HomeMy WebLinkAboutRCC AGENDA PK 2005/07/11Mitigated Negative Declaration
PROJECT NAME: Eastlake Village Walk
PROJECT LOCATION: South and adjacent to Eastlake Parkway, east and adjacent to the
future alignment of SR-125
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: APN 595-071-02-00
PROJECT APPLICANT: Sudberry Properties, Inc
CASE NO.: Case No. IS-04-027
DATE OF DRAFT DOCUMENT: June 15, 2005
DATE OF RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION MEETING: July 11, 2005
DATE OF FINAL DOCUMENT:
PREPARED BY: Marni Borg, Environmental Projects Manager
A. PROJECT SETTING AND HISTORY
The proposed project is a retail shopping center on approximately 13 acres bordered by Eastlake
Parkway to the north and east, SR-125 to the west and the Eastlake Village Market Place to the
south in the City of Chula Vista (Figures 1 and 2). The site was originally graded in accordance
with the approved master grading plan for the Eastlake I Sectional Planning Area (SPA).
Subsequent grading on the site has occurred associated with stockpiling of material for the
construction of Olympic Parkway and as part of the Eastlake Village Center North project. The
project site has been addressed in several prior environmental documents as discussed below:
Eastlake Master EiR (EIR 81-03)
A Master EIR (EIR 81-03) was completed for the 3,073-acre Eastlake community in February
1982. This Master EIR considered the impacts of annexation of the Eastlake Community from
the County of San Diego to the City of Chula Vista, as well as the potential impacts associated
with the implementation of a General Plan Amendment (GPA), prezoning and General
Development Plan (GDP) for the future Eastlake Development.
Eastlake I SPA Plan Supplemental EIR (SEIR 84-01)
In 1984, a SPA Plan was developed for approximately 1,268 acres of the 3,073-acre Eastlake
community. This SPA plan, referred to as Eastlake I, was prepared as a refinement and
implementation framework for the Planned Community zoning previously applied to the site in
1982. A Supplemental EIR (SEIR 84-01) was certified in February 1985 that addressed the
Page I of 39
Eastlake I SPA Plan and two accompanying Tentative Subdivision Maps, one of which included
the subject site.
Eastlake I SPA Plan Amendment/Kaiser Permanente Chula Vista Medical Center
Supplemental EIR (SEIR 92-O1)
In 1992, a Supplemental EIR (SEIR 92-O1 SCH #92031049) was certified for the Eastlake I
SPA Plan Amendment/Kaiser Permanente Chula Vista Medical Center Precise Plan. The
Eastlake I SPA Amendment designated 30.6 acres (which includes the subject site) for a major
medical facility (designated MC-1). The Kaiser Permanente Chula Vista Medical Center Precise
Plan was never developed and was subsequently replaced by the Eastlake Village Center North
Supplemental SPA Plan.
Eastlake Village Center North MND (IS-O1-042)
The subject site was most recently analyzed in the Eastlake Village Center North Mitigated
Negative Declaration (hereinafter referred to as the ELVCN MND), which was adopted by the
Chula Vista City Council with the Eastlake Village Center North Supplemental SPA Plan on
July 23, 2002 (Resolution No 2002-64). The Supplemental SPA Plan encompassed three
separate land use districts within the Eastlake I SPA identified as "VC-1°, "BC-3" and "VC-2".
The subject 13-acre site is located within the 16.4-acre BC-3 district. The SPA Amendment
changed the 30.6 acres of Medical Center-I (MC-1) use to 16.4 acres of Village Center
Employment (E-10), which is the subject site, and 14.2 acres of Village Center-1 (VC-1), which
is now part of the existing Eastlake Village Marketplace. The approval also changed the land
use designation on the project site to Industrial Research & Limited Manufacturing.
No site plan was proposed for the BC-3 or VC-2 districts at the time the ELVCN MND was
prepared. The MND states:
°Future development of these parcels would be governed by the proposed Planned
Community District Regulations and Design Guidelines. Specifically, the PC
District Regulations set forth the development and land use standards for all
property within the Eastlake II General Development Plan area by establishing:
setbacks; building heights; parking requirements; landscape requirements; use
restrictions; animal regulations; density of development; lot size, width and depth;
fencing requirements; and signing regulations. Sections III and IV of the PC
District Regulations specify the types of uses that are permitted, conditionally
permitted and not permitted within VC-2 and BC-3 districts, respectively.
Page 2 of 39
Future site plans for the VC-2 and BC-3 parcels will be evaluated against the
adopted PC District Regulations and Design Guidelines specific to these parcels.
In addition, an environmental evaluation of issues related to the proposed land
uses, such as but not limited to land use compatibility with adjacent uses, noise,
and aesthetics would need to be conducted at the time a future site plan is
proposed. In addition, the need for any new, or expansion of, a public service
specifically related to a proposed use (such as emergency services and disposal of
medical/toxic waste related to hospital or other medical facility, disposal of
biotechnical waste related to biotechnical research facilities, etc.) would need to
be evaluated for environmental considerations.
On the other hand, physical features of these parcels, including geology, biology,
cultural and paleontological resources and drainage, have been addressed in
current technical studies or prior environmental documentation, and therefore
would not need further analysis. With respect to traffic, aworst-case traffic
analysis has been prepared that assumed the highest trip-generating land uses
allowed on these parcels. As long as the total trip generation for the three parcels
(VC-1, VC-2 and BC-3) does not exceed that projected in the 2002 LLG traffic
study for the Eastlake Village Center North project (i.e., 36,356 average daily
trips), no further traffic analysis would be required. Similarly, aworst-case
sewage generation and water demand analysis was conducted. Provided that the
ultimate development that is proposed for the VC-2 and BC-3 parcels is in
conformance with the PC District Regulations and Design Guidelines, no
additional water or sewer analyses would be required."
B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Land Use Chance and Discretionary Actions
The current proposal is to change the land use designation on 13.3 acres of the 16.4 acres
currently designated for Industrial Research & Limited Manufacturing use to Commercial -
Retail use. The remainder of the 1(.4 acres has been approved for development of a 42,000
square foot medical office building. The medical office building is not included in this analysis
because it has been previously approved as a consistent use with the adopted GDP and SPA. The
proposed project involves the following discretionary actions:
City of Chula Vista General Plan Amendment: Change the land use designation of the site from
Industrial Research & Limited Manufacturing to Commercial-Retail.
Eastlake II General Development Plan (GDP) Amendment. Change the land use designation of
the site from Industrial Research & Limited Manufacturing to Commercial-Retail.
Eastlake Village Center North Supplemental Sectional Planning Area Plun (Eastlake 1 SPA):
Expand the VC-] district to be consistent with the proposed land use districts, thereby reducing
the E-10 district. Also includes some minor changes to the exhibits and tables within various
components of the SPA Plan. Other related actions include an amendment to the Eastlake II PC
Page 3 of 39
District Regulations, and preparation of revised Public Facilities Finance Plan (PFFP), Air
Quality Improvement Plan (AQIP) and Water Conservation Plan (WCP).
Design Review Penr:it: The site is subject to a site plan and architectural review process and
approval by the Design Review Committee (DRC).
Parcel Map: Required to divide the site into parcels.
At this time, the City is in the process of a General Plan Update (GPU). As part of the GPU, the
proposed preferred General Plan Land Use Plan designates the land use on the site as Retail
Commercial. In the event that the GPU is adopted by the City Council prior to, or concurrent
with the review and approval of the Eastlake Village Walk project, a General Plan Amendment
would not be required. In order to identify potential land use impacts associated with the
proposed project under the adopted General Plan or the proposed GPU, two separate ]and use
analyses are included in the environmental analysis in Section D.
Site Plan
The project proposes up to approximately 163,300 square feet (SF) of retail and 12,000 SF of
office/service uses. As shown in Figure 5, access to the site would be from the Miller
Road/EastLake Parkway intersection. The retail and restaurant uses would be located along the
northern and western perimeter of the site. A separate retail and office building would be located
in the southern portion of the site. The office building shown in Figure 5 that is located east of
the site and north of the Eastlake Village Marketplace has been approved, and it is not a part of
the proposed project.
A total of 796 parking spaces would be provided. The majority of the parking would be located
in a central parking lot. Peripheral parking would be provided along the western perimeter of the
site, between the buildings and the freeway and Eastlake Parkway right-of--ways. Employees
would primarily use these parking areas. Similarly, loading docks would be located on the west
side of (back side of) the retail buildings.
The proposed project site is located east of the future SR-125 right-of--way. Based on current
plans for the construction of SR-125, the elevation of the project site would be at or slightly
above the future freeway elevation. The site plan includes landscaping within the project
boundaries and adjacent to the freeway right-of--way. Landscaping would also be provided along
Eastlake Parkway and interior to the site.
C. COMPLIANCE WITH ZONING AND PLANS
Amendments to the General Plan, Eastlake II GDP and Eastlake I Village Center North
Supplemental SPA Plan are reyuired for the proposed project to comply with regulating plans.
Similarly, the Eastlake II PC District Regulations would be amended as part of this project to
change permitted land uses on the site. As discussed previously, the amendments would change
the permitted use on the site from Industrial Research & Limited Manufacturing to Commercial-
Retail.
Page 4 of 39
As noted previously, the City is currently in the process of a GPU. The preferred land use plan
in the GPU designated the site for Retail Commercial. In the event that the GPU is adopted by
the City Council prior to, or concurrent with the review and approval of this project, a GPA
would not be required. The Eastlake II GDP and Eastlake I Village Center North Supplemental
SPA Plan would still need to be updated to be consistent with the General Plan.
D. IDENTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Basis of AnalVSis
As noted above, the project site has been the subject of several previous environmental
documents, the most recent of which is the ELVCN MND (IS-O1-042). The previous
environmental documents provide a comprehensive evaluation of the site conditions and
potential impacts of developing the site. These documents provide the basis of analysis and
scope for the evaluation of environmental effects in this MND.
Specifically, the ELVCN MND provided the scope of future evaluation of proposed projects on
the BC-3 parcel (see Section A above). In summary, an environmental evaluation of issues
related to the proposed change in land use, including land use conversion and compatibility with
adjacent uses, noise, and aesthetics are addressed herein. In addition, the potential change on
water demand and sewage generation from the proposed land use change is evaluated. With
respect to traffic, an evaluation of the proposed project as compared to the total trip generation
for the three parcels (VC-1, VC-2 and BC-3) that were previously analyzed is addressed in this
MND. In addition, an evaluation of mobile and point-source air quality impacts is provided in
this MND. Lastly, while the hydraulic condition of the site has not changed since the ELVCN
MND was prepared, the impact analysis herein evaluates the proposed site plan with respect to
drainage.
The ELVCN MND identified potential impacts related to paleontological resources, water
quality and geology. The proposed grading of the site and operation of the commercial center
would result in the same impacts to these issues as previously identified. Therefore, the
previously required mitigation measures pertaining to these issues have been incorporated into
the attached MMRP. No further analysis is required of these issues. Note that these measures
are not new measures, but are incorporated by reference from the ELVCN MND.
The ELVCN MND did not identify significant biological or cultural resources impacts from
development of the subject site. Therefore, these issues do not require further analysis. The
proposed project would not have an impact on agricultural or mineral resources. These resources
do not occur on the site. The proposed project is a commercial development. Therefore, the
proposed project would not increase population, or create the need for additional housing.
Further, there would be no impact on population-based impacts such as demand on schools,
recreational facilities and libraries.
The proposed change in land use would not generate additional demand on police, fire or
emergency medical services as compared to the planned hospital and medical office use. The
Page 5 of 39
proposed project is within the boundaries of the Public Facilities Development hnpact Fee
Program (PFDIF), and therefore will be subject to payment of public facilities fees for fire,
police and emergency medical service at the rate that is in effect at the time building permits are
issued. No known hazardous materials occur on the site, and the proposed commercial
development of the site would not create a significant public hazard.
Environmental Analysis
As noted previously, in order to identify potential land use impacts associated with the proposed
project with and without a GPA, two separate land use analyses have been provided.
Land Use -Proposed Project with a Genera! Plan An+endment
The proposed change to the land use designation from Industrial Research & Limited
Manufacturing to Retail-Commercial would represent a continuation of the Eastlake Village
Marketplace, which is located directly south of the site, and Eastlake Village Center East, which
is located southeast of the site. This would achieve the intent of the activity core concept at
Eastlake Parkway and Otay Lakes Road anticipated by the Eastlake I SPA. Further, the
proposed upscale, specialty retail activities would provide connectivity and transition from the
residential uses to the northwest and industrial uses to the north to the more intensive
commercial node to the south. Thus, the proposed land use change would not represent a
significant impact.
