Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1993/02/10 (7) City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of February 10, 1992 Page 1 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Rancho San Miguel - Volume 3; Draft Supplemental to Environmental Impact Report, EIR-90-02, State Clearinghouse No. 90010155 A. BACKGROUND Original Draft Document . The original Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR-90-02) for the Rancho San Miguel GDP was completed in December 1991 and subsequently was circulated for public review and comment to specific agencies through the State Clearinghouse from December 23, 1991 to February 6, 1992 (a 45-day review period). Additional comments given by commentators were received over the next several weeks and were incOlporated as appropriate. Final public review ended on February 12, 1992, after the Chula Vista Planning Commission held a public hearing to take testimony on the adequacy of the Draft EIR-90-02. Numerous comment letters were received by the City of Chula Vista during the public review period and written responses to those comment letters were prepared. The comments on the Draft EIR, responses thereto and revisions (by an errata section) are included in a bound volume entitled, Rancho San Miguel General Development Plan, Vol. 1: (Draft) Final Environmental Impact Report EIR-90-02 (SCH No. 90010155). . After completion of the public review period for the (Draft) Final document, an Addendum to Draft EIR-90-02 (First Addendum - Mitigation Concept Plan) was prepared to evaluate refinements made to the original proposed project These project refinements were developed in response to comments received from City staff and various commentators during the public review period on Draft EIR -90-02. The project as refined was called the "Mitigation Concept Plan". A description of the "Mitigation Concept Plan," (or First Addendum) which was previously presented to the Planning Commission at a publicly noticed meeting on April 1, 1992, is provided in (Draft) Final EIR-90-02 at pp. 1-11. . Public hearings were on the Draft Final EIR and Addendum analyzing the modified project (Mitigation Concept Plan) were held before both the Chula Vista Planning Commission and the City Council in September and October of 1992. As a result of comments and testimony received at those hearings, the applicant withdrew the project, and worked with City staff on proposed design changes to address unresolved issues with respect to the project The proposed changes are now reflected in the "New Plan," as resubmitted by the applicant, which is the subject of this Supplement to Draft EIR-90-02. ,"-/ WPC F:\HOMBPLANNING\541.93 City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of February 10, 1992 Page 2 Supplement . The "New Plan," project description is stated and illustrated in Section 2 of the Supplement. The "New Plan" proposes various design changes to the southern portion of the Rancho San Miguel GDP. The proposed changes were made in response to: a) public comments received on Draft EIR-90-02 during the CEQA public review period; b) City staff concerns over the original project's consistency with the Chula Vista General Plan; c) public testimony received at the hearing before the Planning Commission on September 30, 1992, and the hearing before the City Council on October 27, 1992; and d) comments made by members of both the Planning Commission and City Council at the two public hearings. . The major changes between the "Mitigation Concept Plan" discussed in the previous "second addendum" (also now withdrawn) and the "New Plan" are related to the proposed lot sizes and density reductions in the southern portion of the Rancho San Miguel GDP. Additional estate-size lots have been added to the project in order to constitute a majority of lots within the Low Residential designated areas as shown on the Chula Vista General Plan. Some of these new estate lots have been placed in the northwest portion of the southern parcel, adjacent to the low density and rural Bonita-Sunnyside community. The "luxury", or mid-size lots shown in the Mitigation Concept Plan have been eliminated, and the remainder of lots which are not estate-sized are designated as "cluster" lots with a minimum lot size of 7,000 square feet. Overall density of the southern portion of the project has been reduced by 35 units due to the applicant's decision to not request a density transfer from open space (at one dwelling unit per 10 acres, as allowed under the General Plan) on the northern portion of the southern parcel. The "New Plan" does not alter, affect or change the Rancho San Miguel GDP as it relates to the northern portion of the project. The northern portion of the project remains as it is proposed in the Project Description in Draft EIR -90-02. . According to State CEQA Guidelines, the Lead or Responsible Agency may choose to prepare a supplement to an EIR rather than a subsequent EIR if: I) any of the conditions described in Section 15162 which would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR has occurred, and 2) only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation (Guidelines 15163--See Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code). Section 15162 states where an EIR has been prepared, no additional EIR need