HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1993/02/25 (2)
RE: Proposed Rancho San Miguel
General Development Plan
February 26, 1993
CANDIDATE FINDINGS OF FACT
I. INTRODUCTION
These findings relate to the Final Program Environmental Impact Report ("EIR
90-02") for the proposed Rancho San Miguel General Development Plan ("GDP" or
"project"). Final EIR 90-02 is comprised of: (a) Draft EIR 90-02, including the comments
and responses thereto; (b) technjcal appendices for EIR 90-02; and (c) Draft Supplement
to EIR 90-02, including the comments and responses thereto. At this time, the discretjonary
actions relating to the proposed project include:
. General Development Plan (GDP) approval; and
. Planned Community (PC) pre-zoning approval.
Subsequent discretionary approvals for the proposed project include, among others,
annexation to the City of Chula Vista, annexation to the South Bay Irrigation District,
detachment from the Otay Water District, annexation to the Sweetwater Authority, a SPA
Plan, a development agreement and tentative subdivision map(s).
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Rancho San Miguel is a proposed single-family detached residential community
located on approximately 2,590 acres of land (1,852-acre northern portion and 738-acre
southern portion) in the northern portion of the Eastern Territories as defined by the City
of Chula Vista General Plan. The project site is currently situated within the jurisdiction of
the County of San Diego; however, the site is also within the City of Chula Vista's adopted
Sphere of Influence. The project includes a General Development Plan ("GDP") for
residential, commercial and open space uses and a prezone to the Planned Community ("P-
C") District Zone.
The property is bounded generally by Proctor Valley Road on the south and west,
the Otay water treatment facility and San Miguel Mountain on the east and the Sweetwater
River and Sweetwater Reservoir on the north and northwest. The northern and southern
portions of the project site are separated by property owned by San Diego Gas & Electric
("SDG&E"), which contains the San Miguel substation complex. Much of the surrounding
area to the south and west js developed, or developing, with single-family and multi-family
residences, commercial uses and parkland. The area to the north and east is undeveloped,
1
consjstjng of ruggedly steep areas associated with the San Miguel Mountains, lands owned
by the Otay Water Djstrict, and lands owned by the Sweetwater Authority and containing
the Sweetwater Reservoir. The general character of the area to the south and southwest of
the project site is proposed to be low, low-medium and medium density residential,
according to the Chula Vista General Plan. Mother Miguel Mountajn, on the project site,
is designated as open space in the City's General Plan. The project area is connected to the
City's Greenbelt system along Salt Creek, Otay Lakes and Otay River to the south, and
Sweetwater Reservoir and Sweetwater River to the west. State Route ("SR") 125 is
proposed to run generally northwest/southwest through the immedjate project area, although
the final alignment js not yet known. The Rancho San Miguel GDP assumes that the SR
125 alignment will roughly follow along existing Proctor Valley Road. This alignment is
consistent with the Circulation Element of the Chula Vista General Plan.
The project applicant is San Miguel Partners. The City of Chula Vista is the lead
agency with discretionary approval authority over the proposed project.
The original proposed GDP included a total of 1,654 single-family residences and the
following components: a 14-acre commercial center; an 11.2-acre elementary school site;
a 20.5-acre community park; a 7-acre conference center/retreat and inn; a 6-acre interpretive
center; pedestrjan and bicycle trails connecting Rancho San Miguel to the surrounding
community and the Chula Vjsta Greenbelt; and approximately 1,653 acres of permanent
natural open space.
During preparation of both the original proposed GDP and the Draft ElR, analyses
revealed various environmental jmpacts of the project. The analyses came from the Draft
ErR, comments received from City staff regarding the original proposed GDP's consjstency
with the Chula Vista General Plan, and comments received from various persons and
organizations durjng the CEQA public revjew period, rn response, the applicant refined the
project to attempt to reduce or otherwise lessen the identified impacts of the proposed GDP
project. These refinements resulted in preparation of a "Mitigation Concept Plan." The
Mitigation Concept Plan was examined in an Addendum to Draft ErR 90-02.
Public hearings were held before both the Chula Vista Planning Commission and the
Cjty Council in September and October of 1992. As a result of comments and testimony
received at those hearings, City staff and the applicant contjnued to work on proposed
design changes to address unresolved issues with respect to the project. The proposed
project has been further refined to address these unresolved issues. The proposed changes
are now reflected jn the "New Plan," which is the subject of the Supplement to ErR 90-02.
The proposed "New Plan," which is fully described and illustrated in Section 2 of the
Supplement, 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 ErR 90-02 durjng the CEQA public review perjod; (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, ]992; and (d) comments made by
members of both the Planning Commission and City Council at the two public hearings.
2
The differences between the earlier Mitigation Concept Plan and the "New Plan" are
as follows: (a) additional estate-size lots have been added to the southern portion to obtain
a majority of lots withjn the Low Residential designated areas as shown on the Chula Vista
General Plan; (b) the "luxury" or mjdsize lots shown in the Mitigation Concept Plan have
been eliminated; (c) the remaining non-estate lots are designated as "cluster" lots wjth a
minimum lot size of 7,000 square feet; and (d) the overall density of the southern portion
has been reduced by 35 units due to the applicant's decision to not request a densjty transfer
from open space on the northern portion to the southern portion.
The "New Plan" does not alter, affect or change the Rancho San Mjguel GDP as jt
relates to the northern portion of the project. The northern portion remains as it is
proposed in Draft EIR 90-02.
The Supplement to Draft ErR 90-02 was circulated for public and agency review for
a 30-day shortened review period pursuant to CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and the State
Clearinghouse guidelines and criteria. During the public review period, the City received
written comment letters from various persons, organizations and public agencies. On
February 10, 1993, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to obtain addjtional
public comments regarding the Draft Supplement to EIR 90-02. Sjnce that time, City staff
and the environmental consultant have prepared written responses to the comment letters,
and have completed preparation of the final Supplement to ErR 90-02.
III. PROGRAM EIR AND SUPPLEMENT
A program ErR is an "EIR which may be prepared on a series of actions that can be
characterized as one large project" and are related either: (a) geographically; (b) as logjcal
parts in the chain of contemplated actions; (c) in connection with the issuance of rules,
regulations, plans, or other general criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing program;
or (d) as indjvidual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory
authority and havjng generally similar environmental effects which can be mjtigated in similar
ways. (CEQA Gujdelines, 14 Cal.CodeReg. ~15168(a)).
Use of a program ErR can provide the following advantages: (a) provide an occasion
for a more exhaustive consideratjon of effects and alternatives than would be practjcal in an
ErR on an individual action; (b) ensure consideration of cumulative impacts that might be
slighted in a case-by-case analysis; (c) avoid duplicative reconsideration of basic policy
considerations; (d) allow the Lead Agency to consider broad policy alternatives and
program-wide mitigation measures at an early time when the agency has greater flexibility
to deal with basic problems of cumulative impacts; and (e) allow reduction in paperwork.
(CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal.CodeReg. ~15268(b)).
"Use of the program EIR also enables the Lead Agency to characterize the overall
program as the project being approved at that time. following this approach when
individual activities within the program are proposed, the agency would be required to
examine the indjvidual activities to determine whether their effects were fully analyzed in the
program ErR. If the actjvjtjes would have no effects beyond those analyzed in the program
EIR, the agency could assert that the activities are merely part of the program which had
3
been approved earlier, and no further CEQA compliance would be required. This approach
offers many possjbilities for agencjes to reduce their costs of CEQA compliance and still
achieve high levels of environmental protection." (CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal.CodeReg.
djscussjon following ~15168).
Final EIR 90-02 has been determined to be a program EIR by the City of Chula
Vista because the proposed Rancho San Miguel GDP is an initial step in a chain of
contemplated actions and, therefore, qualifies to be analyzed at the program level.
The Lead Agency may choose to prepare a supplement to an EIR, rather than a
subsequent EIR, if: (a) any of the conditjons descrjbed jn CEQA Guidelines ~ 15162 require
the preparation of a subsequent EIR; and (b) only minor additions or changes are necessary
to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situatjon. (CEQA
Guidelines, 14 Cal.CodeReg. ~15163). CEQA Guidelines ~15162 states that where an EIR
has been prepared, no additioal EIR need be prepared unless subsequent changes are
proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the
involvement of new significant environmental impacts not considered in the previous EIR;
substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being
undertaken which will require jmportant revisions in the previous EIR due to the
involvement of new significant environmental impacts not considered in the prevjous EIR;
or new information which was not known and could not have been known at the time the
previous EIR was certified as complete, becomes available, and the new information shows
that: (1) the project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the original
EIR; (2) significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown
in the first EIR; (3) mitjgation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible
would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more of the project's
sjgnificant effects; or (4) mitigation measures or alternatives that were not previously
considered would substantially lessen one or more significant effects on the environment.
The supplement to an EIR need only contain the jnformation necessary to make the
previous EIR adequate for the project, as revised. (CEQA Guidelines, 14 CaJ.CodeReg.
~15163(b)). A supplement js given the same kind of notice and public review as is required
for a draft EIR; however, the supplement may be circulated by itself without recirculating
the previous EIR. (CEQA Gujdelines, 14 Cal.CodeRegs. ~15163(c),(d)). The decision-
making body shall consider the prevjous EIR as revised by the supplement when deciding
whether to approve the project, as revised. (CEQA Guideljnes, 14 Cal.CodeRegs.
~15163(e)).
The proposed New Plan js an alternative which reduces General Plan inconsjstency
issues and for which only minor additions or changes are necessary to make the previous
EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation. Therefore, the Supplement
to EIR 90-02, which was publjcly circulated in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA
Guidelines, is an appropriate document.
4
IV. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
For purposes of CEQA and these findings, the administrative record of the City
Councjl decision on the environmental analysis of this project shall include the following:
. Final Program ElR 90-02, inc1uding all appendices and technical
re ports;
. The applications for a General Development Plan and a Prezone
request for the project, including the Rancho San Miguel General
Development Plan;
. AIl reports, memoranda, maps, letters and other pJanning documents
prepared by planning consultants, the environmental consultant, the
project applicant and the City of Chula Vista, which are before the
decisionmakers as determined by the City Clerk;
. AIl documents submitted by members of the public, and public
agencjes in connection with the Final ElR on the proposed project;
. Minutes and verbatim transcripts of all workshops, public meetings and
public hearings held on the project by the City of Chula Vista (or video
tapes where transcripts are not avaiJabJe or adequate);
. AIl documents referenced in Final ElR 90-02;
. Any documentary or other evidence submitted at workshops, public
meetings and public hearings; and
. Matters of common knowledge to the City of Chula Vista which it
considers, inc1uding but not limited to, the following:
Chula Vjsta General Plan (Update)-201O
County of San Diego General Plan
Re]evant Zoning Code of the City of Chula Vista.
V. TERMINOLOGVrrHE PURPOSE OF FINDINGS UNDER CEQA
Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that, for each significant
environmental effect identified in an ElR, the approving agency must issue a written finding
reaching one or more of three allowable conc1usions. The first is that: "[c]hanges or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final ElR."
(Emphasis added). The second potential finding is that: "[s]uch changes or alterations are
5
within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making
the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be
adopted by such other agency." The third permissible conclusion is that: "[s]pecific
economic, social or other considerations made infeasible the mitigation measures or project
alternatives identified in the final EIR."
Regarding the first of three potential findings, the CEQA Guidelines do not define
the difference between "avoiding" a significant environmental effect and merely "substantially
lessening" such an effect. The meaning of these terms, therefore, must be gleaned from
other contexts in which they are used. Public Resources Code ~21081, on which CEQA
Guideljnes !H5091 is based, uses the term "mitigate" rather than "substantially lessen." The
CEQA Guidelines, therefore, equate "mitigating" with "substantially lessening." Such an
understanding of the statutory term is consistent with Public Resources Code ~21001, which
declares the Legislature's policy of disfavoring the approval of projects with significant
environmental effects where there are feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that could
"avoid or substantially lessen" such significant effects.
For purposes of these findings, the term "avoid" shall refer to the ability of one or
more mitigatjon measures to reduce an otherwise significant effect to a less-tlzan-significalzt
level. In contrast, the term "substantially lessen" shall refer to the ability of such measures
to substantially reduce the severity of a significant effect, blllnotto reduce tlze effect to a level
ofbzsignificance. Although CEQA Guidelines ~15091 requjres only that approving agencies
specify that a particular significant effect is "avoid[ed] or substantially 1essen[ed]," these
findings, for purposes of clarity, will specify whether the effect in question has been fully
avoided (and thus reduced to a level of insignificance) or has been substantially lessened
(and thus remains sjgnjficant).
VI. LEGAL EFFECT OF FINDINGS
To the extent that these findjngs conclude that proposed mitjgatjon measures outljned
in the Final EIR are feasible and have not been modified, superseded or withdrawn, the City
of Chula Vista ("City" or "decisionmakers") hereby binds jtself and any other responsible
parties, including the applicant and its successors in interest, to jmplement those measures.
These findings, jn other words, are not merely informational or hortatory, but constitute a
binding set of obljgations that will come into effect when the City adopts a resolution
approving the proposed project.
The adopted mitjgation measures are express conditions of approval. Other measures
are referenced in the mitigation monitoring program adopted concurrently with these
findings, and will be effectuated through the process of implementing the Rancho San
Miguel GDP.
VII. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
As requjred by Public Resources Code ~21081.6, the City of Chula Vista, in adopting
these findings, also adopts a mitigation monitoring and reporting program as prepared by
the environmental consultant under the direction of the City. The program is designed to
6
ensure that, during project implementation, the applicant and any other responsible parties
comply with the feasible mitjgation measures identified below. The program is described
in the document entitled, "Rancho San Miguel General Development Plan Mitigatjon
Monitoring Program."
VIII. DIRECT SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Final ErR 90-02 identjfied a number of direct signifjcant environmental effects (or
"impacts") that the project will cause, some of which could be fully avoided through the
adoption of feasible mitigatjon measures, while others could not be avoided.
The project will result in the followjng significant irreversible environmental changes:
Land Use, LandformNisual Quality, Biology, ArchaeologylPaleontology, Geology/Soils,
Hydrology, Water Quality, Transportation/Access, Ajr Quality, Noise, and Public Services
and Utilities. These significant environmental changes or impacts are discussed in both the
Draft ErR 90-02, at pages 3-1 through 3.16-8, and the Supplement to Draft EIR, at pages
3.1-1 through 3.16-6.
Certain of the above impacts cannot be substantially lessened or avoided at the
General Development Plan level; but, as described in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations, the City Council has determined that the impacts are acceptable because of
specific overriding benefits. The following sub-sections describe specific impacts, setting
forth either the reasons why they are significant and unavoidable, the mitigation measures
adopted to substantially Jessen or avoid them, or the reasons why proposed mitigatjon
measures are infeasjble due to specific economic, social or other considerations.
A. LAND USE
Significant Effect: Development of the northern portion of the site is potentially
incompatible with the adjacent Sweetwater Reservoir. Contaminants from urban runoff
could degrade the water quaJjty of the reservoir, which stores drinking water supplies.
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guideljnes, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated jnto, the project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in Final EIR 90-02.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are found to be feasible and
are required as conditions of approval. These measures are required at the GDP level and
will be implemented at the SPA plan level. Upon implementation, the following measures
will reduce the signjficant land use jmpact to below a level of significance:
. The project applicant shall submit and obtain approval of stormwater
management plans, including a proposed runoff protection system,
from the Sweetwater Authority. Such plans shall satisfy the Authority's
standards for the preservation of water quality in the Sweetwater
Reservoir prior to approval of a SPA Plan for the northern portion of
7
the project. For specific mitigation concerning this issue, see the
mjtigation measures included jn sub-section G of these findings.
* * * *
Significant Effect: The location of residential units adjacent to the SDG&E Miguel
substation is considered a significant jmpact wjth respect to land-use compatibility. The
utility may expand the facility jn the future and potential conflicts could arise with residents
adjacent to the expanded facility.
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alteratjons have been required in, or jncorporated into, the project which will avoid the
sjgnjficant environmental effect as identified in Final EIR 90-02.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are found to be feasible and
are requjred as conditions of approval. These measures are required at the GDP level and
the SPA plan level:
. The applicant shall provide potential buyers considering lots north of
the proposed alignment of San Miguel Road with a white paper
describing future SDG&E expansion plans, to the extent feasible. The
applicant shall also provide buyers of these lots with a Grant Deed
containing a provision describing future SDG&E expansion plans, to
the extent feasible. This requirement will ensure that information
regarding SDG&E's future expansion plans are disclosed to all
subsequent home buyers. The Rancho San Miguel CC&Rs shall also
contain information regarding the expansion plans for the SDG&E
substation to provjde disclosure to subsequent home buyers.
. The project shall minimize visual impacts of the SDG&E facility to the
maximum extent feasible through a comprehensive buffer plan at the
SPA Plan level which includes measures such as landscaping, significant
topography varjation (including use of natural topography as well as
berming), and homesite orientation for houses near the SDG&E
property. Thjs plan shall include the following measures:
Establishment of separation of
jncorporating landscaped greenbelt
street;
development setback
or residential collector
Achievement of visual separation through landscaping,
topographic variation, homesite orientation, and height and Jot
setback restrictions for houses near the substation property;
Utilization of graded materials to construct view screening
landscaped mounds;
8
Provision for SDG&E to view the final plans so that vjsual
impacts can be better determined and, at that time, additional
landscaping and screening may be necessary to mitigate visual
impacts.
. The applicant shall provide grading site plans and other information to
SDG&E to assist them in their efforts to develop future improvements
on their site and corresponding landscape or other screening programs
that will mjnjmjze visual impacts to adjacent residential development
to below a level of significance.
. The applicant shall continue to coordinate with SDG&E throughout
the processing of SPA Plans for this project.
. The applicant commits to not oppose SDG&E's decision to process its
expansion plans through the City provided that: (i) this project's
processing time is not delayed as a result of SDG&E's processing;
(ii) the City treats the two projects as separate processes, with separate
hearing schedules; and (iii) SDG&E's processing is not conducted at
the applicant's expense.
Implementation of these measures will reduce the land use impacts of this project to
the SDG&E substation facility to below a level of significance at the GDP level; however,
this issue will be analyzed anew at the SPA Plan level to determjne the sjgnificance of this
impact after the applicant has complied with the mitigation measures contained within this
GDP EIR.
. SDG&E proposed two additional measures to mitigate impacts of the
future expansion of the substation facility:
. Location of commercial center adjacent to the southwest
boundary of the substation.
. Ldcation of Bonita Miguel Road (San Mjguel Ranch
Road) adjacent to the southwest boundary of the
substation.
As noted above, however, the land use impacts of this project to the SDG&E
substatjon facility have already been reduced to below a level of significance,
even without implementing the two additional measures proposed by SDG&E.
Moreover, SDG&E's proposals would require a significant redesign of the
project. Accordingly, the City does not incorporate these two proposed
mitjgation measures jnto the project.
* * * *
9
Sigllificallt Effect: The project is proposing an affordable housing element; however,
a detailed program to achieve compliance with the City's provisions related to affordable
housing has not been determined at this time.
Filldillg: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations have been required in, or jncorporated into, the project which will avoid the
signifjcant environmental effect as identified jn Final ElR 90-02.
Mitigation Measures: The followjng mitjgation measures are found to be feasible and
are requjred as conditions of approval. These measures are required at the GDP level and
wi1l be implemented at the SPA Plan level. Upon implementation, the following measures
wiH reduce the significant land use-related impact to below a level of significance:
. Consistency with the General Plan's affordable housing provisions shall
be achieved upon satisfying the City's performance criteria at the SPA
Plan level. Ensuring consistency with the Housing Element of the
City's General Plan will require that the project applicant explore, in
an affordable housing program, methods to devote 10 percent of the
dwelling units to low and moderate income housing; provide equivalent
offsite mitjgation; or pay fees as determined through the submission of
a proposal as part of the SPA Plan processing. This proposal shall be
responsive to the City policies concerning affordable housing that may
be in effect at the time of the SPA Plan processing. The issue of
affordable housing will require subsequent review at the SPA Plan
level.
* * * *
Sigllificallt Effect: The project's proposed trail system includes trails that are within
SDG&E power transmission easements. The City Parks & Recreation Department
discourages the placement of trails in these easements. This is a potentially significant
impact.
Findillg: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project whjch wjll avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in Final ElR 90-02.
