HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports /2007/10/24
Page 1, Item: 1
Meeting Date: 10/24/07
(HULA VISTA
PLANNING
COMMISSION
AGENDA STATEMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM TITLE:
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF ZONE CHANGE
(PCZ-07-01) FOR FOUR PARCELS CONSISTING OF 4.89
ACRES LOCATED AT 765-795 PALOMAR STREET FROM
COMMERCIAL THOROUGHFARE WITH PRECISE PLAN
(CT -P) TO CENTRAL COMMERCIAL WITH PRECISE
PLAN (CC-P) AND PRECISE PLAN MODIFYING
STANDARDS FOR A REDUCTION IN THE REQUIRED
OPEN SPACE AND BUILDING SETBACKS TO ALLOW
THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED BA YVIST A
WALK MIXED-USE PROJECT
RESOLUTION: RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE
ZONING MAPS ESTABLISHED BY MUNICIPAL CODE
SECTION 19.18.010 BY REZONING FOUR PARCELS
CONSISTING OF 4.89 ACRES LOCATED AT 765-795
PALOMAR STREET FROM COMMERCIAL
THOROUGHFARE WITH PRECISE PLAN (CT -P) TO
CENTRAL COMMERCIAL WITH PRECISE PLAN (CC-P)
AND APPROVING THE PRECISE PLAN MODIFYING
STANDARDS FOR OPEN SPACE AND BUILDING
SETBACKS TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE
PROPOSED BAYVISTA WALK MIXED-USE PROJECT
SUBMITTED BY: MARY LADIANA, PLANNING MANAGER
INTRODUCTION:
Olson Urban Housing, LLC (Applicant) has submitted applications requesting a zone change,
Page 2, Item:
Meeting Date: JOL24L01
conditional use permit, design review, and a tentative map for development of a mixed-use project on
a 4.89-acre site located at 765-795 Palomar, between Industrial Boulevard and Frontage Road in
Southwest Chula Vista (see Attachment 1 and 2). The site has been vacant for several years and was
used as a temporary site for the sale of pumpkins and Christmas trees. The applications propose the
construction of a mixed-use project consisting of 154 residential units and 5,000 to 10,000 square
feet of commercial space to be built in two phases. The first phase represents the development of the
4-acre portion (Lot 1) of the site to be developed with 104 residential units. The second phase
located on the eastern-most portion of the site (Lot 2) with an approximate area of 0.89 acres, is
proposed to be developed with the mixed-use residential/commercial element that would satisfy the
affordable housing obligation, pursuant to the Housing Element Balanced Communities
("Inclusionary Housing") Policy. Phase 2 of the project includes the construction of a podium
building structure with 5,000 to 1 0,000 square feet of commercial space on the first floor, 50
residential units on the upper floors of the building and with the associated parking spaces on the first
floor and one subterranean level.
State law (Government Code 65854-65861) and Chula Vista Municipal Code, beginning at Section
19.12.030, establish the process for adopting zone changes of property. They require that the
Planning Commission hold a public hearing on proposed rezoning actions and provide a written
recommendation to the City Council.
The proposed project was reviewed for compliance with CEQA and an Initial Study, IS-05-012, was
prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Based upon results
of the Initial Study, it was determined that the project could result in effects on the environment.
However, revisions to the project made by, or agreed to, by the applicant would avoid the effects, or
mitigate the effects, to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur. Therefore, Mitigated
Negative Declaration IS-05-012 was prepared for the project (see Attachment 3).
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. PCZ 07-01 recommending that the City
Council introduce an ordinance adopting Zone Change and approving the Precise Plan Modifying
Standards.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION:
The project site lies entirely within a designated redevelopment area and is therefore subject to review
by the Redevelopment Advisory Committee (RAC) and subsequent recommendation by the Chula
Vista Redevelopment Corporation. In addition to two earlier community meetings in 2005 and 2006 on
previous site designs, the project was presented to the RAC for an initial review on May 3, 2007. A
number of issues related to urban design, affordable housing and open space were raised at that
meeting. Several months later, and after a redesign of the project, on August 2, 2007, the RAC
reviewed the revised project for the second time and recommended (by a vote of 5-0-2) the project be
forwarded to the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation for consideration and approval of the project
proposal as revised and with further consideration of staff s recommendations regarding modifications
to useable open space. The Committee members' support for the proposed revised project was based
on the project's good planning and urban architecture.
-_...--......_'"....,-,.---...~-_..". _....---~..
Page 3, Item:
Meeting Date: 10/24/07
DISCUSSION:
1. Site Location and Surrounding Uses
The subject property is located on the south side of Palomar Street between Frontage Road and
Industrial Boulevard (see Attachment 1 and 2). The site is located within the area designated by the
2005 General Plan as a Transit Focus Area (TF A) called the "Palomar Gateway District." It is
located close to the Interstate 5 (1-5) ramps and next to the Palomar Trolley Station, one of the
busiest entrances to the City and next to one of its most active commercial enclaves. Existing uses,
General Plan and Zoning designations of adjacent properties to the subject site are as follows:
Existin2 Uses General Plan Existin2 Zonin2
Deshmation
Site Vacant Mixed Use - Transit Focus Commercial
Area Thoroughfare
North Residential and commercial Mixed Use - Transit Focus R-3 (Multi-Family
uses Area Residential)
East Palomar Trolley Station Mixed Use -Transit Focus S-94
Area
South . Trailer park, multi-family and High Density Residential R-2 P (one and two
single-familv residential units Family Residential)
West Hotel & Trailer park Mixed Use -Transit Focus C- T (Commercial
Area Thoroughfare)
The City recently received a San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Transit Oriented
Design (TOD) grant to provide $2.1 million for street and pedestrian improvements along Palomar
Street, Industrial Boulevard and at the Palomar trolley station. The improvements will include traffic
calming features, landscaping and streetscape amenities to augment the TF A General Plan goals and
contribute to creating a "Gateway" entrance to this portion of the City.
2. Project Description
The mixed-use project is proposed to be developed in two phases. The first phase represents the
development of the 4-acre westerly portion (Lot 1) of the site, to be developed with the 104-unit
residential project. The project consists of two- and three-bedroom units that range from 1,150 to
1,550 square feet in area. Some of the units would also have a den. Each of the residential units
would contain a two-car garage; most of these garages (76) are proposed as tandem parking (10 ft.
wide x 40 ft. long) and will accommodate two cars. The remaining 28 units would have standard
two-car garages (20 ft.wide x 20 ft. long). The project also provides 27 visitor parallel parking spaces
(not required by development standards) located along the southern property line. In addition, the
project provides approximately 35,730 square feet of usable private and common open space.
Private open space (approximately 13,560 sq. ft.) is represented by private decks, and balconies,
while common open space (approximately 22,170 sq. ft.) is in the form of courtyards and paseos that
provide useable open space and pedestrian connections from the site to the Palomar Street Trolley
Station, as well as access to the south where a future neighborhood park is envisioned by the 2005
General Plan. Access to the site is from driveway entrances on Frontage Road and Industrial
Page 4, Item:
Meeting Date: 10/24/07
Boulevard, which connect to a private driveway aisle that extends east to west along the southern
property line. This driveway also provides street access for second phase of the project. There is no
direct access into the site from Palomar Street.
The second phase, located on the eastern-most portion of the site (Lot 2) with an approximate area of
0.89 acres, is proposed to be developed with the mixed-use residential/commercial element that
would contain an affordable housing component. This phase of the project includes a podium
building structure with 5,000 to 10,000 square feet of commercial space on the first floor, 50
residential units on the upper floors of the building and associated parking spaces on the first floor
and subterranean level.
Overall, the mixed-use project consists of 154 Townhome units (see Attachment 4, Concept Plans).
The residential buildings in Phase 1 contain a density of 26 dulac. The proposed density for Phase 2
would be 56.2 dulac. Total proposed density for the combined project is 32 dulac. Overall, the site
density is within the range of the General Plan mixed-use designation and maximum pennitted
density for mixed-use projects under the proposed Central Commercial zone (32 dulac).
