~["":.: :I;j;;~::: :~:: :':';'~7::::::::::::::::
" .\~.~. .~.. .i.~... .-:'fit"~" .-:....:.. .\I'~ ... ..................
:SE:~.
... .
..~.....\O~.
.. ~~~...
..... .......................................
.. ... .... .............. ...........,.....,...........
.-.:::~:.:.:..:.::...::: :AiJ(?::..::.:.... 'Co::: :C"~. if:)~::"'--:::::::::
.~. .~........ .~.. G.{W1t1.... .~~.. .u...~.........
.. .,......... . ................................................
JrJQ~c...to-~ : : :.j:wtJ'r. : : :c:f. : : :Th~s~: : : fl~~: : :'T~I~~;: :....: : : : : : : :
. , ,. ,. ,. .. .. ..,..........................................
--. :\~:: :PO:' ~ty. :~:~?::.:..::.:::.:.:::.::.:..:.::::::..::
.. ,. ,.. ...................................,......
_ .\\j1~.: :~~(t.;)~: .~~:. .~~~w.:;:: :~~~. :~:. .~..:::::
. . : : : ~~ :\A:~' ~ : : .;:;: . :~:-1:'~:: iL.~: :..:.~ :..:..: : :~::::: :: :: :: ::::: : :::
::::: ~1\~7\~UCl~::~: :1: ::vt::::~::: :'~~~: ::::::::::::::::::::::
. . . .. :::::::::::::: :'S~GNI(-tt;:~Y.'>-e.: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
,..... ... ,. ,. .. ..,...........................................,..
,.. ,. '" ,.,.. ,. ................................................,..
:-:: : . ~'>f: : P",,~> : .pa;~1(f~~ : ~: .fi.~\ii== : . :~ ;~~~ I. ~: : . : : : :
.:: \\J~: .l~: :1?'1~:': :~~: ;~:::::::::::::.::::::::::::::..::.:.
:: :p~~: :\1:: :~~: .~: .~4..~~;.:.::.:.::::::.:::.::::::::::.
.... .
. .. ... ........ ........ ......... ..................
. ... ...........................................
.. ......... ..................................
............................................ .
1-30
\
276 FOURTH AVE/CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA ~10/(619) 691-5071
Landscape Review Sheet
Poge 2 ""'1.
Do1e "Z . \ t. " .
Comments
.p~~ .I~ ~ ';: · . · . OF. . .l';-i · /~\~.~.~..;.... · .1':>\J~..r-~ · .,:t; ~ rl:. .-n....,
. .... .. ... .. .. . .. . . .. .. .. .. .. ....... .~.r J... ~~.. .. . .. .'.~. J~~.,. lNl
: : : : : : : : . : : : . : : : : : . ~~(:5Y . ~\~i. : : ~~;~~: ;~I~: : ~~~~:.: :~~~
.... ... . .. . .. .. .. ... .. .. ...............................................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. ............ ..........................................
: · : : : : : : · : · : · : : · : · : \~I~:-:-: : : :~~: ouitsTiQ:j.;..:.,: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :.
...................... ,"""'""",........."7"\....... .~.........................
....... .. ..... .. .. . ....................................................
..... .. ..
.. .. ..... .. .. .. .. ............. ...............................
: \). :I~: ~C;:: :~\~:: :~~~I~' .~t:' :I~~)~~': .~~~:
:.::. ~'\f. .~CI.'. :~\'4.~'. .Il~... r)\~~~.. .~i.... (j~~.~...
. . . . . . . . . . . . .( . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
· : · : : : : : : ~O: : ~~: '\ : fi.\~ : : :..; :, · : :....a.i...t;.: : ~I~A..;,: ~~: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : . : : :
. . . . . . . . . \~ ~~~.. ~t. .. .~~ . . . \~. . . . ., I ~~~ . t. . . . . . . . . . , . , . . , . . . . ,
. . . . . . . . . , . . .. . . . . . ,. ,. ,. . . .. ,. .,. ... ,. '" ,..........,.. ,.... ..,. ,... ,.