The project site is ideal in terms of accessibility due to the fact that it is adjacent to major
transportation corridors within the Eastlake area (Otay Lakes Road and Eastlake Parkway) and
is within one mile of future SR-125. In addition, future transit facilities are being considered on
Eastlake Parkway near the project site.
The proposed site plan has been developed to provide apedestrian-friendly environment. The
center is within walking distance of residential areas west of the freeway and the other
commercial businesses to the south and southeast. Business fronts and outside eating areas will
be oriented toward a central parking lot. Loading docks would be provided "behind" the
buildings, out of view. Pedestrian walkways will be clearly delineated with pavement treatment
and landscaping. A meandering, landscaped pedestrian walkway would be provided along
Eastlake Parkway that would encourage pedestrian access to the site from the residential
community to the east and retail and residential areas to the south.
The project site is also adjacent to the SR-125 freeway. Commercial uses are compatible with
adjacent freeways because they are not considered a "sensitive" use. Land use compatibility
issues associated with the adjacent freeway would be related to noise and views. The issue of
noise is discussed in detail below. In summary, a noise study was conducted which incorporated
buildout traffic volumes on Eastlake Parkway as well as the SR-125 freeway. A noise level of
70 dB is considered compatible with commercial areas. As discussed below, the orientation of
the proposed commercial buildings would attenuate noise levels from traffic on SR-125 and
Eastlake Parkway such that noise levels would not exceed 70 dB interior to the site or in
outdoor eating areas.
Page 6 of 39
The elevation of the proposed project site would be at or slightly above the freeway. Due to the
proposed location of buildings along the western site perimeter, the majority of the views of the
freeway would be blocked. Policies within the proposed SPA Amendment, including but not
limited to, landscape design concepts, building location and construction, grading policies, and
buffering guidelines would ensure that visitors to the center would not be adversely affected by
the views of the adjacent freeway.
Lighting is also a land use compatibility issue. Night lighting would be required to comply with
the Eastlake II PC District Regulations. The proposed project is an infill project and is
completely surrounded by development. The proposed SPA Amendment would require that all
lighting sources be shielded in such a manner that the light is directed away from streets or
adjoining properties. The intensity of the light at the boundary of the site would be required to
comply with City standards. Thus, the proposed retail commercial use would not be
incompatible with surrounding uses.
Land Use - No General Plan Amendment
The City of Chula Vista is in the process of updating the General Plan. An update of the General
Plan is necessary to develop solutions for now long-term, city-wide planning issues. As part of
the GPU, the project site is designated Retail Commercial. In the event the GPU is adopted,
concurrent or prior to the adoption of the proposed project, a GPA would not be required. With
the adoption of the GPU, the site would be redesignated retail commercial use. The GPU and
GPU EIR would contemplate this change in land use. Therefore, the proposed project would be
consistent with the General Plan, and thus there would be not significant land use impact. Other
planning documents that implement the General Plan, such as the Eastlake II GDP and Eastlake
I Village Center North Supplemental SPA Plan would still need to be updated to be consistent
with the General Plan.
.4estketics
The proposed project site is completely surrounded by developed areas. The site is a disturbed,
unlandscaped parcel. The surrounding area is developed with commercial and industrial uses
that provide manicured landscaping. The proposed project would represent an infill
development that would improve the site.
The proposed project is subject to the amended Eastlake II PC District Regulations and Design
Guidelines. Specifically, the PC District Regulations set forth the development and land use
standards for all property within the Eastlake II General Development Plan area by establishing:
setbacks; building heights; parking requirements; landscape requirements; use restrictions;
animal regulations; density of development; lot size, width and depth; fencing requirements; and
signing regulations. Preliminary building elevations show an architectural style and building
fenestration that would be compatible with the adjacent Eastlake Marketplace. Extensive use of
recessed and lighted alcoves, landscaping, parapets and windows are proposed for the
department store facades that would reduce the building mass. The proposed project would
comply with the existing PC District Regulations and Design Guidelines and would be subject to
Page 7 of 39
design review and approval by the Design Review Committee. No impacts to aesthetics are
anticipated.
Potable and Recycled Water Demand
Potable and recycled water demands were estimated for the ELVCN MND in the "Eastlake
Village Center North Water Analysis" (PBS&J, February 2002). As noted in Section A, a worst-
case water demand was assumed in the February 2002 study. The update of this analysis,
"Amended Eastlake Village Center North Supplemental SPA Plan Water Analysis" (PBS&J
March 2, 2005), concluded that the adopted (Industrial Research & Manufacturing, currently
planned for medical office use) and proposed (Retail Commercial) land uses both fall into the
general commercial category in the Otay Water District Water Resources Master Plan (OWD
Master Plan). The March 2005 study calculated the potable and recycled water demand based
planning criteria specified in the OWD Master Plan. As indicated in the project description
above, the proposed project would increase the VC-1 district while equally reducing the E-10
district (Figure 4). According to the OWD Master Plan, both districts would have the same
potable water demand of 1,785 gallons per day (gpd). Therefore, as shown in Table 1, the total
potable water demand for the proposed project would be the same as the adopted land use.
The adopted and proposed average daily recycled water demand was also estimated. Similar to
potable water, the OWD Water Resources Master Plan provides the same recycled water unit
demand rate for both the proposed and adopted uses. As shown in Table 2, the estimated
recycled water demand would be the same as the adopted use. Therefore, the water system
analysis and recommendations in the "Eastlake Village Center North Water Analysis" (PBS&J,
February 2002) are valid For both potable and recycled water demand for the proposed project.
No impacts related to potable or recycled water demand would result from the proposed land use
change.
{i'astewater Generation
Wastewater generation was estimated for the ELVCN MND in the "Eastlake Village Center
North Sewer Analysis" (PBS&J, March 2002). As noted in Section A, a worst-case wastewater
generation was assumed for the site in the March 2002 study. The update of this analysis,
"Amended Eastlake Village Center North Supplemental SPA Plan Sewer Analysis" (PBS&J,
March Z, 2005) was prepared to compare the estimated wastewater generation of the proposed
and the adopted land uses. The adopted (Industrial Research & Manufacturing, currently
planned for medical office use) and proposed (Retail Commercial) land uses fall under the
general classification of commercial in the Sewer Design Section of the Chula Vista Subdivision
Manual. Average daily wastewater generation was estimated for the adopted and proposed land
uses based on planning criteria specified in the Subdivision Manual. The criteria specify use of
2,500 gpd per acre for commercial, industrial, and community purpose land use designations.
However, a higher unit generation rate (5,431 gpd/ac) was assumed for the adopted land use to
account for the medical offices (rate provided by Kaiser Permanente in the 2002 study). As
shown in Table 3, the wastewater generation for the adopted SPA would be 218,318 gpd,
whereas the proposed SPA would generate 179,336 gpd. The projected wastewater generation
from the proposed SPA Plan would be lower than the adopted SPA plan. Therefore, the sewer
Page 8 of 39
system analysis and recommendations in the "Eastlake Village Center North Sewer Analysis"
(PBS&J, March 2002) are valid for the proposed project. No impacts related to sewage
generation would result from the proposed land use change.
Hydrology
The site was assumed to be fully developed in the "Detention Basin Analysis for the Eastlake
Village Center North" prepared by Hunsaker & Associates dated March 4, 2002. An update of
this study, "Hydrology Study for Eastlake Village Walk" prepared by Hunsaker & Associates
dated June 6, 2005 confirmed that hydrologic conditions of the site are the same as previously
analyzed. Grading of the site would not modify existing drainage patterns. The site would drain
to the southwest corner of the site. Runoff would be collected in the southwest comer of the site
and would be transported via an existing storm drain to the existing detention basin in the
southwest comer of the Eastlake Marketplace.
The current hydrology study concluded that the site would result in higher runoff volume (84.4
cubic feet per second (cfs) fora 50-year flow than the previously calculated 49.5 cfs in the 2002
report. This is due to newer methodology for calculative runoff. Based on an updated hydraulic
analysis, the storm drain system is capable of conveying the flows generated by the new
methodology, and therefore will not result in a significant impact to the drainage infrastmcture
(including the existing storm drain system and the detention basin). Thus, the proposed change
in land use would not result in an impact to hydrology.
Trmtsportation mid Circulation
As noted previously, because no site plan was proposed at the time, aworst-case development
scenario was assumed for the BC-3 parcel in the ELVCN MND. The traffic analysis for the
ELVCN MND entitled "Traffic Impacts Analysis, Eastlake Village Center North" (Linscott,
Law & Greenspan (LLG), May 8, 2002) assumed that the entire 68-acre ELVCN (VC-1, VC-2
and BC-3 parcels) would generate 36,356 average daily trips (ADT). Significant project-specific
and cumulative traffic impacts were identified and determined to be mitigable to below
significance.
The ELVCN MND stated that as long as the updated total trip generation for the three parcels
does not exceed 36,356 average daily trips, no further traffic analysis would be required. Since
approval of the ELVCN project, two of the three parcels (VC-1 and VC-2) have been developed.
Development of these two parcels would generate 29,504 ADT.
The May 2002 traffic impact analysis was updated with a new traffic study specific to the
proposed project. This study, entitled "Traffic Impact Analysis, Eastlake Village Walk" (LLG,
February 2, 2002) concluded that the proposed commercial center would generate 11,884 ADT
(accounting for transit and pass by trips). Thus, the total ADT allocated to the three parcels
would be exceeded. The updated study addresses the impact of the additional trips on the street
system in near term, cumulative and buildout conditions.
Page 9 of 39
Tables 4 and S show the existing intersection and street segment operations in the project
vicinity, respectively. All key study area intersections and street segments are calculated to
currently operate at acceptab]e levels of service.
Table 4 shows a comparison of the near term intersection operations for the adopted (Scenario 1)
vs. proposed (Scenario 2) projects. Both scenarios include a 1.S% growth factor for two years
(project completion) and cumulative project trips from buildout of the Eastlake Business Center.
As shown in the table, the proposed project would generate sufficient traffic to result in
signifcant impacts at the following two intersections:
• Otay Lakes Road/Vons Driveway (PM impact)
• Eastlake Parkway/Miller Drive (AM and PM impact)
The ELVCN MND required mitigation measures for these two intersections that involved lane
delineation in accordance with Figure 27 of the 2002 traffic study. The measures have not yet
been completed. A reassessment of the lane configuration required in the 2002 traffic analysis
was conducted. While delineation of the turn movements at these intersections is still required,
the original mitigation measure has been modified to reflect the configuration outlined in the
current traffic study. These mitigation measures will be completed prior to completion of the
proposed project and are assumed to be completed in the 2010 traffic analysis scenarios.
Table S shows a comparison of the near-term street segment operations for the adopted (Scenario
1) vs. proposed (Scenario 2) projects. As shown in Table S, based on the City's significance
criteria the proposed project would not result in significant traffic impacts on road segments in
the near term.
Tables 6 and 7 compare intersection and street segment operations, respectively, in the Year
2010 for the adopted (Scenario 3) vs. proposed (Scenario 4) projects. These scenarios assume
that SR-12S is built and is a toll facility. These scenarios also assume that mitigation measures
previously required of the ELVCN project for the Otay Lakes Road/Vons Driveway and
Eastlake Parkway/Miller Drive intersections are completed. Timing for implementing these
measures is included in the attachment MMRP. As shown in Table 6, based on the City's
significance criteria the proposed project would not result in significant impacts on intersections
in the Year 2010. Similarly, based on the City's significance criteria, the proposed project
would not result in significant impacts on road segments in the Year 2010 (Table 7).
Using the latest available SANDAG model and land uses for the region, peak hour intersection
and segment volumes were calculated in the buildout condition (Scenario S). This scenario
assumes SR 12S is built, and there is no toll. Tables 8 and 9 show buildout conditions at
intersections and roadway segments, respectively. The tables show that based on the City's
significance criteria the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to intersections
or street segments in the buildout condition. Thus, no significant impacts to traffic would result
from the proposed project in the near-teen or buildout conditions.
Page 10 of 39
.9ir Qaality
The proposed project would generate pollutants during the construction and operation phases of
the project. The air quality analysis in the ELVCN MND addressed the temporary construction-
related emissions pertaining to the grading of the site. The construction impact analysis and
mitigation measures addressed in the ELVCN MND and associated MMRP are incorporated by
reference and are included in the attached MMRP for this project.