be prepared unless new infonnation of substantial importance to the project becomes available and the new infonnation shows mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project. /- ~ WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\S41.93 City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of February 10, 1992 Page 3 . The New Plan is a project alternative which eliminates General Plan inconsistency 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, a Supplement is the appropriate document. . The Planning Director, in response to a request from the applicant, applied to the State Clearinghouse for a shortened review period regarding circulation of the Supplement and public comments. The Clearinghouse granted the request and the 30-day public review period which began on January 8, 1993, will end on February 6, 1993. The City of Chula Vista's review period ends with the closing of the Planning Commission public hearing (tentatively February 10, 1993). . At the time of the writing of this staff report, one letter of comment has been received, Chula Vista Elementary School District (see attachment). It is anticipated that additional letters of comment will be forthcoming and these will be delivered to the Commission at the public hearing on February 10, 1993. All comment letters received by February 10, 1993, will be responded to in the "Response to Comments" Section of the (Draft) Final EIR. . The Draft Supplement will go before the Resource Conservation Commission on February 1, 1993, and staff will report their action at the Planning Commission meeting of February 10, 1993. . The Planning Commission certification for the Final EIR and public hearing to consider the General Development Plan is tentatively scheduled for March 3, 1993. The Council meeting for consideration of the Final EIR and PC prezone, and General Development Plan based on the New Plan Project is tentatively scheduled for March 16, 1993. B. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing to take testimony on the adequacy of the Draft Supplement to Environmental Impact Report, EIR- 90-02 (Volume 3) and then close the public review period with the close of the public hearing. C. DISCUSSION Proiect Description. New Plan The Rancho San Miguel "New Plan" GDP is a proposed single-family detached residential community which will provide a range of housing products with lot sizes varying from 7,000 square feet to 1 acre. Development will take place within a 1,852-acre northern portion and a 738-acre southern portion separated by SDG&E property. The "New Plan" /- 35 WPC F:\HOME\PLANNINCN41.93 City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of February 10, 1992 Page 4 GDP proposes 1,619 single-family residences, and also integrates a 14-acre neighborhood commercial site, an elementary school site; a 20.7-acre community park; a community purpose facility; a 6-acre conference center/retreat and inn; a 6-acre interpretive center; pedestrian and bicycle trails connecting Rancho San Miguel to the surrounding community and the Chula Vista Greenbelt; and approximately 1,648 acres of natural open space. Discretionary actions include a general development plan and rezone. Northern Portion The 1,852-acre northern portion of the site principally consists of Mother Miguel Mountain. The "New Plan" GDP is unchanged from the original proposed project described in the Draft EIR which proposes limiting most of the development to the foothills and plateaus on the western side of the site; the interpretive center, conference center, and inn would be constructed on steep slopes at a higher elevation (approximately 800 feet above mean sea level). Individual building envelopes would be graded for each of the proposed 357 lots; the average lot size would be I acre. The GDP proposes split level structures, stemwall foundations and post and beam construction to minimize the impact of the homes. The applicant would include a brush management program. The 6-acre interpretive center would be constructed on a prominent knoll on the northern side of the mountain. It would include trail heads, a parking lot, infonnational displays, view points, a small amphitheater, and perhaps a botanical garden. The 7-acre conference center/retreat and inn would be constructed adjacent to the interpretive center. It would include a 20 to 30-room building and approximately 20 small cottages, for a total of up to 50 guest rooms, and meeting facilities for 200. The applicant proposes to include wildlife undercrossing areas under roadways in the northern portion to allow wildlife access to the Sweetwater Reservoir. Mitigation of the significant adverse effects on biology at the GDP level is the requirement for the applicant to prepare a SPA Plan-level mitigation plan that incorporates a redesign of the proposed development in the northern parcel, emphasizing a resource preserve design. Coordination with personnel from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ("USFWS"), the Department of Fish and Game ("DFG"), the City of Chula Vista and the County of San Diego shall take place during preparation of this mitigation plan. The SPA Plan-level mitigation plan shall be prepared, analyzed and included in a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the applicant's northern SPA Plan. The City