At this time, Phase 2 of the project is designed on a very conceptual basis because this phase will not
be built by Olson. As a condition of project approval, and as an in-lieu fulfillment of their affordable
housing obligation, Olson Urban Housing will convey the 0.89-acre Phase 2 site at no cost to the City
of Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency. The Redevelopment Agency in turn will solicit
development proposals from other private developers and is conditioned through the Conditional Use
Pennit to comply with various design parameters and City regulations, including but not limited to:
. Mixed-use development at General Plan level densities to reach a minimum of 32 dulac for
the combined project (Phase 1 & 2);
. Significant architectural elements that continue to emphasize this site as a "Gateway" to
Southwest Chula Vista;
. Mixed-use component to meet all development standards and processes;
. Neighborhood serving commercial component to be conveniently located in relation to the
transit station and storefronts that promote pedestrian activity along Palomar Street and
Industrial Boulevard;
. Internal connection to Phase 1;
. Continuous pedestrian access to transit;
. Integrated design elements with Phase 1; and
. Design review by the Redevelopment Advisory Committee and Chula Vista Redevelopment
Corporation.
In addition, the Agency will insure the affordable housing obligation of the project is met at the time
Phase 2 is constructed. This can be accomplished either through inclusion of 16 affordable units in
the podium building in Phase 2, or at an alternative site within the redevelopment project area, as
long as the alternative location provides the same or greater public benefit, and construction is
concurrent with that of Phase 2.
A concept building design and layout for Phase 2 has been provided for illustrative purposes
(Attachment 4) to convey the locational importance of this site as a gateway and the future detailed
Page 5, Item:
Meeting Date: 10/24/07
design expectations. Final development plans for Phase 2 will be prepared and taken through the
City's standard review process when a developer is on board.
3. Land Use and Zoning
The items being presented for the Planning Commission's consideration are the rezone of the 4.89-
acre site from the current CT-P (Commercial Thoroughfare with Precise Plan) to CC-P (Central
Commercial with Precise Plan) and the Precise Plan Modifying Standards.
As indicated in the table on page 3, the General Plan land use designation for the subject site is
Mixed Use -Transit Focus Area and the zoning designation is CT-P. The General Plan contains a
vision and a set of policies for the area, which envision the Palomar Gateway District providing
higher density mixed-use development near the trolley station, with less dense residential
development to the west and south of the station.
The project has been evaluated and complies with the relevant goals and policies of 2005 General
Plan. The regulatory tools to implement the General Plan include the proposed rezone to Central
Commercial (CC) and associated Precise Plan. The CC zone is the only existing zoning district
currently available that allows mixed use development. In addition, the site currently has a Precise
Plan ("P) Modifying District designation which pennits a precise plan to be developed. The Precise
Plan allows more urban development standards necessary to implement the 2005 General Plan. The
proposed Precise Plan Modifying Standards include the reduction of the front building setback from
the required 5 feet to a range of 0.5 to 6 feet from the property line, exterior side yard from 25 feet to
IS-SO feet, and the reduction in the usable open space square footage from the required 46,720
square feet to 35,730 square feet, as discussed in more detail below.
Other discretionary actions required for project implementation include a tentative subdivision map
for lot consolidation (PCS-07-01), a design review detennination (DRC-05-039), and a conditional
use pennit (pursuant to 19.36.030 and 19.58.205) to allow residential development within the CC-P
Zone. Pursuant to CVMC Section 2.55.050, the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation will
review these additional required entitlements and provide a recommendation, along with the
Planning Commission's recommendation on the rezone and Precise Plan, to the City Council for
final consideration and approval.
4. Development Standards
The mixed-use development has been evaluated using the Central Commercial (CC) zone
development standards, which allow mixed-use projects through the issuance of a conditional use
pennit. Chula Vista Municipal Code 19.58.205 requires mixed-use developments to comply with the
R-3 standards for residential density (CVMC 19.28.070) and open space (CVMC 19.28.90) as further
described below.
The project also involves a request for modifications to certain development standards through a
precise plan. Specifically, the applicant is requesting (1) a reduction in the open space requirem~nts,
and (2) a reduction in the required front and a portion ofthe exterior side yard setback to facilitate the
development of this project. Below is a table with infonnation on the project and the required
Page 6, Item:
Meeting Date: 10/24/07
development standards, as well as the proposed standards of the project. Additionally, although the
project meets City parking standards in tenns of the number of garage parking spaces provided (two
per unit), the majority of the garages (76) provide tandem parking (one space behind the other)
instead of side by side parking.
622-020-05,51,65, and 68
CT-P - Commercial Thorou fare Zone
CC- P - Central Commercial Zone
Mixed Use/TF A - Transit Focus Area
1.85 acres 46% of site)
4.0 acres
Phase 1:
Setbacks (per CC zone or building line
map):
Front Yard (palomar St.): 5 feet
Exterior Side Yard (Frontage Rd.): 25
feet
Rear Yard: 15 feet
Interior Side Yard: 0 feet
0.5-6 feet
15 - 50 feet
44 feet
17 feet
Phase 2
Palomar Street and Industrial Blvd: 5 feet To be determined
(per building line map)
Phase 1
Parking (per CYMC 19.62.050)
Residential (2/du) 208 spaces
Guest 0 spaces
Total 208 spaces
208 spaces
27 spaces (7 spaces on Lot 2)
235 spaces
Phase 2
Building Height (per CC zone)
To be detennined
No height restrictions -
Phase One:
Buildings: 40 - 42 feet
Tower elements: 52 feet
Residential Density per R-3 zone:
32 units per acre
Phase 1: 26 units per acre
Phase 2: 56 units er acre
Page 7, Item:
Meeting Date: 10/24/07
Total site: 32 units per acre
Open Space Requirements (per R - 3
zone)
Phase 1
46,720 square feet 35,730 square feet
Phase 2 To be detennined
As the infonnation on the table above shows, most of the development standards are met by the
proposed development of Phase 1, except the front building setback along Palomar Street, a portion
of the exterior side yard setback along Frontage Road, and required amount of usable open space.
The following section provides a discussion of the project's requested modified standard from the
building setbacks and open space requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
Building Setbacks:
The building line map establishes building setbacks for many areas of the City and, where it applies,
it supercedes that development standard of the CC zone. For the project boundaries, the building line
map establishes setbacks for Palomar Street and Industrial Boulevard only. Along both Palomar
Street and Industrial Boulevard the building setback is 5 feet. The setback for the buildings along
Palomar Street is proposed to be 0.5 to 6 feet in order to create a more urban interface of the building
with the sidewalk and street. This design promotes pedestrian activity and enhanced access to the
trolley station. Along Frontage Road, the required exterior side yard setback of the CC zone is 25
feet. The project's exterior side yard setback is proposed to vary from 15 feet to 50 feet. Additional
discussion is provided in the Precise Plan section of this report.
Open Space:
Residential projects are required to provide on-site open space for residents to enjoy. The Chula
Vista Municipal Code Section 19.28.090 requires the provision of 400 square feet of usable open
space for one and two-bedroom units, and 480 square feet for units with 3 or more bedrooms. The
open space may be provided in the fonn of common usable open space areas, private patios,
balconies, or common recreational facilities. In accordance with the standards set forth by Section
19.28.090 and the proposed unit mix (40 one and two-bedroom and 64 three-bedroom), the total
usable open space requirement for the project would be 46,720 square feet. The project's proposed
usable open space is 35,730 square feet. This represents a difference of 10,990 square feet of use able
open space, which represents a deficit of approximately 24%. The proposed 35,730 square feet of
open space includes common exterior open space, such as common areas and paseos, and private
open space such as decks and balconies.
Page 8, Item:
Meeting Date: 10/24/07
5. Analysis
The project has been evaluated in accordance with the goals and objectives of the Chula Vista 2005
General Plan (see Attachment 5), the Zoning Ordinance and the Amended and Restated
Redevelopment Plan (2004). It is noted that the 2004 Redevelopment Plan refers to the General Plan
and Zoning Ordinance for land use guidance.
Rezone
As indicated previously, the proposed project site is currently zoned CT-P, which is a commercial
zone that does not allow residential development. With the recent update of the General Plan, the
Montgomery Specific Plan was repealed and replaced with a new vision for this area of the
southwestern portion of the City. The General Plan Land Use and Transportation (LUT) Policy 43.4
and 43.5 for .this area state that development projects:
"Provide a mix of uses with a focus on retail and some office uses along Palomar Street in
the Mixed Use Transit Focus Area, with residential uses above and/or behind the retail and
offices uses. JJ and;
"Provide a mix of local-serving retail and office uses near the Palomar Trolley Station and
at the Gateways into the Palomar Gateway District. JJ
The CT-P zone does not allow residential development and therefore would not implement the General
Plan. For this area of the City, the CC zone is the only zoning tool currently available to implement
the 2005 General Plan mixed use designation and thus would contribute to the public convenience and
general welfare.