Mitigatioll Measures: The following mitigation measures are found to be feasible and
are required as condjtions of approval. These measures are requjred at the GDP level and
will be implemented at the SPA Plan level. Upon implementation, the following measures
will reduce the significant land use-related impact to below a level of significance:
. To mjtigate the impacts associated with the provision of trails on
SDG&E easements, more specific development plans wi1l be reviewed
at the SPA Plan level to determine if the proposed locations are
consistent with City policies to minimize use of trails within SDG&E
easements.
10
* * * *
B. LANDFORM/VISUAL QUALITY
Significant Effect: The designated site for the interpretive center, conference center
and inn contajn topography with slopes in excess of 25 percent. Landform impacts
associated with the interpretive center and conference center and inn are unknown at this
tjme, and will be analyzed at the SPA Plan level when grading plans for these facilities are
available.
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Gujdelines, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the
significant envjronmental effect as identified in final EIR 90-02.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are found to be feasible and
are required as conditions of approval. These measures are required at the GOP level and
will be implemented at the SPA Plan level:
. At the SPA Plan level, the applicant shall provide the City planning
department with detailed grading plans for the interpretative center,
conference center/retreat and inn in the northern portion of the
project. Such grading plans shall minimize cut and fill slopes,
substantially preserve knolls and ridgelines and revegetate graded areas
wjth native vegetation to the extent consistent with the City's fire safety
standards. Implementation of this measure will reduce the landform
impacts of this project to below a level of significance at the GOP
level; however, this issue will be analyzed anew at the SPA Plan level
to reexamine the significance of this impact after the applicant has
complied with the measures contained in this GOP EIR.
* * * *
Significant Effect: Impacts due to extensive grading in the southern portion are
considered to be signifjcant. .
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the
significant environmental effects associated with general grading activities in the southern
portion of the project.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are found to be feasibJe and
are required as conditions of approval. These measures are required at the GOP level and
will be implemented at the SPA Plan level:
. The SPA Plan shall demonstrate compliance with hillside development
General Plan policies during the SPA Plan review to the satisfaction of
city planning staff. Implementation of this measure will reduce the
11
landform impacts of this project associated with general grading
activities jn the southern portion to below a level of significance at the
GDP level; however, this issue will be analyzed anew at the SPA Plan
level to reexamine the significance of this impact after the applicant
has complied with the measures contained in the GDP EIR.
* * * *
Significant Effect: Two topographic features in the southern portjon of the site would
be extensively graded (Horseshoe Bend would be significantly changed and Gobbler's Knob
would be entjreJy removed). This jmpact has a significant visual component as well, because
these features are highly visible from adjacent public areas and neighborhoods.
Finding: A major project redesign would be required to avoid the identifjed
significant landform/visual quality effects associated with the grading of Horseshoe Bend and
Gobbler's Knob. However, a project redesign is not feasible from a planning standpoint for
the following reasons: (i) these two landforms are not noted as significant by the Chula
Vista General Plan and, if preserved, would create a barrier to the cohesion and continuity
of the southern portion of the project; (ii) the southern portion preserves over 25 acres of
Horseshoe Bend, and any further preservation of Horseshoe Bend would disrupt the
continuity of the southern portion, since the landform essentially splits the southern portion;
and (iii) preservation of these two landforms (and their use for housing which meets the
hillside development General Plan policies) would require movement of San Miguel Ranch
Road from its optimal alignment, and create potential erosion problems due to the
geological nature of these proposed landforms. Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(3), there are
no feasjble measures that would mitigate the landform/visual quality impacts to below a level
of significance. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the
City has determined that these impacts are acceptable because of specific overriding
considerations.
* * * *
Significam EffecT: Large and potentially conspicuous potable water storage tanks are
proposed for provision of drinking water at adequate pressure. The exact locations of the
tanks have not been determined at this time; therefore the impacts are unknown.
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the
signjficant environmental effect as jdentified in Final EIR 90.02.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are found to be feasible and
are required as conditjons of approval. These measures are required at the GDP ]evel and
will be implemented at the SPA Plan level.
. The SPA Plan shall depict the exact location of the water tanks and
shall contain binding landscaping design guidelines to address the
potential visual impacts of the proposed water tanks, Implementatjon
]2
of this measure will reduce the landform impacts of this project to
below a level of significance at the GDP level; however, this issue will
be analyzed anew at the SPA Plan level to reexamine the significance
of this impact after the applicant has complied with the measures
contained in this GDP EIR.
* * * *
Sigllificallt Effect: A limited number of lots on the southern portion will be orientated
toward the existing and proposed future SDG&E facilities with potentja! adverse vjsua!
impacts.
Fillding: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in final EIR 90-02.
Mitigatioll Measures: The following mitigation measures are found to be feasible and
are required as conditions of approval. These measures are required at the GDP level and
the SPA Plan level:
. The applicant shall provide potential buyers considering lots north of
the proposed alignment of San Miguel Road with a white paper
describing future SDG&E expansion plans, to the extent feasible. The
applicant shall also provide buyers of these lots with a Grant Deed
containing a provision describing future SDG&E expansion plans, to
the extent feasible. This requirement will ensure that information
regarding SDG&E's future expansion plans are disc10sed to all
subsequent home buyers. The Rancho San Miguel CC&Rs shall also
contain information regarding the expansion plans for the SDG&E
substation to provide disc10sure to subsequent home buyers.
. The project shall minimize visual impacts of the SDG&E facility to the
maximum extent feasjble through a comprehensive buffer plan at the
SPA Plan ]evel which inc1udes measures such as landscaping, significant
topography variation (including use of natural topography as well as
berming), and homesite orientation for houses near the SDG&E
property. This plan shall include the following measures:
Establishment of separation of
jncorporatjng landscaped greenbelt
street;
development setback
or residential collector
Achjevement of visual separation through landscapjng,
topographic variation, homesite orientation, and height and lot
setback restrictions for houses near the substation property;
13
Utilization of graded materials to construct view screenmg
landscaped mounds;
Provisjon for SDG&E to view the final plans so that visual
impacts can be better determined and, at that time, additional
landscaping and screening may be necessary to mitigate visual
impacts.
. The appljcant shall provide grading site plans and other informatjon to
SDG&E to assist them in their efforts to develop future improvements
on their site and corresponding landscape or other screening programs
that will minimize visual impacts to adjacent residential development
to below a level of significance.
. The applicant shall continue to coordinate with SDG&E throughout
the processing of SPA Plans for this project.
. The applicant commits to not oppose SDG&E's decision to process its
expansion plans through the City provided that: (i) this project's
processing time is not delayed as a result of SDG&E's processjng;
(ii) the City treats the two projects as separate processes, with separate
hearing schedules; and (iii) SDG&E's processing is not conducted at
the applicant's expense.
ImpJementation of these measures will reduce the land use impacts of this project to
the SDG&E substation facility to below a level of significance at the GDP level; however,
this issue will be analyzed anew at the SPA Plan level to determine the significance of this
impact after the applicant has complied with the mitigation measures contained within thjs
GDP EIR.
. SDG&E proposed two additional measures to mitigate impacts of the
future expansion of the substation facility:
. Location of commercial center adjacent to the southwest
boundary of the substation.
. Location of Bonita Miguel Road (San Miguel Ranch
Road) adjacent to the southwest boundary of the
substation.
As noted above, however, the land use impacts of this project to the SDG&E
substation facility have already been reduced to below a level of significance,
even without implementing the two additional measures proposed by SDG&E.
Moreover, SDG&E's proposals would require a significant redesign of the
project. Accordingly, the City does not incorporate these two proposed
mjtigation measures into the project.
14
* * * *
Significant Effect: Vjews from a small portion of East H Street, a designated scenjc
roadway, would be degraded by grading and development associated with the proposed
project.
Filldillg: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in Final EIR 90-02.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are found to be feasible and
are required as conditions of approval. These measures are required at the GDP level and
will be implemented at the SPA Plan level:
. At the SPA Plan level, the applicant's landscaping and development
plans shall be consistent with Chula Vjsta General Plan guidelines for
scenic roadways. Implementation of this measure will reduce the
landform impacts of this project to below a level of significance at the
GDP level; however, this issue will be analyzed anew at the SPA Plan
level to reexamine the significance of this jmpact after the applicant
has complied with the measures contained in this GDP EIR.
C. BIOLOGY
Significant Effect - SOlllhem Portion: Loss of approximately 156 acres of Diegan sage
scrub (93 acres of gnatcatcher occupied habitat and 63 acres of unoccupied habjtat) would
occur as a result of the development of the southern parcel.
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the
sjgnificant environmental effect as identified in Final EIR 90-02. At the GDP review level,
impacts to the biological resources on the southern parcel shall be construed as significant
and unmitigated. However, at the SPA Plan level, the City will make a subsequent CEQA
"signjficance" determinatjon as to whether the southern mitigation plan reduces impacts to
Diegan sage scrub to below a level of sjgnifjcance. It is anticipated that all impacts to
biological resources on the southern portion will be mitigated to below a level of significance,
with the exceptjon of impacts to the Otay Tarweed and Palmer's Grappling Hook, provided
all of the following requirements are met: (a) the criteria set forth in the southern
mitigation plan, as described in the Supplement at pages 3.3-50 to 3.3-62, are satisfied at the
SPA Plan level; (b) no substantial changes have occurred to the project or its circumstances
since the GDP level (CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal.CodeRegs. ~15162(a)(1)(2)); and (c) no
significant new information has arisen since the GDP level (CEQA Gujdelines, 14
CaI.CodeRegs ~15162(a)(3)).
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are found to be feasible and
are required as conditions of approval:
15
. The mItIgation of Diegan sage scrub is to be accomplished by a
combination of preservation in both the north and south parcels to
total a 2:1 preservation-to-impact ratio for sage scrub habitat. In
addition, habitat is to be identified and preserved in a manner which
replaces sage scrub occupied or suitable for occupation by California
gnatcatchers by habjtat that is also occupied by gnatcatchers. Where
habjtat is unoccupied then replacement may be suitably accomp]jshed
by preservatjon of similarly unoccupied habitat identified on-site.
. Diegan sage scrub habitat sha]] be established in the fo]]owing manner:
IMP ACTED RATIO REPLACEMENT ON-SITE NORTII
HABITAT AREA FOR PRESERVATION OPEN
PRESERVATION FOR SOUTH SPACE
93 acres 2:1 186 acres 33 ac. 153 ac.
(occupied) (occupied)
63 acres 2:1 126 acres 113 ac. 13 ac.
(unoccupied) (unoccupied)
156 acres (total) 2:1 312 acres (lolal) 146 ac. 166 ac.
. Mitigation areas indicated do not include scrub habitats occurring
within SDG&E easements. In addition to the set aside of this habitat,
mitigation of other biolgical impacts, including those to cactus wrens
and barrel cactus, will result in the need to perform enhancement
wjthin open space areas. This wi]] occur within the south parcel open
space area and wi]] enhance the quality of this habitat along currently
cleared roadways and fringing grassland habitats. Enhancement efforts
are discussed under each of the appropriate species-specific mitigation
measures. Plate 4, which is included in the "responses to comments"
section of EIR 90-02 (in response to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
letter), indicates areas on a map that have been tentatively identified
as suitable for sage-scrub preservation. This identification is necessarily
tentative; the exact mitigation areas wi]] be identified at the SPA Plan
level, and will conform wjth the habitat-preservation standards outlined
above.
. The final defined and recorded open space shall include no less than
186 acres of gnatcatcher occupied sage scrub and no less than 126
acres of unoccupied sage scrub habitat (substitution of occupjed
acreage is acceptable). A total of 9 pairs of California gnatcatchers
sha]] be preserved within the recorded mitigation area.
* * * *
16
Significant Effect - Sowhem Pordon: Loss of the habitat for 6 pairs of California
gnatcatchers would occur as a result of the proposed development of the southern portion
of the project.
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alteratjons have been requjred in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in Final EIR 90-02. At the GDP review level,
jmpacts to the biological resources on the southern parcel shall be construed as significant
and unmitigated. However, at the SPA Plan level, the City will make a subsequent CEQA
"sjgnificance" determjnation as to whether the southern mitigation plan reduces impacts to
California gnatcatchers to below a level of significance. It is anticipated that all impacts to
biological resources on the southern portion will be mitigated to below a level of signifjcance,
with the exception of jmpacts to the Otay Tarweed and Palmer's Grappling Hook, provided
all of the following requirements are met: (a) the criteria set forth jn the southern
mitjgation plan, as described in the Supplement at pages 3.3-50 to 3,3-62, are satisfied at the
SPA Plan level; (b) no substantial changes have occurred to the project or its circumstances
since the GDP level (CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal.CodeRegs. ~15162(a)(1)(2)); and (c) no
sjgnjficant new information has arisen since the GDP level (CEQA Guidelines, 14
CaLCodeRegs ~15162(a)(3)).
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are found to be feasible and
are requjred as conditions of approval:
. The 6 pairs of gnatcatchers impacted by the project would be mitigated
by the preservation of 9 pairs of gnatcatchers within identified open
space areas N2, N4, and S4 (Plate 4, attached). The final configuration
of open spaces shall be adjusted as necessary to ensure the
preservatjon of appropriate habitat and numbers of birds at the SPA
Plan review level. To ensure long-term survival of these birds, open
space on the southern parcel shall be fenced along the edge facing
development and fuel maintenance shall be restricted to the areas
outside of the open space. The preservation of the 9 pairs will be
totally within open space areas. Mitigation at the SPA Plan level will
be required to include preserve design criteria.
* * * *
Significaltt Effect - Sowhel7l Portion: Loss of an estimated 1,867 Coast barrel cactus
would occur with development of the southern portion of the project.
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the
signifjcant environmental effect as identified in Final EIR 90-02. At the GDP revjew level,
impacts to the biological resources on the southern parcel shall be construed as significant
and unmjtigated. However, at the SPA Plan level, the City will make a subsequent CEQA
"significance" determination as to whether the southern mitigation plan reduces jmpacts to
Coast barrel cactus to below a level of significance. It is anticipated that all jmpacts to
17
biological resources on the southern portion will be mitigated to below a level of significance,
with the exception of impacts to the Otay Tarweed and Palmer's Grappling Hook, provided
all of the following requirements are met: (a) the criteria set forth in the southern
mjtigatjon plan, as described in the Supplement at pages 3.3-50 to 3.3-62, are satisfied at the
SPA Plan level; (b) no substantial changes have occurred to the project or its circumstances
since the GDP level (CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal.CodeRegs. ~15162(a)(1)(2)); and (c) no
significant new jnformation has arjsen since the GDP level (CEQA Guidelines, 14
CaI.CodeRegs ~15162(a)(3)).
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are found to be feasible and
are requjred as conditjons of approval:
. Of the 2,892 barrel cacti occurring in the south parcel, an estimated
1,647 cacti would be impacted by the proposed project. A full 1,380
(74%) of the cactus lost are attributable to the East H Street alignment
as dictated by broader scale planning efforts which cannot be readily
modified. The Draft EIR calls for an ill siw preservation of specific
populations of cacti in the northern parcel. However, the California
Department of Fish and Game ("CDFG") have gjven a target of 60%
preservatjon with a transplant of the remaining cacti into open space
as their threshold for significance. Both objectives may be met on-site
through the establishment of open space in the north and southern
parcels. A total of 1,245 cacti can be preserved onsite in the southern
parcel and 1,226 cactj shall be set aside for on-site preservation in the
northern parcel as permanent open space. (Thus, out of 4,118 total
cacti on the southern parcel and the northern parcel barrel cactus
mitigatjon area, 2,471, or 60%, would be preserved). Thjs total of
2,471 cactj preserved onsite meets the 60% target preservation level of
CDFG. This preservation would occur in open space parcels N2, N3,
N4 and 51, 53 and S4, as shown in Plate 4 of Volume 1.
. The estimated 1,647 cacti anticipated to be impacted by the southern
parcel development would be transplanted to roadways, trails and
margins of existjng cactj stands in the south parcel S4 open space
(Plate 4). Salvaged plants are to be transplanted into existjng areas of
the south open space in a manner which assists in restoring disturbed
roadways currently occurring on the crest of the southern knoll. The
combinatjon of preservation of open space in the south and
transplantation of plants in the south will serve to mitigate impacts to
the species. The transplantation of barrel cactus has been
demonstrated to be successful in a number of areas, most recently the
Otay Business Park on Otay Mesa adjacent to the International Border,
which showed that approximately 90 percent of the plants survived over
the 3 year period since transplanting. In addition, many of these have
new off-spring and the population seems to be in a stable condition.
Mitigation at the SPA Plan level will be required to include preserve
design criteria.
18
. The fo1lowing Coast barrel cactus guidelines sha1l govern the mitigation
of Coast barrel cactus within the San Miguel open space. These
crjterja address open space protection and transplant technjques and
receive site designations. The guidelines also identify requisite
monitoring and success criteria for transplanted materials.
No less than 2,471 cacti shall be preserved ill situ within open
spaces desjgnated as N2, N3, N4, Sl, S3, and S4. (Plate 4,
attached).
Open space Sl, S3, and S4 shall be individually fenced on the
development area side to prevent general access into these
open space areas. (See Plate 4, attached). Fences which define
the owner usable portion of the development envelope shall be
of a wooden or block wall construction type and shall be
insta1led prior to the sale of any individual lots. Fences along
roadways or along the SDG&E easements shall be set back
from the edge of the roads no less than 25 feet and shall be of
an open nature to allow large mammal crossing.
All fuel management activjties shall occur within the pad and
identified limits of owner use areas adjacent to a1l open spaces.
The limits of grading shall be established by flagging and
erecting a single strand heavily flagged construction fence
around the entire perimeter of all disturbance areas. Prior to
the initiation of grading, all identified barrel cactus withjn
proposed areas of grading shall be marked on the north side for
orientation and salvaged for transplanting. A mitigation
monitor shall inspect the site following completion of the
salvage operation to ensure that all identified cacti have been
removed for subsequent transplant. Once the city has
determined that all cacti have been removed, gradjng shall be
allowed to proceed.
Salvaged cacti shall be transplanted into suitable sites along the
ridgeline within the S4 mitigation area (Plate 4, attached). Care
is to be take to ensure proper orientation of the cacti to prevent
sunburning of the plants. It is estimated that 0.38 acre of
sujtable receiver area shall be required within the open space
in order to plant cacti on an average densjty of 1 cactus/m2.
This open space supports numerous roadways through ridges
bounded on both sides by cacti. The target restoratjon areas
would be these roadways.
Restoration sites shall be protected from vehicular traffic by
directional signage and use of barrier posts to block access
]9
through the restoration area. Large cholla cacti are to be used
around the barriers and throughout the roadway to develop
habitat for cactus wren mitigation and will also serve to curb
vehicular traffic. Areas are to be further seeded with an open
sage scrub seed mix to include: deerweed (LollIS scoparillS),
white sage (Salvia apiana); and plantain (Plan/ago erec/a) to
assist jn eliminating the appearance of a roadway, while not
resulting in a competitive dominance of tall statured shrubs.
This area does not naturally support dense vegetation, so jt js
unlikely that such vegetation will naturally develop over time.
Restoration efforts shall be monitored annually in the spring
concurrent with the Adolphia monitoring for a period of 5 years
and shaH document the status of the mitigation site. Success
shall be the survival of no fewer than 75% of the transplanted
cacti and the general trend towards recovery of abandon
roadways in a manner which would suggest long-term recovery
of the site. Annual monitoring reports shall be submitted to the
City within one month of each monitoring event.
* * * *
Significant Effect - Sowhem Pordon: Loss of approximately 345 indjvjduals of
California Adolphia would occur under the GDP development envelope footprint for the
southern parcel.
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the
sjgnifjcant envjronmental effect as identified in Final ElR 90-02. At the GDP review level,
impacts to the bjological resources on the southern parcel shall be construed as sjgnificant
and unmitjgated. However, at the SPA Plan level, the Cjty will make a subsequent CEQA
"sjgnificance" determination as to whether the southern mitigation plan reduces impacts to
the adolphia to below a level of significance. It is anticipated that all impacts to biological
resources on the southern portjon will be mitigated to below a level of significance, with the
exception of impacts to the Otay Tarweed and Palmer's Grappling Hook, provided all of the
foHowing requirements are met: (a) the criteria set forth in the southern mitigation plan,
as described in the Supplement at pages 3.3-50 to 3.3-62, are satisfied at the SPA Plan level;
(b) no substantial changes have occurred to the project or its circumstances since the GDP
level (CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal.CodeRegs. ~15162(a)(1)(2)); and (c) no significant new
information has arjsen since the GDP level (CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal.CodeRegs
~15162(a)(3)).