On-going air quality impacts from project operations would be from traffic and to a lesser degree
"area sources" such as natural gas consumption (for space heating) and gasoline combustion
during landscape maintenance. An updated air quality analysis, "Eastlake Village Walk-Air
Quality Impact Analysis" prepared by Jay Kniep Land Planning (February 28, 2005) calculated
project-related mobile- and area-source emissions using the California Air Resources Board
URBEMIS2002 computer model for land use development projects. The results for both the
adopted land use and the proposed project are shown in Table 10. Vehicle trip counts (with no
account for transit or passby trips to indicate worst case) were taken from the February 2005
LLG traffic report. The project was modeled for 2006 that is the anticipated opening date for the
commercial center. The model concluded that the proposed project would result in significant
impacts to the pollutants ROG/VOC, NOx and CO (Table 10).
Several project features would contribute to the reduction of air quality impacts. The project
includes transit features that would reduce traffic volumes by 5"/,,. In addition, as specified in the
SPA, there are also a number of community design factors that would reduce the dependence
upon vehicles and reduce vehicle emissions. These include street circulation and connectivity,
proximity of housing and employment near transit, land use mix and proximity to support
services, bicycle access, and compliance with the Growth Management Program that ensures
street segments and intersections operate at acceptable levels of service. Lastly, the developer
has committed to participate in the City's Greenstar Program as specified in the current Air
Quality Improvement Plan Guidelines. Participation requires the developer to agree to exceed
the California 2001 Title 24 Part 6 Energy Efficiency Standards by 10"/" in the majority of the
structures. These requirements are specified in the project's AQIP in the SPA. The ELVC MND
requires compliance with the AQIP. This mitigation measure is incorporated by reference and
included in the attached MMRP.
All of these air emission reduction factors were input into the URBEMIS2002 model to quantify
the reduction in air quality emissions associated with these design features and quantify the
difference between the proposed project and the adopted land use. The results are shown in
Table 11.
As shown in Table 11, the proposed project would not impact any of the assessed pollutants.
Compliance with the AQIP and implementation of SPA requirements would reduce all potential
air quality impacts to below significance.
Page 11 of 39
Noise
The ELVCN MND required that "prior to approval of the Final Map, Parcel Map, or Site Plan
for BC-3 and VC-2 (whichever occurs first), an acoustical analysis of the proposed land uses
shall be prepared and approved to determine conformance with City standards"
Projected noise levels on the subject site were calculated in the "Noise Assessment for the
Eastlake Village Center North project" (Dudek & Associates, Inc. April 29, 2002). However
the noise assessment acknowledged that a site plan was not analyzed at that time. Therefore, the
assessment only addressed noise generated byproject-related traffic and buildout traffic volumes
on adjacent streets. An update of the 2002 study, "Village Walk at Eastlake Project
Environmental Noise Assessment" was prepared by Dudek & Associates, Inc. dated February
21, 2005. The study addressed noise levels generated by offsite traffic volumes and onsite uses.
The noise exposure criterion for commercial uses is 70 dB CNEL. This criterion applies at
outdoor use areas such as lunch areas or outdoor garden centers. The site would be primarily
affected by offsite traffic-related noise from Eastlake Parkway and SR-125 and onsite noise
generated by loading and delivery activities and outdoor mechanical equipment.
A noise measurement was conducted to determine existing onsite noise levels. In its current
condition, the site is unimproved and SR-125 has not been constructed. Existing noise levels are
predominantly from traffic along Eastlake Parkway. At 65 feet from the centerline of Eastlake
Parkway at the intersection with Miller Drive, the onsite noise level was measured to be 61 dB.
Offsite Traffic Noise
Using traffic volumes provided by LLG (December 2005), the noise levels at 50 feet from the
centerline of the road was determined for Otay Lakes Road (SR-125 to Lane Avenue), Fenton
Street and Eastlake Parkway (Otay Lakes Road to north of Miller) for the existing plus project
condition. As compared to the existing noise level, the existing plus project noise level would
increase by three dB or less along the roads. The existing plus project increase assumes that the
project is built out and SR-125 is not built. A noise level increase of up to 3 dB is generally not
considered significant. Typically, a three dB change in community noise is considered a just
noticeable difference. The existing plus project noise level increase is considered less than
significant because the noise level increase would be 3 dB or less.
The site would be primarily affected from traffic noise along Eastlake Parkway and future SR-
125. To determine future (upon buildout) noise levels that could be experienced onsite,
community buildout traffic volumes of 16,000 to 29,400 ADT were used for Eastlake Parkway
adjacent to the site (LLG, December 2005). The future year 2030 traffic volume along SR 125
adjacent to the site would be approximately 55,000 ADT (SANDAG 2005).
The future traffic noise level would range up to approximately 75 dB along the western portion
of the site adjacent to SR-125. The noise level would range up to 73 dB along the eastern
portion of the site adjacent to Eastlake Parkway and south of miller Road. The outdoor useable
areas (i.e., seating areas) are proposed to be located in the front of buildings 3, 4, and 5 and in the
Page 12 of 39
area between buildings 1 and 2 (see Figure 6). The buildings would shield the outdoor useable
areas from the traffic noise and would reduce the noise level to less than 70dB CNEL at outdoor
useable areas. The approximate location of the 70 dB BCNEL noise contour, which includes
noise attenuation from the buildings is shown in Figure 4.
Onsite Noise Generation
Onsite noise would be associated with the loading dock and delivery activities and outdoor
mechanical equipment.
Loading Dock/Delivery Truck Activities. At any one location, the average sound level
associated with loading dock noise is difficult to predict due to many variables including
variations in truck engineer power, idling times, the way loads are placed on hand trucks and
fork lifts, and the number of operating minutes in any one hour. However, to determine the
approximate noise levels that would be generated at the loading dock area, noise measurements
conducted at similar size stores were utilized. Based on these measurements, during the loading
dock activities the one-hour average sound level is approximately 50 to 55 dB at 100 feet from
the loading dock.
The loading areas would be adjacent to SR-125 and Eastlake Parkway at the "back side" of the
commercial buildings (Figure 3) The closest noise sensitive area would be the residential area
located west of SR-125, approximately 330 feet from the nearest loading dock. At this distance,
the one-hour average noise level associated with the loading dock activities would be
approximately 45 dB. Thus, the noise impact from the loading docks would not be significant.
Outdoor Mechanical Equipment. Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning Equipment
(HVAC) could be located on the roofs or ground level of the commercial buildings. These units
typically generate nose levels of approximately 45 to 55 dB at a distance of 50 feet. At the
closest residences, the one-hour average noise level would be less than 40 dB assuming the
equipment operates continuously for aone-hour period. This noise level would comply with the
City's noise standards and would be less significant.
Cumulative Impacts
'The State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15355) detine a cumulative impact as "two or more
individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or
increase other environmental impacts". Section 15130(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires
a discussion of cumulative impacts of a project:
"..when the project's incremental effect is cumulatively considerable as defined in section
15065 (c). Where a lead agency is examining a project with an incremental effect that is
not "cumulatively considerable," a lead agency need not consider that effect significant,
but shall briefly describe the basis for concluding that the incremental effect is not
cumulatively considerable."
Page 13 of 39
Cumulatively considerable, as defined in Section 15065(c), "means that the incremental effects
of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects"
Noise: As noted previously, the future noise level contribution from the project to ambient noise
levels would be up to 3 dB. Combined with onsite noise sources including the ]oading
dock delivery truck noise and outdoor HVAC mechanical equipment noise levels onsite in
useable outdoor spaces would not exceed the City's threshold of 70dB. Thus, the proposed
project would not result in a significant contribution to ambient noise levels.
Air quality: In order to assess whether the project's contribution to ambient air quality is
cumulative considerable, the project's emissions were quantified with respect to regional air
quality. Project emissions were modeled for the year 2006, thus cumulative comparisons are
provided for 2005 and 2010. The basin-wide data are from the 2005 CA Air Resources Board
Air Quality and Emissions Almanac, which provides data in five-year increments. The project's
share" of by products of combustion (all emissions except PM10) is larger in 2010 because the
forecast assumes continued technological improvements to motor vehicles while population and
vehicle miles traveled will continue to increase. The results of this analysis are shown in Table
12. The very small values shown in Table 12 indicate that the project air quality impacts are not
cumulatively considerable and the proposed project would not have a significant cumulative
impact.
Traffic: The proposed project would add 5,858 more daily trips to the roadway system than the
approved land use. In the short-term, combined with cumulative projects in the project vicinity,
the project traffic volumes would impact the intersection at Otay Lakes Road/Vons Driveway (in
the PM) and Eastlake Parkway/Miller Drive (AM and PM). This impact would be reduced to
less than significant with previously required improvements (see Attachment A). The buildout
traffic volumes assume buildout of the project and projects in the site vicinity as well as the two
project specific mitigation measures. The proposed project would not result in significant
cumulative impacts (see Table 8). The ELVCN MND identified cumulative traffic impacts
associated with development of the subject parcel combined with development of the other two
parcels addressed in that MND (VC-1 and VC-2). Two cumulative traffic mitigation measures
from the ELVCN MMRP that were required for development of the subject parcel have not yet
been implemented. These measures are included in the MMRP in Attachment A.
Wastewater Generatiory Potable and Recycled Water Demand: Based on the previous analysis,
the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to wastewater generation or potable
and recycled water demand. The impacts would remain the same as previously approved. Thus,
there would be no significant cumulative impact related to these issues.
Hvdrology: Due to newer methodology for calculating runoff, the proposed project would result
in an increase in runoff as compared to 2002 hydrology studies. Current hydraulic calculations
indicate that the existing storm drain system and detention basin can adequately accommodate
the additional calculated flow. Thus, no significant cumulative impact would result to site
hydrology.
Page 14 of 41
E. PUBLIC COMMENTS
On December 10, 2004, a Notice of Initial Study was circulated to property owners within a 500-
foot radius of the proposed project site. The notice period ended December 23, 2004. Comments
were received from the California Department of Transportation, District 11, California
Transportation Ventures, Inc. and the Chula Vista Elementary School District.
F. MITIGATION NECESSARY TO AVOID SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
The proposed project would not result in new significant environmental impacts or increase the
severity of the impacts identified in previous environmental documents prepared for the site.
Applicable mitigation measures included in the MMRP for the Eastlake Village Center North
MND (IS-02-042) are still valid, and the applicant is required to fulfill these mitigation
requirements. Applicable mitigation measures for the proposed project are listed below and
included in the Eastlake Walk MND MMRP (Attachment A).
Traffic (Direct)
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, and as determined by the City Engineer, the
Applicant shall construct and secure a fully activated traffic signal at the Miller
Drive/EastLake Parkway intersection including interconnect wiring, mast arms, signal
heads and associated equipment, underground improvements, standards and luminaries
and provide the following intersection geometry (see Figure 10-1 from the project traffic
report attached to this MMRP):
Northbound EastLake Parkway -One shared through right-turn lane, one through lane
and two left-turn lanes.
Eastbound Project Driveway -One right-turn lane, one shared through/right-turn lane,
one left-turn lane.
Southbound EastLake Paz-kwav -One right-turn lane, two through lanes and one left-
tum lane.
Westbound Miller Drive -One shared through/right-turn lane and one left-turn lane.
2. Prior to issuance of the first building permit, and as determined by the City Engineer, the
Applicant shall provide the following intersection geometry (see Figure 10-1 from the
project traffic report attached to this MMRP:
Otay Lakes Road/Vons Driveway:
Southbound: Restripe existing lanes to provide one right-tum lane, one shared
through/right-turn lane and one left-tum lane.
Northbound Vons Driveway: Restripe existing lanes to provide one shared through/right-
tum lane and two left-turn lanes.
3. Prior to issuance of the first building permit, and as determined by the City Engineer, the
Applicant shall construct and secure 250 feet of capacity in a northbound left-tum lane at
the Miller Drive/EastLake Parkway intersection.
Page 15 of 39
Traffic (Cumulative)
4. Prior to issuance of the Srst building permit, the Applicant shall contribute a fair share
toward widening of Otay Lakes Road from H Street to Telegraph Canyon Road to six
lanes or toward intersection improvements, which provides additional capacity along
Otay Lakes Road.
5. Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the Applicant shall contribute a fair share
toward the widening of Otay Lakes Road from Bonita Road to H Street to six lanes or
toward an intersection improvement, which provides additional capacity along Otay
Lakes Road.