In relation to residential density within the area, LUT Policy 43.6 of the General Plan states:
"In the Palomar Gateway District, residential densities within the Mixed Use Transit Focus
Area designation are intended to have a district-wide gross density of 40 dwelling units per
acre. JJ
The overall project proposes 154 units on 4.89 acres, which results in a density of 32 dwelling units
per acre. This density is consistent with the City's General Plan policy for the site and represents the
maximum density permitted by the proposed CC zone. While this is less than the goal of 40 du/ac
for the entire Palomar Gateway District, it is equally important to provide a mix of densities
throughout the District, with higher densities adjacent to the trolley station as proposed on Lot 2 (56
duJac) and lower densities to the west and south of the subject site (26 duJac). It is anticipated that
more dense projects will be developed in the future that will bring the average density up to meet the
goal for the overall District. The proposed residential density would provide an urban, pedestrian-
oriented project design that would complement the Palomar Trolley Station and be compatible with
the surrounding land uses.
The General Plan provides further guidance on design and landscaping for the Palomar Gateway
through LUT Policy 43.11 and 43.12, stating:
Page 9, Item:
Meeting Date: 10/24/07
"..the improvement of Palomar Street as a gateway to the City. "
"Provide for safe, effective, and aesthetic pedestrian crossings and improvements to Palomar
Street and Industrial Boulevard. "
The SANDAG Transit Oriented Development grant project would provide 5 feet of landscaping
along Palomar with Cypress trees to create a long stately row on each side of the street and walkways
lined with Myrtle hedges to create a comfortable separation zone from busy traffic for pedestrians.
The pedestrian walkways will be 5 feet of sidewalk provided through the TOD grant with an
additional 1.5 feet provided by the Bayvista Walk to provide a total width of 6.5 feet of walkway,
and a total parkway width (landscape + walkway) of 11.5 feet. Bayvista Walk will further
compliment the grant project by incorporating plant species from the Palomar Street median into the
project site, provide urban architecture and a pedestrian oriented development, and dedicate an
easement to the City at the northwest comer of the project site for an entry monument. In addition,
the podium building will provide opportunity to incorporate a neighborhood serving commercial
component adjacent to the trolley station. These features will all contribute to a cohesive gateway
entrance to the Palomar Gateway District.
Overall, staffs review of the project and for the reasons stated herein, this project sets a positive
precedent for implementation of the new General Plan goals and objectives and for the revitalization
of the neighborhood.
CYMC 19.80 "Controlled Residential Develoument Ordinance" (aka Cummine:s Initiative)
In the late 1980's, a citizen initiative referred to as the "Cumming's Initiative" was passed by a
majority vote of the electorate and was incorporated as Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC)
Section 19.80 (Ord.2309 Initiative 1988). The Ordinance contains provisions that limit the rezoning
of a property. Section 19.80.070 (D) states that:
IIRezoning commercial. or industrial property to a residential zone shall be
permitted only to the maximum residential density corresponding to the potential
traffic generation that was applicable prior to the rezoning to residential. "
It should be noted that the proposed rezone is from commercial to commercial (CT -P to CC-P).
Nonetheless, since the CC-P zone allows residential development at an R-3 density, the following
analysis, as set forth in Section 19.80.070(D), provides a fonnula for comparing the potential
development under the CT -P zone and the proposed development.
For the proposed rezone, the comparison would be between the existing potential traffic generation
associated with the development under the existing CT-P zone and the corresponding maximum
residential density that could be pennitted. Based on standard traffic generation rates (SANDAG
2002 "Not So Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for The San Diego Region"),
commercial and office uses generate significantly greater traffic than residential uses. For example,
the existing 4.89 acre site (213,008 square feet) zoned CT-P would have the potential to develop up
Page 10, Item:
Meeting Date: 10/24/07
to a 319,512 square foot building. This is based on the CT-P zone's existing development standards
which allow 50% lot coverage (50% x 213,008 sq. ft. site = 106,504 sq. ft.) and up to a three story
height limit (3 stories x 106,504 sq. ft. per floor). Using SANDAG's standard traffic generation rates
for commercial uses (40 trips /1,000 square feet), a total of 12,780 trips would be generated from a
potential commercial building of that size.
Based on the criteria in Section 19.80.070 (D) above, the maximum residential density could not be
more than the potential traffic generated by the commercial use (i.e. 12,780 trips). This equates to up
to 2,130 multi-family units (12,780 trips divided by 6 trips per multifamily dwelling unit) on the 4.89
acre site, which would be 435 dulac. Pursuant to the November 2005 "Traffic hnpact Study"
prepared by Katz, Okitsu & Associates (KOA) this project has potential to generate 1,944 trips with
the combined residential and commercial components. Because commercial and office uses generate
significantly greater traffic than residential uses, a zone change from commercial to a multi-family
residential category could never result in residential traffic generation greater than the corresponding
potential traffic generation from a commercial development. Therefore, as illustrated above, zone
changes from commercial to a commercial zone that allows residential development would not
conflict with Section 19.80.070 (D) ofthe ordinance.
The project will be required to contribute its fair share towards the improvement of public services
and facilities through payment of the City's Development Impact Fees and other conditions of
approval. These include existing City Public Facilities Development hnpact Fees (PFDIF), park
acquisition and development (pAD) fees, sewer, traffic signal fees, as well as a future Western
Transportation Development hnpact Fee (WTDIF).
Parkine
As indicated above, the zoning ordinance's parking standards are met by the proposed project in
tenns of the number of garage parking spaces provided. Each residential unit has a two-car garage.
The majority of the garages provide tandem parking (one space behind the other) instead of side by
side parking. Ofthe 104 residential units, 76 have garages with tandem parking. Each of the spaces,
standard or tandem, would be assigned to an individual unit and contained within an enclosed garage
for the unit. CVMC 19.62.020 (E) indicates that tandem parking shall not qualify as required
parking unless specifically approved by the Planning Commission. This review and approval
authority has been transferred to the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation pursuant to CVMC
2.55.050. Staff will recommend that the CVRC consider the proposed tandem parking as part of the
required parking. Staff believes that in this particular case tandem parking within a lOft x 40 ft.
garage serves the same purpose as side by side parking. A garage of 400 square feet of space can still
accommodate two vehicles and the two spaces would be available to the residents of the assigned
unit. In addition, the project proposes to provide 27 Guest spaces along the southern driveway. Staff
also believes that this parking situation takes on a lesser importance because the proposed project is
so close to the trolley station and allows for a more compact development at the densities envisioned
by the General Plan. The proximity to the trolley station offers residents an important public transit
alternative to the private automobile.
Page 11, Item:
Meeting Date: 10/24/07
Precise Plan Standards
The purpose of the Precise Plan modifying district ("P" modifier) is to allow diversification in the
spatial relationship of land uses, density, buildings, structures, landscaping and open spaces, as well
as design review of architecture and signs through the adoption of specific conditions of approval for
development of property in the City. Within the boundaries of the "P" district, the location, height,
size and setbacks of buildings or structures, open spaces, signs and densities indicated on the precise
plan must take precedence over the otherwise applicable regulations of the underlying zone.
Pursuant to CYMC 19.56.041, the "P" modifying district may be applied to areas within the City
when one or more circumstances are evident, including:
"The subject property, or the neighborhood or area in which the property is located, is
unique by virtue of topography, geological characteristics, access, configuration, traffic
circulation or some social or historic situation requiring special handling of the development
on a precise plan basis. "
The project site already has the "P" modifying district established on it (i.e. CT.P zone). However,
since no actual criteria for implementation of the precise plan was previously developed at the time of
establishment of the "P" modifier on the 4.89-acre site, such standards are now being requested in
order to implement a precise plan. The applicant has requested that the Precise Plan and Modifying
Standards be applied to the project site to allow reduction of the front and exterior side yard building
setback, and usable open space. While the proposed precise plan standards would deviate from the
adopted Zoning Ordinance, the site design would be compatible with surrounding land uses as
described below.
Modified Standard for Building SetbackJ
The subject property is unique by virtue of its location within the General Plan's Mixed-Use Transit
Focus Area and next to the Palomar Trolley Station. The General Plan calls for compact and high
density developments with an urban and pedestrian orientation. The Palomar Trolley Station offers a
unique opportunity for the development of a truly pedestrian-oriented development, which allows
residents of the proposed development to walk to and use the Trolley Station instead of depending on
the private automobile for transportation. Thus, the building should have an urban and pedestrian-
oriented character.