of Chula Vista, as the lead agency, shall retain final discretionary review and approval authority with respect to the mitigation plan and Supplemental EIR for the SPA Plan. The northern SPA Plan-level mitigation plan shall not be approved prior to May I, 1994 the date by which the South County Natural Community Conservation Plan ("NCCP") is anticipated to be adopted by the City of Chula Vista and approved by the DFG and WPC F:\HOME'J'LANNING\S4I.93 /-1 City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of February 10, 1992 Page 5 USFWS. In the event that the South County NCCP is not adopted and approved by the City of Chula Vista, the DFG and USFWS on or before May 1, 1 994,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. It is acknowledged that the foregoing 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 parcel. It is further acknowledged that: a) The SPA Plan-level mitigation plan and the South County Natural Community Conservation Plan are not necessary or required for the northern parcel or any other subsequent discretionary project approval in the event the northern parcel is subsequently dedicated as pennanent open space or included in a mitigation bank. b) Approval of the SPA Plan-level mitigation plan is a pre-condition to annexation of the northern parcel into the Chula Vista corporate boundary. c) Subsequent preparation and approval of the SPA Plan-level mitigation plan consistent with the criteria set forth below shall be a condition of approval of the San Miguel Ranch GDP. The South County NCCP, if completed and approved, may preclude development of the northern parcel, or may provide for different criteria and standards for the preservation and enhancement of on-site biological resources. If it does not, the criteria set forth in the EIR and summarized in the analysis section shall be used in creating the SPA Plan- level Mitigation Plan. In preparing the SPA Plan-level mitigation plan, the project applicant shall use the guidelines set forth in the Supplemental EIR below as the applicable criteria for mitigating impacts to the identified biological resources in the northern parcel. [Detailed criteria shall constitute the minimum level of preservation required for the designated species in preparing the SPA Plan-level mitigation plan.] The applicant also specifically 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 deternrination shall be made a part of the Supplemental EIR for the applicant's SPA Plan. The City of Chula Vista acknowledges that the State Department of Fish and Game may not find the criteria in the Environmental Impact Report for the north to be acceptable at the SPA level. The City of Chula Vista shall review the approved South County NCCP Plan as it applies to the applicant's northern parcel concurrent with its approval of the SPA Plan for the WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\"i41.93 / c- ,~ -.../ City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of February 10, 1992 Page 6 Northern Parcel. During that review process, the City will consult with the County of San Diego, State Department of Fish & Game (DFG) and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) to the extent that the approved NCCP provides for such review. The City Council shall make the final detennination that the proposed SPA plan for the Northern Parcel is consistent with 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 I, 1992 and expires on May I, 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. If the NCCP is not completed, or is not approved and adopted by the City of Chula Vista, alternative biological mitigation criteria for the northern portion are contained within the Draft Supplemental beginning on page 3.3-69. Southern Portion The majority of the project development would take place in the southern portion. As revised, the New Plan project now proposes 1,262 residential units for the southern neighborhood, with plans for a 14-acre commercial center, an 1 L9-acre elementary school, a 20.7-acre community park, and two designated community purpose facilities. Planning areas referred to below in the Project Description portion of this report is consistent with those in Draft Final EIR 90-02 (see attachment). The "New Plan" incorporates the following changes from the original proposed project. L Realignment of SR-125. In response to comments from the City of Chula Vista, the Country of San Diego and the Buie Corporation, State Route ("SR") 125 has been realigned to be consistent with the Country's General Plan location for a prime arterial. The alignment has been designated as a "Potential Transportation Corridor" because the SR 125 alignment has not been adopted at this time. 2. Deletion of Interchange. In response to comments from the City of Chula Vista, the County of San Diego and the Buie Corporation, the proposed interchange at San Miguel Ranch Road and SR 125 has been deleted from the GDP to allow CAL TRANS to decide upon an appropriate interchange at a later date. This change is consistent with the Chula Vista General Plan which does not show an interchange in this location. 