.. . ,. ,. , . . . . . . . . . " . , . , .. ,. " ". ...., . ,. .. ..." ,. " '. .. ...., ....... ... .,..
: : . : : : : :'$\~y~S: : :""~~: : .,.: : : \..J$~1o.:~.;?/: : ~~: :41~ : : : : : : : .
. .. . . . . . .. . " , . , . . . . ,. ,. " .. .. . .. "'.. . .. .....,. .. .......' ,...., ,'....,
........ :~\~.:~: .~~-rl~~ ..::::::::::.:.::..:::...:::.:..:.
. . . . . . . . .
. .. " .
.. .. . .. ". ,. ., .. . . .. ..,.. . . ,.. ."...
, .. . . . . . . . . . , . , . . . . . .. .. . . , . . ... .. ". " ". .. .. . . " " .. .. ..., " . ....,
) .........,",..........."......,...........
.. ?: ...... . ... . . .\~\\~. : : : : ~: .~~ . .11" .. ..... ~.. .. .. ................2..
... .~'2:\~: :,~::: .~I(;JS:: :'-c. .~~: :~:OF.:.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ,. ,.. ... .. ,.... '" .. .. .. ............ ......
...................................... ~
.::.:::: :\\J~: :\~ :~.::: ~ :.: :~l-:n~:. :Of:~: :~:I..o .
.. . . . . . . . . . . . .. ......,..............,..,..........................."
. . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . ,. . , . . . ,
.. ,. ,.. ..... ... .. ,.... .. .. ,. .. .. .. .. ..........,
. . . .. .. ,. . .. .. ,.. ,.... ... " .. ,. .. .. .. .. .. ... ........
....~.:: \I,J;~ .~!~. :r~o~~~:J:. ~~:. :~~~--^~::
. . . . , . . . . . . , . . . , . . . . . ,. ,. ,. ,.. .. ,.. .. ,.. ......... .. " .. ........ ... .....
.....:::. .~.. :~-6~~t-!m~~... :~. :P>~:.~: :<Q,:~~'t~
............................ ... ..... ... .......... ........ ...... .......~
...::::.. .~#.. :~~C)~.. .~.:' .~tv~.: ~~~~~:: ~~~I~~.
. , . . . . . ,.
. . . . .
, . .. ,.. .......... -............... .......... .......
. . . .. .
.. .. .. .... ..... ... .......... .... .............. .......
......... .~::. ~Jt1&TIQ~.. .~~:. .~~.: :~:. i\~. :~:
. . . . . , . . . . . . . . .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .................... .... ..................
. . . . . . . · : :~: : : · . . . .~~ · : · ~i;; : : .~ . . : : : :~~f:b: : .1', ~ : . . . . . ~: : : : :
......... .~............. .r:-I~.............. .11.... P9. ./..
. .
..... . . . . .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. ............. ... ...... .....................
. . . . . . . . . . .~.~. . . . . . . . . '~i Y'~' . L: . . . . . . . . . . . . . .- . '_' .'\. . ......
: :.N ..:::: pt': : : : : . . . .-.-~: : : ~~: : : ~: : : :D\~~:C!t'-I : :~~ : :
. .. .. . . , . .. . . . . . . . .. .. .. ... ............. ............... .............
. . . . . . . . f'!' '..C::..:..l~iI~"V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . ~~~~~ ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
...................~...........................
::::.:::. :\~:: :~ic;:: :~::: :~~.~.::.:.:::::::::::::.:.:::.::::..
/- 37
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
landscape Review Sheet
Page 3
Date
Comments
1- L-/C5
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
CTV
California Tran5pOl'tRtkln
Vent.res Into
1230 C....... Str..,
Suite 640
5... DIego, CaIIomia 92101
619-338-8385
FAX 619-338-8123
Incorporated by
Parsons Brind""holf
Oev......ent Group, InL
Fluor Daniel
Oevelopmeol Corp.