As indicated previously, the required building setback per the building line map is 5 feet from the
property line. The proposed building structures fronting on Palomar Street have a setback of 0.5 to 6
feet from the property line. The building setback along Palomar Street is intentionally reduced to
create a more urban edge or interface of the proposed building and the sidewalk and Palomar Street.
While the proposed setback would deviate from the building line map, the reduction in the setback
would afford the project a more urban and pedestrian-oriented character by being closer to the
sidewalk, as compared with a suburban type of development with larger front setbacks. There are 32
units fronting along Palomar Street designed with six-foot deep patios adjacent to the proposed 6.5
foot wide sidewalk. This is designed to encourage pedestrian activity and provide direct access to the
Trolley Station. Furthennore it activates the street, which is a common design element found in
Page 12, Item:
Meeting Date: 10/24/07
urban locations. Placing the front buildings closer to the sidewalk allows for a better balance between
open space and buildings on the lot. Larger open space areas as well as pedestrian corridors can be
provided between building structures while, at the same time, maintaining the desired density of the
proj ect.
Along Frontage Road, the required exterior side yard setback of the CC zone is 25 feet. The project's
exterior side yard setback is proposed to vary from 15 feet to 50 feet. A reduced side yard setback is
only proposed at the comer of Palomar Street and Frontage Road and then widens up to 50 feet south
along Frontage Road. The modified standard at the corner allows the building to be more prominent
at this entryway and makes more of a gateway statement than would otherwise be possible using the
more suburban standard of 25 feet.
Due to the orientation of existing development on adjacent properties, no negative impact is
anticipated as a result of the proposed setback modifications.
Modified Standard for Open Space
As indicated previously, the Chula Vista Municipal Code section 19.28.090 requires a total of 46,720
square feet of usable open space, based on the project's proposed unit mix. The project's proposed
open space is 35,730 square feet, which represents a difference of 10,990 square feet (24% reduction)
of use able open space.
The open space provided by the proposed project consists of one large common area (5,800 sq. ft.) in
the northern section of the property, next to Palomar Street, that contains a variety of elements
including a tot lot, grassy area, barbeque pits and several arbors, and is protected by a decorative and
gated wall along Palomar Street. Another common area (4,380 sq. ft.) is located along Frontage
Road and is made up of concrete surfaces and concrete benches, grassy areas and landscaped areas,
which serve for passive recreation. A third major common area is represented by a paseo that
extends along the center of the site, between the interior building structures, in a north-south
direction. This area offers a major pedestrian connection between the southern driveway, pedestrian
access to the south through a pedestrian gate, to the large common area and Palomar Street. Another
open space element that is part of the proposed project is represented by decks and balconies at each
of the residential units.
Staff has been working with the applicant on a variety of ways to enhance the proposed open space
areas in order to make it more useable for the residents and reduce the open space deficit to the
maximum extent possible. Following is a list of enhancements that have been incorporated into the
plans and others that have been recommended by staff, as well as the RAC:
. Design elements and features, such as benches and raised flowerbeds with seating areas, to
be part of the common areas located on Frontage Road and Palomar Street to increase the
usability of these open space areas.
. Paseos that run along the interior buildings and which provide appropriate useable open
space as well as serve as pedestrian connections to Palomar Street and the Trolley Station.
Page 13, Item:
Meeting Date: 10/24/07
. Decks and balconies in each of the residential units that count toward the open space
requirements.
. Staff has discussed with and requested that the Applicant add rooftop patios with sitting
areas and urban landscape elements to some of the units to serve as a recreation space. The
addition of rooftop patios is an important element because it contributes to reduce the open
space deficit and also takes advantage of the San Diego Bay views from the top of the
building structures, giving credence to the name of the project.
All of these improvements would maintain the desired density of the project, while increasing the
amount of high quality usable open space by incorporating urban landscape elements and minimize
the gap between the proposed open space and CVMC open space requirements. While the project
has incorporated the first three items, staff continues to recommend the incorporation of private
rooftop patios into some of the units to further reduce the gap between the CVMC requirement and
the final open space plan presented by Olson. Rooftop patios could be incorporated into the end
units of each of the eight nine-plexes (located south of Palomar Street). This would achieve an
addition of approximately 6,400 sq. ft. (16 units x 400 sq. ft.) of usable open space, bringing the gap
to only 10% of the required open space.
Other Entitlements
Approval of a conditional use permit that would allow residential development to be constructed as
part of a mixed-use commercial retail development within the C-C zone will be considered by the
Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation for recommendation to the City Council. In addition to
being consistent with General Plan policy for the project site, the CUP would ensure development
that is compatible with the surrounding land uses. An associated tentative map would consolidate the
four existing lots into two parcels for purposes of condominium ownership of the 104 residential units
of Lot 1 and 50 multi-family residential units and commercial uses of Lot 2. The project also requires
design review and approval to be considered by the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation.
The proposed project has been reviewed for consistency with the City of Chula Vista Design Manual
and Landscape Manual. Final landscape and irrigation plans will be required to be reviewed and
approved by the City Landscape Planner for compliance with the City Landscape Manual prior to
issuance of building permits.
6. Conclusion
The proposed CC-P zone for the site is consistent with and implements the goals and objectives of
the General Plan. The proposed CC-P zone is an implementing zone of the existing Transit Focus
Area land use designation in that it allows the development of commerciaVresidential mixed-use
project, as called for by the vision and policies of the General Plan, and is therefore appropriate and
consistent with the designation. The proposed project components are appropriate due to the site's
adjacency to both commercial and residential development, as well as adequate existing
infrastructure. The project also meets the overall goals and objectives of the 2004 Amended and
Restated Redevelopment Plan regarding removal of blight and providing physical improvements to
this redevelopment area. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend
Page 14, Item:
Meeting Date: 10/24/07
approval of the Zone Change (from CT-P to CC-P) and Precise Plan Modifying Standards for open
space and building setbacks to the City Council.
7. Decision Maker Conflicts
Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the Planning Commission members and has found no
property holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property which is the subject of this action.
Attachments
1. Locator Map
2. Aerial Map
3. Mitigated Negative Declaration
4. Concept Plans
5. General Plan Southwest Planning Area - Palomar Gateway District
6. Development Application with the following appendices:
Appendix A - Project Description and Justification
Appendix B - Disclosure Statement
Appendix C - Development Pennit Processing Agreement
7. Draft City Council Ordinance
8. Planning Commission Resolution
.
.
.
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.,
,
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
!j':
.
I
.
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
I
,
-
I
(]I
...,.,
"""
(t)
~
Q
.
.
1\
.
rno \
om \
Attachment 1
PROJECT
LOCATION
Morsat Cf.
,
"
LOCATOR
C)
NORTH
....
City of Chula Vista
Bayvista Walk
......
ATTACHMENT 2
,..
~
LOCATOR
C9
Bayvista Walk
NORTH
...
~
ATTACHMENT 3
Mitigated Negative Declaration
PROJECT NAME:
Bay Vista Walk
PROJECT LOCATION:
. .
Southwest corner of Palomar Street & Industrial Boulevard
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.:
622-020-05,51,65, & 68
PROJECT APPLICANT:
The Olson Company
CASE NO.:
IS-05-0 12
I
DATE OF DRAFT DOCUMENT:
July 25, 2007
DATE OF FINAL DOCUMENT:
Prepared by: Benjamin Guerrero, Senior Planner
A. Proiect Setting
The project site consists of a vacant 4.89 area located east of 1-5 and is bounded by Palomar
Street to the north, Industrial Boulevard to the east and Frontage Road to the west. The site is
in an urbanized area in the southwestern portion of the City of Chula Vista (See Figure 2 -
Aerial Map). Topography across the site is relatively flat and the property is devoid of
vegetation. The site is surrounded by residential and commercial development as follows:
North: Commercial, Multi-Family residences, Single Family residences
"East: Palomar Trolley Station
South: Single-Family residences
West: Palomar Inn, Trailer Park
B. Proiect Description
The project proposes to develop in two phases a mixed-use multi-family residential
development and approximately 5,000 to 10,000 square feet of commercial retail space on a
4.89-acre site (See Figure 3). LotJPhase 1 would consist of 104 residential townhomes on
four acres housed in ten separate structures. The townhomes are proposed as three-story
structures with 2-car garages. Lot/Phase 2 would be a mixed-use podium building consisting
of 5,000 to 10,000 square feet of commercial retail area on the first floor with the remaining
second through fifth floors consisting of 50 residential units. The City required parking for
the mixed-use podium would be provided in a subterranean garage. The project will require
City. approval of the following applications: a zone change from existing CT-P
(Thoroughfare Commercial Precise Plan) to CCD-P Zone (Central Commercial
DistrictlPrecise Plan); a conditional use pennit (CUP) approval to allow residential
development in the R-3 zone; a Precise Plan approval; and a tentative subdivision map
approval.