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are found to be feasible and
are required as conditions of approval:
· To compensate for the loss of approximately 345 indjvjdual plants of
California Adolphia in the southern portion of the project, 50% of this
20
species shall be preserved in biological open space. To achieve this
mitigation goal, the proposed project shall include a mitigation area
supporting a population with an estimated total of 350 plants in the
southwestern portion of the northern parcel (Plate 4, attached). In
addition, a population estimated to support approximately 40 plants
shall be incorporated into the open space on the eastern portion of the
southern parcel (Plate 4). The results of this mitigation would be to
set aside a total of 390 plants as south parcel mitigation for jmpacts to
345 plants (53% preservation). In both instances, the plants would be
preserved away from development (the reconfiguration of the northern
development envelope at this open space, as described below, would
eliminate lots adjacent to the mitigation area) and therefore
management measures beyond open space fencing are not required.
. As further mitigation, populations shall be enhanced by planting young
adolphia seedings in the periphery of the preserved populations.
Special restoration attention shall be paid to disturbed areas includjng
trajls, roadways and weedy clay grassland habitats adjacent to these
populations. Thjs species is also to be used as a buffer plant around
preserve Otay Tarweed populations. The adolphia persjsts in areas of
sjmi]ar soils to that of the Otay Tarweed and the thorny growth form
of the adolphia would provide an opportunity to create both valuable
and functional buffer plantings around some of the Tarweed preserve
fields. Mitigation at the SPA level will be required to include preserve
design criteria.
· The following California Adolphia guidelines shall govern the treatment
of ado]phja mitigation areas within the San Miguel Ranch site. Specific
mjtigation details shall be developed at the SPA Plan level in
conformance with the following standards:
Open space designated as N1 (Plate 4) is to be fenced jn a
manner acceptable to the City along all sides of the open space
which face roadways. Fences which define the owner usable
portion of the development envelope shall be of a wooden or
block wall construction type and shall be installed prior to the
sale of any individual lots. Fences adjacent to wildlife crossings
shall be set back from the edge of the road no less than 25 feet
and shall be open to allow large mammal crossing.
AJI fuel management activities shall occur only wjthin the pad
and identified limits of owner use areas adjacent to all open
spaces, but specifically open space N1 and S4 for the purpose
of the adolphia mitigation program (Plate 4).
Not less than 300 seeding adolphia shall be planted around the
periphery of the preserved population occurring in the N1 open
21
space (Plate 4). Plants shall be of either a liner/plant band or
1 gallon container size. Planting shall occur no later than
December of the first year following initiation of grading within
the southern parcel. All transplanting shall occur during the
wjnter rainy season to maximize plant establishment and growth
potentjal.
Transplanted adolphia shall be monitored annually in the spring
for a period of 5 years to ensure successful establishment and
continued growth. Success shall be determined by the survjval
and growth over the 5 year period of no less than 30% of the
plants. Annual monitoring reports shall be submjtted to the
City within one month of each monitoring event.
Fencing shall be maintained on a long-term basis,
* * * *
Significant Effect - SOli/hem Par/ion: Loss of the habitat for one pair of coastal cactus
wren would occur as a result of the development of the southern portion of the project.
Finding: Pursuant to Section ]5091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alteratjons have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avojd the
sjgnificant envjronmental effect as identified in Final EIR 90-02. At the GDP revjew level,
impacts to the biological resources on the southern parcel shall be construed as significant
and unmjtigated. However, at the SPA Plan level, the City will make a subsequent CEQA
"sjgnifjcance" determination as to whether the southern mitigation plan reduces jmpacts to
coastal cactus wren to below a level of significance. It is anticipated that all jmpacts to
biological resources on the southern portion will be mitigated to below a level of significance,
with the exception of impacts to the Otay Tarweed and Palmer's Grappling Hook, provided
all of the following requirements are met: (a) the criteria set forth in the southern
mitigation plan, as described in the Supplement at pages 3.3-50 to 3.3-62, are satisfied at the
SPA Plan level; (b) no subs~antial changes have occurred to the project or its circumstances
sjnce the GDP level (CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal.CodeRegs. ~15162(a)(1)(2)); and (c) no
signjficant new information has arisen since the GDP level (CEQA Guidelines, 14
CaI.CodeRegs ~15162(a)(3)).
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are found to be feasible and
are requjred as condjtions of approval:
· The one pair of coastal cactus wren which would be impacted will be
mitigated by the preservation of 3 pairs of cactus wrens located jn the
southern open space parcel (S4). In addition, cholla stands which are
to be impacted by the project will be transplanted to expand and
enhance the cactus wren populations in the south parcel S4 open
space. Transplanted cactus habitat shall be created in disturbed areas
of the south parcel open space over an area equal to or exceedjng the
22
use area of the cactus wren pair to be displaced prior to elimination of
the existing occupied habitat on-site, To determine the appropriate
mitigation area, the activity patterns of the impacted cactus wren and
the 3 territorjes within the S4 open space shall be monitored to
determine boundaries of the home ranges and to characterize the
important elements of home range usage. In addition, vegetation will
be characterized within the home range using standard vegetation
transect methodology to determine plant cover, height, and frequency
distribution of varjous elements.
. Enhancement for coastal cactus wrens by transplantation of large
cholla cactus has shown promise in the Poggi Canyon cactus transplant,
in which cactus moved in 1990 were occupied by one nesting pair of
coastal cactus wrens in 1992. The nest supported eggs and young early
in the season, however neither the adults or young could be located in
July. For this reason, it is unknown whether this pair successfully
fledged young this year. Mitigation at the SPA level will be required
to include preserve design criteria.
. The following coastal cactus wren mitigation program guidelines shall
form the basis for studies to be conducted on the on-site coastal cactus
wrens and shall form the basis for the final cactus wren mitigation
program development. In that a study to document characteristics of
wren habitat is to precede the determination of the ultimate
approprjate restoration measures for this target species, the guidelines
below should be considered a working framework with minimal
mjlestones to be finalized at the subsequent specific plan stage.
Three pairs of coastal cactus wrens are to be protected within
the S4 open space identified in Plate 4. This open space is to
be fenced along the development sides to prevent general
access.
A monitoring program shall be implemented to characterize
habitat requirements of coastal cactus wrens. The study shall
jnclude an analysis of the three cactus wren pairs in open space
S4 as well as the one pajr to be impacted in the southern
development area. The monitoring program shall run for a
period of one year. An interim report shall be prepared to
detail the results of the first 6 months of monitoring. This
report shall be completed and shall be submitted to the City,
USFWS, and CDFG. The results of this report shall be used to
establish mitigation criteria for SPA approvals. A fjnal report
is to be completed and shall form the basis for final mitigation
designs and grading permit issuance in the development area
supporting the cactus wren pair. The program shall include the
following:
23
Weekly monitoring and home-range use studies of each
of the 4 territories shall be conducted for a period of no
less than 2 hours/territory/interval. Monitoring perjods
are to be staggered to ensure all diurnal periods are
covered for each pair. Studies are to include a
documentation of activity budgets (ie, foraging,
djsplaying, defending, roosting, breeding, etc.), an
identificatjon of time spent on each primary plant taxa
occurring within the territory, and an identification of
home-range size, shape and location over the course of
the year using occurrence frequency data.
Vegetation characterization of each home-range is to be
completed during the pre-breeding spring months of
1993. This work shall include a documentation of
percent composition of various elements, frequency
distribution of elements, height structure, and similarity
between territories. Work is to be completed along 50
meter line intercept transects distributed randomly within
home-ranges. The number of transects to be used in
each territory shall be determined based on territory sjze
and homogeneity.
An analysis of existing territory sizes and composition
and recommendations for restoration of a territory within
open space S4 as a compensation territory. This
recommendation shall be based on observed activjties
and conditions within occupied territories and shall
include a consideration of "favored" habitat elements and
territorial boundary interactions. The report shall also
consider existing restoration technology and shall make
recommendations as to the most appropriate restoration
. techniques to maximize success. This report shall
include a habitat restoration plan which provjdes specifjc
guidance on creating a suitable habitat for cactus wrens
and appropriate maintenance, monitoring and success
milestones.
* * * *
Significant Effect - SOlllhem Par/ion: The loss of .5 acres of wetland habjtat in the
southern portjon js considered a significant impact by the California Department ofFish and
Game.
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the
significant envjronmental effect as identified in Final EIR 90-02, At the GDP review level,
24
impacts to the biological resources on the southern parcel shall be construed as signifjcant
and unmitigated. However, at the SPA Plan level, the City will make a subsequent CEQA
"significance" determination as to whether the southern mitigation plan reduces impacts to
wetland habitat to below a level of significance. It is anticipated that all impacts to
biological resources on the southern portion will be mitigated to below a level of significance,
with the exception of jmpacts to the Otay Tarweed and Palmer's Grappling Hook, provided
all of the following requirements are met: (a) the crjteria set forth in the southern
mitigation plan, as described in the Supplement at pages 3.3-50 to 3.3-62, are satisfied at the
SPA Plan level; (b) no substantial changes have occurred to the project or its circumstances
since the GDP level (CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal.CodeRegs. ~15162(a)(1)(2)); and (c) no
sjgnjficant new jnformation has arisen since the GDP level (CEQA Guidelines, 14
CaI.CodeRegs ~15162(a)(3)).
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are found to be feasible and
are required as conditions of approval:
. Mitigatjon of wetland impacts shall be accomplished primarjly by
avoidance measures. It is estimated that 0.5 acre of dry alkaline marsh
occurs within the southern parcel in an area which cannot be avoided
by the project work. In order to compensate for this impacted habitat,
additional wetlands of a similar type will be increased within an area
desjgnated as open space in the southwestern portion of the north
parcel (Figure 1). This area totals approximately 10 acres and supports
a very narrow channel bounded by non-native grassland upstream of
an existing pond. This mitigation site would involve the reconfiguration
of the northern development envelope at this location to eliminate
encroachment by 5 lots.
. A small detention basin shall be constructed on this channel to create
a seasonal impoundment pond. The basin will be revegetated by
Mulefat, San Diego Marsh Elder, and Southwestern Spiny Rush.
Similar habitat occurs elsewhere on this channel and as such, it is
expected that such mitigation may be readily accomplished in this
locatjon. Mjtigation is to be completed on a 1:1 area and value basis
as recommended by the Supplement.
* * * *
Significant Effect - SOlllhem Por/ion: Loss of approximately 30 individuals of San
Diego Marsh Elder would occur within the southern portion of the project. Because of jts
location within wetlands, the impact is considered to be significant.
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations have been required jn, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the
signifjcant envjronmental effect as identified in Final EIR 90-02. At the GDP revjew level,
impacts to the bjological resources on the southern parcel shall be construed as significant
and unmitjgated. However, at the SPA Plan level, the City will make a subsequent CEQA
25
"sjgnificance" determinatjon as to whether the southern mitigation plan reduces impacts to
San Diego Marsh Elder to below a level of significance. It is anticipated that aH jmpacts to
biological resources on the southern portion wiH be mitigated to below a level of significance,
with the exceptjon of impacts to the Otay Tarweed and Palmer's Grappling Hook, provided
aH of the foHowing requirements are met: (a) the criteria set forth in the southern
mitigation plan, as described in the Supplement at pages 3.3-50 to 3.3-62, are satisfied at the
SPA Plan level; (b) no substantial changes have occurred to the project or its circumstances
since the GDP level (CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal.CodeRegs. ~15162(a)(I)(2)); and (c) no
significant new informatjon has arisen since the GDP level (CEQA Guidelines, 14
Cal.CodeRegs ~15162(a)(3)).
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are found to be feasible and
are required as condjtions of approval:
. San Diego Marsh Elder shall be used as a primary component in the
creation of a 0.5 acre wetland mitigation site within open space area
Nl. (Plate 4). This species has been used very successfuHy in
restoration programs and has been planted by seed as weH as by
container units, although seeding appears to work best. The mitigation
program shaH ensure that a minimum of 1: 1 numerical replacement of
plants impacted shaH occur within the created wetland area. The
mitigation area shall use site coHected seed in the restoration program.
Successful completion of this mitigation measure shaH be the
establishment and survival of not less than 15 individuals of this species
at the restoration site over a 5 year period. Annual monitoring shaH
be conducted for a period of 5 years during the spring with reports
being submitted within one month of each monitoring to the City. This
mitigation measure meets the identified objectives of the EIR
mitigation requirements. Mitigation at the SPA level will be required
to include preserve design criteria.
* * * *
Significant Effect - Southern POr/ion: Loss of approximately 15 individuals of
Southwestern Spjny Rush would occur within the southern portion of the project. Because
of its location within wetlands, the impact is considered to be significant.
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations have been requjred in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the
significant envjronmental effect as jdentified in Final EIR 90-02. At the GDP revjew level,
impacts to the biological resources on the southern parcel shaH be construed as sjgnificant
and unmitigated. However, at the SPA Plan level, the City will make a subsequent CEQA
"significance" determination as to whether the southern mitigation plan reduces impacts to
Southwestern Spiny Rush to below a level of significance, It is anticipated that aH impacts
to biological resources on the southern portion will be mitigated to below a level of
signifjcance, with the exception of impacts to the Otay Tarweed and Palmer's Grappling
Hook, provided all of the following requirements are met: (a) the criteria set forth in the
26
southern mitigation plan, as described in the Supplement at pages 3.3-50 to 3.3-62, are
satjsfjed at the SPA Plan ]evel; (b) no substantial changes have occurred to the project or
its circumstances since the GDP level (CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal.CodeRegs.
~15162(a)(1)(2)); and (c) no significant new information has arisen since the GDP level
(CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal.CodeRegs ~15162(a)(3)).
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are found to be feasible and
are required as conditions of approval:
. Southwestern Spiny Rush shall be used as a primary component in the
creation of a 0.5 acre wetland mitigation site within open space area
Nl (Plate 4). This species has been used very successfully jn
restoration programs and has been planted by seed as well as by
container units, although seeding appears to work best. The mitigation
program shall ensure that a minimum of 1: 1 numerical replacement of
plants impacted shall occur within the created wetland area. The
mitjgation area shall make use of site collected seed in the restoration
program. Successful completion of this mitigation measure shall be the
establjshment and survival of not less than 15 individuals of this species
at the restoration site over a 5 year period. Annual monitoring shall
be conducted for a period of 5 years during the spring with reports
being submitted within one month of each monitoring to the City. This
mitigation measure meets the identified objectives of the EIR
mitigation requirements, Mitigation at the SPA level wi!] be required
to jncJude preserve design criteria.
* * * *
Significalll Effect - Southern Por/ion: The western and centra] thirds of the southern
portion each contain a dense population of Otay Tarweed. The State has listed Otay
Tarweed as an endangered specjes. Approximately 144,000 individual Otay Tarweed plants
would be lost in the southern portion of the project.
Finding: Although the mitigation measures noted below would minimize the project's
impacts to Otay Tarweed, for purposes of GDP review, these impacts cannot be avoided a'nd
would remain significant. Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, there
are no feasjble measures that would mitigate the impacts to below a level of significance.
As descrjbed in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City has
determined that this impact is acceptable because of specific overriding considerations.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are been found to be feasible
and are requjred as conditions of approval:
. Impacts to Otay Tarweed are significant and unmitigable under the
proposed plan and given the population sizes, distribution, and
abundance of Otay Tarweed populations on the southern development
area, only a substantial project redesign would result in the mitigation
27
thresholds identified for reducing impacts to a less-than-significant
level. The Supplement calls for an 80% preservation or a minimum of
65% preservation combined with a subsequent transplant program.
. Mitigation measures for this species have attempted to incorporate
concerns for long-term defensibility and viability of the proposed
preservation areas. As mjtigatjon, a reduction in the development
envelope is proposed in the southwestern portion of the site and a
designatjon of open space is proposed to include tarweed populations
(see Plate 4, open spaces SI, S2, and a small portion of S3). The
prjmary Otay Tarweed mitigation sjte shall be created by the expansjon
of open space within the south along the SDG&E right-of-way as both
the right-of-way and the adjacent area to be preserved support large
dense stands of Otay Tarweed. Approximately 10 acres of proposed
residential development will be set aside and 5 acres of open space
proposed as a development opportunity will be left as open space for
a total of 15 acres, in addition to the existing SDG&E right-of-way of
approximately 8 acres (not counted toward project mitigation) (open
space S2). This open space expansion will provide mitigation for this
species and is anticipated to be viable for the long-term as the area wiIJ
be fenced to prevent encroachment by adjacent residents or by off road
vehicle traffic and wiIJ be managed for the enhancement of the species.
Although this species is an annual and numbers tluctuate significantly
from year to year, the proposed mitigation area would include
approximately 42,000 (29%) of the 144,000 plants occurring withjn the
southern parcel. An additional 11,000 plants occur outside of the
development area and within the SDG&E easement corridors. The
mitigation program has specifically targeted the most extensive and
robust population of tarweed for preservation and management.
Rejuvenation and management of the preserved tarweed populations
is to be a focus of the mitigation program. Additionally, two major
groupings of Otay Tarweed on the Northern Parcel, 1) an area of
approximately 10,000 plants located in the southeastern portion of the
development area on the Northern Parcel (See Figure 3.3-3), and 2) an
area of approximately 2,000 plants also located jn the southeastern
portion of the development area on the Northern Parcel (See Figure
3.3-3) shall be placed in permanent open space. Mitigation at the SPA
level wiIJ be required to include preserve design criteria for both the
southern and northern populations. The mitigation program proposed
for this species is outlined below; however, the impact to this resource
cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance even with
jmplementatjon of this mitigation program.
· The Otay Tarweed mitigation program guidelines shall require on-going
funded efforts in order to ensure the long-term viability of the
preserved tarweed populations. This program fails to meet the CEQA
specified mitigation objectives and, as such, impacts to the Otay
28
Tarweed remain significant. Nonetheless, the following measures
reduce the significance of the impact:
Mitigatjon area S2 shall be protected by a fence as deemed
appropriate by the City's biologist (Plate 4). The fence shall be
gated by keyed access to allow for SDG&E to their existing
utility easement. The easement area shall be fenced with
barbed wire fence to restrict general access by SDG&E jnto the
tarweed reserve areas. The periphery of the site shall be posted
to notify the public of the presence of rare species.
The northern mitigation areas will be precisely delineated at the
SPA level. Fencing of these areas will be required if any
development of the north occurs in close proximity.
Fuel management activities shall be conducted solely outside of
the mitigation area.
Plant materials to be used in the adjacent areas are to be of a
non-invasive nature and shall be subject to review by a qualified
biologist prior to approval of a specific plan. AIl species shall
be confirmed to be compatible with the surrounding area.
Native species are favored for this purpose.
Interior to the restoration area fence, a direct management
program is to be undertaken to remove aggressive competitive
exotic species including thistle and to replace these plants with
compatible native elements typical of clay field environments.
Weedy species are to be removed prior to their going to seed
in the late spring. A seed mix of Purple NeedIegrass, Blue
Dicks, and Otay Tarweed is to be dispersed on the site during
the month of November. Bulbous species should also be
planted if available. Around the periphery, planting shall
include Adolphia shrubs to further restrict access and general
use of the site.
The surrounding areas shall be drained away from the site using
brow ditches and irrigation systems should be designed to
prohibit any overcasting into the site.
Intermittent sheep grazing may be used as a part of the
management program for the site. Grazing shall be managed
by a trained biologist to ensure that seed has been dripped prior
to allowing grazing to occur. This grazing may occur for a
period of up to two to four weeks per year.
29
An annual monitoring and maintenance program shall be
jmplemented to ensure that exotic weeds are kept under control
and the fencing is maintained. This program shall be funded as
a part of the maintenance assessment district. Work js to be
undertaken only by a qualified biologist with experience in
managing rare plant populations.
A Section 2081 agreement shall be entered into by CDFG and
the developer relative to management of the species wjthin the
preservatjon areas at the SPA Plan level of CEQA review, and
consjstent wjth the foregoing conditions.
* * * *
Significant Effect - Sowhem pOJ"/ion: All of the estimated 10,000 individuals of
Palmer's Grappling Hook onsite would be lost.