T...sroote
PnodenflaI.-......
Capital F......
February 12, 1993
Ms. Barbara Reid
Planning Department
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 92010
l/.-iK
Dear Ms. Reid:
, ,
'-
,I
,I'
.--!I'
-1-'
"'"
We have the fOllowing comments on the Rancho San Miguel General Development Plan,
Volume 3: Draft Supplement to Environmental Impact Report EIR-90-02.
We originally proposed an interchange at San Miquel Ranch Road if a Proctor Valley
alignment is retained. However, the SR 125 South environmental document is in the
preliminary stages and, at this time, seven alignments are being considered in the
vicinity of the Rancho San Miguel Development. SR 125 South conceptual plans
indicate an interchange at San Miquel Ranch Road if the Horseshoe Bend or either
Proctor Valley alternatives are selected for route adoption by CaJtrans. Final interchange
locations will be determined in future Rancho San Miguel and SR 125 South
environmental stages, if interchanges are warranted. CaJtrans anticipates circulating the
SR 125 South Draft Alternatives Report by the end of June 1993 and the SR 125
Technical Studies beginning in May through October 1993, for local agency review.
As currently planned, the Rancho San Miguel Development initial stages may precede
the SR 125 South route adoption and if the SR 125 South environmental process does
not result in the Proctor Valley West alignment being adopted, community disruption
and a waste of resources could result. Development of Rancho San Miguel should be
phased so SR 125 South route adoption is not constrained, the Rancho San Miguel
Community is best served by SR 125 South and the appropriate interchanges, and
noise and other impacts are minimized.
We appreciate the City of Chula Vista's continued participation in the SR 125 South
EIR/EIS process, led by Caltrans, and believe your involvement will ensure the above
objectives are met.
Sincerely,
CAUFORNIA TRANSPORTATION VENTURES
~
Robert Garin
Executive Vice President
cc: Caltrans G. Gray
C. Stoll
T. Vasquez
PB/CTV G. Harvilla
A. Koby
/ _ 2;'/
\
\
STATE Of CALIFORNIA-BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY
r'
PETe WILSON, Go....mor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
. ,
@
i
"
I"
February 10, 1993
11-SD-125
PM 0.0-1.1.2
11115-926475
Ms. Barbara Reid
City of Chula Vista Planning Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
Dear Ms. Reid:
The following are comments to the Rancho San Miguel General
Development Plan Draft Supplement to Environmental Impact Report
(SCH 90010155). These comments are in addition to those
submitted by our agency through the State Clearinghouse.
The discussion of a proposed interchange with Route 125 on
Page 3.10-20 is confusing. It appears that some of the
references to San Miguel Ranch Road should be San Miguel Road.
If the discussion is suggesting that current plans provide for an
interchange at San Miquel Road, this is not accurate. Although a
preliminary design for an interchange at San Miguel Road was
originally developed, preliminary interchange designs at the
proposed location of San Miguel Ranch Road for each alternative
alignment under consideration have also been produced for the
current Route 125 EIR/EIS studies. These are only conceptual
plans to show that an interchange can be accommodated. The issue
of interchange location, if any, has not been decided. If the
City determines that there is a need for an interchange as a
result of future development, the details of design and location
would be subject to coordination and review at future stages of
the environmental approval process for both the Rancho San Miguel
development and the Route 125 project.
We are also concerned with the suggestion that only one
alternative alignment for Route 125 will remain viable if the
construction of the Rancho San Miguel development precedes route
adoption. upon review of the project Phasing Plan (Figure 2-4),
it appears that several of the proposed Route 125 alignments
currently under study avoid the area shown as "Phase I." with
route adoption expected by mid-summer of 1995, it seems possible
that alignments other than "Proctor Valley West" could be
implemented without displacing any improvements that may be
constructed prior to alignment selection.