1
'"
Reference: U.S.G.S., 1967. Imperial Beach Quadrangle California
7.5' Series (Topogrcphic). Photorevised 1975.
San Diego County,
,
N
I
o
2000
4000
~~-.,.....
APPROXIMATE SCALE (FEET)
QUADRANGLE LOCATlON
PREPARED FOR:
THE ul..SON COMPANY
FIGURE:
765.781, & 795 PALOMAR STREET
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
SITE LOCATION MAP
1
JOB NUMBER:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
APPROVED BY:
DATE:
pi.. ". ~\~ - ~~~.
j"I-": . .
. '.~.:\~...."\.
. ..~ .ro. '-
_ I .... P"!o...... 4
"
~~"i~l'ir',,:;:f'
· '."( .... f
'.
.~ ..
,. \
C)
NORTH
L\Gabe Fil~s\Projects C1 ReOJE.sto'\Ben G~~rrero\Bay Vista 18-05-012\B;1Y Vista Walk Aerial ai 07.25.07
City of Chula Vista
Bay Vista Walk
AERIAL MAP
Project Location
Figure 2 ..... Ci~ Boundary
~
a
~'
m
"tI
~
10;"
(I)
~ - - -BA~-eOUl.EVARO
gt
I ~ ,IN~RST ,:re 5
':y .. ~. I
_----f,/ _"- _------- ---;----- - i
~ ~ I
I " /tON · J ) \
I '........:?.<1GE ....-~'
I ~. .__~OAD: I L\-;~
_ _ -+-- ~ ~~\' - t:'
: . ~ , - , - J./i\i\";
I . . \) ~
Li1 . I ~ I'",.'
tT~ n.A~ t~)~~~ '~~ ~ !
11'- M6tM~ M1^~ ~~~ I!
-11- _ ~ t>~ I:
I i' C> I :!3~~
c> I c::=.1D
. I JimmVm c- - ----.: a:o:
~H ' h-' vvv"'vt n" - W 1 \ i !~ ~
0)' ::r .... ... I 'II !I I Qj" (I) ~
nn!: 1& I ~~~ I I I -r-
~g;t '\ I ~ I: ~Q~
"=Qj" ~ ~ c> I Q';c,,::I
." ~. : _ _ _ _ _ _ ':-'!:: '~IA ~ - - A t'l' 'e>' i'.' o.
a~" I 1l!.AIAI L- " GG · c-<> 'I " .. ~
!g~' II ~A~M Mi^6ru ~F:.: I. I! i[
'" 8" Qj" . _ T ~ 11 1:>1- : I ~ V 3'
6' I I ~:;: I I I ...
. ~ ,UVVV'!J.V :!JVVI ~ i! 1),-- a
L: !U~VVI VI m ",j/; i
~~~~:.;u .~ Ill! , ~ I i
_-----~ ~ ~~ n ~~.. ~TAA' ~ ;]1 l ! ~ I \,~",
III. -- h LJLJ I' I 0 I ~
! III ~ ~M M AAAAI~ i ' i I ~ I ~(\~~.
A ;::. , , . I c-'c- :," ~\,11
/' ~ I u~~VVVV vv.~ EF7- \ II ~ F\~ ('
( i JVf'i~t' ~1t\lf:;~ ! ~ \ !
I:) . I~" ':m :
!II I : I JI - l~c; i I" II !
~ I : t AAA;~"AAi! .,...~k:' i
~ I______~ If- ~M A~ M ~~I^II ~ ~~ i I:
_ I ;; . I I>=- I I 'I V
IU I I- .. I ~ ., I --
-< .. 1" ' I ~- " "
~ I = ; j ... ~VV~V 1VVVVV I \"' :c>" iil"11 r' -
~ I :' II VV'I ~ VI ~V~.,. c-,c- U< I
!l' : i~IJ~ ~"~-~::t ;' :L<...~_; 1
~ L___ ':'..-1. \.~ITi.ITfITlmr '.: ! I \
~ I; I I ., '! . I\f · ,
; I r~" · I~' LJ 1,/
1, : i ~@ Pi~)~ rs' ,/
.. i I I- i,\\' \r~ \ 1/
I Rill\\y"~/h- ,Y
~G /- ,! ""A?' / l
. r i J~r /~~~\ ~h
I A'/ y /' ;q\iJ'>S g 1/1 ~
. \../ ","" ).~~
I \ "" ^o~ ~ ::a III
//;// ",,) .J.t...1"\\' a
/ ~I" :~~
\'V\ ,/' ~ :;-! c6'
'. ./' ~iii ;
1/1"-
ctOID
Qj"~Q.
-a"
02_0
........
!i~
"-
, ,
~
"
------
----
..
~
i>
~
~
S.,'
(/).
~
~
~
~
(/).
~
P-3
t.:::j.
~
~'
>
Z
02:U
I:: CD
::::;:
Q,-"
="....
CQ
O';}'
;ti-
c en
i=;t
~ ;.
c,,=
ir~
~:s
::I ;
n
"
:j!'
~
. ~
...
~
=
.,
~
~
l
C. Compliance with Zoning and Plans
The existing zoning of the project sites is CT -P (Thoroughfare Commercial Precise Plan).
The applicant proposes a change of zone from the existing CT.P (Thoroughfare Commercial
Precise Plan) to CCD.P Zone (Central Commercial DistrictlPrecise Plan). The General Plan
designation is Transit Focus Area (TF A). The proposed project will be consistent with the
regulations of the CCD Zone and with the goals and policies of the General Plan designation
once approval of a conditional use permit and zone change is granted. A Precise Plan will
also be processed as part of the rezoning application in order to prepare specific development
standards for the proposed proj ect.
- Land Use Analysis
The project site is part of the Palomar Gateway District, and is designated by the 2005
General Plan as a Mixed.Use Transit Focus Area. General Plan Objective LUT 43 calls for
the establishment of a Mixed Use Area around the Palomar Trolley Station and provides a set
of detailed policies in terms of development uses, intensity, design and amenities for the
District.
In addition to the General Plan objective and policies, an urban design strategy, entitled
"Palomar Gateway TOD District Conceptual Development Strategy" was developed to
provide further direction for transit-oriented design. Combined, these two documents seek to
ensure goals of the District are met, such as: urban development with low. and high-rise
development, higher density, clustering residential and retail (mixed-use), affordable housing
opportunities, providing a "Gateway" entrance, and pedestrian cOlUlectivity to the trolley
station and future neighborhood park on Oxford Street.
Int~nsity/Height
The proposed project includes two phases of development. The first phase provides 104
residential condominiums proposed on Lot 1 at a density of 26 DUlAC in three-story
townhome building structures. The second phase (Lot 2) includes the construction of a
mixed-use, podium building with 5,000-10,000 square feet of street level retail uses and 50
residential units on floors two through five for a density of 56.2 DUlAC on the comer of
Industrial Boulevard and Palomar, closest to the trolley station.
Between Lots 1 and 2, the project provides a mix oflow- (3 stories) and mid-rise (5 stories)
buildings per LUT Section 43.8. In addition, the podium building provides street level retail
development with residential uses above and behind it for a combined density for Lots 1 and
2 of 31.5 DUlAC. While this is less than the goal of 40 DUlAC for the entire Palomar
Gateway District as mentioned in Section 43.6 of the LUT, it is equally important to provide
a mix of urban solutions in the District, with higher densities adjacent to the trolley station as
proposed on Lot 2. It is anticipated that more dense projects will be developed in the future
that will bring the average density up to meet the goal for the overall District.
The General Plan and urban design strategy also identify objectives to provide affordable
housing close to the transit center and pedestrian connectivity to both the trolley station and
2
future neighborhood park. As proposed, Lot 2 will be conveyed to the City for future
development of affordable and market rate housing. While the developer's inclusionary
requirement is 10% of the total project, or 16 units, this project wi1lleverage additional
affordable units since projects with City participation have a higher inclusionary requirement
of 15% or 23 units. In addition, BayVista Walk residents will have access to the trolley
station to the northeast and future neighborhoo'd park to .the south through a system of
internal pedestrian walkways, a main pedestrian paseo, enhanced pavement features, and
direct access along Palomar Street for 32 units in Lot 1 with front doors adjacent to the
sidewalk.