Paleontology
6. Prior to approval of the grading permit, the Applicant shall incorporate into grading
plans, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Environmental Review Coordinator,
the following:
a) Prior to approval of the grading permit, the applicant shall confirm to the City of
Chula Vista that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to carry out the
following mitigation program. (A qualified paleontologist is defined as an
individual with a M.S. or Ph.D. in paleontology or geology who is familiar with
paleontological procedures and techniques.) The paleontologist shall attend
pregrade meetings to consult with grading and excavation contractors.
b) During grading operations, a paleontological monitor shall be on-site at all times
during the original cutting of previously undisturbed sediments of highly sensitive
geologic formations (i.e., Otay Formation) to inspect cuts for contained fossils. (A
paleontological monitor is defined as an individual who has experience in the
collection and salvage of fossil materials.) The paleontological monitor shall
work under the direction of a qualified paleontologist. The monitor shall
periodically (every several weeks) inspect original cuts in deposits with unknown
resource sensitivity (alluvium).
In the event that fossils are discovered in unknown sensitive formations, it may be
necessary to increase the per-day field monitoring time. Conversely, if fossils are
not discovered, the monitoring effort maybe reduced.
c) When fossils are discovered, the paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) shall
recover them. In instances where recovery requires an extended salvage time, the
paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) shall be allowed to direct, divert, or
halt grading to allow recovery of fossil remains. Where deemed appropriate by
the paleontologist (or paleontological monitor), a screen washing operation for
small fossil remains shall be set up.
d) Prepared fossils, along with copies of all pertinent field notes, photographs, and
maps, shall be deposited in a scientific institution with paleontological collections
such as the San Diego Natural History Museum. A final summary report shall be
Page 16 of 39
completed which outlines the results of the mitigation program. This report shall
include discussion of the methods used, stratigraphy exposed, fossils collected,
and significance of recovered fossils.
Geology
7. Prior to approval of the grading permit, the grading plans shall incorporate, to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer, the geotechnical recommendations in the
"Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation for Eastlake Village Center North
Commercial Center" prepared by Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc. dated March 5, 2002,
including but not limited to site preparation and removals, slope stability and
remediation, temporary backcut stability, overexcavation of building pads, subsurface
drainage, construction staking and survey, settlement monitoring, earthwork and design
considerations, and slope maintenance.
8. Prior to approval of the improvement plans and building permits for all phases of the
project, all improvements shall be in compliance with seismic design standards of the
Uniform Building Code and requirements of local governing agencies.
Water Quality
9. Prior to approval of grading/construction plans, the Applicant shall obtain either (a)
General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit (NPDES Permit No. CA 0108758)
from the SWRCB or (b) a municipal permit from the City of Chula Vista that is in effect
at the time of issuance of construction grading permits. Such permits are required for
specific (or a series of related) construction activities that exceed five acres in size and
include provisions to eliminate or reduce off-site discharges through implementation of
the SWPPP. Specific SWPPP provisions include requirements for erosion and sediment
control, as well as monitoring requirements both during and after construction.
Pollution control measures also require the use of best available technology, best
conventional pollutant control technology, and/or best management practices to prevent
or reduce pollutant discharge (pursuant to SWRCB definitions and direction).
The SWPPP also includes specified vehicle fueling and maintenance procedures and
hazardous materials storage areas to preclude the discharge of hazardous materials used
during construction (e. g., Cuels, lubricants, and solvents) and specific measures to
preclude spills or contain hazardous materials, including proper handling and disposal
techniques and use of temporary impervious liners to prevent soil and water
contamination.
10. Prior to approval of grading/construction plans, the Applicant shall demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer compliance with all of the applicable provisions of the
Municipal Code, Model SUSMP for the San Diego Region, and the City of Chula Vista
SUSMP as may be adopted in the future. The Applicant shall incorporate into the project
planning and design effective post-construction BMPs and provide all necessary studies
and reports demonstrating compliance with the applicable regulations and standards.
BMPs shall be identified and implemented that specifically prevent pollution of storm
Page 17 of 39
drain systems from the gas station, car wash, restaurants, parking lots, and trash
collection areas.
I1. Prior to approval of final or parcel map, and/or building permits (as determined by the
City Engineer), the Applicant shall submit and obtain approval from the City Engineer of
a maintenance program for the proposed post-construction BMPs. The maintenance
program shall include, but not be limited to: 1) a manual describing the maintenance
activities of said facilities, 2) an estimate of the cost of such maintenance activities, and
3) a funding mechanism for financing the maintenance program. In addition, the
Developer shall enter into a Maintenance Agreement with the City to ensure the
maintenance and operation of said facilities.
Air Quality
12. Prior to approval of building permits for each phase of the project, the Applicant shall
demonstrate that air quality control measures outlined in the Eastlake I Supplemental Air
Quality Improvement Plan pertaining to the design, construction and operational phases
of the project have been implemented.
13. Prior to approval of any grading permit, the following measures shall be placed as notes
on all grading plans and implemented during grading of each phase of the project:
a) Minimize simultaneous operation of multiple construction equipment units;
b) Use low pollutant-emitting equipment;
c) Use catalytic reduction for gasoline-powered equipment;
d) Use injection timing retard for diesel-powered equipment;
e) Water the grading areas a minimum of twice daily to minimize fugitive dust;
f) Stabilize graded areas as quickly as possible to minimize fugitive dust;
g) Apply chemical stabilizer or pave the last 100 feet of internal travel path within
the construction site prior to public road entry;
h) Install wheel washers adjacent to a paved apron prior to vehicle entry on public
roads;
i) Remove any visible track-out into traveled public streets within 30 minutes of
occurrence;
j) Wet wash the construction access point at the end of each workday if any vehicle
travel on unpaved surfaces has occurred;
k) Provide sufficient perimeter erosion control to prevent washout of silty material
onto public roads;
1) Cover haul trucks or maintain at least 12 inches of freeboard to reduce blow-off
during hauling;
m) Suspend all soil disturbance and travel on unpaved surfaces if winds exceed
25 mph;
n) Cover/water onsite stockpiles of excavated material; and
o) Enforce a 20 mile-per-hour speed limit on unpaved surfaces.
Pagel 8 of 39
I agree to implement the mitigation measures required as stated in this Section F of this
Mitigated Negative De~lar~tion.
-Name, Title Dat
Name, Title Date
(;. Consultation
Cit~of Chula Vista
John Schmitz, Principal Planner
Lombardo DeTrinidad, Civil Engineer
David Kaplan, Transportation Engineer
Jim Newton, Civil Engineer
Luis Hernandez, Principal Planner
Stan Donn, Associate Planner
Mami Borg, Environmental Projects Manager
Applicant
Sudberry Properties, [nc.
Related Documents
• Eastlake Master EIR (EIR 81-03), February 1982.
• Eastlake I SPA Plan Supplemental EIR (EIR 84-01) January 1985.
• Eastlake I SPA Plan Amendment/Kaiser Permanente Chula Vista Medical Center
Supplemental EIR (EIR 92-O1), June 12, 1992.
• Eastlake Village Center North Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND IS-O1-042), June
11, 2002
• Detention Basin Analysis for Eastlake Village Center North, Hunsaker & Associates,
March 4, 2002.
• Traffic Impact Analysis for Eastlake Village Center North, Linscott, Law & Greenspan,
May 2002
• Eastlake Village Center Project Environmental Noise Assessment, Dudek & Associates,
Inc., Apri129, 2002.
• Eastlake Village Center North Water Analysis, PBS&J, February 2002.
• Eastlake Village Center North Sewer Analysis, PBS&J, March 2002.
• Traffic Impact Analysis for Eastlake Village Center East, Linscott, Law & Greenspan,
April 2003.
Page 19 of 39
• Amended Eastlake Village Center North Supplemental SPA Plan Sewer Analysis,
PBS&J, Apri12003.
• Amended Eastlake Village Center North Supplemental SPA Plan Water Analysis,
PBS&J, Apri12003.
• Eastlake Village Center East GPA & GDP/SPA Amendment Project Supplemental
Environmental Noise Assessment, Dudek & Associates, Inc., May 2003.
• Traffic Impact Analysis Eastlake Village Walk, Linscott, Law & Greenspan, February 2,
2005.
• Amended Eastlake Village Center North Supplemental SPA Plan Sewer Analysis,
PBS&J, March 2, 2005.
• Amended Eastlake Village Center North Supplemental SPA Plan Water Analysis,
PBS&J, March 2, 2005.
• Hydrology Study for Eastlake Village Walk, Hunsaker & Associates, June 6, 2005.
• Preliminary Water Quality Technical Report & Operational Maintenance Plan for
Eastlake Village Walk, Hunsaker & Associates, March 24, 2005.
• Village Walk at Eastlake Project Environmental Noise Assessment, Dudek &
Associates, Inc., February 21, 2005.
• Eastlake Village Walk-Air Quality Impact Analysis, Jay Kniep Land Planning, Febmary
28, 2005.
I. Environmental Determination
The City of Chula Vista deterntined that the proposed project will not have significant
environmental effects other than what has been previously identified in prior environmental
documentation. The preparation of an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. This
Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with Section 15070 of the State
CEQA Guidelines.
I find that there will not be a significant effect on the environment because the proposed project
would not result in new impacts or impacts that are more severe than previously analyzed in the
Eastlake Village Center North MND (IS-02-042) and other related environmental documents.
The mitigation measures described in the Eastlake Village Center North MND and associated
MMRP are still valid and are incorporated by reference. This Mitigated Negative Declaration
has been prepared in accordance with Section 15070 of the Guidelines for the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as amended December 2001. This report reflects the
independent judgment of the City of Chula Vista. Further information regarding the
environmental review of [his project is available from the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276
Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910.
Date:
Marilyn R. F. Ponseggi
Environmental Review Coordinator
Page 20 of 39
FIURE 1
Regional Location
`-Ir~:~~~~n~,~
- z„~,.r
:~~:
~//]] ~~
P 1<
PROJECT
LOCATION
~~
NORTH
N
Cli
~~ ~~
\j
~~~
l~l>
~~;
~'_
~~~ CL
o po
o° ~pOp
0o p `<
o°
~l(l~/ll~/ij
v O0~ o
pppOp pp
FIGURE 2
Scobee
Private
Park
Marketplace
~j ~S~ ~;
owe
,~~ ~
i ~~~:
~ ~~ Eastlake
Village
Center ~-~
_,~ ~ ~,
-~
Project Site Location
a+ A
x
1 ~
1
~A~
i
1
°~},.,
~}.
~ ~ ~
a ~yy
~. t
~". 4
kT ~~_
(y 't :~
F ",
{
t
Z
s ~~ ~ ~j8llativ *I ~_.~
A~~L lp~~' ~ ~ M1, ~ R~ y
S~ N M yq i N W N~G ~ 0 N 'Y
~~~ ~~I~WNVQ~~ iV~
'~ ~~ m~ m~V:yO
~ m V ~
~~~ NI~ a i y
~m~ N
3 ~ ~ :: _,
g ~~ ~ h~
~~
O
~
D ~
a ~
m ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~~
'.~
O
CJ~
~ W
~~~~ 3a ~~~~y
~Ye
t ~ t
g~J"~5 ~~MN ~~¢ ~~UyOam ~~
{yg1( ~y !!(( 1}1f o .. d
SR DS~~.N `Y ~ P~JpbO
¢jS x'IyAJ+ m U m
`~,~ ~ NI~e~~ g
~ N
3 ~ ` r
m ~~ ~ ' ~~`'`i\
,4 ~ ?:.
,~ fA
h~ ...
y/' ~\ ^~ -
<;,
~~' ~' s ~
n % ,a 3
3 O ~
~ ~-
x ,~
r ; 'L
~qnqq
=~'i7i
i'
J~ .
7
r
8
-; ~ C
Y
\ ~ r .
\ r ~,~'
~~~ 8 . ; 8
\.` I
_ ~= .,. ,
bs~ ~ ~
3 ~ ~4\~
~ 2 ~ ~.
'~ s
S _ ~' ~ ,~...~
..,. ::::'Ar ~
~. ~ A .
~ n /i'
Z~ P
b
~ n 'a :i:
~ A jp ......:::....
x
z _
~ A ~ o.
`" 3
~~ 'v 3 ~ ~ v
~ ~ d x ~ ~ 11~= ~ ~^.~ ~~~'}
~8 r ,~.. v ~ ~ ~ ~ +S
~i b ~~~ ~~~ . Q ~ ~ ~
•i,;1 ~~~~,,.• c 2
f
>~S
c a
m
e
6 m
9 m
v ~ O
.~ ~ ~
P
1 e
s~m
n ~ pi
3ma
$ b
.°~ ~~ ~
U1 u1 --211
~H
~~
~~~
~ ~' W
C
a_'=~
~^~ N
h
~~~
b
~ Z
~. ~ ~
~g~
~~
ti
~~
m
'gym<«
O j lI l/ lJ
d O ~ N ~+
C C C C
n ~ ~ ~
m m m
mnnn
~ > > >
~ rn
~ ~ W
Oo O> cD A N
v .P W W ~
i~
.,
II
.......:......