3. Realignment of San Miguel Ranch Road. In response to comments from City staff and Jensen's Kennels, Inc, the western alignment of San Miguel Ranch Road has been moved approximately 650 feet to the south. The original roadway alignment crossed the Jensen's Kennels property, effectively requiring relocation WPC F:\HOME\PLANNJNG\541.93 j- (c City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of February 10, 1992 Page 7 of the kennel. the proposed modification moves the roadway off and to the south of the Jensen's Kennels property. 4. Relocation of Commercial Site. In response to comments from Jensen's Kennels, SDG&E, City staff and public comments, the commercial site originally proposed at the intersection of SR 125 and San Miguel Ranch Road has been relocated to the southeast corner of East H Street and San Miguel Ranch Road. 5. Replacement of Commercial Site. In response to comments from City staff, Country of San Diego, Jensen's Kennels, and public comments, the 16.4-acre commercial site, which was originally proposed at he intersection of SR 125 and San Miguel Ranch Road, has been replaced with large-lot residential units. The relocation of San Miguel Ranch Road further south (paragraph No. 3 above) creates a 33-acre site which is now proposed for 65 residential lots at 1.9 dwelling units per acre (20,000 square foot average lot sizes). 6. Enhancement of Manufactured Slope Topography. In response to comments from City staff, the County of San Diego and public comments, variations in manufactured slope topography have been added between SR 125 and Planning Areas 2 and 3, which are located along the western edge adjacent to the SR 125 alignment. 7. Otay Tamlant Preserve. In response to comments from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the County of San Diego, the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), and public comments, a 15-acre Otay Tarplant preserve has been added by eliminating Planning Area 11, a cul-de-sac located in the south central portion of the site adjacent to the SDG&E easement, the 10 acres in Planning Area 3, across from Planning Area II and along the SDG&E easement. This creates an open space area on both sides of the SDG&E easement. 8. Public Facility Sites. In response to comments from City staff, two public facility sites have been added to the GDP, one adjacent to Planning Area 12 and one adjacent to Planning Area 15, north of East H Street. 9. Open Space Boundary Adjustment. In response to comments from City staff, the Sweetwater Community Planning Group, the County of San Diego and public comments, the open space boundary along the eastern edge of the project has been adjusted to create additional open space by reduced the size of the development area originally proposed in Planning Area 15. 10. Open Space Buffer. In response to comments from City staff and SDG&E, a new open space buffer is proposed between the residential units at the northern edge of Planning Area 14 and SDG&E property adjacent to the north. WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\'i41.93 /- 7 City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of February 10, 1992 Page 8 II. New Commercial Site. In response to comments from City staff, Jensen's Kennels, and public comments, and as described in paragraph No.4 above, the original commercial site has been relocated to the southeast comer of San Miguel Road and East H Street. This change eliminated Planning Area 16 and replaced it with a mixed use area (14-acre commercial site and approximately 6 acres of affordable housing). 12. Planning Area 14 Boudnarv Adjustment. In response to comments from City staff, USFWS and CDFG, the biological issues resulting from clarifying the boundary for Planning Area 14 were mitigated to the satisfaction of USFWS and CDFG. 13. Lot Size Changes. A greater percentage (approximately 51 %) of residential lots within the Low Residential category have been provided in response to City staff's recommended "estate" lot standard (15,000 square foot minimum lot size; 20,000 square foot average lot size). Planning Areas I, 8, 9, 10, 12A, 14 and 15 have been designated as estate areas on the southern Parcel. The distribution of lot sizes in the Residential Low areas has been modified, as follows: Lot Sizes Units Area Estate North 357 357.1 South 415 281.6 772 638.7 51% 73% Cluster 751 49% 235.5 27% Total 1523 100% 874.2 100% The above figures are only for the lot sizes and do not include additional units south of East H Street. 14. Estate Lot Overlav for Planning Areas 4 and 7. In response to City staff's recommended balance of estate lots vs. cluster lots within the Low Residential designated areas of the project (at least half of the lots to be estate standards) Planning Areas 4 and 7, located in the center-west portion of the Southern parcel, designated for cluster development, have had an "estate lot overlay" placed upon them. If all or a portion of the Northern Parcel estate residential development is eliminated at the SPA plan level, then these two areas, or portions thereof, shall be redesignated for estate lots (20,000 square feet average, 15,000 square feet minimum) so as to maintain a majority of the total lots in the Low Residential designated areas of the project as "estate" lots. This overlay has the potential of reducing the overall project density by up to 120 dwelling units. Alternatively, WPC F:\HOME.