Overall, the combined project provides consistency with goals and objectives of the General
Plan Palomar Gateway District /
D. Public Comments
On May 6,2005, a Notice of Initial Study was circulated to property owners within a 500-foot radius
of the project site. The public comment period ended on May 16, 2005. No comments were
received.
E. Identification of Environmental Effects
An Initial Study conducted by the City of Chula Vista (including an attached Environmental
Checklist fonn) determined that the proposed project would not have a significant environmental
effect because of mitigation measures incorporated into the project, and 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.
Air Quality
An air quality impact analysis was prepared by EDA W, Inc. (August 2006) for the proposed project.
Following is a summary of the results and recommendations of this air quality report.
Short- Term Impacts
The proposed project will result in a minor increase in air pollutants during the construction phase of
the project. Fugitive dust would be created during grading and construction activities. Air quality
impacts resulting from construction-related operations are considered short-tenn in duration since
construction-related activities are temporary. Dust control measures required during construction
operations would be implemented in accordance with the rules and regulations of the County of San
Diego Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and the California Air Resources Board. Mitigation
measures contained in Section F below would mitigate short-tenn construction-related air quality
impacts to below a level of significance.
There is also a potential for exceeding the volatile organic compounds (VOC) thresholds. During the
construction phase, architectural coatings are applied that produce these emissions. Further
discussion of this is found below under the heading Construction in this Air Quality Section.
Mitigation measures contained in Section F below would mitigate short-term construction-related air
quality impacts to below a level of significance.
3
Long-Term Impacts
The project site is located within the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB). Based on the Traffic Impact
Study prepared by Katz, Okitsu & Associates. (Novembe~ 2005), the project would generate
approximately 1,750 new daily trips. The morning peak hour traffic resulting from the project would
be equivalent to 105 driveway trips and the evening peak hour would result in 166 driveway trips
being generated. The gross number of trips was reduced by ten percent because of the proximity and
access to the San Diego Trolley. Occupancy of the homes and opening of the businesses would be
completed in 2007.
The information provided in Table 1 shows the current South coast Air Quality Management District
. (SCAQMD) CEQA significance thresholds. The City has traditionally used the significance
emissions thresholds of the SCAQMD, which is responsible for air quality in the urbanized areas of '
Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside counties. The air quality in the SCAQMD is
much worse than the San Diego Air Basin; therefore, the SCAQMD thresholds are very conservative
for the San Diego area.
SCA MD Air
Pollutant
NOx
VOC
PMlO
Sox oxides of sulfur
CO
Lead (pb
Source: SCAQMD 2005
55
55
150
150
550
3
Construction
onstruction 1l11SS10nS - ayvls a a eve opmen: pr01 ec
Year and Activity Pollutant Emissions (pounds per day)
VOC NOx CO PMIO
2006
Grading Phase 15.7 124J 114J 30.&
Building Phase 17.9 134.9 134.1 31.1
Maximum day 17.9 134.9 134.1 31.1
2007
Building Phase 128.2 142.1 152.2 6.2
Maximum day 128.2 142.1 152.2 6.2
Significance Threshold (iTom Table 1) 75 100 550 150
Building - with VOC limit of 200 grams per liter
coatings, aqueous diesel fuel, and lean-Nox catalysts
for diesel engine construction equipment. 73.2 97.1 152.2 2.4
C
Table 2
. E" B' t W IkD
t . t
Demolition, grading, and building phases are sequential and do not overlap. Maximum day is the
maximum from any phase. Bold value = exceeds threshold
4
As shown on Table 2 above, there is a potential for exceeding the volatile organic compounds (VOC)
threshold of 75 pounds per day. The principal source of these VOC emissions is derived from the
architectural coatings that are applied to the buildings. A reduction of architectural coatings
emissions of 50 percent is required to reduce the emissions to below the 75 pounds per day threshold.
This can be accomplished by the use of general flat and non-flat coatings that average 125 grams of
Vex: per liter. If an average VOC content of 125 g/L cannot be achieved, then the time of
application should be extended accordingly. With these limitations and changes, the VOC
significance threshold would not be exceeded, as shown in Table 2.
Also shown in Table 2 above, during the grading and building phases in 2006 and the building phase
of 2007, there is a potential for exceeding the NOx threshold of 100 pounds per day. URBEMIS
provides mitigation measures to reduce emissions from heavy construction equipment, including the
required use of aqueous diesel fuel, and lean-NOx catalyst. With these requirements, the NOx
significance threshold would not be exceeded, as shown in Table 2. Also as shown in Table 2, the
use of these measures would reduce PMlo emissions as well.
Operations
The estimated operational emissions for this project are shown in Table 3 below. As shown on this
table, none of the CEQA significance thresholds would be exceeded during operation of the project.
The URBEMIS model was used to calculate the input and output data.
tions Emissions - Ba
YEAR AND ACTIVITY
2007- 148 units occupied & VOC
commercial uses in 0 eration
Area errrissions 11.1
Vehicle emissions 18.7
Total 0 erations emissions 29.8
CEQASignificance Thresholds 55
able 1)
Values are rounded to the 1/10 pound per day; totals may not add due to rounding.
EMISSIONS
CO
(LBS. Per Da
PMIO
1.3
23.8
25.2
55
2.0
233.1
235.1
550
o
23.2
23.2
150
Paleontological
A paleontological record search and resource assessment was completed for the project site by Brian
F. Smith & Associates on May 2, 2005. The compiled data were used to assess paleontological
resource sensitivity issues in relation to' proposed Project grading, construction, operation and
maintenance activities. The assessment was based both on mO\vn paleontological site within the
Project area, as well as extrapolated biostratigraphic information derived from rock units in adjacent
areas or areas of regional context which indicate the potential for a fossil resource to occur in
particular geologic unit. Even though there are no mown significant fossil resources found at the
project site, the report identified the project site as forming part of an area considered by experts in
the field of paleontology as having a "high paleontological resource sensitivity". This rating would
require .a paleontological monitoring and mitigation program. This means that the grading and
construction activities related to this project need to be monitored by a professional paleontologist.
Subsequently, if unique paleontological resources are discovered, all significant fossil material will
need to be collected, prepared, identified, and curated, and then placed into a state-designated
scientific repository. Compliance with the mitigation measure contained below in Section F would
avoid significant impacts to paleontological resources.
5
HazardslHazardous Materials
Soil Contaminants
The County of San Diego, Department of Environmental Health (DEH), is the lead agency for
approval of a soil remediation plan to clean up project site soils contaminated with pesticide
residuals. Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Reports were prepared by SECOR
International Inc., on June and December of 2004 for the subject site. Based on the historical
research, the Phase I report determined that the project site was used for agricultural purposes in the
past. The report cited the potential for soil contamilJation due to the use of pesticides as part of past
. agricultural operations.
SECOR subsequently prepared a Phase II subsurface soils investigation of the site on November 10,
2004. SECOR advanced 6 shallow soil borings across the eastern portion of the site. Three soil
samples identified quantities of pesticides above EP A Region 9 Preliminary Remediation Goals and
California hazardous waste levels for 4,4-DDT, 4,4 DDE (combined as DDM), and Toxaphene at
various locations in the eastern portion of the site. The lateral and vertical extent of the detected
pesticides was not defmed by this assessment. SECOR recommended that additional soil sampling be
conducted on-site. SECOR also recommended that a feasibility workplan be prepared in order to
detennine how to best manage the residual pesticides on-site.
SECOR conducted further soil sampling and prepared a remediation workplan that was subsequently
reviewed and approved on August 22, 2006 by the County of San Diego Environmental Health Land
and Water Quality Division. The SECOR report identified the organo-chlorine pesticide impact to be
found near the surface of the present soils in the eastern portion of the project site. The remediation
workplan prepared by SECOR recommends that the soils delineated with pesticides be placed on-site
in locations which will be overlain by roads, parking areas, or structural foundations, thereby
reducing the risk of contact with future residents or users of the project site. The impacted soils will
be covered with at least three feet of soil containing pesticides below any site clean up level. A
human health risk assessment will be prepared prior to the issuance of a grading permit and will need
to accompany any proposed corrective grading or capping operation.