Finding: Although the mitigation measures noted below would minimize the project's
impacts to Palmer's Grappling Hook, these impacts cannot be avoided and would remain
significant for purposes of GDP review. Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA
Guidelines, there are no feasible measures that would mitigate the impacts to below a level
of signjficance. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the
City has determined that this jmpact is acceptable because of specific overriding
considerations.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are found to be feasible and
are required as conditions of approval:
. While impacts to Palmer's Grappling Hook cannot be mitigated to
below a level of significance on the southern parcel, mitigation for
impacts to this sensitive species is still provided. The applicant shall
dedicate the area in the southeastern corner of the development area
on the northern parcel which contains approximately 1,000 plants (see
Figure 3.3-2) as permanent open space. If any development on the
northern parcel occurs in close proximity, a minimum 50 foot buffer
shall be provjded, and fencing shall be placed around the entjre
preserve area. Plant materials used in adjacent areas for landscaping
shall be subject to review by a qualified biologist prior to approval of
a specific plan. Interior to the restoration area fence, a direct
management program will be implemented to remove aggressive
competitive exotic species. The surrounding areas shall be drained
away from the site using brow ditches,
* * * *
Significalll Effect - NOr/hem POr/ion: Development of the northern portion of the
project would significantly disrupt the rich biodiversity of this site, The northern
30
development could result in the loss of approximately 311 acres of Diegan coastal sage
scrub, which is designated as a sensitive habitat. This is considered a significant impact due
to the overall loss of this habitat in southern California and because many of the sensjtive
plant and animal species found onsite are concentrated in this habitat, including the
California gnatcatcher and Coast barrel cactus. The gnatcatcher population on the site is
part of a larger core population for the entire species and the project would cause direct
impacts to 40 of the existing 69 pairs onsite.
Additional impacts in the north would occur to the cactus wren, Otay Tarweed,
Palmer's Grappling Hook, and wetland habitat. Other significant impacts to wildlife include
fragmentatjon of habitat, constricted movement corridors, and impacts from pets, lighting,
nojse and wild fires.
The biological significance of the northern portion of the project from a regional
standpoint is acknowledged. As previously stated in the Supplement to EIR 90-02:
"The Rancho San Miguel site supports one of the richest and most diverse
assemblages of unique and sensitive biological resources in Southern
California. Thirteen sensitive plant species and twenty sensitive animal species
are known to occur on the project site. Additionally, the site js potentially the
sjngle largest concentration of California gnatcatchers in southern California,
and may support the largest known population of Otay tarweed in San Diego
County. Regionally, significant populations of coast barrel cactus and San
Diego cactus wren are also present onsite. Individually, many of the 33
sensitive species found on the site would be considered significant resources.
The high diversity and large population sizes of these resources compounds
the signjficance of the site for biological resources.
The location of the site is also important in that it lies within a larger block
of contiguous open space to the north, east and south, and is adjacent to one
of the largest populations of the federally endangered least Bell's vireo, which
occurs along the upper reaches of the Sweetwater Reservoir. The northern
portion of the project is contiguous with an existing gnatcatcher populatjon
occurring throughout the Sweetwater River Valley to just above Singing Hills
Golf Course that ljkely exceeds 150 pair. This could represent as much as 10
percent of the U.S. population of gnatcatchers. The northern portion of the
site serves as a major movement corridor between the Otay Mesa area to the
south and the Sweetwater Reservoir."
Because the proposed project is at the GDP level of review, a "worst case" approach
was used to identjfy impacts to biological resources to the entire project. This approach
assumed that each entire lot within the large lot development areas in the north would be
fully impacted by development.
Under CEQA, the measures which could minimize identified impacts to biological
resources in the northern parcel include the adoption of alternatives to the proposed project,
or the adoption of a mitigation plan incorporating a redesign of the northern parcel. Two
31
of the project alternatives identified in the Draft EIR, the biologically sensitive alternative
and the south only development alternative, would eliminate all proposed development on
the northern parcel. Under each of those alternatives, the entire 1,852-acre northern parcel
would be part of an open space area encompassing Mother Miguel Mountain. See, Draft
EIR, Sectjon 5. These two alternatives would eliminate impacts to sensitive species and
bjological corrjdors in the northern parcel.
Asjde from the identjfied project alternatives, a reduction in the identified jmpacts
could take place through adoptjon of a mitigation plan incorporating a redesign of the
northern parcel.
The mitigation plan for the northern parcel is intended to be developed further at
the SPA Plan level, which is the next phase of the environmental review process for the
project. At the initial GDP level of review, however, it is important to establish the
mitigation criteria and planning framework to ensure that a programmatic mitigation plan
is provided. In this way, the planning context is in place for completion of the mitigation
plan at the SPA Plan level. The final mitigation plan will be open to subsequent review and
environmental analysis by the City of Chula Vista, federal and state reviewing agencies and
all other interested persons.
Filldillg: Although the mitigation measures noted below would minimize the project's
bjological impacts to the northern portion of the project site, these impacts cannot be
avoided and would remain significant, at least at the GDP review level. Pursuant to Sectjon
15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, there are no feasible measures that would mitigate
the impacts below a level of significance. As described in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations, however, the City has determined that this impact is acceptable because of
specifjc overriding considerations.
The City notes further, however, that biological impacts to the northern portion of
the project will undergo further review at the SPA Plan level, at which time the City shall
make a further "significance" determination concerning whether the redesign of the northern
portion of the project would mitigate impacts to biological resources to below a level of
sjgnjficance.
Mitigatioll Measures: The following mitigation measures are found to be feasible and
are required as condjtions of approval:
Commitmellt to Prepare Mitigatioll Plall: The project applicant shall 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 Wjldlife Service ("USFWS"), the California Department of Fish and Game
("CDFG"), the City of Chula Vista and the County of San Diego shall take place during
preparatjon of this mitigatipn plan. The SPA Plan-level mitigation plan shall be prepared,
analyzed and included in a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the
appljcant's SPA Plan. The City of Chula Vista, as the lead agency, shall retain final
discretionary review and approval authority with respect to the mitigation plan and
Supplemental ErR for the SPA Plan.
32
The SPA Plan-level mitigation plan shall not be approved prior to May 1, 1994, the
date by which the South County Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) js
anticipated to be adopted by the City of Chula Vista and approved by the COFG and
USFWS. In the event that the South County NCCP is not adopted and approved by the
Cjty of Chula Vista, the COFG and the USFWS on or before May 1, 1994, the project
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 City acknowledges that the foregojng time
period relating to the SPA-level mitigation plan does not apply to or restrict the applicant's
processing of a SPA Plan for the southern portion.
The City further acknowledges that:
(i) In the event the northern portion of the project is subsequently dedicated as
permanent natural open space or included in a mitigatjon bank, the SPA Plan-
level mitigation plan and the South County Natural Community Conservation
Plan are not necessary or required for the northern portion or any other
subsequent discretionary project approval.
(ii) The SPA Plan-level mitigatjon plan shall be considered prior to annexation of
the northern portion into the Chula Vista corporate boundary.
(iii) Preparation of the SPA Plan-level mitigation plan shaH be a condition of
approval of the San Miguel Ranch GOP, consistent with the criteria set forth
below.
Criteria to be Used in Evalualing /he Mi/igalion Plan: The South County NCCP, if
completed and approved, may preclude development of the northern parcel, or may provide
for djfferent criteria and standards for the preservation and enhancement of on-site
biological resources. If it does not, the criteria set forth below shaH be used in creating the
SPA Plan-level mitigation plan.
In preparing the SPA Plan-level mitigation plan, the project applicant shaH use the
guidelines set forth below as the applicable criteria for mitigating impacts to the jdentified
biologjcal resources jn the northern parcel. The following criteria shaH constitute the
minimum level of preservation required for the designated species in preparing the SPA
Plan-level mitigation plan. The applicant also specificaHy acknowledges that the actual level
of mitigation could be as much as 100 percent preservation for some species in order to
achieve a finding that the impacts fall below a level of significance under CEQA and that
the City may require this level of mitigation. This significance determination shaH be made
a part of the Supplemental EIR for the applicant's SPA Plan. The City of Chula Vista
acknowledges that the COFG may not find the criteria stated below to be acceptable at the
SPA level.
(i) Oiegan coastal sage scrub Impacts to onsite coastal sage scrub cannot be
mitigated with the project as proposed. Sensitive
33
(ji)
species that are a part of this habitat onsite
include important populations of coast barrel
cactus, Munz's sage, California gnatcatcher and
cactus wren. These species are concentrated in
the coastal sage scrub habitat designated for
development under the project, as proposed.
Any loss of coastal sage scrub shall require
mitigation onsite through the creation of open
space preserves at a mitigation ratio of 4: I, and
subject to a long term maintenance and
management program. Of the northern parcel,
no more than 15% of the onsite coastal sage
scrub shall be impacted by development and at
least 85% shall be used for provision of onsite
mitigation or for mitigation purposes by others.
This measure will reduce, but not completely
avoid, significant and unmitigable impacts.
Reduction to insignificance can only be attained
through on-site preservation of all coastal sage
scrub on the northern parcel. While the range of
potential on-site and off-site mitigation measures
is greater than that proposed for the southern
parcel, it is justified by the greater bio-diversity
on the northern parcel, whjch makes this area a
much more important regional location for
Diegan coastal sage scrub habitat. Mitigation at
the SPA level will be required to include preserve
design criteria.
Wetlands
Impacts to wetlands cannot be mitigated with the
project as proposed. The wetlands occur within
the site drainages of the north parcel. At the
GDP review level, the worst case scenario for
impacts was assumed within large lot
development areas in the northern parcel which
included the assumptjon that each entire lot
would be impacted by development. The Draft
EIR specifically notes that impacts in the
northern parcel can be reduced significantly, and
that impacts must be avoided to the extent
practicable. The reduction of jmpacts would
occur during the SPA Plan revjew level, and any
impacts may require a 1603 agreement and
possibly a 404 permit. Mitigatjon at the SPA
level will be required to include preserve design
criteria. Until these minimization measures are
34
(ijj) Non-native grassland
(iv) Californja gnatcatcher
resolved at the SPA level, a specific revegetation
plan cannot yet be developed.
The recommended mitigation replacement ratjo
is a minimum of 1:1. This ratjo is based upon the
generally low to moderate quality of wetland
habitats being impacted, and is not jnconsistent
with acceptable mitigation measures for impacts
to similar quality wetlands in southern California.
The ratio is considered the minimum to meet the
"no net loss" criteria for both federal and state
reviewing agencies.
See below for mitigation criteria relating to
Palmer's Grappling Hook and Otay Tarweed.
Impacts to the California gnatcatcher cannot be
mitigated with the project as proposed.
Mitigation for losses of the California gnatcatcher
can be accomplished only through dedicatjon of
important tracts of the specjes' habjtat into
natural open space. These tracts must be linked
in a network to allow for the birds' dispersal,
maintenance of populations sufficiently large to
be self-sustaining, and population recovery after
the fires which inevitably sweep through natjve
scrub. Because Rancho San Miguel is a major
part of a core habitat, reductions to below a level
of significance can be accomplished only through
a project redesign that leaves a signifjcant
majority of the pairs and their habitat in natural
open space. Any losses of existing pairs, occupied
gnatcatcher habitat, or unoccupied potential
breeding gnatcatcher habitat shall require
mitigatjon onsite through the creation of
permanent open space preserves at a
preservation ratio of 2: 1, and subject to a long
term maintenance and management program. Of
the northern parcel, no more than 20% of the
existing pairs, 20% of the occupied gnatcatcher
habitat, and 50% of the unoccupied potential
breeding gnatcatcher habitat shaH be impacted by
development. At least 80% of the existing pairs,
80% of the occupied gnatcatcher habjtat, and
50% of the unoccupied potential breeding
gnatcatcher habitat shaH be used for the provision
of onsite mitigation or for mitigation purposes by
35
(v)
(vi)
others. Mitigation at the SPA level will be
required to include preserve design criteria. This
measure will reduce, but not completely avoid,
significant and unmitigable biological impacts.
Reduction to insignificance can only be attained
through on-site preservation of all existing pairs,
occupied gnatcatcher habitat, and unoccupied
potential breeding gnatcatcher habitat on the
northern parcel. While this mitigation ratjo of 2:1
is greater than that proposed for the southern
parcel, it is justified by the greater bio-diversity
on the northern parcel, which makes this area a
much more important regional location for
California gnatcatchers.
Cactus wren
Impacts to the cactus wren cannot be mitigated
with the project as proposed. To reduce, but not
completely avoid significant and unmitjgable
impacts, the project must be redesigned to impact
no more than one pair of cactus wren. All
remaining occupied cactus thickets containing six
pairs of cactus wrens shall be placed withjn
contiguous bi010gical open space. In addition,
cactus stands which are to be impacted by the
project will be transplanted to expand and
enhance the cactus wren populations jn areas
adjacent to existing populations in the north. To
determine the appropriate mitjgation area, a
qualified biologist shall monitor the activjty
patterns of the impacted cactus wren and in the
remaining territories in the north to determjne
boundaries of the home ranges and to
characterize the important elements of home
range usage. Subsequent to the restoration, the
mitigation area shall be monitored for a period of
5 years to ensure successful establishment of the
habitat. Existing occupied thickets lie in the west
central and north portions of the north section.
Mitigation at the SPA level will be required to
include preserve design criteria.
Otay Tarweed
Loss of such a large populatjon of Otay Tarweed
cannot be mitigated with the project as proposed.
Therefore, if a significant adverse impact is to be
avoided, a minimum of 80 percent of this plant
species should be retained in open space,
including the areas supporting the largest number
36
(vji) Coast barrel cactus
of atay Tarweed. For impacts which go beyond
the 20 percent recommended above, a
revegetation/restoration program could be
implemented which would examine the potential
for re-introducing this species into disturbed areas
within proposed open space for the project. Any
restoration efforts would require working closely
with the CDFG. A minimum of 65 percent of the
atay Tarweed shall be retained ill situ in open
space, even if a restoratjon program is
implemented. Such a redesign would reduce
impacts to this species to below a level of
significance. No revegetation or restoratjon of
the atay Tarweed should be considered as a
mitigation option until it can be demonstrated
that such measures will produce long term
populations, Mitigation at the SPA level will be
required to include preserve design criteria. .
Regardless of the final preserve design for the
atay Tarweed, the two populations of 10,000 and
2,000 plants required to be preserved as part of
the Southern Mitigation Plan shall remain withjn
the preserve area for the Northern Mitigation
Plan and will be included within the plant count
in order to ensure a minimum of 65% of the
atay Tarweed is retained ill si/u in open space.
An additional 15% shall be retajned either ill situ
or as part of an atay Tarweed restoration plan.
This will result in onsjte preservation of at least
80% of the atay Tarweed for the northern
portion. Assuming a 24,000 plant count in the
north, a preservation level of 65% would require
15,600 plants to be preserved in situ, and after
allowing for the 12,000 plants previously
committed, an additional 3,600 plants would need
to be preserved ill silu as part of the northern
mitigation plan.
Loss of such large populations of barrel cacti
cannot be mitigated with the project as proposed.
Therefore, if a significant adverse impact is to be
avoided, the areas supporting the largest numbers
of barre I cacti should be excluded from the
development area. These areas are in the west-
central and northwest parts of the north sectjon.
Project redesign to avoid these areas would
37
reduce impacts to below a level of significance.
A minimum preservation level of 60% ill situ and
transplantation of the remaining cactj to proposed
open space areas on-site shall be required.
Analysis of whether impacts are reduced to below
a level of significance shall be undertaken prior to
SPA review. Mitigation at the SPA level will be
required to include preserve design criteria.
(viii) Palmer's Grappling Hook Due to the preservation of virtually aU Palmer's
Grappling Hook on the northern parcel as partjal
mitigation for impacts to this species on the
southern parcel, no further mitigation is necessary
related to the northern parcel.
(ix) California Adolphia Significant impacts to this plant cannot be
mitigated with the project as proposed. The loss
of significant populations of this plant can be
reduced only by excluding the important plant
patches from the development area. The project
should be redesigned to protect at ]east 50
percent in biological open space. Such redesign
would reduce impacts to below a level of
significance. Mitigatjon at the SPA level will be
required to include preserve desjgn criteria.
(x) Marsh Elder Wetlands onsite should be avoided to the extent
practicable. Mitigation at the SPA level will be
required to include preserve design criteria.
Unavoidable impacts could be mitigated through
a revegetation program.
(xi) Spiny Rush Wetlands onsite should be avoided to the extent
practicable. Unavoidable impacts to spiny rush
could be mitigated through enhancement of
wetland areas to include revegetatjon of Spiny
Rush. Mitigation at the SPA ]evel wi1l be
required to include preserve design criteria.
38
Additiollal Mi/igatioll Measures: In addition, the mitigation plan shall incorporate the
following general mitigation measures to further reduce impacts to the identified bjologicaI
resources upon implementation of a redesign of the northern parcel.
The potentia] loss or degradation of wetland habitat is considered significant
by CDFG. Any filling of wetlands would require a 1603 agreement between
the project applicant and CDFG. A pre-discharge Notification would have to
be submjtted to the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) if statutory thresholds
are exceeded, and a 404 permit may be required.
A no net loss of wetland habitat js required by CDFG and ACOE. Impacts
to wetlands must be avoided to the extent practicable. Impacts within the
project can be reduced by placement of wetlands occurring withjn proposed
residential lots jn open space easements and providing adequate buffers.
Where impacts cannot be avoided, every effort should be made to minimize
these impacts. AJlunavoidable impacts shall be mitigated by on site creatjon
of wetland habitat. Drainages that receive run-off from housing may be
consjdered for the location of created wetlands. Minimization of impacts
could be accomplished with a comprehensive program to replace and enhance
wetland habjtat under a wetland revegetation plan created by a wetland
revegetatjon specialist and approved by CDFG and ACOE, if necessary, and
the City of Chula Vista. Total created wetland would have to be at a
replacement ratio of a minimum of 1: 1.
Graded areas along roadways shall be hydroseeded with native plant species
consistent with surrounding natural vegetation. This would help to minimize
erosjon and runoff, as well as improve the area aesthetically by making it
visually compatible with adjacent natural areas. As part of this effort, a
revegetation plan shall be developed with the help of a revegetation specialist
with experience in coastal sage scrub and similar habitats. The Revegetation
Plan shall be prepared by the applicant and a qualified biologist.
The use of non-inv<1sive plants in landscaping areas adjacent to open space will be
required for all areas outside of actual lot boundaries. Additionally, homeowners will be
encouraged to use non-invasjve species in thejr landscapjng adjacent to open space.
Iceplant (Carpobrotus aeqllilmerallls or C. edlilis) shall not be used in lieu of
fjre-resistant native vegetation due to the slope failures associated with it.
Importatjon of this plant introduces fire ants, which are known to reduce
native harvester ant population through competition and displacement. In
additjon, fire ants are unpalatable to the San Diego horned lizard and their
introduction would reduce horned lizard populations.
Grading actjvjties wjthin 100 feet of areas of identified California gnatcatcher
pairs, or thejr associated coastal sage scrub habitat, shall not be conducted
during the breedjng or nesting season (mid-March through July annually).
Grading activities shall be supervised by a biologist.
39
Site preparation activities, especially staging area operations and maintenance
rows for heavy machinery, shall be restricted to areas not being placed in open
space. Carelessness on the part of equipment operators can result in the
destructjon of areas that have been designated for preservation. Areas
adjacent to open space shall be fenced. A debris fence shall be installed prjor
to excavation in areas where grading is up-slope of sensitive biological
habjtats. These recommendatjons should be incorporated into a constructjon
monitoring program approved by the City of Chula Vista.
Compliance with state regulations (California AB 31S0) requiring monitoring
programs for development projects would require satisfaction of the followjng
two objectives:
The final site plan must be reviewed by a qualified biologist for
the City of Chula Vista and by CDFG for compliance with these
mitigation measures and must also be approved by the City
Council, upon recommendation of the Planning Commission, in
conjunction with the Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan.
Each phase of project implementation must be reviewed by a
qualified biologist for compliance with the mitigation measures
required for that phase, and a report must be filed prior to
notice of completion.
NCCP Requirement: The mitigation plan shall be consistent with the sub-regional
Natural Communities Conservation Planning Program (NCCP) for coastal sage scrub in
southern San Diego County, otherwise known as the South County NCCP, unless the
applicant is granted permission by the City Council to proceed with the SPA-level mitjgatjon
plan pursuant to the procedure established jn Sections 1 above (after May 1, 1994).