\PLA..NNJNG\'i41.93 /-15 City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of February 10, 1992 Page 9 the applicant may apply for a General Plan Amendment, proposing redesignation of portions of the site to Low-Medium Residential in order to maintain the consistency of the New Plan GDP to the General Plan, which would be the subject of additional environmental analysis if such an application is filed. Circulation Figure 2-3a of the Supplement illustrates the internal road network now proposed for the Rancho San Miguel New Plan GDP development. San Miguel Ranch Road connects San Miguel Road to East H Street in a general north-south alignment. East H Street will pass through the southeastern tip of the southern portion. Access to the northern portion will be provided via North Ranch Road. Residential roads will provide access to the interior areas of the proposed site. Figure 2-3 in the Draft EIR shows the proposed alignment of San Miguel Ranch Road and that portion of the road that is proposed as a bypass (access) road to be located offsite to the west and adjacent to the site. The bypass portion of San Miguel Ranch Road is proposed to eliminate the need to widen San Miguel Road to provide site access. County approval would be needed to implement the access road, and an Amendment to the County's Circulation Element of the General Plan would also be required, as this roadway is not shown in the County General Plan. However, the access road is consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan. Consistency with the Chula Vista and County circulation elements is discussed in more detail in the transportation section of this Supplement. The transportation section discusses traffic circulation in the area that will occur as a result of buildout of the General Plan and development of the proposed project. E. ANALYSIS Attached is Table 1-2 from the Supplement which summarizes the "New Plan's" impacts to land use, landform visual, biology, traffic, parks, recreation, and open space. . The table shows that at the General Development Plan with the adoption of the proposed mitigation all land use impacts have been mitigated to a level below significance except for: 1) landform visual impacts - the removal of Horseshoe Bend and Gobblers Knob and, 2) the level of impacts regarding consistency with the City's affordable housing policy, and with the visual impact for water storage containers are unknown and will be determined at the SPA level. . All of the biological impacts that were found to be significant in the original Draft EIR are still significant at the New Plan General Development Plan level. A framework has been proposed by the applicant to mitigate many of the biological impacts (in the southern portion) at the SPA level. These are summarized as well in the attached table. WPC F:\HOMIN'LANNING\54L93 1-- r City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of February 10, 1992 Page 10 F. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES Several of the project alternatives are summarized below. These alternatives were also in the original draft EIR. Horseshoe Bend Alternative This alternative preserves Horseshoe Bend, a major landfoID1 and visual feature located in the western half of the project's southern portion and reduces by the number of units in the southern portion from 1,297 units to 1.261. Impacts which would remain significant with this alternative include: air quality, biology, land use, landform visual. Impacts which would remain significant but mitigable are: cultural resources, geology, soils, hydrology, noise, transportation access, public services and utilities, parks, recreation and open space. Biolol!:icallv Sensitive Alternative The biologically sensitive alternative substantially reduces the acreage developed in the southern portion and eliminates all development on the northern portion in order to reduce many impacts to the biological resources associated with the project site. Approximately 461 acres of the southern portion would contain 1,600 single family dwelling units. No development would occur on the northeastern and southeastern portions of this area preserving approximately 277 acres of sensitive biological resources. The entire 1,852 acre northern portion would be preserved as open space. Even if the biologically sensitive alternative were approved, unmitigated significant impacts would occur in the areas of land use, landfoID1, visual quality, biology, and air quality. Impacts which would remain significant but mitigable are cultural resources, geology/soils, hydrology, transportation access, public services and utilities, parks, recreation and open space. WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\S41.93 /-/CI uill en i s:: )> ~ n (/) en Z fJ)> )> ." iiiZ:.::::m _ ~s:: s: ~ g :-<(j)- :a :g ffl G) "tJ m ~'c N ;gmCi>> ::cr_ -I:JJZ ifi)> ::cz (/)(') I . ..) I ", L. " /./ / E (/) -I m ::c ~ 01 ~ m (/) :ii! ., m ~ ~ 01 en c 0 ~ ~ o z r< - c z cri --- 1.4 SUMMARY OF IM:PACTS AND MITIGATION The following table summarizes impacts and mitigation for those issues which are analyzed in this Supplement. For all other issues, see Draft EIR 90-02 (Volume 2). Table 1-2 SUMMARY OF IM:PACTS AND MITIGATION Issue Impact Mitigation Land Use Development of the northern Mitigation for this impact includes portion of the site is potentially approval of stormwater management incompatible with the Sweetwater plans, and is