Once remediation-grading operations are completed, the environmental consultants will prepare a
site activities report that will discuss the remediation activities, analytical results and maps
delineating fmallocation of impacted soils. The proposed soil remediation mitigation actions will
reduce any potential impact from conta~nated soils to less than significant.
Hvdrology
A Hydrology and Hydraulic Study report was prepared by Lundstrom and Associates on August 23,
2006 and approved by the City's Engineering Department. The study evaluated storm runoff under
existing conditions and compared it to the existing conditions plus project conditions (50-yer events).
The report assessed any potential drainage impact that could be caused, or aggravated by project
development. The project proposes to add 3.9 acres of impervious area in the fonn of rooftops, and
streets.
The hydrology report indicates that two basins will convey the majority of the stonnwater to existing
storm drain systems beneath Palomar Street and Industrial Boulevard. A hydraulic analysis done for
6
the 24-inch RCP beneath Palomar Street, demonstrates that the pipe has an existing capacity to
convey 22 cfs. The hydrology report indicates that a 50-yer runoff rate is 16.6 cfs, therefore there is
no adverse impact on the existing 24-inch RCP. A hydraulic analysis done for the 12-inch PVC
located beneath Industrial Boulevard shows that the pipe has an existing capacity to convey 2.5 cfs.
The proposed 50-year runoff rate is 2.6 cfs, therefore the existing 12-inch PVC will flow under
pressure. However, the hydraulic analysis shows that the condition satisfies the dry-lane requirement
since the headwater stays within the gutter and does not flow over the existing curb nor does it sheet
flow onto the street pavement. This condition would meet City approved standards according to City
Engineering staff and, therefore, would not result in any adverse impacts to public facilities or
surrounding properties.
Water Quality
The project site is vacant and has little to no impervious cover under this existing condition. The
project will add about 4 acres of impervious area to the project site. However, presently about 2.2
acres of off-site runoff impact the project site on the southerly boundary. Existing suburban
residential lots to the south generate this runoff. This runoff flows in a northerly direction through
the project site and is intercepted into an existing 24-inch RCP storm drainpipe that exists in Trenton
Avenue. The maj ority of the existing runoff generated from the site drains onto the adj acent Palomar
Street inlet. The runoff eventually discharges out into Chula Vista Bay located about 0.4 miles west
of the project site.
In order to properly manage water runoff from the proposed project, the project proposes to
incorporate the following management facilities and practices:
. Appropriate grading of pads to direct runoff away from structures on the site.
. Storm 9rain systems to direct on-site runoff to appropriate outfalls through a V orSentry
VS60 storm water treatment facility approved by the City of Chu1a Vista
. Directing roof runoff to landscaped areas before discharge to storm drains.
. Propose a vegetated swale with a sand filter in the southwest comer of the project site to treat
the runoff that is not directed to the V orSentry Unit.
. All runoff from the project area shall be directed to, and pre-treated by, a Treatment Control
Bmp before discharge to public storm drainage systems.
Compliance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Permit,
Order No. 2001-01 regulations including the preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) and a Monitoring Program Plan will be required. The implementation of water quality
Best Management Practices (BMPs) as described above will be required in accordance with the
NPDES General Permit and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Based upon the implementation
of standard engineering requirements and compliance with requirements of the SWPPP and BMPs,
water quality impacts would be reduced to a level below significance.
Noise
Noise Consultant Davy & Associates, Inc., prepared an acoustical analysis (October 2005) for the
prop"",,,d project. The study identified the primary noise source generator as traffic noise from
Palomar Street. . Additional noise generators are associated with traffiC along Interstate 5 and the
trolley transit station and the occasional freight train use of the rail lines located along the east side
of Industrial Avenue.
7
The City of Chula Vista employs the noise guideline levels that set the maximum noise level for
outdoor common useable areas found within a residential development as 65 CNEL. The City's
exterior noise standard for office buildings and commercial/retail property is 70 OOL.
Construction Noise
Pursuant to Section 17.24.050(J) of the Chula Vista Municipal.Code, noisy construction work (unless
associated with emergency repairs or health and safety matters) is not permitted in residential zoning
districts between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. during weekdays and between 10:00 a.m. and
8:00 a.m. Saturday and Sunday. Project construction work is anticipated to occur between the hours
of 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. weekdays only. This provision of the Municipal Code would ens~.e that
surrounding residents would not be disturbed by construction related noise during the most sensitive
periods of the day.
f
Traffic Noise
The existing and projected noise impacts are associated with increased traffic volumes along Palomar
Street and Industrial Boulevard. Based on actual noise monitoring at the project site, the acoustical
report states that the predominant noise generator is traffic on Palomar Street to the north and
Industrial Boulevard to the east of the project site. The measured equivalent ~oise level (LEQ) for
the north building line was 67.1 dB and the calculated CNEL was 69.1 dB. The measured equivalent
noise level (LEQ) for the east building line was 63.6 dB and the calculated OOL was 66.6 dB.
The traffic report prepared by Katz, Okitsu & Associates dated November 25, 2005 determined the
existing traffic volumes without the project as well as 2010 volumes with the project. These volumes
were used to calculate OOL increases for the year 2010. Based on the projected increase in traffic
along Palomar Street the CNEL along the north building line would increase by OJ dB to 69.4 dB.
The traffic increase along Industrial Boulevard would cause the OOL to increase by 1.4 dB for a
projected OOL of 68.0 dB along the East building line. Based on the acoustical report, standard
construction practice consisting of the use of 2X4 studs with R-l1 insulation, exterior stucco, interior
drywall, and standard glazing should provide a minimum A-weighted noise reduction of 20 dB. The
report concludes that if all north and east facing windows and glass doors in the first row of units
closest to Palomar Street and Industrial Boulevard are glazed with STC 29 glazing, the interior of the
buildings will be able to achieve a noise reduction of approximately 30 dB. Thus, the interior noise
levels will not exceed OOL 45 dB.
The project proposes an approximate 7,076 square foot recreational open space area about 30 feet
south of Palomar Avenue. The area will contain a water feature as well as climbing boulders and
BBQ areas. The recreational area will be subject to a measured equivalent noise level (LEQ) of 67.1
and a calculated OOL of 69.1 dB. Basf;:d on acoustical consultant reconunendations, potential noise
impacts to the recreational area will be reduced to less than 65 dB by the placement of a five-foot
high wall adjacent to the northerly line of proposed recreational area. With the placement of this
wall, potential noise impacts to the recreational area would be reduced to less than significant.
San Diego Trolley Rail Line
The Acoustical Analysis prepared by Davy & Associates, noise measurements were taken at the east
building line during San Diego Trolley pass-bys. The results of these calculations are summarized in
Table 1 below:
8
Table 1
Calculated ooL Noise Levels in dB For Train Pass-bys at the East Buildin2 Line
Source CNEL
Grade Crossing Bells 61.4 dB
Air-horn 60.7 .
In addition to the Trolley operations, the rail lines are used by one nightly freight train. The noise
sources emanating from the San Diego Trolley lines were summed up in order to calculate the CNEL.
The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 2 below:
Table 2
Ca,lculated Total CNEL Noise Levels in dB from the San D,iego Trolley and Freight Train and
Industrial Boulevard Traffic at the East Bnildin2 Line
Freight Grade Crossing Air-Horn ooL Industrial CNEL Total CNEL
CNEL Bell CNEL
63.3 dB 61.4 dB 60.7 dB 68.0 dB 70.4 dB
With the exterior OOL value of 70.4 dB, the buildings must provide an A-Weighted noise reduction
of 25.4 dB to achieve an interior OOL 45 value. Standard construction consisting of 2X4 studs
with R-ll insulation, exterior stucco, interior gypsum board and standard glazing provides a
minimum A-Weighted noise reduction of 20 dB. Glazing all east, north and south facing perimeter
windows and glass doors with a standard STC 29 glazing will result in a minimum noise reduction in
the interior of the units of 29 dB. The noise impacts from all sources will therefore be reduced to 45
OOL within the interiors of the proposed units. Central air conditioning systems will need to be
provided so that windows do not have to be opened during wann days. With the implementation of
the construction materials and central air conditioning units, noise reduction measures impacts from
noise sources will be reduced to a level of insignificance.