The project applicant, the City of Chula Vista and the County of San Diego have
each entered into "Enrollment Agreements" with the CDFG for the South County NCCP
Plan. This Plan, which is authorized by state law (Fish and Game Code &&2800 et seq.), is
sponsored by the California Resources Agency and the CDFG and will be implemented in
cooperation with the USFWS. Close cooperation between the three agencies in the NCCP
process is ensured through a Memorandum of Understanding entered into between the
agencies on December 4, 1991.
The South County NCCP Plan is intended to identify and provide for the sub-regjonal
protection and perpetuation of coastal sage scrub habitat and designated "target" species
supported by that habitat while, at the same time, allowing compatible and appropriate
development and growth, as set forth in Section 2805 of the Fish and Game Code. The
purpose for enro1ling in this plan is to: (a) complete the field surveys, research and planning
necessary to prepare a long-term habitat management plan within the designated preserve
area; and (b) protect enrolled coastal sage scrub habitat during the IS-month planning
period for the plan, which began on May 1, 1992.
40
The South County NCCP Plan is also intended to be consistent with the findings and
declarations contained in the enabling legislation. These findings declare that the NCCP
process will achjeve a number of significant public benefits, including: (a) promoting
coordinatjon and cooperation among public agencies, landowners and other private jnterests;
(b) providing a mechanism for landowners and development proponents to effectively
participate in the resource conservation planning process; (c) providing regional planning
focus which can effectjvely address cumulative jmpact concerns, minimize wildlife habitat
fragmentatjon and promote multiple species management and conservation; (d) providing
an optjon for identifying and ensuring appropriate mitigation for impacts on fish and wildlife;
(e) promoting the conservation of broad based natural communities and species diversjty;
and (f) providing for efficient use and protection of natural and economic resources while
promoting greater public awareness of important elements of the state's critical resources.
To implement these legislative findings, the planning process will focus on preparation
and approval of the South County NCCP Plan to ensure the long-term protection and
perpetuation of a sufficient amount of coastal sage scrub habitat within a designated
preserve area to ensure the long-term survival of designated "target" species associated with
that habitat. The target species for coastal sage scrub include the California gnatcatcher,
cactus wren and orange-throated whiptail.
The applicant has already completed biological field surveys and is continuing to study
the northern parcel as required by the Scientific Review Panel (SRP), which was formed in
connection with the recently enacted NCCP legislation, Any additional biological field
surveying will be consistent with those guidelines to be applied to the property and approved
by the SRP.
The South County NCCP Plan wjll include the following components: (a) a sub-
regional habitat description and analysis (with clearly mapped boundaries); (b) a defined
preserve area; (c) long-term conservation and management strategies; and (d) techniques
for implementatjon of coastal sage scrub habitat protection measures, including a mitigation
monitoring program that complies with CEQA.
The Cjty of ChuJa Vista shall review the South County NCCP Plan as it applies to
the applicant's northern parcel concurrent with its approval of the SPA Plan for the
Northern Parcel. During that review process, the City will consult with the County of San
Diego, California Department of Fish & Game (CDFG) and U.S. Fish & Wild]jfe Service
(USFWS) to the extent that the approved NCCP provides for such review. The City Council
shall make the final determination that the proposed SPA plan for the Northern Parcel is
inconsistent wjth the approved South County NCCP.
The review and final approval process for the South County NCCP Plan is anticipated
to take place within a 24-month NCCP planning period, which commenced on May 1, 1992
and expires on May 1, 1994. After the expiration date, the applicant may make a request
to the Chula Vista City Council to consider allowing the applicant to proceed with the SPA-
level mitigation plan.
D. ARCHAEOLOGY
41
Significant Effect: The archaeology study on the San Miguel Ranch site determined
that ejght important sites will be directly impacted by the proposed project. Another eight
sites will be indirectly impacted resulting from residential use of project open space areas.
The impacts to these 16 sites are significant.
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avojd the
sjgnjficant environmental effect as identified in Final EIR 90-02.
Mitigation Measures: The significant impacts to archaeological resources can be
reduced to below a leve] of significance by implementation of the following mitigation
measures. These mitigation measures are found to be feasible and are required as
conditions of approval:
· The grading and brushing of the project and any related otT-site
utility improvements shall be monitored by a qualified
archaeologist to ensure that any significant deposits or artifacts
which were not identified during the evaluation phase may be
analyzed prior to the destruction of the sites.
· Any sites which were masked or buried and were not previously
discovered shall require evaluation. ]n the event that any new
or previously undetected portions of a site are encountered
during the grading of the project or related improvements, the
grading shall be halted by the monitoring archaeologist, and the
site shall be evaluated for importance, If the site is found to be
important, and the impacts will be significant, those jmpacts
must be mitigated to a level of insignificance through either a
data recovery program or preservation.
· Any testing programs and mitigation measures initiated during
mitigation monitoring must be cleared through the City of Chula
Vista.
· Prior to the initiation of any future projects stemming from thjs
EIR for Rancho San Miguel, the testing programs whjch were
either abbrevjated or suspended during the EIR process, as
discussed under Impacts jn this section, must be completed in
accordance with the guidelines of the City of Chula Vjsta (refer
to the technical report to ascertain which programs must be
completed). The completion of the testing is not itself a
condition of mitigation, and therefore, the timing on this task js
not dictated by CEQA.
· The impact summary provided in Table 3.4-2 of Draft EIR 90-02
indicates that 35 sites will be directly impacted and 8 sjtes wjJl be
indirectly impacted. Of these, eight sites will require mjtigation
42
measures to reduce the significant direct impacts and ejght sites will
require measures to reduce the significant indirect jmpacts. The 16
sites which will requjre mitigation measures are:
SDi-4524 *
SDj-4526*
SDi-4530*
SDi-8658*
SDi-12,054
SDi-12,061
SDi-12,064 *
SDi-12,084H*
SDi-4525*
SDi-4529*
SDi-6957*
SDi-12,049
SDi-12,058
SDi-12,063*
SDi-12,066*
SDi-12,085H
· Of the 16 sjtes ljsted above which have been evaluated as jmportant
resources, those noted with an asterisk have the additional attribute of
being located within the Bonita-Miguel Archaeological Djstrict. This
district was formed on the basis of several archaeological surveys
undertaken for the Miguel Substation and related transmissjon line
projects, and was proposed by the Bureau of Land Management. The
district was determined to be eligible for the Natjonal Register of
Historic Places, although the district has not been formally accepted by
the Keeper of the Register. While the status of the area as an
archaeological district does not imply that a different set of evaluation
criteria are used to determine the importance of the sites wjthin the
district, it does emphasize the unique pattern of sites within the district
area. Impact analysis and mitigation measures should consider the
relationship of the sites within the district; however, unless federal
funds are involved in the project, CEQA and local city guidelines do
not require special treatment of sites found to be eligible for
nomination to the National Register.
· The sites which will be directly impacted must be subjected to a data
recov~ry program to achieve the mitigation of impacts. Those sites
which will require data recovery programs due to direct jmpacts include
the following:
SDi-4529
SDj.6957
SDi-12,058
SDi-12,084H
SDi-4530
SDi-12,054
SDi-12,066
SDi-12,085H
· The data recovery programs shall consist of the followjng:
· A detailed collection of information from the surface and
subsurface artifact deposjts within the framework of an
approved research design. This design shall include individual
sections for each site, as the sites do not necessarily include
jdentical or directly associated resources. Educational uses for
43
data recovered shall be considered In the design of the data
recovery program.
. The research design shall address the determination of cultural
affiliation and site function(s), feature analysis, tool typology
analysis, and regional research issues regarding subsistence
patterns, lithic manufacture and maintenance patterns, trade,
and intrasite/intersite development.
. The historic sites shall require documentation of the line of
ownership and periods of occupation, as well as data recovery
to collect artifacts which define the range of historic activities.
Where standing structures are present, an architectural
assessment will be needed.
· The information from each site shall be gathered by conducting
a statistical sampling program based on a sample size of two to
five percent of the site area. As an alternative, a stratifjed
random sample could be conducted to focus greater attention
on elements of the resources which contain greater potential to
address the questions presented in the research design.
· The data collected as part of the implementation of the
research design shall be presented in a technical report, with
appropriate interpretations and analyses, and submitted for
review by the City.
· The ejght sites which will be indirectly impacted and require mitjgation
are those which include elements that could be removed or damaged
by site visitation. For instance, at Site SDi-4524, the presence of 1ithjc
production loci which are relatively undisturbed and which contain
elements of the entire prehistoric lithic manufacturing process js very
rare il1 this region. Even casual pedestrian visitation through such a
locus could disturb the pattern of available data, and the removal of
even one tool would seriously impact such a valuable surface
expression. The jncreased presence of residents drawn by the new
development would eventually facilitate the degradation of significant
elements of the surface aspects of these sites. The sites which would
be indirectly impacted through pressures associated with increased
pedestrian or equestrian traffic are:
SDj-4524
SDi-4526
SDi-12,049
SDi-12,063
SDi-4525
SDi-8658
SDi-12,061
SDi-12,064
· Mitigation measures for these sites shall include:
44
. A preservation plan shall be developed in sufficient detail to
ensure that all sensitive aspects of the sites are considered. The
completjon of the testing program for many of these sites prior
to the development of the preservation program will be valuable
to the understanding of the sites and the sensitive elements
included in each.
· The dedjcation of open space easements to protect these sites
from encroachment associated with the development or related
actions in the near future, as well as any actions jn the future
which would include land alteration.
· The configuration of the easements shall be designed and
dedicated prior to any future development processing following
thjs ErR. The proposed open space areas designated for the
project cover an area which encompasses the easements for
these sites.
· Each easement shall include a 100-foot buffer area and must be
permanently fenced with six-foot-high, chain link fence. The
permanency of the fences shall be assured through the
placement of the bases of the fence poles in concrete, and the
fencing shall be vinyl coated. This will essentially preclude any
development within 100 feet of the sites, while the fence will
deter most passersby from encroaching into the sites. The
fencing installation shall be conducted under the supervision of
an archaeologist to ensure that the resources are not damaged.
· The easements shall be granted prior to any further land
development projects, such as SPAs, and fences must be placed
around all of the sites identified above before any construction
can begin anywhere within the project boundaries.
E. PALEONTOLOGY.
Significallt Effect: Impacts to paleontological resources occur when earthwork
activities cut into geologic formations and destroy the buried fossil remains. The project
area is underlain by a variety of formations,some which are known to contain fossils jn the
surrounding area (Proctor ValleylEastlakelBonita). Based on a review of the concept pJan,
it appears that extensive development would occur in those areas underlain by formations
which have a moderate to high potential to contain paleontological resources, including the
Otay and Sweetwater formations. Mass excavations in these formations would result
insignifjcant impacts to paleontologic resources.
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the
sjgnificant environmental effect as identified in Final EIR 90-02.
45
Mitigatioll Measures: To mitigate potential impacts to paleontological resources to
below a ]evel of significance, the following measures, which are found to be feasible and are
required as conditions of approval, shall be implemented during project grading:
· Prior to issuance of development permits, the project applicant shall
present a letter to the City of Chula Vista indicating that a qualified
paleontologist has been retained to carry out an appropriate mitigation
program. (A qualified paleontologist is defined as an individua] with an
M.S. or Ph,D. in paleontology or geology who is familiar with
paleontological procedures and techniques.)
. A qualified paleontologist shall be at any pre-grade meetings to consult
with grading and excavation contractors. At 'this time the units
(mudstone and gritstone) of the Sweetwater formation should be
located for use by the paleontologist.
· A paleontological monitor shall be onsite at all tjmes during the
original cutting of previously undisturbed sediments of highly sensitive
formations (i,e. Otay and Sweetwater-mudstone portion only) to inspect
cuts for contained fossils.
A paleontologicalmonjtor shall be onsite on at least a half-time basjs
during the original cutting of previously undisturbed sediments of
moderately sensitive formations (i.e. debris !low deposits and
Sweetwater-gritstone portion only) to inspect cuts for contained fossils.
A paleontological monitor shall be onsite on at least a quarter-time
basis during the original cutting of previously undisturbed sediments of
low sensitjvity formations (i.e. Santiago Peak volcanics-meta-
sedimentary portion only) to inspect cuts for contained fossils.
A paleontological monitor shall periodically inspect original cuts in
deposits wjth an unknown resource sensitivity (i.e. stream/quaternary
deposits). '
In the event that fossils are discovered in unknown, low or moderately
sensitive formations it may be necessary to increase that per day fjeld
monjtoring time. Conversely, if fossils are not being found then the
monitoring should be reduced.
A paleontological monitor is not needed during grading of rocks with
no resource sensitjvity (i.e. Santiago Peak Volcanics-meta-volcanic
portjon ).
A paleontological monitor is derined as an individual who has
experience in the collection and salvage of fossil material. The
46
paleontological monitor shall work under the direction of a qualified
paleontologist.
. When fossils are discovered, the paleontologist (or paleontological
monitor) shall recover them. In most cases this fossil salvage can be
completed in a short perjod of time. However, some fossil specimens
(such as a complete large mammal skeleton) may require an extended
salvage time. In these instances the paleontologist (or monitor) shall
be allowed to temporarily direct, divert, or halt grading to allow
recovery of fossil remains in a timely manner. Because of the potential
for the recovery of small fossil remains such as jsolated mammal teeth,
it may be necessary, in certain instances, to set up a screen-washing
operation at the site.
. Fossil remains collected during the monitoring and salvage portion of
the mitigation program shall be cleaned, repaired, sorted and
cataloged.
· Prepared fossils along with copies of all pertinent field notes, photos,
and maps shall then be deposited (with the owners' permission) jn a
scientific jnstitution with paleontological collections such as the San
Diego Natural History Museum.
· A final summary report shall be completed which outlines the results
of the mitigation program. This report shall include discussion of the
methods used, stratigraphic section exposed, fossils collected and
signjficance of recovered fossils.
· Selected roadcuts or large finished slopes in areas of jnterestjng
geology (e.g. Highway 125) shall be left unlandscaped if they would not
be subject to erosion so they can serve as important educational and
scientific reference exposures for future generations.
F. GEOLOGY/SOILS
Significant Effect: The project site could be subject to a seismic event with maximum
credible magnitude of 6.7 on the potentially active La Nacion fault, located approximately
four mjles away. Such an event could result in significant impacts as the result of ground
acceleration, liquefaction (in the event saturated alluvial materials are present), or slope
instabiljty due to reactivating existing landslides or the presence of weak shared clay seams
and bentonjte layers within the Sweetwater and Otay formations.
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the
signifjcant environmental effect as identified in Final EIR 90-02.
47
Mitigatioll Measures: To mitigate potential impacts associated with seismicity to below
a level of sjgnjficance, the following measures, which are found to be feasible and are
requjred as conditjons of approval, shall be implemented:
· All proposed structures and pertinent facilities shall comply with
gujdelines of the Uniform Buildjng Code and any applicable state or
local construction standards, as well as future geotechnical studies.
· Appropriate grading and construction measures related to sejsmjc
loading shall be used.
· Appropriate fill and structural design shall be used.
· Surfjcial materials including alluvium, fill and topsoils shall be
excavated to firm natural ground and either replaced with approved fill
or recompacted, depending on direction from the geotechnical
consultant.
· The suitability of debris !low deposits to support structures, and the
likelihood of future failures in the head areas of debris !lows shall be
jnvestigated by a qualified geotechnical consultant as soon as grading
plans are available.
· Slope stabilization methods recommended by a qualified geotechnical
consultant shall be used.
· All slope designs, cuts and fills, erosion control, surface and subsurface
drajnage, and foundation and retaining wall design shall conform to the
recommendations of the geotechnical consultant. Specifically, this
would include the use of maximum 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) ratio cut
and fill slopes. Cut and fill slopes in the Sweetwater Formation shaH
not exceed 30 feet in height; those in the Gtay Formation shaH not
exceed 50 feet for fill slopes. These measures shall be implemented jn
accordance with the City's requirements for landform grading.
· Settlement monuments shaH be established throughout areas underlain
by compressible materials, especially where construction will take place
over debris flows. The monuments shall be monitored for vertical
movements until significant movement has ceased.
· A geotechnical investigation supplementing the 1986 prelimjnary soils
and geotechnical investigation shall be prepared prior to approval of
the project Tentative Map. Supplemental geotechnical studies shaH be
conducted both prior to and during grading activities, and shaH analyze
such jssues as the site-specific placement of structures and sub-surface
drainage facilities. The report shall consider seismic impacts on these
facilities and shall made recommendations pertaining to seismic
48
impacts. These recommendations shall be incorporated into final
project design.
* * * *
Significallt Effect: Expansive soils are present at the site. These sojls could
potentially result in significant impacts to structures, building foundations, underground
utjlities and roads.
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(I) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations have been required in, or jncorporated into, the project which wj]] avoid the
signifjcant environmental effect as identified in Final EIR 90-02.
Mitigation Measures: To mitigate potential impacts associated with the presence of
expansive soils to below a level of significance, the following measures, which are found to
be feasible and are required as conditions of approval, shall be implemented:
. Clayey subsoils shall be excavated and, if used in fills, be placed at least
three feet below the proposed finish pad grade and at least 12 inches
below street subgrade.
. Foundation for single- or two-story structures located entirely in very
low to low expansion natural ground, or entirely in fill soils that do not
vary more than 20 feet in depth at any point beneath the structure
shall be at least 12 inches jn wjdth and extend at least 12 inches below
lowest adjacent pad grade. Recommendations for foundatjons
constructed in fill soils having a differential thickness greater than 20
feet shall be evaluated separately for each structure.
. If complete removal of expansive soils is jmpractical, measures
recommended by a qualified geotechnical consultant to control such
sojls shall be used. Such measures may include moisture control or
additjon of chemical stabilizers.
. Structural design that incorporates deep footings and reinforced floor
slabs shall be used.
. The supplemental geotechnical investigation shall consider expansive-
soil impacts and shall make recommendations pertaining to such
impacts. These recommendations shall be incorporated into final
project design.
* * * *
Significant Effect: Grading activities, vegetation removal and generatjng cut-and-fj]]
slopes would increase the potential for erosjon at the project site. Potentia] erosion impacts
49
include damage to cut-and-fill slopes, exposure of underground facj!itjes or foundations, and
increased siltation downstream from stormwater runoff.
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(I) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in Final EIR 90-02.
Mitigation Measures: To mjtjgate potential impacts associated with erosion to below
a level of significance, the following measures, which are found to be feasible and are
required as conditions of approval, shall be implemented:
. Clayey subsoils shall be excavated and, if used in fills, be placed at least 3 feet
below the proposed finish pad grade and at least 12 inches below street
subgradde.
. Foundations for sjngle- or two-story structures shall be located entirely in very
low to low expansive natural ground or entirely in fill soils that do not vary
more than 20 feet in depth at any point beneath the structure should be at
least 12 inches in width and extend at lest 12 inches below lowest adjacent pad
grade. Recommendations for foundations constructed in fill soils having a
differential thickness greater than 20 feet shall be evaluated separately for
each structure. (Geocon)
. Applicant shall use measures recommended by a qualified geotechnical
consultant to control expansive soils where complete removal would be
impractical. Such measures would include moisture control or addition of
chemical stabilizers.
. Applicant shall incorporate structural designs that include deep footings and
reinforced floor slabs.
. All grading and site preparation shall be performed in accordance with the
"Recommended Grading Specifications" contained in Appendix C of the
Geocon Report (1986) and the City of Chula Vista Grading Ordinance.
(Geocon)
· It is recommended that a preconstruction conference be held at the site with
the owner or developer, contractor, civil engineer, and soil engineer in
attendance, to discuss special soil handling and/or grading plans. (Geocon)
· It is recommended that the outer zone of fill slopes equal to at least 15 feet
or the height of the slope, whichever is less, be composed of well compacted
granular material. All fill slopes should be backrolled at maximum 4-foot fill
height intervals during construction and each fill slope should be track-walked
upon completion. (Geocon)
50
. Applicant shall use erosion-controlling and slope stabilization measures
both during and after completion of construction activities. These may
include methods such as revegetation, detention structures, retaining
walls, temporary slopes or buttressing, brow ditches, and work
restrictions during inclement weather.
. Applicant shall desjgnate material djsposal methods, locations and haul routes,
and coordinate with and obtain approval by appropriate regulatory agencies.