discussed further in Reservoir due to degradation of Section 3,9, Water Quality. It is water quality from urban runoff. expected by the Sweetwater Authority this significant impact is discussed that the plan will reduce significant in Section 3.9, Water Quality. water quality impacts to Sweetwater Reservoir to below a level of significance. Land Use Portions of the proposed trail The proposed trail system will be (contd.) system cross SDG&E easements. reviewed at the SPA Plan level in The City Parks & Recreation order to minimize the location of Department discourages the trails within SDG&E easements. placement of trails in these This measure will reduce impacts to easements. below a level of significance. Land Use Locating residential units adjacent Provide future residents with (contd.) to the SDG&E Miguel substation is information concerning SDG&E a significant impact. The utility expansion plans. Prepare a plans to expand the facility in the comprehensive buffer plan at the SPA future, and potential conflicts could level. Provide site plans to SDG&E arise with residents adjacent to the for review. Coordinate with facility when expansion begins. SDG&E. The applicant shall not oppose SDG&E expansion proposals. These measures will reduce impacts to below a level of significance. 1-5 1- /q: Land Use (contd.) General Plan Consistency Landform/ Visual Landform/ Visual (contd.) . Landform/ Visual (contd.) * * Table 1-2 (contd.) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION The project GDP does not discuss the issue of affordable housing, and therefore is inconsistent with the City's provisions relating to affordable housing. Grading techniques for proposed interpretive center and conference center on slopes greater than 25 % are not discussed in GDP, therefore, the landform/visual impacts are unknown. Two topographic features in the southern portion of the site (Horseshoe Bend, Gobbler's Knob) will be removed by extensive grading. The landform impacts are considered to be significant. Large and conspicuous potable water storage tanks are proposed for provision of drinking water at adequate pressure. The exact locations of the tanks have not been determined at this time, therefore, the impacts are unknown. This issue shall be evaluated at the SPA Plan level. The project applicant has made a commitment to comply with the City's affordable housing performance criteria. Satisfaction of these criteria at the SPA Plan level will eliminate any general plan inconsistency. .- This issue shall be evaluated at the SPA level. * * Impacts to the significant landforms in the southern portion of the site are unmitigable with the project as proposed. This issue shall be evaluated at the SPA level. Impacts which are significant and not mitigable to below a level of significance with the proj ect as proposed 1-6 /-/3 . . . . . . . . . . . I I . I I . I , Table 1-2 (contd.) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION Issue Impact Mitigation Landform/ A limited number of lots on the Provide future residents with Visual southern parcel will be oriented information concerning SDG&E (contd.) toward the existing SDG&E expansion plans. Prepare a facility. Lots along the northern comprehensive buffer plan at the perimeter of the southern parcel SPA level. Provide site plans to " overlooking Wild Man's Canyon SDG&E for review. Coordinate - will be impacted by planned with SDG&E. The applicant shall expansion of the SDG&E not oppose SDG&E expansion facility. This is a significant proposals. It is anticipated that impact. these measures may reduce impacts to below a level of significance at the SPA level of analysis. A determination of the level of significance will be made at that time. Landform/ Views from a small portion of Implementation of landscaping and Visual East H Street, a designated development plans consistent with (contd.) scenic roadway, would be General Plan guidelines for scenic degraded by grading and roadways would reduce impacts to development associated with the below a level of significance. proposed project. The impacts are significant. Biology The project would disrupt the * * rich biodiversity of the site. Impacts to biodiversity of the site This is a significant impact. are not mitigable with the project as proposed. * * Impacts which are significant and not mitigable to below a level of significance with the project as proposed 1-7 /-/y Issue Biology (contd.) Biology (contd.) ,-". ".~",,-...'.............-..._~,,'-.,.'..' ,~""-_..._,- .~ '-~-..;".-"'~ Table 1-2 (contd.) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION Mitigation A 1603 agreement between the project proponent and CDFG, submission of pre-discharge Notification to the Army Corps of Engineers, and a 404 permit are required as mitigation for any filling of wetlands. To comply with the no net loss of wetlands criteria established by the CDFG, impacts to wetland habitat would be reduced. Where impacts cannot be avoided, onsite creation of wetland habitat is required at a replacement ratio agreed upon with CDFG, to b.;; carried out under the direction of a qualified wetland revegetation specialist and the CDFG. These measures would reduce impacts to below a level of significance. * * The impacts to coastal sage scrub are significant and unmitigable with the project as proposed. The impacts will be partially mitigated by the following measures. Commitment by the applicant to participate in the South Bay Natural Communities Conservation Program (NCCP) and abide by its conclusions. Placement of biological mitigation criteria on the northern parcel (in case the NCCP does not come to fruition) which will allow the City of Chula Vista to require preservation of between 85% and 100% of all Diegan Sage Scrub habitat on the northern parcel. Hydroseed graded areas with native plant species. Restrict site preparation activities to areas not designated as open space. Phasing plans and the final site plan must be reviewed by a qualified city biologist and the CDFG for compliance with the adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program. Alternative projects which would also partially reduce impacts are discussed in Section 5 of the Draft EIR (Volume I). Impacts to this sensitive habitat remain significant even with implementation of these measures. * * Impacts which are significant and not mitigable to below a level of significance with the project as proposed Impact The project would result in the loss of 3.1 acres of wetland habitat. This is considered to be a significant impact by the California Department of Fish & Game (CDFG) due to the high sensitivity of this habitat. The project would result in the loss of 467 acres of diegan coastal sage scrub habitat. This is considered to be a significant impact due to the overall loss of this habitat in southern California, and because many of the sensitive plant and animal species found onsite are concentrated in this habitat, including the California gnatcatcher and coast barrel cactus. /-,.L5 1-8 I ( J , I I I I .. I I . . . . . . . . . Issue Biology (contd.) Biology (contd.) Table 1-2 (contd.) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION , Impact Otay tarWeed: Roughly 70 percent of an estimated total of 200,000 individuals would be impacted by the project. Dense populations of this state endangered plant are in the western and central parts of the southern portion. This is a significant impact. Mitigation * * Impacts to Otay tarWeed are unmitigable with the project as proposed. Partial mitigation shall be achieved by the preservation of a contiguous preserve area of approximately 42,000 of 144,000 plants on the southern parcel, and preservation of approximately 10,000 plants on the northern parcel. Additionally, further preservation of Otay tarplant on the northern parcel may be required (between 65% and 100% of remaining plants). Impacts to Otay Tarweed remain significant even with implementation of these measures. * * Impacts to Palmer's grappling hook are unmitigable with the project as proposed. Partial mitigation shall be achieved by preservation of approximately 1,000 plants on the northern parcel. Impacts to this sensitive plant remain significant even with implementation of these measures. Preserve approximately 40% of the 2,892 cacti on the southern parcel in situ, with transplantation of the remainder. Preserve an additional 1,226 cacti on the northern parcel as mitigation for southern parcel impacts. Require preservation of at least 60 % of remaining cacti on the northern parcel, with trans-plantation of the remainder, at the SPA plan level. This is a significant impact at the.General Development Plan level. It is anticipated that these measures may reduce impacts to below a level of significance at the SPA level of analysis. A determination of the level of significance will be made at that time. * Impacts which are Slgni!1cant and not mltlgable to below a level of slgmhcance with the Biology (contd.) Palmer's !!raDplin~ hook: All of the estimated 11 ,000 individuals on Ihe site would be impacted by the project. The loss of such a large population of this species is a significant impact. Coast Barrel Cactus: Roughly 80% of an estimated 8,000 individuals would be impacted by the project. This site represents one of the more impressive barrel cactus populations in the County. This is a significant impact. project as proposed 1-9 /-/c(, .-.~",_ ~ ,._,'~>_""~r'''''''''''''<''~.'''''.' Issue Biology (contd.) Biology (contd.) Biology (contd.) Biology (contd.) . ,,-,,-;~~- .' -.--"'"-- ~- '- ""'~ Table 1-2 (contd.) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION Impact California adolphia: Roughly 345 individuals would be impacted by the project. This is a significant impact. " San Die!!o marsh elder: Roughly 90% of an estimated total of 340 individuals would be impacted by the project. this is a significant impact. SDiny rush: Roughly 50% of an estimated 400 individuals would be impacted by the project. This is a significant impact. Impacts to the following sensitive plants either do not occur or are not considered to be significant: Munz's Sage, mesa club moss, San Diego sunflower, variegated dudleya, Cleveland's golden star, Palmer sagebrush, San Diego needle grass, and western dichondra. 1-10 .