/- 7/!X
Ms. Barbara Reid
February 10, 1993
Page 2
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this document
and we look forward to continued coordination of all efforts to
provide for the transportation needs of this area. If you have
any questions, please call Charles "Muggs" stoll, Project
Manager, at (619) 338-8385.
Sincerely,
JESUS M. GARCIA
Distri~.: Di~.
By Cie -' j- ~1Ii~ / r-
CHARLES "MUGGS" STOLL
Project Manager
Privatization
CMS:
/~.y3
, T
FE,B-25-1'3'33 13: 07 FROM DFG TI MBER HARVEST
TO
~t61'3G'='lo:.l{1
STATE 01 ("AIIH1RNIA-THE RESOURC~S AGENCY
It!'Tt: WILSON. ao....n-.
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
1416 NINTH STREET
P.O, BOX 94<1209
SACRAMENTO. CA 9.2.4.2090
-\lece,..;c.d G}..'-\'
re'tY'~ \~~3
.
(916) 653-4875
February 1, 1993
Mr. Bob Leiter, Director
Chula vista Planning Department
city of Chula vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 91910
Dear Mr. Leiter:
Comments on the Revised Second Addendum to the
Rancho San Miguel General Development Plan (GDP)
Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
The following are Department comments on the second addendum
sent December 15, 1992. Most of our concerns have been discussed
previously but have not been adequately addressed in this
addendum to the Final EIR for Rancho San Miguel. We have just
received the EIR which we understand is an expansion of the
second addendum. Once we have completed our review of the
supplement EIR, we will provide supplemental comments to those in
this letter if necessary.
1.1.2 Description of Mitigation Concept Plan
7.(p.3) otay Tarplant PreserVe
This descriptive paragraph should include a map delineating
the otay Tarplant Preserve. Neither the Errata to the Final ErR
nor this addandum currently delineate the preserve. A map
clearly delineating the proposed reserve, as well as the
management details provided in 2.2.3 of this addendum, will be
necessary docum.ntation to support a California Endangered
species Act (CESA) 2081 application.
9.(p.3) Open Spac& BOUr.~Ary Adjustment
Since this area is adjacent to natural open space being
preeerved for qnatoatchers and cactus wrens, the delineation,
acreage, and proposed uses associated with the adjustment to
Planning Area 15 should be defined. As in the above comment, no
figure depicts this new adjustm~nt_ Fiqure 3.1-6 in the Final
EIR should be revised to reflect the changes made.
I - '7""/
F.
FEB-25-1'333 13:08 FROM DFG TIMBER HARVEST
TO
9161'3691~1"'1
Mr. Bob Leiter
February 2, 1993
page Two
10.(p.3) Open-space Buffer
As in 9. above, Planning Area 14 should be delineated,
acreage noted and uses defined.
l2.(p.3) planning Area 14 Boundary Adjustment
As in the above COMments, please delineate, note acreage,
and define uses in the area adjusted. Please indicate tne
difference, if there is one, between this boundary adjustment and
the open-spaCe buffer referred to in 10. above.
1.2.12)(p.7) Calculation of Mid-point and Density Transfer
Although the Department has no specific expertise in
nonbioloqical issues pertaining to calculation of densities for
particular land uses, we have learned the benefits that
innovative land use planning can have on natural resources.
Clustering residential units and transferring density rights are
examples of planning that will generally increase the likelihood
of species to persistence in areas where urbanization is rapidly
modifying their habitats. Because the Department is responsible
for the protection of wildlife resources, we are frequently
involved in the examining the flexibilities of land use planning
and have worked with jurisdictions and landowners to try to
~coommodate the needs of both while providing for the needs of
wildlife.
statements made on p.7 of the second addendum that no
discussions were held regarding the issue of density transfer
from the nortn to the south parcel during the EIR process for the
Rancho San Miguel Projeot are not accurate. The idea of
transferring density from the north to the south in exchange for
open space on the north was discussed at various meetings and
oorrcspondQnce among the city, the project applicant, the U. S.