. Applicant shall treat compacted areas (e.g., scarification) to facilitate
revegetation and reduce erosion potential.
. Proposed project desjgn, grading, and construction activities shall conform to
all pertinent standards of the County of San Diego General Plan, Grading
Ordinance, and all other applicable guidelines.
. The supplemental geotechnical investigation shall consider erosion
impacts and shall make recommendations pertaining to such impacts.
These recommendations shall be incorporated into final project design.
* * * *
Significant Effect: The project results in potentially significant impacts regarding
compaction and settlement of soil, reactive soils, shallow bedrock, and groundwater seepage.
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in Final ErR 90-02.
MiJigation Measures: To mitigate potential impacts associated with erosion to below
a level of significance, the following measures, which are found to be feasible and are
required as conditions of approval, shall be implemented:
. These mitigation measures are listed on pages 3.5-21 through 3.5-25 of
the Draft ErR and are incorporated by this reference.
G. HYDROLOGY
Significant Effect: Development of the project site would create large impervious
surfaces such as roads, walkways, buildings, and parking lots. Runoff would occur more
rapidly, and the peak runoff discharge from the site would be higher for a given rainfall
event than under the present undeveloped conditions.
Basin headwater areas tend to possess slope and channel gradients steeper than those
in downgradient areas, and therefore, increases in overall impervious cover results in larger,
more frequent, and higher velocity discharges into downstream channels. Detrimental
51
consequences could include increased peak discharges, possible floodjng, and possible scour
of the mjnor and major drainage ways downstream of the development.
The northern half of the northern portion of the project is in a watershed that drains
into Sweetwater Reservoir. The project may affect the quantity and quality of stormwater
runoff into the reservoir. Because Sweetwater Reservoir is a storage facility for drinking
water supplies, the project raises particular concerns in that it may affect water quality within
the reservoir.
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in Final EIR 90-02.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are found to be feasible and
are required as conditions of approval. Upon implementation, these measures will reduce
the hydrology impacts to below a level of significance:
. A detailed drainage report and plan shall be prepared for the entire
project prior to SPA Plan approval. In the event that a SPA Plan for
the southern portion only is being considered, such plan for the
northern portion of the project will not be required.
. The detailed drainage report and plan shall contain the following
design components and hydrological data:
. The project's urban stormwater runoff system shall be
designed to convey runoff away from developed areas.
. The design shall route runoff from the contributing sub-
basins in such a way as to avoid compounding peak
discharges.
. The design shall ensure that any increase in stormwater
flow velocity will not result in channel scour in natural or
earthen channels (e.g., by routung runoff to man-made
retention ponds located within major drainage ways and
then, following the storm event, releasing the retained
water at a controlled rate).
. The design shall provide for sediment control, to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
. The detailed drainage report and plan shall be subject to the approval
of the City Engineer.
52
. All stormwater runoff facilities shall be designed in accordance with the
criteria set forth in the Subdjvision Manual or as determined by the
City Engineer.
. The project shall comply with all applicable regulations promulgated
by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EP A) as set forth in the
Natjonal Pollution Djscharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit
requirements for urban runoff and stormwater discharge, along with
any appljcable regulations adopted by the City.
· The developer shall obtain an NPDES construction permit from the
California State Water Resources Control Board and to submit
pollutant control and monitoring plans to the Regional Water Quality
Control Board for approval prior to the issuance of grading permits.
H. WATER QUALITY
Significant Effect: The project would generate substantial increases in surface runoff
due to increases in impervious surfaces, and could cause significant flooding and scouring
downstream. Water quality in the Sweetwater Reservoir may be compromised by urban
runoff from the project site.
FiIldings: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alteratjons have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in Final EIR 90-02.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are found to be feasible and
are required as conditions of approval. Upon implementation, these measures will reduce
the water quality impacts to below a level of sjgnificance:
. The project is subject to review and approval by the California
Environmental Protection Agency (formerly State Department of
Health Services). The project shall implement mitigation measures as
set by Cal-EPA
· Prior to or concurrent with SPA Plan approval, the applicant shall
obtain approval from the Sweetwater Authority and the Cal-EPA for
a diversion ditch plan, or other acceptable plan, to handle drainage
that might impact the Sweetwater Reservoir. Said plan shall satisfy the
Authority's standards for preservation of water quality in the
Sweetwater Reservoir.
· The project applicant shall submit to the City an erosion control plan
prepared by a registered civil engineer in accordance with City of
Chula Vista design standards. The City Engineer shall approve the
plan prior to issuance of grading permits. The plan shall include
53
placement of sandbags, temporary sediment basins and an erosion
control maintenance plan.
. The Board of Directors of the Sweetwater Authority shall approve and
implement the stormwater protection plan which is now in the planning
process before that agency. Approval of these plans for these facilities,
including erosion control facilities, shall occur prior to issuance of a
grading permit. The runoff protection system shall be in place and
fully operational before construction for Rancho San Miguel within the
Sweetwater Reservojr watershed commences.
. A maintenance district shall be formed and financed by the Sweetwater
Authority to ensure perpetual maintenance of the runoff protection
facilities whether within the City of Chula Vista or within the County
(Reynolds 1991).
. As part of the applicant's SPA Plan, the applicant shall prepare and
submit a water quality report addressing drainage from the northern
and southern portions of the development and from diverted drajnage
from the runoff protection system in the north. The report shall
address proposed plans to reduce potential water quality degradation
of downstream tributaries. This issue shall be evaluated further at the
SPA Plan level.
I. TRAFFIC
Significant Effect: The proposed project does not identify the functional classifications
of roads that are to be constructed to serve the project. Since these roads are not included
in the final General Plan Circulation Element, their functional classification has not been
determined, which is considered to be a significant impact.
Findings: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in Final EIR 90-02.
Mitigation Measures: To reduce traffic impacts to below a level of significance, the
following mitigation measures, which are found to be feasible and are required as conditions
of approval, shall be implemented:
· The proposed San Miguel Ranch Road shall be designated as a Four-
Lane Major Street between East H Street and SR 125 and a Four-
Lane Class I between SR 125 and Bonita Road.
· The proposed north entry road leading to the northern portion of the
site from San Miguel Ranch road shall be designated as a Two-Lane
Class II collector.
54
J. AIR QUALI1Y
Significant Effect: Short-term pollutant emissjons will occur during the constructjon
phase of the project. The air quality impacts are considered significant short-term impacts.
Fin.ding: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in Final ErR 90-02.
Mitigation Measures: To reduce short-term pollutant emissions to below a level of
significance, the following mitigation measures, which are found to be feasible and are
required as conditjons of approval, shall be implemented during the construction phase of
the project:
. Heavy-duty construction equipment with modified combustion/fuel
injection systems for emissions control shall be utilized during grading
and construction.
. Disturbed areas shall be hydroseeded, landscaped, or developed as
soon as possible and as directed by the City to reduce dust generation.
. Trucks hauling fill material shall be covered.
. A 20 mile-per-hour speed limit shall be enforced on unpaved surfaces.
. To control dust raised by grading activities, the graded area shall be
watered twice a day, unless the county's current state of limjted water
supplies still exists at the time of construction. In this case other
mitigation measures shall be considered and implemented upon City
approval. Such measures may include minimizing grading by designing
development to follow natural topography, phasing grading so relatively
smaller areas are exposed, and revegetating graded areas as rapidly as
possible.
* * * *
Significant Effect: Residential fireplace emissions from the project will emit criteria
air pollutants.
Fin.ding: San Diego County currently exceeds ambient air quality standards for a
number of criteria air pollutants. Residential fireplace emissions from the project will
exacerbate the violation of these standards. This is true because development of the project
area was not factored into the air quality projections contained in the 1982 State
Implementation Plan (SIP) or the 1991 Draft Regional Air Quality Standard (RAQS), and
neither the SIP nor the RAQS demonstrate attainment with air quality standards. The
mitigation measures described below will not reduce resjdential fireplace emissions to the
pojnt where there is no net increase in ambjent air pollutant concentrations. Although the
55
mitjgation measures noted below would mjnimize the impacts on ajr quality, these impacts
would remajn sjgnificant. Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, there
are no feasjbJe measures that would mitigate the impacts to below a level of significance.
As described in the Statement of Overriding Consjderations, however, the City has
determined that this impact is acceptable because of specific overriding considerations.
Mitigation Measures: To mitigate potential impacts associated with fireplace
emissions, but not to below a level of significance, the following measures, which are found
to be feasible and are requjred as conditions of approval, shall be implemented:
. Fireplaces or other wood-burning appliances shall adhere to emissions
standards adopted by the County, the State, the San Diego APCD, and
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
* * * *
Significant Effect: Residential water-heater and furnace emissions from the project
will emit criteria air pollutants.
Finding: San Diego County currently exceeds ambient air quality standards for a
number of criteria air pollutants. Emissions from residential water heaters and furnaces
within the project will exacerbate the violation of these standards. This is true because
development of the project area was not factored into the air quality projections contained
in the 1982 SIP or the 1991 Draft RAQS, and neither the SIP nor the RAQS demonstrate
attainment with air quality standards. The mitigation measures described below will not
reduce residential water-heater and furnace emissions to the point where there is no net
increase in ambient air pollutant concentrations. Although the mitigation measures noted
below would minimize the impacts on air quality, these impacts would remain significant.
Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, there are no feasible measures
that would mitigate the impacts to below a level of significance. As described in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City has determined that this impact
is acceptable because of specific overriding considerations.
Mitigation Measures: To mitigate potential impacts associated with residential water-
heater and furnace emissions, but not to below a level of significance, the following
measures, which are found to be feasible and are required as conditions of approval, shall
be implemented:
. The following methods shall be incorporated into development design
to reduce ROG, NOx and PM10 emissions:
. All residential units shall use solar energy with back-up low
NOx water heaters.
. Low-NOx commercial-size water heaters shall be installed in all
the larger onsite facjlities.
56
. Residentjal and larger facility gas-fired furnaces shall be
outfitted with heat transfer modules providing a 70 percent
reduction in NOx emissions.
. The landscape design shall incorporate low natural hydrocarbon
(NHC) producing plant species (also requiring little water), such
as cape myrtle and Chinese elm.
. To reduce air pollutant emissions from the proposed Rancho San
Miguel development, natural gas water heaters installed at residential
units could be equipped with solar collectors such as flat plate solar
panels.
. Solar systems normally can provide sufficient water heating capacity
during the sunny seasons. Natural gas-fired water heaters would
continue to be used to supplement the solar component. On a yearly
basis, solar energy could provide abut 52 percent of the energy needed
for a given water heating system (SCAQMD 1989) and thus effectively
reduce total annual pollutant emissions from water heaters by 52
percent.
. There are four basic tactics for the mitigation of air quality presented
as part of San Diego's attainment plans (APCD 1986): traffic flow
improvements, ridesharing, bicycling, and mass transit. Of the four, the
project, as proposed, incorporates bicycling and traffic flow
improvements as detailed in the City of Chula Vista Transportation
Phasing Plan (TPP). The following additional mitigation measures shall
be implemented to reduce vehicular emissions impacts:
. A ridesharing program shall be implemented within the project.
. Funding shall be provided by the project to subsidize increased
bus service in the vicinity of the proposed project.
. Bicycle paths shall be included along roads as means of
alternate transportation.
. In accordance with the Growth Management Program adopted by the
City of Chula Vista on April 23, 1991 (Resolution No. 16101), an Air
Quality Improvement Plan shall be prepared by the project applicant
at the SPA Plan level.
* * * *
Significant Effect: Vehicular emissions associated with the Project will represent
approximately one-half percent of the total vehicular air pollutant emissjons burden in the
San Diego Air Basjn.
57
Finding: San Diego County currently exceeds ambient air quality standards for a
number of criteria ajr pollutants. Vehicular emissjons generated by the project will
exacerbate the violation of these standards. This is true because development of the project
area was not factored into the air quality projections contained in the 1982 SEP or the 1991
Draft RAQS, and neither the SIP nor the RAQS demonstrate attainment with air quality
standards. The mitigation measures described below will not reduce vehicular emissions to
the point where there is no net increase in ambient air pollutant concentrations. Although
the mitjgation measures noted below would minimize the jmpacts on air quality, these
impacts would remain significant. Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(3) ofthe CEQA Guidelines,
there are no feasjble measures that would mitigate the impacts to below a level of
significance. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City
has determined that this impact is acceptable because of specific overriding considerations.
Mitigation Measures: To mitigate potential impacts associated with vehicular
emissions, but not to below a level of significance, the following measures, which are found
to be feasible and are required as conditions of approval, shall be jmplemented:
. The project applicant shall prepare an Air Quality Improvement Plan
(AQIP) that:
. provides an analysis of air pollution impacts that would result
from the project,
. demonstrates the best available design to reduce vehicle trips, maintain
or improve traffic flow, reduce vehicle miles travelled,
· includes implementation of appropriate traffic control measures
and other direct or indirect means of reducing emissions, and
. establishes a monitoring program.
. The AQIP shall be subject to:
. review and comment by the Resource Conservation
Commission,
. review and comment by the Planning Commission,
. approval by the City Engineer, and
. approval and adoption by the City Council.
The applicant shall obtain these approvals prior to approval of the
SPA Plan.
. A ride sharing program shall be implemented within the project.
58
. The applicant shall provide funding to subsidize increased bus service
in the vicinity of the project.
. The project shall incorporate bicycle lanes along designated roads
within the project.
· The project shall jncorporate all feasjble, relevant and appropriate
mitigatjon measures developed in the RAQS.
K. NOISE
Significant Effect: Signifjcant impacts would occur since noise levels in many areas
in the southern portion of the development, as designed, would exceed 65 dBA Ldn standard
due to traffic noise along future State Route 125 and several major roads proposed within
the development.
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the
sjgnificant environmental effect as identjfied in Final EIR 90-02.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are found to be feasible and
are required as conditions of approvaL Upon implementation, these measures will reduce
the noise related impacts to below a level of significance:
· The applicant shall construct, or cause to be constructed, noise walls
or wall/berm combinations on the top of slopes adjacent to East H
Street, San Miguel Ranch Road and proposed State Route 125.
· The noise walls shall be of solid masonry construction with a material
weight of at least 3.5 pounds per square foot and which would not
allow any air space along their entire length.
· Each noise wall or wall/berm combination shall be placed on the
buildjng pads at the top of the slope between the residences and the
adjacent impacting roadway. The required wall or walI/berm
combination height ranges from 8-10 feet for residences adjacent to
Route 125 or East H Street; and from 5 to 6 feet for residences
adjacent to San Miguel Ranch Road. Because City regulations do not
permit walls over 6 feet in height, only the walI/berm combination
would be acceptable unless a project redesign is implemented.
· The visual impacts of the walls/berm combination to reduce noise
effects will be evaluated at the SPA Plan level, when actual dimensions
and design plans for the walI/berms will be available, as related to
impacts on San Mjguel Ranch Road and East H Street. Impacts on
the development due to proposed SR 125 will be studied as part of the
59
EIR for whichever is built later in time, the Rancho San Miguel project
or the proposed SR 125.
L. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
1. WATER
Significant Effect: The locatjon of water facjlities required to serve the project has
not yet been determined.
Findings: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in Final EIR 90-02.
Mitigation Measures; The following mitjgation measures are found to be feasible and
are required as conditions of approvaL Upon implementation, these measures will reduce
the water-related impacts to below a level of significance:
. Prior to SPA Plan approval, a Water Master Plan shall be prepared
and approved by the City Engineer. This plan shall delineate, at a
more detailed level, the recommendations of the Nolte and Associates
1990 Preliminary Water Concept Plan for Rancho San Miguel. The
Water Master Plan shall identify the location and sizing of specific
facilities and implementation/phasing of the plan. The impacts related
to the final placement of the water facilities shall be evaluated at the
SPA level, induding impacts to biological resources, archaeological
resources and visual quality.
. Prior to SPA Plan approval, the applicant shall obtain agreement from
the Sweetwater Authority to annex and then obtain agreement from
Otay Water District to deannex.
* * * *
Significant Effect: Water consumption within the development will require
implementation of water conservation strategies.
Findings: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(I) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in Final EIR 90-02.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are found to be feasible and
are required as conditions of approvaL Upon implementation, these measures will reduce
the water-related impacts to below a level of significance:
. In accordance with Ordinance No. 2448, the project applicant shall
prepare a Water Conservation Plan to be submitted with the SPA Plan
60
for approval by the City. This plan shall provide an analysjs of water
usage requirements of the proposed project, as well as a detailed plan
of proposed measures for water conservation, use of reclaimed water,
other means of reducing per capita water consumption from the
proposed project, and define a program to monitor compliance. This
plan shall be reviewed by the Resource Conservation Commission and
Planning Commissjon, prior to final review and adoption by the City
Council (Growth Management Program) City of Chula Vista, April 23,
1991, Resolution No. 16101.
. Reclaimed water shall be used wherever feasible, as planned. The
project applicant shall begin negotiations with the Otay Water District
to ensure distribution of reclaimed water to the site.
. Water conservation measures for onsite landscaping and roadside
maintenance shall include, but not be limited to planting of drought
tolerant vegetation and the use of irrigation systems which minimize
runoff and evaporation loss.
. Low-flush toilets and low-flow showers and faucets shall be installed.
. Hot water lines in water recirculating systems shall be insulated
(California Energy Commission).
2. SEWAGE
Significant Effect: There is a physical limitation to the offsite transport of Rancho San
Miguel's wastewater. The Frisbie Street trunk sewer between Corral Canyon Road and
Bonita Road may not have the capacity to handle the additional Rancho San Miguel sewage
flow. Otay Water District ("OWD") staff have met with San Diego County and Chula Vista
staff to discus capacity in the Frisbie Street trunk sewer and concepts to free capacity for
development while maintaining OWD's ability to discharge 1.2 mgd. OWD has
acknowledged Rancho San Miguel's right to 1.5 mgd capacity in the Frisbie Street trunk line
based on existing agreements. Impacts associated with offsite transport of Rancho San
Miguel wastewater are considered to be significant.
Findings: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in Final EIR 90-02.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are found to be feasible and
are required as conditions of approval. Upon implementation, these measures will reduce
the sewage impacts to below a level of significance:
. Prior to SPA Plan approval, a Wastewater Master Plan ("WMP") shall
be prepared subject to approval by the City Engineer. The WMP shall
61
accomplish the standards set forth in the Nolte and Associates 1990
Preliminary Sewer Concept Plan for Rancho San Miguel. The WMP
shall identify the location and sizing of onsite and offsite sewage
facilities, implementation/phasing, and funding. The WMP shall discuss
potential impacts to the Sweetwater Reservoir in the event of a break
in the sewerline or sewage spill in the portion of the project within the
Sweetwater drainage basin. The impacts related to the final placement
of the sewerage facilitjes shall be evaluated at the SPA level including
impacts to biological resources, archaeological resources, visual quality,
and water quality. This should include final locations of both onsite
and offsite facilities. Sewer system design shall be approved by the
City's Engineering Department at SPA level.
. An actual sewer flow measurement or a study to accurately estimate
existing wastewater flows in the Frisbie Street trunk sewer shall be
conducted before project flows can enter the system. Metering of the
Frisbie Street trunk sewer shall be performed by the applicant
· The project shall be subject to payment of wastewater development
fees (to fund trunk sewer and other upgrades) or equivalent
proportionate facility financing mechanism necessary to provide service
to this project as identified by the City, when adopted. Payment shall
occur prior to issuance of building permits or earlier.
3. POLICE PROTECl10N
SignijU;ant Effect: The project would require the addition of three new officers and
five additional support staff to the police force.
Findings: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in Final EIR 90-02.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are found to be feasible and
are required as conditions of approval. Upon implementation, these measures will reduce
the public service-related impacts to below a level of significance:
· The project applicant shall be responsible for fronting the necessary
funds to enable the City to purchase the requisite equipment for the
new police officers and support staff. If required to finance this
equipment, the project applicant will be entitled to credit against all or
a portion of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fees for Police
Services.
62
4. FIRE PROTECTION
Significallt Effect: The Chula Vista Fire Department ("CVFD") and the
Bonita/Sunnyside Fire Protection District ("BSF") would be responsible for fire protection
and inspection services in the project area. Development of the project in an area that is
presently almost entirely undeveloped would place new service demands on the CVFD and
the BSF. The CVFD is currently consjdering establishing a permanent fire station that
would serve the project. Several scenarjos for the location of the station are proposed and
analyzed. Fjre service response times would be inadequate for the northern portion of the
site under several scenarios. Constrajnts to fire protection in the northern portion include
the negative impacts associated with the provision of only one access road to serve the entire
1,852-acre northern portion, limited maneuverability for fire trucks once in the northern
portion, slowing down to access gated communities and steep roads. In addition, fire
protection for the proposed conference and interpretive centers cannot be determined
without more detailed information on these facilities.