~ ~~~
• ~~ D
~ ~' ~ d ~~
¢~ z~ o
t 3s 3 p0 ~
[~ D ~v5 ~
c~ D y
d
~~~~ ~ m
N
y9
y ~ ~',~ O j lI l! li
O .~ N ~
a ~ ..
3 ~ anti
`e oz ~y3 G<CG
v VJ' y ~ a' m C~ to t4 to
-~1~ ~'~y ~ (D N N
~ a'a. ~ m n C~ n
A
y ~~~ ~
O a n ~~ ~
3ma ti ~.
~ °~ ~ ~ m
~ ~~ n ~~'S
~-S A a m
~ a~ mwcc?~
~ m~ ~ rwwa
C/~ R
~ ~, 2
Q• ~~
~ ~
$.1J ~ ^
r~ •
y ~ ............ ~ I
P D
~ er ° 'Z z ~3 °c
Q ~ ~ ~~ j ~g
^ ~ ~t5 d n
e-f -1-' ~
V I
~ ~
~~
N~
o'
~~
^~
~-(.,
~-
V
i~r
~~
~^
~O•
~~
/~/~
VJ -~
U LL p LL IL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL
Q (n 8 Vl In 41 (A N Vl (n (A 41 (7 (A fn VJ fA
~g ~ ~.~8~~~g~8~~~~8
-- '° -Qer "Qe~~n~
W
w
N g
m N .
w ~N
~ ~ a
C J~~ ~Qfn~~~~++J ~J lnJ~JWJ~k~
L `m o o~noo~aa oa aka ~c°
~1 1u Q ? F ~ ¢ (7 ¢ N ¢ uJ 4J fA ¢ ~
rCii ~ a ~ cN n viioi mm °_c `_"R 3
2
^~
"~
~_
~n ~
1
c
,~
1r, ~3!~
\ii~~ A-i
Q~
~ ~3.. ~ ~i
~ r~ ~r~
U]
~~ , i ~
~ rd
j~'
o~ :f~ ~
'n :^ .`e ~
O
1
~
/'
a
YQ
J Z
Q L.L
W ~
Q
Q ~..~
Y Q
w ~
Q~
3>
wQ
U~
~~
J
U
tis
~•1
~_
°_
~ &€> e
xa
t. 6gi
~a.; 4
_ 6
S
~~'
~Y
U Y ~{^
S ~ \d
W ~~ ~ A
a
a~ ~~
~~ °~
m
~ r~^
~.~i ~o c,~ f,
~ _
' i , , ~i '~~ ~C I _.
~ ~ ~ uqg ~~
~_
2
N
O
O
D
`'S
o
0
_ ~ U
~` W
'~
U
~~
~~ o
~~-~. ~ o
~-~~ ~. ~}
~ t l~l~ r .4 ~ '~~>
`~1 li' '~~ ,p
~) N '~
~ 1 ~ +..,
~ ~~)'
~1!~ ~ _ l~_- _,..-,yin t~S1SL`i-'~~~-.~~.
1~
_~
rn o _
~ ~ _
'n
I ,3 ~,°,~`~ „~ -
~~;~. _ ~ ~n~ ~~~.~~h~, Diu '`°"1' __ _ _ --
_ yiu ~..~'-~- ~ __ _
_-- - ~t~ol`~5z~~s ~~ 1
`" ~ 1~dMFfiJM - -
-_ : ~, ,,
~t
i' '~
i4
',ii, ,
____~-
TABLE I
ADOPTED VS. PROPOSED ESTIMATE OF POTABLE WATER DEMAND (')
Acrea a Avera a Demand
Parcel
Land L1se Adopted
SPA Proposed
Amended
SPA Llnit Demand
irl (gpd/ac) Adopted
SPA Proposed
Amended
SPA
VGI Villa e Center 38.1 51.4 1,785 68,009 91,749
VC-2/4 Villa e Center 13.6 13.6 1,785 24,276 24,276
E-10 Village Center
Em to ment 16.4 3.1 1,785 29,274 5,534
Total 68.1 68.1 121,559 121,559
Sources: I) Amended Eastlake Village Center North Supplemental SPA Plan Water Analysis, YBS8c1, March Z,
2005
2) OWD Water Resources Master Plan (August 2002), Table 4-3
TABLE 2
ADOPTED VS. PROPOSED ESTIMATF, OF RECYCLED WATER DEMAND tll
Irri ated Acrea a ~Z' Avera a Demand
Parcel
Land Use Adopted
SPA Proposed
Amended
SPA Unit Demand tat
(gpd/ac) Adopted
SPA Proposed
Amended
SPA
VC-1 Villa eCenter 3.81 5,14 2,232 8,504 11,472
VC-2/4 Villa e Center 1.36 ].36 2,232 3,036 3,036
E-10 Village Centcr
Em to ent 1.64 Q31 2,232 3,660 692
Total 6.81 6.81 15,200 15,200
Sources: 1) Amended Eastlake Village Center North Supplemental SYA Plan Water Analysis, PBS&J, March 2,
2005
2) Irrigated acreage equal to 10 percent of gross area per OWD Water Resources Master Plan ,Table 11-3
3) OWD Water Resources Master Plan (August 2002), Table 11-3
Page 29 of 39
TABLE 3
ADOPTED VS. PROPOSED ESTIMATE OF WASTEWATER GENERATION tt1
Acreage Wastewater Generation
Unit d
Parcel Land Use Adopted Proposed Generation ~zt Adopted Proposed
SPA Amended (gpd/ac) SPA Amended
SPA SPA
VC-I Villa e Center 38.1 51.4 2,500 92,250 128,500
VC-2 Villa e Center 13.6 13.6 2,500 34,000 34,000
E-10 Village Center 16.4 3.1 5,431 89,068 16,836
Em to ent
Total 68.1 68.1 218,318 179,336
Sources: 1) Amended Eastlake Village Center North Supplemental SPA Plan Sewer Analysis, PBS&J, March 2,
2005
2) Chula Vista Subdivision Manual (July 2002), Section 3-301.1. Proposed ]and use for Parcel E-10 may
include outpatient medical offices, unit generation for E-10 based on Medical Center rate provided by
Kaiser Permanence.
Page 30 of 39
H ;M
N
O
-~ N f~Y ap
N 1~ ~ .-.
N a
O d' O rn
O O O h O N O O 0 0 ~p N O N
o u u o v vt
~ ~ v v v v~ v
•-'~ +~y'i
6l V ?~
" ~
'
\J ~+
~ ~ +3
1 '/`` °fy
~'
O
O
~O
f~ W
Q
~' W
N
F
cz
d
W
z
~ + a
~~ p o ~ a o U
N o
o A~ a
~ ~7aw3
[ + >'a m
V 00~ w ~
O 7
~ o u u ~ N
w ~ °'
V q
W: q U q U U W U G-, U L-.-. U
z}
v,~ o ~o 00 .~ vi ~n c~
~
~-
N ~ 00 ao
.
~
O f~f h b O, to ~ b
VN ~ f~f [~1 Nl t~l .~ N n, t~] /t f7
d
U ~
4
dp
p U V^. q Q U U U U U SI U Fs. ~..~
,
L V QI ~ 0 ~
_
"'
~ v N f~I Iii T Nf t~l f~l f~l .--~ N O .-~ O (7
n n
V v A
w
O
~
u o
o U q U U U U W U U U
C
.
W ~ m o ~ vi o v o 0o r ~n
Q J J V V t~
N r
V v cn
Nl c~ n m
N N ~~ ao e
i x
~a
~a
~
w
~a
~w ss
a 55
w
t .
a a
°' U U
vE" ~ ~_ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ N ~ ~ F F
i,, a
z Y
m
N
~ TT
N
~ T
A
Z u
m
w ;
Q
a>
a a
m
~
w o4
s.
d
~
Y
a
a
~
a
~ _
A
C
a
m
a
m x
a
~ x
a
T
m x
a
>.
m
m
op
b
m
O O O O O ~ w
N t1 ~ vi ~p [~
m
c
a
a
3
S
k
O
Page 31 of 39
_--- .~ .n
c?
~
1 ~ ~ ~a ^
G "~ r^ '~' ~..~
¢ e
~~
+ ~°
F1 ~ x O (J V
,'~ ~ r Z
N O y ~9 s~
4 ~ww ~;
V] 9 ~ 4 ~ ~ N "~ N
7
o+ A
w ~ `l
} d p V
Vy ~, y° O VV
b 'G ~'U Q~p u.
x
o ~ ~~n ~ r
°~~~~~ os°,a°
.. --
~ r a °•°,~N...
a..
A
N Q 4~ U Q W w
vim} ~ 3
'~ " ~ n,
o ~ ~ ~ m
N o n
~ g~vpss~
r N ~
rIi ~ p OO~nu+
V w O
A
H d y 'O N y~ O
W ~, 9 ~~"~
a
O w 'v v __~-
x ~
c0
'~ ~ .
U ~~ a
aH w
["'
d
vv ~w
O
~
e
~ ~'? cn r
o r
NN
^
R
~w ~a
d
w
y
.-+ ~
d
"
~ ~
~ d
H
U
O
V
m
d
H
ciy
0
w
.-mom
5
0
.
~
6
m
T ~" ~-
°~ ~ N
~4 a
~ a C
°
.# 5
m
V w
~ 3 ~O
0
0
~ ~ d
~
o
i. ~ °r} ~ E
> o ° .5 2
'° ^ry o
°
$
a
s
. w 5
g9 0 °v dui
8
o
°3amvo
"gPOa'Y
~
_
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~wpy m ~~vp} ~QQ
O V O O~ S~Y~FeP
Q TZ' G~3.g DD 1'0~
'y.G ..
+"'
~.p a
6 e1 p
~ T.
O
0
oe
S
J
page 32 of 39
i ~..
N p
.p. i+
H
~~
+ a ~ O
y
+'~+ avi yl
~' O
O N N
,.y, ~ M
P3 .~. 7 ~ m
d em ~'~
V
p ~'
~ ~ ~
~ ~3~ o •>
+ a`.
~ u
d ~,
~o°d„
,4."'ayD
Z. d ~~ ~f
W~
W
G
,r, ~ 9
~~ ~
N
O o
~ a
s
~F v
_
r /^
} / `~
./ ~/
~d~
~ ,~ d
o
r O
~
.n ~ M
v d '~
o °
O
~ N
M ~
~
p
7 i+
O
a
°~
-^` o
N
N
~ ~
d
d
°o
O p.
O p ~ ~ .o
m ~ r r
~^`N.y N
~Y
d d
~d
-.- o
o~~
~ M r% Vi
.+ p ~
~ -.
d
d<f~d
O ~ d d
a
d o~
o00
O O r
O Q ~ N
'
O 4
O
: O
,~ ~ ~ .~,
N
a
b
p
a
d
u
d
M
o~
o~~
~o~
O~ r, .^
O
O O O O
Q
~ 0 O
O r
~ ~
~~~'
N
P
aw ~
~ a
~": ~ ~p
r
P r
"~~~~ I
~ ~ m
.~
Q
N 's
'd
a ~
~~
O~W oy.
d~ O 3
o A ~
y~~ o
d ~ 7
0
w
.~
0
m
-}
m
0
~ m
m
o
~~ N
0
r m
v
x
G
6 d
0
b
v
a ~
~
_ o
;.
O
O
N m
.-~
D d
d
N p aN o
u ~~
~
~
U ~
~ }
a m
a
~ ~a
r ~p b
u ~ ~. m
Q bo -~
°~ d w m
~ o
~
a r' C
~~ d
°"
H ~
W ~a z
'y ~ L.