Fish and wildlife Service (USFWS) and the Department. Our
understanding is that there was agreement by the parties that the
iaouc should be digcussed further. other mitigation options.
such as mitigation banking, which avoided development on the
north, were also identified as needing further consideration and
discussion.
We will continue to work with the city and the applicant to
develop a flexible land uge and conservation plan for the Rancho
San Miguel project site. We recommend the city clarify its
position on the subject of density transfers from the north to
the south parcel in exchange for additional na~ura1 open space on
the north.
/- "7-5
.'
"....-
FEB-25-1993 13:08 FROM DFG TU'IBER HARUEST
TO
'316196915171
p.<14
....,
,
Mr. Bob Leiter
February 2, 1993
Page Three
The city of Chula vista is presently participating in the
Natural Communities Conservation Program (NCCP) which focusses on
regional or area-wide protection and perpetuation of natural
diversity will allow compatible and appropriate development and
economic growth. During the planning period it is important that
local agencies not approve projects that would torclose options
and, thereby, prelude development of a viable NCCP. Providing
for retention of large, contiguous blocks of open space for
wildlife usage while planning feasible development is a goal of
the NCCP Program. Through the HCCP and related ongoing multi-
species conservation efforts in the project vicinity, critical
protection areas will be identified. The final NCCP will
identify the means for successful implementation. The Rancho San
Miguel pro;ect site, (especially the northern parcel) is as a key
area of high biodiversity supporting endangered and threatened
species and a core popUlation of California gnatcatchers, which
may be critical to preserve the regional integrity of the coastal
sage scrub natural community as well as to provide essential
connectivity for other important habitats. We believe that
decisions for the north parcel should await the development of an
NCCP. In the interim we remain committed to working with the
city and applicant to assure the best resolution of our concerns.
1.2.1 3) b) Sensitive Response to the Physical Characteristics of
the site
(2a) (p.S) Please delineate, note the acreage, and define the
land uses that will occur on the additional 25 acres of open
spacQ at Horseshoe Bend as described by this modification.
(2c)(p.9) Please delineate the area to be dedicated as open
spacQ and define the dedication process.
(5) (1)(p.10) This is an example of "residential clustering" as
statod in the addendum "to achievQ a more sensitive response to
the site". The Department applauds the City for being flexible
in this regard and encumbering an additional 10 acres into an
otay tarplant prQserve. We assume that this acreaqe has been
accounted for in our first comment. (see above 1.1.2-7.)
(5) (3)(p.ll) Please define and delineate the grPQnbelt system
and common green of 31 acres if modified from the concept in the
EIR. The Department wishes to be involved in the planning for
trails, staging areas, atc. at the Specific Planning Area (SPA)
level to make certain any concerns we have over direct or
indirect impacts can be resolved at an early stage.
/-,:;'0
~
F!'B-2S-1993 13:09 FRCI1 rFG TIMBER HARVEST
TO
916196915171 P.05
Mr. Bob Leiter
February :2, 1993
Page Four
1.2.4 Biological Resources
I. Southern Mitigation Plan
1.2.6(p.15) The Department remains concerned that impacts to
approximately 10,000 individuals of Palmers Grappling HOOk are
left unmitigated. A mitigation plan should be developed for this
sensitive plant species.
2.1.1(p.16) Figure 1 was not attached to the 2nd addendum as
indicated in the text. Please forward the current figure to the
Department for our review of the concept sage scrUb preservation
araas. Based on the table on p. 16, 458 acres have been
identified as preserve areas. This includes a total of 146 acres
of open space on the south and 312 acres of open space on the
north. Please define the procedures and timelines for the
dedication of such preserves dedicated. Please define the
management concept as well.
2.1.2(p.16) As we have previously stated, the mitigation for
wetlands is not yet to the level of detail needed to warrant
approval or issuance of a 1600 Agreement for the impacts. We
understand th,e full detail will be developed for the SPA level
review. co~ents, made previously, regarding the need for detail
of existing resources and compatibility with the proposed
gnhancem~nt and wetland creation at the preservation plots are
still relevant.