- Mitigation Preserve approximately 40 adolphia in the eastern portion of the southern parcel. Preserve approximately 350 adolphia on the northern parcel as mitigation for impacts to the southern parcel. Require preservation of 50% to 100% of all adolphia on the northern parcel at the SPA plan level. This is a significant impact at the General Development Plan level. It is anticipated that these measures will reduce impacts to below a level of significance at the SPA level of analysis. A determination of the level of significance will be made at that time. Avoid wetlands, where this plant occurs, to the extent practicable. Implement a revegetation program for plants that are impacted. These measures will reduce impacts to below a level of significance. Avoid wetlands, where the plant occurs, to the extent practicable. Enhance wetland areas to include revegetation of spiny rush for plants that are impacted. These measures will reduce impacts to below a level of significance. No mitigation is required. 1-/7 ~.),M~""'''''''..'''',1'''''"i.'''' ~'OOII I I i ~ r1 s f ~ t- Issue Biology (contd.) Biology (contd.) . * ,_..-._._.~~.~~.....- - Table 1-2 (contd.) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION Impact California ~I'alcatcher: The project would have significant impacts on the California gnatcatcher. The gnatcatcher population on the proposed site is part of a larger core population for the entire species. The project would cause direct impacts to 40 of the existing 69 pairs onsite. Other significant impacts to wildlife include fragmentation of habitat, constricted movement corridors, and impacts from pets, lighting, noise, and wildfires. This is a significant impact. Cactus Wren: The project will impact 7 of 13 occupied cactus wren territories on site. This is a significant impact. Miti!!ation * * The impacts to the California gnatcatcher are unmitigable for the project as proposed. Partial mitigation measures include the following. Mitigate for the loss of 6 gnatcatcher pairs on the southern parcel by preserving 9 pairs of gnatcatchers on the northern parcel at this time. Require participation in the South County Natural Communities Conservation Program (NCCP) and abide by its conclusions. If the NCCP does not come to fruition, require preservation of an additional 80% to 100% of existing pairs, 80% to 100% of occupied gnatcatcher habitat, and 50% to 100% of unoccupied gnatcatcher habitat on the northern parcel at the SPA plan level. Impacts to this sensitive species remains significant even with the implementation of these measures. * * The impacts to the cactus wren are unmitigable with the project as proposed. Partial mitigation measures include the following. Preserve 3 of 4 existing occupied territories on the southern parcel. Require participation in the South County Natural Communities Conservation Program (NCCP) and abide by its conclusions. If the NCCP does not come to fruition, require preservation of at least 6 of 7 cactus wren territories on the northern parcel at the SPA plan level. Impacts to this sensitive species remains significant even with the implementation of these measures. niflcant and not mltlgable to below a level 01 signIficance with the Impacts which are Slg project as proposed 1-11 /-/'6 - Table 1-2 (contd.) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION Issue Impact Mitigation Traffic Traffic that would be generated Impacts can be reduced to below a by the project is only slightly significance by designating project- higher than that project by the proposed roads as described in General Plan. Therefore, the Section 3.10. impacts are not significant. Road classifications for project- proposed roads have not been determined, and are not designated in the circulation element of the General Plan, and the impacts are significant. , Parks, The project proposes a 20.7 acre No mitigation is required. Recreation, and community park, which would Open Space satisfy city threshold standards requiring 3 acres of park land per 1,000 residents. Parks, The project proposes an The biological impacts of the Recreation, and integrated hiking and equestrian proposed trail system can be Open Space trail system that connects to the mitigated to below significance County's regional system. The upon implementation of the trail system would provide mitigation measures described in access into areas designated as Section 3.16 open space that contain sensitive biological resources, creating , significant biological impacts. Parks, Portions of the trail system are The trail system layout and site Recreation, and in the SDG&E power specific designs shall be prepared Open Space transmission easement. The in coordination with the City's City Parks & Recreation Parks and Recreation Department Department discourages the and the Environmental placement of trails in these Coordinator. Impacts of revised easements. portions of the trails must be evaluated at the SPA level. Parks, The location of staging areas for The location of the staging areas Recreation, and the proposed trail system have shall be determined and the Open not been finalized, and the impacts evaluated at the SPA impacts are unknown. level. 1-12 I-i J Issue Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Table 1-2 (contd.) ~'~"-""'-"'-""~- SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION Impact Approximately 64% of the site is designated as open space. No significant impacts were identified for this acreage. However, about 43 acres of land currently designated as open space would be developed in the southern portion. 1-13 Mitigation No mitigation is required for areas designated to be open space. /- ~a " ,. /