~
v y
rP 3
`~
yx1 ~ m
U
`o
~~ pa J
W ;,
W s
~
8
a W w
,~, 33 of 39
_
Page
d ~' a
?y ~ o
wO
0 0
~~ Us
o p ~
~ o
a~~u
~~~w
~ _ _
TABLE 6
INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
Intersection
Control
Type
Peak
Honr Scenario 3
Year 2010 With
AdopMd Project' Scenario 4
Year 2010 With
Proposed Project'
Dehy' LOS ` Delay ~ LOS `
I. otay Lakes Rd./SR 125 SB Rarvps Signal AM 23-4 C 22.4 C
PM 23.1 C 20.9 C
2.Otay Lakes RdISR 125 NB Ramps Sigma! AM 13.1 B 12.5 B
PM 19.4 B 19.0 B
3. otay Lakes RdNons Dwy. Signal AM 25.0 C 26.5 C
PM 383 D 50.5 D
4.Otay Ickes RdJEastlake Pkwy. Signal AM 40.0 D 44.7 D
PM 413 D 48.3 D
5. Otay Lakes RdJLane Ave. Signal AM 30.8 C 29.1 C
PM 35.0 D 35.6 D
6.RidgewaterlhlEastlakePkwy- TWSC' AM 302 C 323 C
PM 34.6 C 33.2 C
7. Eastlake Pkwy./Miller Dr. Signal ` AM 342 C 342 C
PM 44.7 D 45.8 D
8. Eastlake Pkwy./Fenton St Signal AM 30.9 C 30.5 C
PM 34.6 C 34.6 C
9. Lane AveJFe,non St r AWSC s AM 253 C 25.8 C
PM 28.6 C 30.0 C
Foainates:
a. Mitigation measures required by [he Eastlake Village Center
North MND and the MMRP are assumed to be wmpleted.
b. Av Wage delay expressed in seconds per vehicle
c. [.evel of Service. See Appendix C for delay thresholds.
d. TWSC -Two-way Stop Controlled intersection Mimr street
left tum delay is reported
e. Analyzed as a signalized intersection for the Year 2010
scenarios.
C ]mersection planned to be signalized in the inunediate future.
Hence arral}zcd az a signalized intersection in both near-term
scenarios.
g. AWSC -All-way STOP controlled intersection Overall delay
and I.OS reported.
SIGNALI7.ED IJNSIGNALIZED
DELAY/LOS THRESHOLDS DELAY/1,OS THRESHOLDS
Delay LOS Delay LOS
0.0 < I0.0 A 0.0 < 10.0 A
10.1 to 20.0 B IO.I to 15.0 B
20.1 to 35.0 C l5. t to 25.0 C
35.1 to 55.0 D 25.1 to 35.0 D
55.1 ro 80.0 E 35.1 to 50.0 E
> 80.1 F > 50.1 F
Lm5C0ir, IJ+w 8 GREENSGPN, ergirreers
Page 34 of 39
TABLE 7
YEAR 2010 STREET SEGMENT OPERATIONS
Scenario 3 -Adopted Scenario 4 -
Street Segtreerd Eldsting R~dway Capacity at Land Uses Proposed Land Uses
Gass LOS C
Volume ° LOS Volume n LOS
OTAY LAKES ROAD
West ofVonsDwy. 7-LnPrimeArtaial 58,300 47,600 B 65,100 D
VonsDwy.toEastlakePkwy. 7-LnPrimeArteial 58,30(1 47,600 B 65,100 D
EastlakeP .to LaneAva 6-LaPrmmeArtaial 50,000 39,600 B 57,600 E
EASTLAKE PARKWAY
North of Miller Dr. 2-Ln Majar Arterial ` 30,000 15,700 D 14,000 C
Miller Dr. ro Fenton SL 4-In Major Arterial 30,000 10,600 A 10,600 A
Fenton SL to Ofa Lakes Rd. 4-Ln Major Arterial 30,000 17,900 A 22,000 A
MII,LER DRIVE
East of Eastlake P 2-La Local Street 12,000 900 A 1,100 A
FENTON S1"BEET
Eastake P . to Lane Ave. 2-In Local CoDect~ 12,000 8,000 A 10,900 C
Faolnotes~
a. City of Chula Vista Roadway Capodty Stardarcls
b. Pulure volm~a obtained from Village Sevcn Sectiorel Plameng Ana (SPA) Plen erd T'Ms Final F,IR (EIR 04-06) adopted on OMOber I2, 2004.
c. This is atwo-face facility but fwrotiort as a Major Roed since 1Lere no driveways or radian opcmngs
Hence, 50% of the capacity of a 41ane Major Road is assorced for tltis facility.
Linscolt, Law 8 Greenspan, engineers
Page 35 of 39
TABLE 8
BUII,DOUT INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
Interseetion Control
Type Peak
Honr Delay • LOS °
1. Otay Lakes RdJSR 125 SB Rams Signal AM 35.9 D
PM 52.8 D
2. Otay Lakes RdJSR 125 NB Ramps Sigoal AM 32.0 C
PM 51.] D
3.Otay Lakes Rd/Vons Dwy. Signal AM 29.8 C
PM 533 D
4. Otay Lakes RdJFztitlake Pkwy. Signal AM 52.6 D
PM 49.7 D
5. Otay Ickes Rd./lane Ave. Signal AM 29.0 C
PM 36.4 D
6.RidgewaterDrJEastlakePkwy_ TWSC` AM 29.1 C
PM 22.0 C
7. Eastlake Pkwy./Miller Dr. ° Signal AM 33.1 C
PM 37.1 D
8. Eastlake PkwyJFrnton St Signal AM 30.8 C
PM 36.0 C
9. Lane Ave./Fenton St AWSC ` AM 28.4 C
PM 30.3 C
FooMO(es:
a. Average delay expressed in seconds per vehicle.
b. Lcvel of Service. See Appendix C for delay thresholds.
c. T WSC -Two-way Stop Controlled ilrtersecioa Mitwr
street left taro delay is reported.
d. Analyzed as a signalized intersection.
e. AWSC - All-way STOP controlled intersection.
Overall delay and LOS reported
f. Mitigated with signal.
SIGNALIZED
DELAY/LOS THRESHOLDS
Delay LOS
0.0 < ] 0.0 A
10.1 to 20.0 B
20.1 to 35.0 C
35.1 to 55.0 D
55.1 to 80.0 E
> 80.1 F
IINSIGNALIZED
DELAY/LOS THRESHOLDS
Delay LOS
0.0 < 10.0 A
l0.1 Io 15.0 B
15. t [0 25.0 C
25.1 to 35.0 D
35.1 to 50.0 E
> 50.1 F
LwscOn, Lnw 8 Gneensvnrv, engineers
Page 36 of 39
TABLE 9
BUIL,DOUT STREET SEGMENT OPERATIONS
t
~
C `
Street Segmerd Frdtae Roadway Class C'
LOS Volume LOS
OTAY LAKES ROAD
West of Vtms Dwy. 7-Ln Prune Arterial 58,300 65,100 D
Vohs Dwy. to Eastlake Pkwy. 7-Ln Prone Arterial 58,300 63,100 D
Eastlake P . to lane Ave. 6-In Prime Arterial 50,000 57,600 E
EASTLAKE PARKWAY
North of Miller Dr. 2-Ln Major Arterial ` 15,000 16,000 D
Mills Dr. to Fenton St 4-ln Major Arterial 30,000 29,400 C
F®ttm St to Ota Lakes Rd. 4-In Major Arterial 30,000 31,900 D
MILLER DRIVE
East of Eastlake Pkwy. 2-Ln Local Sued 12,000 9,OOD A
FENTONSTREET
Eastlake . [o Lane Ave. 2-Ln Iotal Collaxnr 12,000 10,900 C
Foottto[es:
a City ofClada Vista Roadwvy Capacity Stardards
b. Future volumes obtained from Village 7 TrafSc Lryact Avalysis, July 2004 (ixlndes pmjecl traffic).
c. This is a two-lax facility but fimctio~ ass Major Road since there to driveways or mdian opertings
tlexe, SO% of the rapacity of a 4-lene Major Road is assancd for this facility.
Linscol~, Law 8 Greenspan, engineers
Page 37 of 39
TABLE 10
ESTIMATED OPERATIONAL PROJECT EMISSIONS
WITHOUT PROJECT FEATURES (LBS/DAY) 0>
Cate or ROG NOx CO PM10 SOx
Proposed Village Walk
• Vehicle 91.89 101.31 990.88 85.12 0.86
• Area Source 0.28 1.67 1.83 0.01 0.00
Totals 92.17 102.98 992.71 85.13 0.86
ELVCN (adopted land use)
• Vehicle 33.60 40.02 395.70 35.38 0.36
• Area source 0.23 0.94 1.54 0.01 0.00
Totals 33.83 40.96 397.24 35.39 0.36
Difference I act) 58.34 62.02 595.47 49.74 0.50
Si nificance Threshold 55 55 550 150 150
Source: I) Eastlake Village Walk Air Quality Impact Analysis, February 28, 2005
TABLE 11
ESTIMATED MITIGATED OPERATIONAL PROJECT EMISSIONS WITH PROJECT
FEATURESt'1
Cale or ROG NOx CO PM10 SOx
Proposed Village Walk
• Vehicle 83.33 9163 896.24 76.99 0.78
• Area Source 0.27 1 G7 1.77 0.01 0.00
Totals 83.61 93.30 898.01 76.99 0.78
ELVCN (adopted land use)
• Vehicle 33.60 40.02 395.70 35.38 0.36
• Area source 0.23 0.94 1.54 0.01 0.00
Totals 33.83 40.96 397.24 35.39 0.36
Difference (Ln actl 49 78 52.34 500.77 41 60 0.42
Si nificance Threshold 55 SS 550 150 150
Source: 1) Eastlake Village Walk Air Quality Impact Analysis, February 28, 2005
Page 38 of 39
TABLE 12
ESTIMATED PROJECT AND SAN DIEGO AIR BASIN EMISSIONS tt)
Cate or ROG NOx CO PM10 SOx
San Diego Air Basin (annual average in
tons/day)
• 2005 I88 177 983 118 n/a~~
• 2010 175 142 798 125 n/a~"~
Net Increase for Proposed Eastlake
Village Walk Project (with mitigation in
Ibs/day) 49.78 52.34 500.77 41.60 0.42
Project contribution to basin wide
emissions
• 2005 0.013% 0.015% 0.025% 0.018% --
• 2010 0.014% 0.018% 0.031% 0.017% --
Source: 1) Eastlake Village Walk Air Quality Impact Analysis, February 28, 2005 and Tables 6 and
Table 4-37 CA ARB Almanac 2005
2) Value not available.
Page 39 of 39
ATTACHMENT "A"
Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program
IS-04-027
This Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program is prepared for the City of Chula Vista in
conjunction with the proposed Eastlake Village Walk (IS-04-027). The proposed project has
been evaluated in a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) prepared in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and City/State CEQA Guidelines. The
legislation requires public agencies to ensure that adequate mitigation measures are implemented
and monitored on Mitigated Negative Declarations, such as IS-04-027. The Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting Program for this project ensures adequate implementation of mitigation
for the following potential impacts(s):
1. Water Quality
The proposed project would not result in new impacts on water quality. As previously identified
in the Eastlake Village Center North MND (ELVCN MND (IS-02-013)), grading, constmction
and operation of the proposed project would increase the potential for erosion and impacts on
water quality from runoff that contains silt, oils, fuel residues, etc. The impact to water quality
was determined to be mitigable to below significance. The proposed project would result in the
same impact to water quality as previously identified in the ELVCN MND, and therefore
applicable mitigation measures from the ELVCN MND Mitigation Monitoring Reporting
Program (MMRP) have been reprinted in this MMRP.
2. Air Quality
The proposed project would not result in new impacts on air quality. As previously identified in
the ELVCN MND (IS-02-013), grading of the site would generate construction equipment
emissions and airborne particulates. In addition, particulates associated with grading equipment
(particulates from haul trucks, dirt on the truck tires, and dirt on unimproved portions of haul
routes) would become airborne during hauling operations. The incremental increase in mobile
emissions from site improvement would contribute to existing air quality violations on a short-
term basis. Further, in compliance with SEIR 92-01, compliance with the project's Air Quality
Improvemcnt Plan (AQIP) was required. Impacts to air quality were determined to be mitigable
to below significance. The proposed project would result in the same impact to air quality as
previously identified in the ELVCN MND (IS-02-013), and therefore, applicable mitigation
measures from the ELVCN MND MMRP (IS-02-013) have been reprinted in this MMRP.
3. Geology
The proposed project would not result in new impacts to geology. As previously identified in the
ELVCN MND (IS-02-013), grading of site would impact unsuitable geologic conditions. The
impact to geology was determined to be mitigable to below significance. The proposed project
would result in the same impact to geology as previously identified in the ELVCN MND (IS-02-
Heviscd G/13/2005
013), and therefore, applicable mitigation measures from the ELVCN MND MMRP (IS-02-013)
have been reprinted in this MMRP.