The danger of brush fires represents potentially significant fire hazard impacts to
dwellings that are located near hillsides.
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(I) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in Final EIR 90-02.
MiJigati.on Measures: The following mitigation measures are found to be feasible and
are required as conditions of approval. Upon implementation, these measures will reduce
the public service-related impacts to below a level of sjgnificance:
. Impacts related to the proposed conference and interpretive centers
cannot be mitigated without more detailed information regarding usage
and sizing of the facilities. These impacts shall be fully analyzed at the
SPA Plan review level.
. The project applicant shall provide a second access road to the
northern portion if the new fire station is located in EastLake I (Chase
1991) unless the Chula Vista Fire Department determines that the
second access road is not required for provision of adequate fire and
emergency medical service.
. Fire sprinklers shall be installed in all buildings and residences in the
northern portion of the site (Gove 1991).
. A control system shall be installed that utilizes a special light on the
fire truck to open gates for the gated communities electronically
(Yokley 1991).
. The applicant shall be required to provide a brush rig for the Chula
Vista fire department, in accordance with the Public Facilities DIF -
63
Fire Suppression System. The brush rig should be on-hand prior to
any bujlding permjt being issued by the City for the northern portion
of the project. For providing the brush rig, the developer shall be
entjtled to a credit against all or a portion of their share of the Public
Facilities Development Impact Fee related to the fire suppression
system and/or a repayment from future DIF fees collected by the City
(Chase 1991).
. The project shall implement an acceptable brush management plan, as
proposed by the applicant Impacts of the plan shall be evaluated at
the SPA level.
5. EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES (EMS) PROTECTION
Significant Effect: EMS response times would be greater than city standards in the
northern portion of the site.
Findings: Pursuant to Sectjon 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in Final EIR 90-02.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are found to be feasible and
are required as conditions of approval. Upon implementation, these measures will reduce
the public service-related impacts to below a level of significance:
. Provide a second access road to the northern portion that enables
emergency medical technicians to reach the requjred number of units
within 10 minutes.
6. SCHOOLS
Significant Effect: The project would bring approximately 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. Although a hjgh school serving the
project will be sited at Otay Ranch, funding has not been arranged.
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in Final EIR 90-02.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are found to be feasible and
are required as conditions of approval. Upon implementation, these measures will reduce
the public service-related impact to below a level of significance:
. As required by state law, the developer must pay school fees of $1.58
per square foot of habitable space for resjdential development and
$0.26 per square foot of commercial development (Heydt 1990).
64
Payment of deveJopment fees would not be adequate to fuHy mitjgate
the impacts to elementary and high schools in the area.
. Prior to SPA Plan approval, the project applicant shaH provide
documentation from the Chula Vista City School District ("CVCSD")
that the proposed elementary school site location is acceptable to the
district Funding for the school shaH be in compliance with CVCSD
procedures and shaH involve the Mello-Roos Community Facilities
District financing method or other financing mechanisms acceptable to
CVCSD.
. Prior to SPA Plan approval, the project applicant shaH provide
documentation to the City confirming satisfaction of SUHSD facility
funding requirements to offset student generation impacts. Funding
would be satisfied through the Mello Roos Community Facilities
District financing method or other means acceptable to the Sweetwater
Union High School District ("SUHSD").
· Prior to issuance of any building permits for Rancho San Miguel, the
project applicant shall obtain written verification from CVCSD and
SUHSD that adequate school facilities and associated financing will be
provided for students generated from the project.
L. PARKS, RECREATION, AND OPEN SPACE
Significant Effect: The project proposes an integrated hiking and equestrian trail
system that connects to the County's regional system. The system would provide access into
areas designated as open space that contain sensitive biological resources, creating significant
biological impacts.
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in Final EIR 90-02.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are found to be feasible and
are required as conditions of approval. Upon implementation, these measures will reduce
the impacts to below a level of significance:
. The trail system layout and site specific designs shall be prepared in
coordination with the City's Park and Recreation Department and the
Environmental Coordinator. The location of trails within power
transmission easements is discouraged by the City's Parks and
Recreation Department This issue will be further analyzed at the SPA
Plan level at which time the potential impacts will be re-evaluated.
65
. The traj] system shall be managed and policed in a manner that will be
consistent with the objective of protecting the habjtat and associated
plant and anima] species from harm.
. A list of rules regarding proper trail use shall be posted at the
interpretative center and also at strategic locations along the trail
system.
. Dog-owners shall not be allowed to bring their pets onto any trails
within the trail system that occur in open space areas, on or off leash.
. Use of the open space area shall be limited to designated trajls.
. Collecting or molesting natura] resources (e.g. Horned lizards, cactus,
flowers) shall be prohibited.
. Open fires, smoking, and weapons shall not be allowed in the open
space areas and trail system.
. Mountain bikes shall be prohjbited, due to the extreme sensitivity and
regional value of the biological resources in the areas traversed by the
trail, and because mountain biking often generates off trail impacts.
. Certain portions of the trail system that traverse sensitive habitat shall
be subject to periodic closure to help protect wildlife and allow
recovery of the habitat.
. The portion of the trail system that crosses the most eastern areas of
the SDG&E property shall be rerouted as far east as is feasible
(possib]y utilizing an existing jeep trail) to avoid a Go]den Eagle
perching site located in the area.
. Areas the trails access shall be periodically to ascertain damage from
overuse. If it is determined that an area is being degraded the
associated trail shall be closed periodically to allow for recovery from
use.
. Al] trails shall be constructed to prevent the channeling of urban runoff
into the surrounding open space and Sweetwater Reservoir, to the
extent feasible.
* * * *
Significant Effect: Portions of the trail system are in SDG&E power transmission
easements, which has limited acceptability to the City's Parks and Recreation Department.
66
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guideljnes, changes or
alterations have been required jn, or incorporated into, the project whjch will avoid the
sjgnjficant environmental effect as identified in Final EIR 90-02.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are found to be feasible and
are required as conditions of approval. Upon implementation, these measures will reduce
the impacts to below a level of significance:
. The trail system should be located outside of power transmission line
easements, to the extent feasjble, and in no event will any active uses
be allowed within the transmission line easements. However, the issue
shall be further analyzed at the SPA Plan level, when more specific
development plans can be reviewed.
* * * *
Significant Effect: The location of staging areas for hiking and equestrian activitjes
have not been finalized.
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, there are no
feasible measures that would mitigate the impact below a level of significance until more
specific development plans are prepared and analyzed at the SPA Plan level. As described
in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City has determined that this
impact is acceptable because of specific overriding considerations.
* * * *
Significant Effect: Development of the unpaved portion of the trail system could
result in soil erosion and resulting water quality impacts.
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, there are no
feasible measures that would mitigate the impact below a level of significance until more
specific development plans are prepared and analyzed at the SPA Plan level. As described
in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City has determined that this
impact is acceptable because of specific overriding considerations.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are found to be feasible and
are required as conditions of approval. Upon implementation, these measures will reduce
the impacts to below a level of significance:
. The trail system should be located outside of power transmission line
easements, to the extent feasible, and in no event will any active uses
be allowed within the transmission line easements. However, the issue
shall be further analyzed at the SPA Plan level, when more specific
development plans can be reviewed.
* * . .
67
IX. SIGNIFICANT CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Cumulative impacts are those which "are considered when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable
future projects." (Public Resources Code ~21082.2b). Several development proposals have
been submitted for consideration or have been recently approved by the City of Chula Vista
in proximity to Rancho San Miguel. These "current or probable future" development
proposals would affect many of the same natural resources and public infrastructure as
Rancho San Miguel. Several potentially significant cumulative impacts are associated with
development of Rancho San Miguel in conjunction with these surrounding development
projects.
The proposed project along with the other related projects will result in the following
irreversible environmental changes: Land Use/Conversion of Open Space, LandformNisual
Quality, Biology, Archaelogy, Air Quality and Nonrenewable Energy Resources. These
sjgnificant cumulative impacts are discussed in the Supplement to Draft EIR 90-02, at pages
10-1 through 10-14.
Certain of the above cumulative impacts cannot be substantially lessened or avojded.
As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City has
determined that these cumulative impacts have been reduced to an acceptable level when
balanced against specific overriding considerations. The sub-sections, below, define each of
the above-described cumulative impact issues, setting forth either the reasons why they are
significant and unavoidable, the mitjgation measures adopted to substantially lessen or avoid
them, or the reasons why proposed mitigation measures are infeasible due to specific,
economic, social or other considerations.
A. LAND USF,lCONVERSION OF OPEN SPACE
Significant Effect: Development of the project as revised would contribute to an
incremental increase in the area's conversion of open space to urban land uses. The City's
General Plan designates the proposed project as a developable area. Incorporation of
permanent natural open space into the project design would offset some of the impacts
related to conversion of open space to urban uses. Despite these general mitigation
measures, the project would contribute to a significant, unmitigated cumulative land use
impact
Findings: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(3), there are no feasible measures that would
mitigate this cumulative impact to below a level of significance. As described in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City has determined that these
impacts are acceptable because of specific overriding considerations.
68
B. LANDFORM/VISUAL QUALI'lY
Significant Effect: The development, in combinatjon with various development
projects in the area, would unavoidably contribute to a significant cumulative effect on the
existjng natura] landform and the area's visual quality.
Finding: Although the mitigation measures noted below would minimize cumulative
impacts to landforms, these impacts would remain cumu]atively significant. Pursuant to
Section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Gujdelines, there are no feasible measures that would
mitigate the impacts to below a level of significance. As described in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations, however, the City has determined that these impacts are
acceptable because of specific overriding considerations.
Mitigati<Jn Measures: Genera] mitigation measures being incorporated into this project
and other development projects in the area would serve to offset some of the identified
]andform/visual quality impacts. These mitigation measures include a review of grading plans
by a licensed civil engineer, adherence to city grading ordinances and hillside development
guidelines, contour grading, slope revegetation and restrictive grading to the building pad.
C. BIOLOGY
Significant Effect: The development would contribute to a significant incrementa]
cumulative loss of quality biology habitat in the region.
Finding: Despite mitigation measures taken to preserve biological resources in this
project and in other related development projects, the impact of this project and other
development projects on sensitive species and habitat is cumulative and significant. Pursuant
to Section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, there are no other feasible measures that
would mitigate this cumulative impact to below a level of significance. As described in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City has determined that these
impacts are acceptable because of specific overriding considerations.
Mitigation Measures: Revegetation efforts, onsite and offsite re-creation of habitats
and offsite habitat preservation programs partially mitigate the identified cumulative impact
to bio]ogical resources.
D. ARCHAEOLOGY
Significant Effect: The development, in combination with the various development
projects in the area, would unavoidably contribute to a significant cumulative adverse effect
on existing cultura] resources through grading, excavation and construction activities, and
expose unprotected sites in open space areas to degradation due to increased human
recreational activity.
Finding: Despite implementation of the mitigation measures listed below, this project,
together with other approved or probable projects, will have a significant cumulative effect
upon cultural resources. Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guide]ines, there
69
are no other feasible measures that would mitigate this cumulative impact to below a level
of sjgnificance. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the
City has determined that these impacts are acceptable because of specific overriding
considerations.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures adopted for this and other projects include
monitoring grading activities by qualified archaeologists and paleontologists, protective
easements around areas of regional archaeological/historical importance and/or data recovery
programs at sites which will be affected by development-related construction or recreation
activities.
E. WATER SUPPLY
Signifkant Effect: The development would contribute to an incremental significant
cumulative impact on the region's limited water supply, as would any development on the
site. Development along the Sweetwater River could also cumulatively impact recreational
uses of the waterway and have an adverse affect on native plants that are part of the
sensitive estuary system at the mouth of the river.
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guideliens, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially
lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in Final EIR 90-02. Impacts to water
supplies will, however, remain cumulatively significant. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
section 15091(a)(3), there are no feasible measures that would mitigate these impacts to
below a level of significance. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations,
however, the City has determined that these impacts are acceptable because of specific
overriding considerations.
Mitigation Measures: To mitigate potential cumulative impacts to water supplies, but
not to below a level of significance, the following measures, which are found to be feasible
and are required as conditions of approval, shall be implemented:
. The project-specific mitigation measures related to water supply shall
be implemented.
F. AIR QUALI1Y
Significant Effect: The development would contribute to an unmitigated cumulative
air quality impact on regional air quality because the proposed development was not
considered when the regional air quality attainment plans were formulated for the 1982 SIP
revisions for San Diego region. This conclusion also applies to any of the project
alternatives (other than the no project alternative). The updated SIP will include the
proposed project.
Project emissions in NOx, reactive organic gases (ROG) and PMlO from vehicular
and stationary sources (including fireplaces and water heaters) will add to existing
70
exceedances of state and federal ambjent air qualjty standards. Because San Djego currently
exceeds air quality standards for several pollutants, any additional emissions will contrjbute
to San Diego's inability to meet these standards. Therefore, these air quality impacts are
considered to be cumulatively significant
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(I) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially
lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in Final EIR 90-02. Impacts to air
quality will, however, remain cumulatively significant. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section
15091(a)(3), there are no feasible measures that would mitigate these impacts to below a
level of significance. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however,
the City has determined that these impacts are acceptable because of specific overriding
considerations.
Mitigation Measures: To mitigate potential cumulative impacts to air quality, but not
to below a level of significance, the following measures, which are found to be feasible and
are required as conditions of approval, shall be implemented:
. The following methods shall be incorporated into development design
to reduce ROG, NOx and PMI0 emissions:
. All residential units shall use solar energy with back-up low
NOx water heaters.
. Low-NOx commercial-size water heaters and solar panels shall
be installed in all the larger onsite facilities.
. Residential and larger facility gas-fired furnaces shall be
outfitted with heat transfer modules providing a 70 percent
reduction in NOx emissions.
. The landscape design shall incorporate in the landscape design
low natural hydrocarbon (NHC) producing plant species (also
requiririg little water), such as cape myrtle and Chinese elm.
. To reduce air pollutant emissions from the proposed Rancho San
Miguel development, natural gas water heaters installed at residential
units shall be equipped with solar collectors such as flat plate solar
panels.
. Solar systems normally can provide sufficient water heating capacity
during the sunny seasons. Natural gas-fired water heaters would
continue to be used to supplement the solar component. On a yearly
basis, solar energy could provide abut 52 percent of the energy needed
for a given water heating system (SCAQMD 1989) and thus effectively
reduce total annual pollutant emissions from water heaters by 52
percent.
71
. There are four basic tactics for the mitigation of air quality presented
as part of San Diego's attainment plans (APCD 1986): traffic flow
improvements, ridesharing, bicycling, and mass transit. Of the four, the
project, as proposed, incorporates bicycling and traffic flow
improvements as detailed in the City of Chula Vista Transportation
Phasing Plan (TPP). The following additional mitigation measures shall
be implemented to reduce vehicular emissions impacts:
. A ride sharing program shall be implemented within the project.
. Funding shall be provided by the project to subsidize increased
bus service in the vicinity of the proposed project.
. Bicycle paths shall be included along roads as means of
alternate transportation.
. In accordance with the Growth Management Program adopted by the
City of Chula Vista on April 23, 1991 (Resolution No. 16101), an Air
Quality Improvement Plan shall be prepared by the project applicant
at the SPA Plan level.
G. NONRENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES
Significant Effect: The development would contribute to a significant cumulative
increase in the demand for nonrenewable energy resources.
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(3), there are no feasible measures that would
mitigate this cumulative impact to below a level of significance. As described in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City has determined that these
impacts are acceptable because of specific overriding considerations.
H. HYDROLOGY
Significant Effect: The project, together with other planned or approved projects in
the area, will replace undeveloped land with impervious surfaces, thereby increasing the
quantity and velocity of runoff and raising the risk of flooding and erosion. It will
cumulatively reduce the rate of groundwater recharge. Finally, it will have cumulative effects
on the quality of stormwater runoff.
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in Final EIR 90-02.
Mitigation Measures: To mitigate potential cumulative impacts associated with
hydrology to below a level of significance, the following measures, which are found to be
feasible and are required as conditions of approval, shall be implemented:
72
. A hydrologic analysis of the project shall be performed and a plan shall
be prepared, as detailed above in connection with project-specific
hydrological impacts.
. Erosion control plans, diversion ditch plans and storm drain plans shall
be developed for the project.
. All project plans pertaining to hydrology shall be reviewed and
approved by a licensed civil engineer.
. The project shall be subject to and comply with all applicable
requirements set forth in a Sweetwater Authority Urban Runoff
Protection System.
* * * *
I. WATER QUALITY
Significant Effect: Stormwa ter runoff from the project will be diverted to the
Sweetwater River below the Sweetwater Reservoir. This runoff, together with runoff from
other planned or approved projects in the area, could cumulatively degrade the quality of
river water, which could in turn affect aquatic life.
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in Final EIR 90-02.
Mitigation Measures: To mitigate potential cumulative impacts associated with water
quality to below a level of significance, the following measures, which are found to be
feasible and are required as conditions of approval, shall be implemented:
. The project-specific mitigation measures related to water quality shall
be implemented, together with the measures relating to water quality
for other approved or probable projects.
* * * *
J. TRANSPORTATION
Significant Effect: The project, together with other planned or approved projects in
the area, will result in an overall increase in traffic volumes in the City. Certain elements
of the circulation system are projected to operate below acceptable levels due to this
cumulative increase in traffic.
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in Final EIR 90-02.
73
Mitigation Measures: To mitigate potential cumulative impacts associated with water
quality to below a level of significance, the following measures, which are found to be
feasible and are required as conditions of approval, shall be implemented:
. The project-specific mitigation measures related to transporation shall
be implemented, together with the measures relating to transportation
for other approved or probable projects.
. The issue of transportation will be considered further at the SPA Plan
level, when more specific development plans are available for review.
* * * *
K. NOISE
Significant Effect: The project, together with other planned or approved projects in
the area, will result in an overall increase in noise, primarily due to cumulative increases in
vehicular traffic.
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in Final EIR 90-02.
Mitigation Measures: To mitigate potential cumulative impacts associated with water
quality to below a level of significance, the following measures, which are found to be
feasible and are required as conditions of approval, shall be implemented:
. The project-specific mitigation measures related to noise shall be
implemented, together with the measures relating to noise for other
approved or probable projects.
. The noise-related issues will be considered further at the SPA Plan
level, when more specific development plans are available for review.
* * * *
L. OPEN SPACE
Significant Effect: The project, together with other planned or approved projects in
the area, will contribute to a cumulatively significant conversion of existing open space to
urban uses.
Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the
significant environmental effect as identified in Final EIR 90-02. Impacts to open space will,
however, remain cumulatively significant. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15091( a )(3),
there are no feasible measures that would mitigate the impact to below a level of
74
significance. As described in the State of Overriding Considerations, however, the City has
determined that this impact is acceptable because of specific overriding considerations.
Mitigation Measures: To mitigate potential cumulative impacts associated with
conversion of open space to urban uses, but not to below a level of significance, the
following measures, which are found to be feasible and are required as conditions of
approval, shall be implemented:
. Natural open space shall be incorporated into project design.
. The applicant shall dedicate open-space easements to the City or
county for those portions of the project designated for open space.
* * * *
X. FEASIBILITY OF ALTERNATIVES
CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR include a description of a
reasonable range of alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which could
feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project. The EIR must also include an evaluation
of the "no project" alternative. The discussion of alternatives must focus on alternatives
"capable of eliminating any significant adverse environmental effects or reducing them to a
level of insignificance." CEQA Guidelines, 14 CaI.CodeRegs. ~15126(d)(3). In addition, the
CEQA Guidelines require that the EIR describe reasonable and feasible mitigation measures
which could minimize significant adverse impacts. CEQA Guidelines, 14 CaI.CodeRegs.
~15126( c).
In general, in preparing and adopting findings a lead agency need not necessarily
address the feasibility of both mitigation measures and environmentally superior alternatives
when contemplating the approval of a proposed project with significant unmitigated impacts.