This comment holds true also for the California adolphia,
San Diego marsh elder, and southwestern spiny rush mitigation
plans (2.2.l~ 2.2.4 and 2.2.5).
2.2.2(p.l8) The Department reco~ends further analysis of the
san Diego barrel cactus impacts. Reported numbers of this
spooies to be impacted and preserved have fluctuated so in the
last 10 months that determination of exact impact has remained
difficult. In correspondence to the city, dated October 27, 1992
from the USFWS, states only 51 p@rcent will be preserved, not the
60 percent indicated in this 2nd addendum. Please clarify.
8. (p.22) The discussion of the need for 2081 (Authorization
Permit to Take) should be rephrased to accurately portray the
Department's authority under the California Endangered Species
Act for those speoies, suoh as the otay tarplant, listed as
endangered. Suggested wording follows: A Section 2081,
Authorization to Take, shall be obtained from the Department by
the developer for listed spec i.. within the project area.
/ - L/7
..
.~
FEB-25-1993 13:10 FROM DFG TIMBER HARVEST
TO
~t
,
Mr. Bob Lei teJ'
February 2, 1993
Page Five
The applicant aust demonstrate that the propdsal for management
and preservation of the species on the site outweigh the loss
associated with the take of the species.
The Department believes that the impacts of the project as
proposed for otay tarplant remain si9ni~icant and unmitigated.
We continue to recommend project redesign to avoid or minimize
project impacts to this State endangered species.
3.(p.25) Residual significant Effects
one additional measure that should be included in tnis
section for further specificity at the SPA Plan Level is
refinement of the preservation plots N1 - N4 and Sl - S4.
Description Qf existing resources and details regarding
enhanceaent ~nd management should be included. The Department
has previously discussed this with the city; however, including
it in this section would be consistent with other comments
previously submitted and included in this 2nd addendum.
II. Northernxitigation Plan
The Department concurs with the statement made on page 28
that the city acknowledges the Department may not find the
criteria for the northern parcel mitigation plan acceptable at
tha SPA Plan I,evel of review. The criteria as currently proposed
are insufficient to offset the impacts. Because there has been
no redesigned project on the north to analyze at the GDP level,
and no mitiqation plan h~R completed for the northern parcel, the
Department believes that the proposed impacts to the north remain
significant and unmitigated at this GDP level of review. Because
of the biological importanc~ of this site, we reiterate that any
planning decisions should be made in the context of an approved
NCCP or equivalent regional conservation plan. We will continue
to work with tho developer, the City of Chula Vista, the USFWS.
and those involved in the south county NCCP and city of San
Diego's Multi-Species Conservation Planninq Proqramto ensure
adequ~te open-space pr..e~es for this reqion.
In conclusion we emphasize that the north parcel is
biologically a very iaportant area and land use decisions for
this site should be considered in light of a final approved NCCP.
/- f/ cr
.~...^"'-~
.....,,:2i~
FiOB-25-1 '393 13: 11 FROM DFG TIMBER HARVEST
TO
.- ---~
915196915171 p.0?
Mr. Bo):) Leiter
February 2, 1993
Page six
,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this revised
2nd addendum. The Department remains willing to work with the
city and project proponent on this project. please Keep us up to
date.
Sincerely,
John L. Turner, Chief
Environmental Services Division
cc: Mr. David Nairne
San Miguel Partners
San Diego, california
Ms. Nancy Gilbert
u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service
Carlsbad, california
Mr. CUrt Taucher
Environmental Services
Long Beach, California
Ms. Barbara Reid
city of Chula Vista Planning Department
Chula vista, California
bc: Ms. Terri stewart, R-5 NCCP
Mr. Randy Botta, R-5 WLM
Mr. Jim Dice, R-5 Natural Heritage
Mr. Ken :Berg, Endangered Plant Program
/._ L/j?
,~
_J;.