4. Transportation
The proposed project would not result in new traffic impacts. As previously identified in the
ELVCN MND, development of the site would generate sufficient volume of traffic to reduce
levels of service at the intersections of Otay Lakes Road/Vons driveway and Eastlake
Parkway/Miller Drive to unacceptable levels. Development of the project site would also result
in significant cumulative traffic impacts. These traffic impacts were determined to be mitigable
to below significance. The proposed project would result in the similar impacts as previously
identified in the ELVCN MND (IS-02-013), and therefore, applicable mitigation measures from
the ELVCN MND MMRP (IS-02-013) have been reprinted in this MMRP. The recommended
lane assignment has been modified for the proposed project on some approaches, but there is no
change in the pavement widths recommended in the ELVCN MMRP.
5. Paleontological Resources
The proposed project would not result in new paleontological impacts. As previously identified
in the ELVCN MND, the grading of the site may impact the Otay Formation, which has high
paleontological resource potential. The potential impact to paleontological resources was
determined to be mitigable to below significance. The proposed project has the potential to
result in the same impact to paleontological resources as previously identified in the ELVCN
MND (IS-02-013), and therefore, applicable mitigation measures from the ELVCN MND
MMRP (IS-02-013) have been reprinted in this MMRP.
Due to the nature of the environmental issues identified, the Mitigation Compliance Coordinator
shall be the Environmental Review Coordinator for the City of Chula Vista. It shall be the
responsibility of the applicant to ensure that the conditions of this MMRP are met to the
satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator. Evidence in written form confirming
compliance with the mitigation measures specified in the Eastlake Village Walk MND (IS-04-
027) shall be provided by the applicant to the Environmental Review Coordinator. The
Environmental Review Coordinator will thus provide the ultimate verification that the mitigation
measures have been accomplished.
Revised 6/17/2005 2
~,
N
G
a
E
0
U
9 R
a p
m
6 N
O
V C
a
a
c
a o.
N
4 a
G
4 N ~
Cry a U
O ~~
~
a o
c9
? r €~
r o° as
O N G V mE
~
a~ £~
~d
'
R
a>
d
2
a N
O m
r w
0
~ o
, u
_
~ O ~
7
Q
:E
~~~
~a~
iu
O
` N
~ ~ G
~U ~ ~ ~
v G~ ~ ai
Ems' w~W G " ~ °~ G G
° n v ~ ~ c ~on~
p `~Y„ u Y, a4 ~ ~_ o ,. E
f3 r+ lb 4+
U ~~ ~ d ~ ~ ~ ~ ^ O ~ l" y .5 O r N ^
a VVV Y N ~y ^a 'O C- ~ ~ ~ ~ L .~'. G ~ ~
.~ nn ~ ~ u ,7 G o ~ , cs ~ >. tea, ~ ~ i ~
Z C v^ M"q d L° ^ o r d ~. ~~ i R
Q ~ G ,-~ G m w ~p ~ C i C fy 4 m m
m Ems' p G"" t6 ~ ° G~J ~ 0., ~ ~~~~ x nG1
d ,- W td ''~ v ,n a~ ,- O~ v G q O ci -1
f U °' v~ p ~ h o o w o " ~c ~ w o z F
°- U ° ~ G ^ ~ R 0 ~o v v w ~ ~ -c~^ ~ 0 4 ~
~' ~ ~ c n, 3
V ~ m ~ ~ `OD ~ E o o c~ v,
W R o~ is oA ~~ 7 i `'o
c a ^
O 3
O
rp N
S ~
a
c
~a
C
d
E
0
~~
m
m
r O
w
:S N
E io
o
U
d
n
c ~
as
N
m
a
Q °
tY a
~
O/ ~ N
M' ~ O
d Q U
Z
C ~
~f
I
r o o a
p Y w ~
c v
m
w~ 'E~
a d d
"~
o
a7
d
' z R
N
o w
O
I ~
O
,1 4
r_
~S
O
c
p O
O J
~~>
m
N
m
0
a
F_7
C N
O ~
N p
~ m
~Z
G
U
a
d
0
0
V ~ N
v "~. GU
Y N U
o mvy, W
F' '~_.~
~~
O
O
U G
~' v G
O H ~ W
~" i
~.
0
0 0
i
N V y
U .7+ ~ y ~,
Y
t ~p cn N G
o ~gW
w ~
o ~s
[-- ^.
s : o o
N « p,
~ ~ ~ U ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~y N U
iS N O "~ ~~ O G~ C
b o
v O ~ o
o vii a " o °' ~ °J W ~ F :b
4~ d x N Q. ~. F, ~ p ~ •h
~ y ~ G ~ ~ '~ ~ 4+ A A
"d N.w^ ~W ~ w~ oq
p`~~ "~;O „ v~ o o.d
~y o O "
4=' '.3 v N ¢. ~
~~`~-o v° vnym o
4-. a y m O ,q ,Y m= t ~
~ A W' ~~ "~ O T K y v
d~ ~ F 9~ n ~~ O O v ~-
a n p i° u G~ o v rC,
~ N O y 0 m .^ ~ G U' >~
~n oL II~
~ b u G q4 '% O ~¢' q x
~ o r9 A y Y ~ .Q, ~ >i O .
G N
~+ n`. ~7i E~ .
C >` .vq G y
E
o
w o o- oy N ~
G ~ on d
d oo ~
~~ _
0 00 p.~ G
,
v» .. uU"
N G ~ ~
t0 .•
r^
F ~ N ,d
~~ ~
, ~~~
9w ~~ p
y` N .y. N
~
~
~
N U d o ~~ ~
q ~
o ~~ d
w t o, ° ~ ~
~ v ~ u ° ° y
_
v~~ O N
~ ~ ~ ~
~ '
~ G~ O
a -o ~
~
v C
N c~ o v a
N i b ti 0 C
A
~ O
.
~~ ~ is s
L
~ N
~,
o
u,w y ~
G
M .
C -d c5 N ~ ^
c
p v~ O
~n ~ ~. N
~ ~ N
N
Y ~
M
a~w~~ F
N
'd CS .i •A
~' s
a
d ~ ~ u
s
o ':r o 7-
L ~ a
~ F~ A ~ a
W ro v ' i~
~~ x a,
U ~
v N ~~ n U
oM G~w A
~. n v, v 7.
V D U~ N Q
A d ~ Gam.. (}
Y N G N O N (may
oyW W
^.7 O ~ u t+ N d
N O 'O Ri L~ ~ aE"
a N N ~p
b .,. M
t'~
tl
y,
a
G
c0
N
C
d
E
E
0
U
d
m tO ~-
.. O
m
n m
E ~
o 'n
U c
m ~
a
T n
U
t C
a
on
a o. a
v
a
Yc
0
47 n v
~ N
G
a ~~
~ °
z =-
r
~ o ~-~,
'
. .k a
io ~ E n
~ jp c ~ g _
w 3 E ~ °'
~d~' °'=
°€ x
a ~ ~d
Q ? ~a
I d
1 Z ; cam
~
~ LL
~
~
O
W O ~ d O
Z c o `" q ~
OC O {Op
O .. ~ C
V .y+' N O J 'O
~
< tJ N W ~ ^
~
~ o
~
O f ~ W W
-= ~
d
Q
o n
° Q ~ ~ a
Y a n g a ~
t7 V N u, ti o~ ~ b
F' N
~ w c a y ~~ o0
1 F '
~ O
a
'O ~ U' ~
a
3
^
n
'O ~% O
cs ~ ~. .
oo U ~" ••
G
O o p~ i .gy
~ 7
p
y
v.
m OA O CU b
C W~ i6 N a i6 O p, d U n
~ b b
O
U
n
A :b '
W o
~
~
°3 L~ ,D
D N p, a
b
v 74"~~ ~
4:
e
m .
~
`co `~, •J .
w
on
o C. w o ~y :p ~ oo ~ C v
~ O ~ ~~ TU O ~. ' ~ O
n ~ N }' Q, _C
O S
4
Ot~>
~" o
> .~ ~ Gn ~ O N '.'+
o m o'
~4 n G~ ~ n
w
O
:~
~ u
~ c
~
g ~
. c
O ~'o S~o ° a~
tO u
~
a
mN
O ~.,~a'd.53
.
Q
o
~ ~
w
!~
i ~ .~
Wa o
--
*C aQ~ W
P+ ~°~~
o ~
z ~
m~
~~
~~
0
N
m
e
E
p
,U
$ I
v p
m
a m
E A
I U
m
n_
as
N
d
4 ~
N N ~
v
I
i
~ o
dU
o ~~
C O
a QU
c9
z G E ~ c
~- o dz~±
a
O Y LU
N 9~
7
n
~ N ~7 ~E
^ ~ ~` 6
+y
Q /
Z lC A
LL
O
J
~
O Y
'~ q U
Y
0 `i >
Q
~L
d
N
d
O
f
o d
. N
rw 2
r
`L
.~~
N
~ 9
cs
N
~ ~ u~ p o f °J' a'y- ~ N o
mp O. p O v G"~ 5 N Yn 4+ ~ w
^, ~ u `~ 0 3~ ~ o g F 0 0" m o0
G O Q O ~.E ~ O~ O N~ GG~ i G~ "~'' ' y.,
N 6 v~ -O O 'd ~~ L+ 'G O O. N O
ti ou : G'y m G '~ .G 3 ~ °' ~° e> °''~
o
^?YnQ GO~v~"vY~ ~p00`G
~.,~ ~N.~G UG''~i N~Ni ~N y~V~
N n °~ 'N O ,y a~ v G= N R ~~ p v
/_5 y H
L G p T V 'd •y ~ N = (i' ~ ~' N ~ Ny py ~ ~j
M P 'y ~~ d~ N _~^~' ~ N M~ U N d~ A O O '~
G^ O O m 0~ U N w 'p u~ V o~ O w .~ ~ O
A N G N O U p N~ Q r O W O r~ Nr. ~•O
~ v ~ ~ oGi ~ y0..''. y~ ' N G i6 ~ y ' N ~ ~ ~
G o ~ YO ~ ~ GO ¢ N ~ ~ p, o ..
.~ Go ~ ~ O ~ G y
Q ~ 4.
r
m
c
m
E
E
0
v
d
a m
o
m
n w
E ~
,U
m I
a
eti
~a
`L
o ~
a tJ
o°c °'
~_
a °~
2 ~ ~4
O ~ o~ ai
C U O
w ~ £ r m
N ~ ~' a
a
o
4
Q 7
Z j
1Y ~/
O ~
r_ w
Z ~
c o
~ a m
g
z d ;,
~ 7
4
F
E
b
i
a
9
N
ro
f
O
A
v_i
~ ~
7
b N
N
~~
T
s
~
~~ ~ ~~
.o
~~ u ~~ O %~' oG0
o ~ v
~ ~ o W
r-
_
'~ d m '.p m « rC cg O
~ ~
`^ ,ri C m a~i m ~ ~ ~ ~
~
~
" o~ d~~~
o v r
v im
° . y b
t
~ u
y O N d~ v~~ O N p, ~ O '' N
`x M~ ~
~¢
~ o F x n. 3 ."'. ~ ~ a r ,
o ~ b ~ ~ ~
~ F ~ o
~ ~
,
b
m
M° m o b o ou v oa, .°'. ~ o o ~°'
~, ~ N o~
'.d Q' ~ N N v c1 ~„ G 9 '~ q O ~ 4 y G "". N
~ ~ y H'~L O v H N~
F'
N ~ N ~ ~ O ~ O.~
w tr.
L
A T
qn N
w ~ O .d N
m
~ m~
Y _-8 N K
~ g o x
o
¢
~
~
o a o ~o ~ ~ ~ o ~.~ ~ N o ~
.C ~
,~ ~
w G ~ m .a o° ~ ~9 a> E'i ~ N m ~ 3 V~
~
o .- o R' o~ y n~ r w °"
R~
F m k m .G G f r
3 Q' ~
U
m
E
E
0
U
°% ~
4 m
m p -
m
G
p
U
U ~ ^a
n
Q
v
9
L 2
t° 0.
6 -~
$ o
.