Where a significant impact can be mitigated to an acceptable (insignificant) level solely by
the adoption of mitigation measures, the agency, in drafting its findings, has no obligation
to consider the feasibility of environmentally superior alternatives, even if their impacts
would be less severe than those of the proposed project as mitigated. Laurel Heights
Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376;
Laurel Hills Homeowners Association v. City Council (1978) 83 CaI.App.3d 515; see also,
Kings County Fann Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 CaI.App.3d 692. Accordingly, for
this project, in adopting the findings concerning project alternatives, the City considers only
those environmental impacts that, for the proposed project, are significant and cannot be
avoided or substantially lessened through mitigation.
There is no requirement in CEQA that mandates the selection of an alternative that
is environmentally superior in some respects, but perhaps not so, in others. Rather, CEQA
allows the Lead Agency to exercise its discretion in this regard and to balance the positives
and negatives of a proposed project. These findings contrast and compare the alternatives
where appropriate in order to demonstrate that the selection of the project as revised, while
75
still resulting in significant environmental impacts, has substantial environmental and other
benefits.
In rejecting certain alternatives, the decisionmakers have examined the project
objectives and weighed the ability of the various alternatives to meet the objectives. The
decisionmakers believe that the project as revised best meets the project objectives with the
least environmental impact. The objectives considered by the decisionmakers are:
1. Creation of a high-quality residential development consistent with the
General Plan designation of Low Residential (0-3 du/ac)
2. Provision of a commercial center, community park and elementary
school to serve the needs of Rancho San Miguel.
3. Implementation of significant elements of the City's General Plan as
follows:
. Preservation of open space corridors and extension of the
greenbelt system proposed for the periphery of the city through
the provision of approximately 1,648 acres of permanent open
space as depicted in the General Plan;
. Preservation of Mother Miguel Mountain which is designated as
a significant landform by the City's General Plan;
. Implement regional and local circulation needs by providing for
the extension of future Highway 125 and surface street
connection from East H Street to Bonita Road;
. Provide necessary public utilities and services to the area
including drainage, water, sewage, schools, police, fire, parks,
open space and recreation;
. Provide linkage to schools, parks and shopping centers through
the use of bicycle and pedestrian trails as an alternative to the
automobile.
4. Provision of a resort facility to serve the surrounding community and
visitors to the area.
Final EIR 90-02 examined a range of reasonable alternatives to the project to
determine whether such alternatives could meet the project's objectives while avoiding or
substantially lessening one or more of the project's significant, unavoidable impacts.
These findings examine each alternative to determine feasibility. The term feasible
is defined in the Guidelines as "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within
76
a reasonable period of time taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social and
technological factors." (CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal.CodeRegs. ~15364).
A. ALTERNATIVES
1. No Project Alternative
The No Project Alternative assumes that no development would occur on the project
site. The site would therefore remain undeveloped. The No Project Alternative was
identified as an alternative which would avoid all of the significant unmitigated impacts of
the proposed project. The No Project alternative is considered infeasible for the following
reasons. The No Project Alternative is not consistent with the City's General Plan which
designates the project area for future urban development, including residential, school,
commercial and park uses. In addition, the alternative would not meet the objectives of the
Eastern Territories Element of the Chula Vista General Plan, which call for the creation of
a balanced community of residential, commercial, industrial and open space uses.
The project is projected to have an overall positive fiscal impact on the City of Chula
Vista. Operating revenues are projected to exceed operating costs over a ten year period.
After build out, the project is projected to result in a positive fiscal benefit of $530,897 per
year in current dollars. This positive fiscal benefit to the City would not be realized if the
No Project alternative were adopted. In addition, this alternative would be inconsistent with
the objectives of the project, which include the creation of high-quality residential
development; provision of a commercial center, community park and elementary school to
serve the needs of Rancho San Miguel; and implementation of significant elements of the
City's General Plan, including preservation of open space corridors and extension of the
City's greenbelt through the provision of approximately 1,648 acres of permanent natural
open space (64% of the project site).
2. Horseshoe Bend Alternative
This alternative preserves Horseshoe Bend, a U-shaped landform located in the
western half of the southern portion of the project. The northern portion would remain the
same as in the project as revised. This alternative would preserve approximately 35-40 acres
more open space than the project as revised. This alternative would also reduce some of
the landform/visual impacts as identified in Final EIR 90-02.
This alternative is considered to be infeasible for the following reasons. Significant
land use impacts would remain with this alternative. Certain impacts would increase such
as incompatibility with neighboring areas, an increase in clustering, a reduction in lot sizes,
and a residential character inconsistent with the Low Residential designation in the General
Plan. Notwithstanding the increased preservation of Horseshoe Bend, the grading of
Gobbler's Knob would remain a significant impact. Significant biological and air quality
impacts would also remain. Even if preserved, Horseshoe Bend would create a barrier to
the cohesion and continuity of the project as revised, since the landform essentially splits the
southern portion. In addition, if Horseshoe Bend were preserved, San Miguel Ranch Road
77
would have to be moved from its optimal alignment. The alternative is also inconsistent with
the project objectives.
3. The Coon Canyon Alternative
This alternative preserves Coon Canyon, a major drainage course located in the
northern portion that flows into Sweetwater Reservoir. The purpose of the Coon Canyon
Alternative is to reduce biological impacts associated with the proposed project in the
northern portion. This alternative would accommodate 1,606 units as opposed to the
project's 1,619 units. The northern portion would contain approximately 276 dwelling units
on 276 acres on the western slope of Mother Miguel Mountain. The proposed interpretative
center, conference center and inn would not be included in this alternative.
This alternative is considered infeasible for the following reasons. This alternative
would create significant land use impacts due to proposed development of areas on the
eastern side of the southern portion currently designated as open space. Visual impacts to
the northern portion would be reduced by implementing this alternative; however, visual
impacts in the southern portion would increase. This alternative would reduce impacts to
two sensitive habitats, Diegan coastal sage scrub and wetlands, but increase impacts to non-
native grassland habitat, although not considered sensitive. Impacts to Diegan coastal sage
scrub and wetland habitat would also remain significant. This alternative would also increase
direct impacts to five important archeological sites in the southern portion of the project.
The alternative would reduce the positive fiscal benefits to be realized by the City because
of the deletion of the conference center, inn and interpretative center. Under this
alternative, all other aspects of the proposed project would remain generally the same, and
the remaining significant impacts identified would still occur, or be exacerbated in the south.
The alternative is also not consistent with the project objectives.
4. Biologically Sensitive Alternative
The Biologically Sensitive Alternative substantially reduces the number of acres
developed in the southern portion and eliminates all development in the northern portion
in order to reduce many of the impacts to the biological resources associated with the
project. This alternative would preserve 2,129 acres as open space as compared to 1,648
acres preserved under the project as revised Impacts to archaeological resources would be
substantially reduced by this alternative. However, the number of units in the southern
portion would increase from 1,166 to 1,600 units. This alternative would also substantially
reduce the amount of runoff projected for the site compared to the project as revised. The
Sweetwater Reservoir would not be impacted from urban runoff as a result of this
alternative. The project would be more compact in design, allowing for more efficient
circulation, particularly for pedestrian trips. This alternative would represent less of a
demand on public services in the area since development would be concentrated in a smaller
area, thus reducing the distance required to extend utilities.
This alternative is considered infeasible for the following reasons. The increase in
housing densities in the southern portion (from 1,166 to 1,600 units) is not consistent with
the City's General Plan. This overall increase in density to 3.5 dwelling units per acre would
78
increase land use and compatibility issues under this alternative. In addition, a General Plan
Amendment (GPA) would be required before this alternative could be adopted. Although
a GP A is not considered infeasible, it is not part of the project at this time. Several impacts
would be reduced by this alternative; however, some impacts would still remain significant.
These impacts include landform/visual quality (significant because Horseshoe Bend and
Gobbler's Knob would be extensively graded), biological resources (still significant mainly
due to the presence of large concentrations of Otay Tarweed, a state endangered plant),
cultural resources, geology/soils, hydrology and public services and utilities. All of the other
impacts of this alternative are similar to the project as revised. Therefore, this alternative,
while environmentally superior to the other design alternatives, does not eliminate the
majority of the impacts that would occur with development on this site. The alternative
would also reduce the positive fiscal benefits to be realized by the City because of the
deletion of the conference center, inn and interpretative center. The alternative is also
inconsistent with the project objectives. These project objectives include the establishment
of a large-lot residential community in the northern portion of the site that integrates
development with natural open space, and the provision of a conference center, inn and
interpretative center in the northern portion of the project site to serve the surrounding
community and visitors to the area.
5. South Only Development Alternative
The South Only Development Alternative limits development of the project site to
the southern portion only. The entire 1,852-acre northern portion would be preserved as
open space. Development in the southern portion would be the same as for the proposed
project, although the number of dwelling units would be increased. Impacts to water quality
would be eliminated with this alternative since development would not occur in the northern
portion, and the potential for contamination of the Sweetwater Reservoir would not occur.
This alternative is considered infeasible for the following reasons. This alternative
would still create significant land use impacts as identified in the EIR. Compatibility with
surrounding land uses and consistency with the General Plan would be exacerbated with this
alternative because of the increase in dwelling units. The landform/visual quality impacts
identified in the EIR for the southern portion would be the same as for the proposed
project. Horseshoe Bend and Gobbler's Knob would still be removed by mass grading which
is a significant unmitigable impact. Visual impacts would still occur along the northern
ridgeline of the southern portion adjacent to the SDG&E substation for a limited number
of lots when the SDG&E facilities are expanded. Views along a small portion of East H
Street would still be degraded by development along this scenic highway. These impacts are
considered significant. All biological impacts identified in the EIR for the southern portion
would still occur. Significant impacts to cultural resources, geology/soils, air quality, and
other identified impacts would be reduced but not to a level of insignificance.
Fiscal benefits to the City would be reduced through deletion of the conference
center and inn, and recreational benefits would be reduced through deletion of the
interpretive center. The alternative is also inconsistent with the project objectives.
79
6. SR 125 Alternative
The SR 125 Alternative W5 examines the proposed project based on alternate
alignment of future SR 125. Instead of forming the western boundary of the proposed
project's southern portion, SR 125 would travel to the eastern half of the southern portion
in a north/south alignment. This alignment would then travel through SDG&E property to
the north of the substation and immediately adjacent to the southwestern corner of the
northern portion of the project site. The purpose of this alternative is to propose a
residential development design which would accommodate this alternative freeway alignment.
This alternative would change the eastern half of the southern portion and the southwestern
corner of the northern portion of the project site. All other aspects of the project would
remain as proposed.
This alternative is considered infeasible for the following reasons. If the proposed
project is designed and constructed prior to resolution of the freeway alignment, the W5
alternative would create significant negative impacts on the project. The eastern edge of the
project would be separated from the rest of the project by SR 125, creating a segregated
neighborhood which should be avoided. The homesites located immediately adjacent to the
freeway alignment in the northern and southern portions would also be affected by adverse
noise conditions and other compatibility issues. If this alternative were adopted, the
proposed project could be impacted by traffic from Chula Vista accessing SR 125 unless
arterials were designed that bypassed the project. Market incentives to locate the proposed
commercial area or additional commercial land uses closer to the freeway would also exist,
which would change the commercial type from neighborhood to freeway commercial.
Significant impacts would remain due to landform/visual quality, biology, air quality and
noise factors. This alternative is also inconsistent with the City's General Plan and the
project objectives.
7. SR 125 Alternative W6
The SR 125 Alternative alignment W6 would travel through the western half of the
southern portion of the project, instead of bordering the western boundary. This alternative
would affect only the southern portion of the project site, and the alternative would be
similar in concept to the proposed project regarding the number of dwelling units and the
mix of land uses.
This alternative is considered infeasible for the following reasons. Land use
compatibility issues would increase as more of the dwelling units would be affected by their
proximity to the proposed freeway since it would bisect the western neighborhood.
Measures would have to be implemented to reduce noise, visual, and other impacts related
to freeway incompatibility. The following significant impacts would still exist under this
alternative: landform/visual quality, biology and air quality. All other impacts identified in
this EIR would remain the same. This alternative is also inconsistent with the City's General
Plan and the project objectives.
80
8. OtTsite Alternatives
In addition to the onsite alternatives, Final EIR 90-02 analyzed a range of offsite
alternatives. The following offsite alternatives are rejected for the reasons described.
In order to evaluate offsite alternatives to Rancho San Miguel, a 2,500-acre site within
the South Bay area is needed to accommodate the project. Other sites in the area would
offer environmental advantages over the project site with regard to biological and cultural
constraints since the project site is so biologically diverse and archaeologically rich.
Developing an alternative site would eliminate the direct impacts to the biological, cultural
resources and landforms on the project site. However, this situation would be temporary
because the project site is designated for future development under the Chula Vista General
Plan. Relocating the proposed project offsite would transfer impacts elsewhere, but would
leave the subject site available for future development. Therefore, requiring the proposed
development to relocate offsite would not protect the project site from future significant
unmitigable impacts.
In addition, it is difficult to find a suitable alternative site. Alternative sites within the
City's adopted Sphere of Influence have already been committed to residential or mixed-use
development, consistent with the land uses designated in the Chula Vista General Plan.
These sites include Bonita Long Canyon, EI Rancho del Rey, EastLake and Sunbow. Salt
Creek Ranch, a 1,200-acre development to the south of the project, is currently being
planned as a residential development by the Baldwin Company. Together, these projects
total over 7,300 acres and limit the area available in the project vicinity for development of
a project that would be a feasible alternative to Rancho San Miguel in light of the size,
scope, character and stated project objectives.
The availability of alternative sites on unincorporated County land in the project
vicinity is also restricted either due to ongoing or planned projects, topographic constraints
or incompatibility with existing community character. Most available land has been
incorporated into planned or approved projects such as Rancho San Diego, Loma Del Sol,
Las Montanas, Hidden Valley, Singing Hills, The Pointe and Honey Springs Ranch.
Unincorporated County land east of the planned and approved projects descnbed above is
generally restricted by steep topography and the absence of urban services.
Over 23,000 acres of undeveloped land is located within Otay Ranch to the south and
east of the Rancho San Miguel property. The entire Otay Ranch, owned by the Baldwin
Company, is currently undergoing a General Plan Amendment for future development.
Land topographically suitable for residential development is located on the Otay Mesa south
of the project site. This land has been designated for industrial development by both the
County and City of San Diego and is being developed with industrial land uses at the present
time. These industrial land uses would not be compatible with a residential planned
community such as Rancho San Miguel. In light of the commitment of land and
development within the project vicinity, alternative sites for purchase to accommodate the
proposed project are limited and thus are not considered to be a feasible option. In
addition, the project does applicant does not own land elsewhere.
81
In regard to an alternative sites analysis, the court in the Goleta Valley decision
rejected the argument that a project ErR should be a broad-based regional planning effort
and stated that a General Plan and not a project ErR is the appropriate place for such
consideration. Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553. The
Chula Vista General Plan was recently updated by the City after a general study of city
resources and extensive public participation. The General Plan process considers regional
planning concerns to identify optimum locations for development and it is not appropriate
for an EIR to fmd alternative locations for a project that is consistent with the General Plan
designation.
The Chula Vista General Plan Update EIR (1989) identified significant, unmitigable
impacts of buildout of the proposed General Plan Update. These impacts were: biological
resources, noise, conversion of agricultural lands, landform/aesthetics, landuses/General
Plan/zoning, open space, transportation/access and air quality. The General Plan was
adopted with an alternative showing residential development on the Rancho San Miguel site,
and the City was required to prepare CEQA findings to document the reasons why the plan
was adopted given the significant unmitigable impacts. The City's CEQA findings
considered: (a) changes and other measures that would, upon implementation, reduce the
significant impacts; and (b) justifications for non-implementation of impact-minimizing
mitigation measures due to their infeasibility based on social and economic considerations.
The "social and economic" considerations referred to above included:
. The City of Chula Vista would be deprived of the surplus
revenue projected from build out of the entire plan.
. The citizens of Chura Vista and the region would be deprived
of the housing, employment, and recreational opportunities
inherent in the proposed plan if it were not adopted.
. The preservation of the Eastern Territories in its current state
would preclude the various property owners from achieving the
goals of eventually developing their land.
In summary, developing the Rancho San Miguel project on an alternative site cannot
be feasibly accomplished because the property owner would have to purchase other land in
the vicinity (which it does not own), and surrounding land is already committed for future
projects. Even if other lands were available in the Chula Vista area, the impacts would be
similar throughout the area. Furthermore, implementation of the project on an alternative
site would not reduce impacts to the proposed site since it would remain vulnerable to
impacts associated with its future development status under the Chula Vista General Plan.
82
February 25, 1993
To:
Members of the Planning Commission
From:
Barbara Reid, Associate Planner
Subject:
Consideration of Overriding Considerations
The proposed Rancho San Miguel will result in significant and unmitigable landform and
biological impacts. A Statement of Overriding Considerations will need to be adopted prior to
project approval for significant and unmitigable impacts.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is staff's recommendation that if the Planning Commission recommends approval of the
project, they should also recommend adoption of overriding considerations.
BR/nr
XI. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
BACKGROUND
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines
provide:
"(a) CEQA requires the decision-maker to balance the benefits of a proposed
project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve
the project. If the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse
environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered
'acceptable. '
(b) Where the decision of the public agency allows the occurrence of significant
effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not at least substantially
mitigated, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action
based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record. This statement may
be necessary if the agency also makes a finding under Section 15091(a) (2) or (a) (3).
(c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement
should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned
in the Notice of Determination." (CEQA Guidelines, 14 Ca1.CodeRegs. ~15093).
THE STATEMENT
The City Council finds that the mitigation measures found in the CEQA findings,
when implemented, avoid or substantially lessen most of the significant effects identified in
Final EIR 90-02 for Rancho San Miguel. Nonetheless, certain significant effects of the
Rancho San Miguel project are unavoidable even after incorporation of all feasible
mitigation measures. These unavoidable significant effects include: landform/visual quality,
air quality, biology and cumulative impacts to land use/conversion of open space,
landform/visual quality, biology, archaeology, water supply, air quality and nonrenewable
energy resources. In approving this project,the City has balanced the benefits of the Rancho
San Miguel project against these unavoidable environmental effects. In this regard, the City
finds that all feasible mitigation measures identified in the CEQA findings, have been or will
be implemented with the project, and any significant remaining unavoidable effects are
acceptable due to the following specific social, economic or other considerations, all of which
are based upon the facts set forth in the CEQA findings, Final EIR 90-02, and the record
of the proceedings for this project.
1. The project as proposed will provide a significant number (772) or
large estate and rural-type lots ranging in size from 15,000 square feet
to one acre in size. Such high quality, upper-end housing products are
currently limited in the South Bay area.
2. The 357 proposed lots on the northern portion of the project provide
opportunity for a "showcase" of sensitively-designed development, with
83
mass grading eschewed in favor of individual, custom lot design using
minimal grading and construction techniques such as stemwall
foundations, post and beam construction, and multiple level structures
to ensure responsiveness to natural topography.
3. The proposed conference center retreat and inn would provide a
unique facility in the South Bay, consisting of a quiet rustic leisure time
and recreational oriented development in a natural environment.
4. The proposed interpretive center would provide a second such "anchor"
to the City's Greenbelt (along with the Bayfront Nature Interpretive
Center), allowing for an educational and recreational opportunity to
citizens of Chula Vista and all of San Diego County.
5. The project proposes a superior level of planning and design on the
southern portion of the project which would not be feasible if
Horseshoe Bend and Gobbler's Knob were preserved. Specifically, the
project is united into a cohesive whole with the location of a
community park and elementary school in the center of the Southern
portion.
6. Elimination of Horseshoe Bend and Gobbler's Knob allows for the
optimal alignment of San Miguel Ranch road through the project site,
where it provides easy access east and west for project residents and
provides a suitable parallel surface street alternative to the future
Route 125.
7. The proposed Otay Tarweed preserve on the southern parcel provides
protection for approximately 44,000 plants of this State-listed
endangered plant species. Such a preserve would not be feasible
without the elimination of Horseshoe Bend and Gobbler's Knob.
8. The project preserves, through dedication, approximately 1,648 acres
of permanent natural open space constituting approximately 64% of
the project site.
For these reasons, on balance, the City Council finds that there are social, economic
and other considerations resulting from this project that serve to override and outweigh the
project's unavoidable significant environmental effects and, thus, the adverse environmental
effects are considered acceptable.
84