N
m
N Lpp
6U
O
a ~ ;~
=<
3
a o
? G ~~~
F" o° n,fla
Y W U
Q R 9 E
m
G ?~
E
I
^ ~ ~° o
_
°
Y
Z a ~a~m
~~< o
C, ~ O ° v pU dU
G c
3
~ d
u. _
o ~
~ o ~ N
v
o
'
~
X
0
O m c v
`~„ .
v„
p
9
~wx
~"
y=
rw a
y
o
~
Q
m
O c
o o o
s W
u~ v H N Y
.Zc ~ u G N U m~ G
G
i ;~ v
.~
o m ~ W -o cs ~,
O `Gj N N o w o b ro u G
~
G bU r .. N G° v ~ ~n v s 4~ p
~
'~'
Q iy Ij
, A O P ~ o0 .d `e ~ i
O Y
v
e
°' a
d ~" P' " ~
° ~
: G
.,
i
.
cs
v `.
a ~
~~ F ~ v ~ fl' '°' a ~ w ~ ~ cYd ~ ,n E~^. O
~
c'i ~ "s ~N 'O G i ~" Y N O N O 4. r'
v O
+ ~O e3
N y 'O L~+ td U O
W
F+ a
.
~
O
~
~a
ai ~ ~ O ~ is '~ `n on O o. ~y N
w ~, ~ 'v
mi
v
'
m `
, ~, ,T
~ N y
o .G s
v v C v
~ v ~ v E WY'fl
~'• "O O ~ A'
°=
N
L
~ b N W ro- ~~ o~ o~ ~~ o~° 5 0'~ y c
I ~ 5' o. m G '~ ° cn G~ ~ E G ~' F o~ 6~ 0 00
A
-
°
'~
~
~
'
~
~
o
M
a
~.~ C~m-
~ ~ Nv
~ u
~ oa
VA V
~ W .O
~
~
1 Q ~
' v
G N P G'V ~ p N
O G N~ '
p 7/
4 i
v °~ ce
'e
I J
N
O O ~p ,M Y~ V 4•
~ p, °° ° ~
Qm
- 3 r
m m Z _~
~~
N
L
d
E
E
0
VV
d
m a
d
a m
o
I U c
d
s
c
m
N~
`~ K
~ o
~ aV
CiIN
~ O
C. o ~
2
€ E
c
f1G .Y_" a~
~ a E
~~
O ~ c
~' ~ ~ ~
N ~ 7
l6
Q
4 7
d
Z ~
ay
o
W
c
O v ~,
Z
O d d
~ '
4
I
I
I
P3
!a
a
d
w
m
I O
_~
E
x
~d
og
~A
and
gg
0
o ~ ~ N ~
T N r '^"' N ~ ~.
~' ,n ~' ~ i m _ p y!' v "~ `~ ~ G r L' 4 7
T ~ w SCfI ~ ei oA O v N v CS G~ G a'O A N,
t~ .n N O O N N G v O u a' .+ q N '" ? .~ ~ u~
c~ rP d d .~ `~ N A? fj N O y v N .n G r~ ^S O
~ n ~ w a> Y v ~ C~ N u^' y ~ 6A ~ U ~, / .O-S u, 4 N r ~ ~ C N
fl, °' .~ ~~ ~ °~ ~ cU v C~ G v ~°'' ~ v v v ~ A d p °~ R~ C
.n cc y v v p. v Y. -O u ~ `.4 " ~Q O .. ct ,n ,Q ~ N A~ ~ cC
F` C' N V 'O U ~y 'D y .~ G N t6 = EJ F` V G N 'f' V~ N G
u V~ v O v
m M ~ V G~ u -p o n e o 0 3 a°, v o E~ R ~ ,~ ~ o~~ ~ ~ G ~
b~ O O ~ A ~ !` U N % GO ~ N ,~ 6 C ? ' ~ N i, `r~ W A p ~ ~ fl~ ~ tf .O a'
A ~" d ~~ ~~ u ~v o~ N d v per, G. B Y O ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ N o~ u~
,~ o ,~ .a
'.~ g. n ~ 001-, o ~ ° N '" ~ c ~ P- ° c C ~a' ~ ~ v ~ F ~
d a ,~~, . ~ m a1 ~ a g~ ° 7G ¢.? o ° p ~ g m
C" o~,~Wp~~`~p ~'~6~ti6"
C
l9
C9
0
Q'
a
Z
H
0
a
W
d'
Z
Q
Z_
~"
Z
~C
L
O
Q
~„'
r~
C
E
0
U
m
v ~
'u ~
d y
o `°
U '~
d
c = O
u
n a o, ^a
K Q
o
a ~j
rn.:
c c
DV
y o~
O~ m a 2 m
p- % ~
N c~ a E a
?j E ' m
~
N ~>
rn..
A ~€ f
y ~a
d
J `oy
10 m
k
~
N " R
l0
W ~,, ~^
0
c
0 4 o
C C
O
L w O
`~ ~ Y r
p VN ~
d. wC
5 '~ ~U~
~ J .
s an
C s
'~ . G F ei v O
-,
..~ v ~ b O N O .`a.. C a~
m ,N w 4 m o 'y o N G b 'xL0 C p '~ Y• O C C U C .~ ~. ~ C e;
O C
.
'O ~~'~
t1 .~OU
~N
`dU G.
~~v
wC~
~
O
.
b v
o
o N itl v O ?, v P. C G Q. v N m y «' ^ rC " v 'v
i~ F S P. ~ ~ G^' V C O :n ~ ~ m O ~ ~ w ~ y v '~ C . ~ ~ w
'O '_"
O
E
~
T
~V .-. V .d a_ O 3 T
5 4 q
p G
« m
U p ~ C "' id b0 G P. `" ,Fii v '~ 7 ~ ry i0 V ~ .C ~ 7 fJ
u~
C
G
~ O v
0
`
'
v
`
v N u
C
~ ~ v
~ y C .0 '
,
~
O 0
y .
~
y
0
w
t
b
tm .
~ .
~ G
a C
O ro
O
~
m .
i
~ .
O
~
`~ m
C; 'O
~' C O
> b 0 'ti C
Q a
'
E
d G
.
O
y 'C
' M N .~. ~
D Q. d
CO Vi .-+ N N N ~ N '
O~ O F D b
~
~
U
a
+ (
~ v
C
N u F W d u .C-. o vCi •
¢ p
j
~ "' N
C
~
~
C
o . y
f
~
4
!~
~ -O
7 d .
N O
~
' OnC.O w
'_Q'C 0.. C.Db n'~1 N,nd~v~C 'O .?OM'~~~G
~ .
e W
~ 3
y c o °' ~
E F ~~ d
'
^
~
s ;
~ b ~
o
v
~
a a
a ° R
3 F 6 C R..-. T ~
P. ~
~ p F :-. c~ w id '~ O C G
P
m W fl
~
y
-
.
' v
i
o v a^ .. a ~., v c o- w- v ,~
b
v
"
y
9 v
~ w
~
~
~
Cr
~ . p
"
O
w ~
°'
O P. U R
«'.
> ro vi o
m :..
C O
0.
. ~' ~~ TS
v O
C C
~ °~
Q w
C
P
.
p
C
v .~
a4
.
~c"
C .~ N
p Q .L 'D :+. "' O. [ .,^y ~ <+
~ ~ 04 0. O
61 M c6
2 ~
"
v
.
~
a
i {n
.G
a o .. ~, v F
p. ~ o ro ~ U ~' -~ ~ ~ 3 Pa Q' ~ .v. ro a~..n W m a, q p ~ v ro ~.^, ~ 6 ~
0 d
m oiO O
W ~ Z ^
~ ~
v~
O
O
M_
v
c
m
N
G
d
E
E
0
v
N
y ro
a
m
o N
E m
U 'c
a
c
as
h
~ ~
C.
R
C
c° a
d
'~ C
d o
U
a
a =~
`°
a~
~
z_
~
c ~E c ;~.
~. y o.°_ atA
~a
i
(~ iy o rn
w
t u ~ _
w3 ~d
~ m r ~ w.~
Q R m a`+
Q ? ~ a
(7 Y o
m
z ~ c~~
a
~ r LL
O '^
r_~
Z
O G
p O
'L o u
x ~'
m-
0 ~ j
Q
~~'
~L
m
N
N
d
O
m
~~
~ a
o j
~A
~~
C ~ GG
O' ~ P
~~ ~ O PPPPO N
N a' w > y
o m ~ p W ~
F N~
x
O b C p
C h ~ R
O t. ~ C
U Y ~ O ~ b
N U b0 Y y 0
F N~WWCGV ,o °~' o %
N y ~b A
r~
.+
{^, w s ~ D ~ C > ~
G Y N p N N (6 V
. Un ~b a, N ~ LL
O O N ~ r ~ ^ ~
O .n ~r! • • p O~ O 0. y « cJ ~tl P
V y ~ N~ F v OD ~F ~ v N ~ N ?v G~ 0 6
w F o~ ,c O'er ~~ G p N G~ u .d ~ j N N N~ 0« 'd ~
Q' ~^~ U 7 p„ ti N cC Sj N ~' ? v ~ o oA m w °~ ? :a m Q' ~ v
OU 4 Y ..+ G O Ti3 ~ w G O. a' ~ G F N O~ N~ Y i ..
C ~ ~ p N .~ N b ~00 i5
'd N ~ Nab. GF' ~ :d ~~ P b 'p ~.a~ '~ m ^ ~ Or
.GO t 6' .> G P N ~" N N F G v~ U G _. oU .G ~ N~ N "O -NC O
u N Y p PN o N a ~ G o N~ co._ e u 3 0.
° ~~ ~ n `mj LN: c~ v j ~ ~ v ,N, ~° a ~ aGi aNi G ~ o J G ~, Q ~ ."' G
cs 7? 7 M d ~ N ^',3 ~
° a Nra o.Uc~ a on G O E ~ ° v ~ v Q. ~ ~~~° a Qw ° ~ ~.
oP'. p n K E o ~ `° .~ b m G `~ ~ N a '~ a°i 3 •o m
p' ~ u O C'~ N A• o r W'~ ~ V p~ ~ N ~
la o ~ ~ ~ a ~ Y .a ~.°. ~ oa ~
`~ a. d'd O
~~
m
~~
d
E
E
0
U
m
m t°
O
d
n N
E m
o ?
V 'c
m
D }~
GL
O ~
as
N
a C
0.
ON
IY ~ N
C C
a ag
? ~ €E~
F p 0
a d Z m
°
Y ~m
d iy cu cn E
m_
?~ .£
d ~~ °'_
~ E
p ~
? m `v
~a
(7 ~
Z
; °
~
_
« d
lL
O w
~ w
z
0
00
~ o~
z w_
m .-
o ~>
a
h
N
A
O
I
i
`o °:
~~
w~
~f
f
S ~ ~ -d G
v
~ 1.
o o
~
~
a> G ~
~ a s s N a
~
i b
v
3 b y
o
cs Q, v o 0
`~ M
~
~
( ~,,,
0 .o ~ o v
N C U
~
"'
N
J N y
G ti v v v °~ Y
? n' C m `" 'n u ~ a
'~~ G
~b ;
~
~ 7
~ .y
~
~
7
~
°~ ^ o
m o ~~ id v P
~ d
8 o gw N a
77
o
~
G S A ~' O o N b w G ~ m
`~
.G •~ ~ u w
X O
y. •- V o O~ V O ~ N r, ~ N~ N J~
q~ 3 m
w
~
v
u N v, r <a
o
T m ti
~
CS V U N ~ '~ N
`~` ~ v tC ~ ~ W ~`
N N N (4 W Ol 'O ~ N Ul ~ ~ N SY G ~d ~, G
J
o
v
~ ~ v ~ ~
v v G ~
o ~ ~
~ ~ o o
(.J
¢
~ ~
~ v~
a
I ~
E
°
o
~ ~
_
_.
~
~
r. ~~
J
N
0
z
T
O
3 O
V ;
O U
O p
5~
0 ° ~ a~i
h
2
~v
4 `~>p
>v >
o
~
~
~
.
,
rn
in o:c aYr`mc
~ J(A p p-
~
m o
0 0 s> p m rn
3W
p I~V1mmZliKl-
~`-
41. aN ~F_ W 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
JOa~v~ a4 ~NY
m m z rc
LANE AVE .', ,,..:i;:.
~.
z
~
P
~pS_ sKE PKWY
l~~
U ~/
J
3
0
m pF
2
~
~J .~
/
/
~ r
~,.
bo
. ,£,. '~
.
~3>'/~ \
r~ E`~P "
J`GE
fn
; VI~t
NORTM pR
,~
\
*~ <
,;, j.
,
~
\
U
t
.~
' ;
~
y
' ~
\ . ~ N
i'
.
/.
.
/_
R00~ 125
StP~ ~ R OR
R\~~A 3
o
er v
EgSTSHORE N i
"'y. ~
g
~ycE ~
W
s TL N ~
'"~
~~
¢~~
4!4 ~ ~
~ J
T lL
O
T Q
~~
0
W
0
cW
cG
G
W
3
gQ
5