Exterior Useable Open Space
The Noise report also analyzed the potential noise levels for the proposed exterior living areas
including first floor patios and balconies (if these were to be counted as useable open space). The
analysis assumed the use of 60-inch high solid walls at the front of the patios and balconies. A solid
wall of this height will break the line-of-sight between the roadway and the ear height of a standing
person. The solid wall can be glass, plexiglass, wood or stucco. Following are tables that calculate
the OOL values in dB for the north and east facing patios/balconies.
Table 3
Calculated CNEL Values in dB for the North Facin2 Patios and Balconies
Floor CNEL
1st 64.1
2nd 64.2
3rd 63.0
9
Table 4
Calculated CNEL Values in dB for the East Facin2 Patios and Balconies
Floor OOL
1st 64.0
2nd 64.3
3rd . 64.2
4th 63.3
5th 63.0
Based on this analysis, all exterior patio open spaces will comply with the requirements of the City of
Chula Vista subject to compliance with the use of 60-inch high solid walls for the patios and
balconies if these are included in the open space requirements.
I
Noise Impact from the 1-5 Freeway
Noise monitoring results indicate that the noise from the 1-5 freeway was estimated to be in the low
50 dBA range. A scaled section from the 1-5 Freeway to the site was prepared by Lundstrom &
Associates Engineering (See Noise Report, Davy & Associates). The diagram shows that the line of
sight (LOS) from the 1-5 Freeway to the top floor of the proposed building is broken by intervening
topography and existing buildings. No adverse impacts from Freeway noise are noted.
Traffic
To identify potential traffic impacts associated with the development of the project, a traffic impact
study was prepared by Katz, Okitsu & Associates on September 2005. The traffic study projected
that the project will generate 1,944 daily driveway trips, with 117 trips occurring in the AM peak
hour and 185 trips occurring in the PM Peak hour, prior to applying trip rate reductions. Because the
project is a mixed-use development and is located nearby a transit station, a 10% daily and peak hour
transit/mixed-use reduction was applied to both the residential and commercial components.
Additionally, a 40% reduction was applied to the PM peak hour of the commercial component as
pass-by traffic (trips diverted from their primary route by less than one mile). With the reductions
applied, the final project driveway trips totaled 1,750, with 105 trips occurring in the AM peak hour
and 166 trips occurring in the PM peak hours.
The proposed project will take access from two driveways. The easterly project driveway, located on
Industrial Boulevard, will service both commercial and residential project traffic. The westerly-
located driveway, located on Frontage Road, will service residential traffic. An internal gate nearest
the Industrial Boulevard (see project site plan) is intended to separate commercial traffic from
residential traffic. The proposed project will provide the required number of parking spaces in
compliance with the City's zoning ordinance.
Short- Tenn Impacts (J ear 0 to 4)
Based on the traffic impact study results, the intersections of Frontage Road & Palomar Street and
Walnut Avenue & Palomar Street presently operate at a deficient level of service "F". Since the
project trips comprise less than 5% of the total intersection entering volume, the intersection impacts
would be deemed as cumulative impacts. Therefore, the project shall contribute a fair share amount
towards improvements, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.a
10
Long-Term Impacts (Horizon Year 2010)
Based on the traffic impact results, the intersections of Frontage Road and Walnut Avenue with
Palomar Street would operate a deficient level "F" under all conditions and for the Horizon Year
(2010). Since the project trips comprise less than 5% of the total intersection entering volume for
each of the intersections listed above, the intersection impacts -would be deemed as cumulative
impacts. Therefore, the project shall contribute a fair share amount towards improvements, to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Segment Impacts
A GMOC analysis conducted by the City ofChula Vista Engineering Department determined that the
Palomar segment corresponding to the project area. fohns part of an interchange arterial segment
criteria for evaluating segment impacts does not apply here. What does apply is the use of long-tenn
criteria, which permits an LOS D as long as the intersections operate at acceptable levels. After
mitigation is implemented along the Frontage and Palomar Street intersection, an segments will
operate at acceptable levels.
1-5 South Corridor Study
The Interstate 5 Freeway along with the I-80S freeway is a principal north-south interregional
freeway for movement of people and goods. The 1-5 provides access to major employment centers as
well as to residential areas including the City of Chula Vista. The segment between 1-5 and Frontage
RoadlWalnut Avenue forms part of the 1-5 south corridor and falls under the jurisdiction of the
California Department of Transportation .(CALTRANS). A major study known as the "Interstates
805/I-5 South Corridor Study" was prepared by SANDAG on June 2005 in association with Caltrans
and other regional agencies and cities, including the City of Chula Vista. The corridor study sought
to identify and assess transportation improvement options to enhance the mobility of inter-regional
and regional trips. Subsequent subregional studies are being undertaken by SANDAG in
conjunction with CALTRANS that will focus on refining the systems-level infrastructure
improvements for highways, arterials, and transit in coordination with local land use and
development plans.
With the implementation of freeway transportation improvements and services more travel choices
will be available. An alternative proposed by the study would reduce overall freeway congestion and
consequently congestion along the on and off ramps by significant amounts. This alternative would
provide for a mix of transit, high occupancy vehicle (HOY) lanes and mixed-flow lanes in order to
achieve congestion relief and a shift in travel mode from drive alone to both carpool and, in
particular, transit.
E. Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Impacts
Air Quality
1. The following air quality mitigation measures shall be implemented during grading and
construction:
a) Minimize simultaneous operation of multiple construction equipment units
b) Use aqueous diesel fuel and lean NOx catalysts for all heavy diesel engine construction
equipment
c) Use electrical construction equipment as practical
d) Use catalytic reduction for gasoline-powered equipment
11
e) Water the construction area twice daily to minimize fugitive dust
f) Pave pennanent roads as quickly as possible to minimize dust
g) Use electricity from power poles as opposed to mobile power generators
h) Pave last 100 feet of internal travel path prior to exiting onto a public street
i) Install wheel washers by a paved apron prior to vehicle entry on public roads
j) Remove any soil/dirt from public stre~ts within 30.minutes of occurrence
k) Suspend all soil disturbance and travel on unpaved surfaces if winds exceed 25 mph.
2. Prior to issuing a building permit, the Applicant/Developer shall provide a list of the
architectural coatings that will be used on the project demonstrating that the average VOC
content would not exceed 125 gIL, extend the time of application, or provide a plan that will
show that the combination or reduced VOC and.extended time of application will result in
emissions less than 55 pounds per day.
The air quality mitigation measures shall be shown on all applicable grading, and building plans and
details, notes, or as otherwise appropriate, and shall not be deviated trom unless approved in advance
in writing by the City's Environmental Review Coordinator.
Paleontological
3. The developer shall have a qualified paleontological monitor on the project site at all times
during mass grading, excavation, and utility trenching activities in order to mitigate potential
impacts to any undiscovered nonrenewable paleontological resources (i.e. fossils).
HazardslHazardous Materials
4. The applicant/developer shall comply with all the procedures and methodologies delineated in
the Revised Work Plan for Pesticide Assessment and Remediation prepared by SECOR
International Incorporated, dated August 4, 2006 and as approved on August 22, 2006, by the
County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health Land and Water Quality Division for
the project site. The remediation measures shall be implemented during the grading and
construction phase of development to the satisfaction of the City's Environmental Review
Coordinator.
Hvdrology and Water Ouality
5. In order to reduce potential water quality impacts, the applicant/developer shall be required to
comply with the National Pollu~ion Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations
including the preparation and implementation of a Construction Storm Water Management Plan
(CSWMP) and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The stormwater plan shall be
prepared pursuant to the provisions of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San
Diego Region Order No. 2001-01. The applicant/developer shall also implement water quality
Best Management Practices (BMPs) as approved by the City of Chula Vista NPDES Storm
Water Engineering Section.
6. All runoff from the project area shall be directed to, and pre-treated by, a Treatment Control
BMP before discharge to public storm drainage systems. The design of high efficiency BMP's
such as vegetated swales shall be in accordance with criteria established by the California
Stonnwater Quality Association in the California Stonnwater BMP Handbook (BMP#TC-30).
12
7. Prior to commencement of grading, temporary desilting and erosion control devices shall be
installed. Protective devices shall be provided at every storm drain inlet to prevent sediment
from entering the storm drain system. These measures shall be reflected in the grading and
improvement plans to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Environmental Review
Coordinator.
Noise
8. Pursuant to Section 17.24.050(J) of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, project-related construction
activities shall be prohibited between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Monday through
Friday and between 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. Saturdays and Sundays.
9. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the ApplicantJDeveloper shall submit plans to the City
Building Official and Environmental Review Coordinator that include noise abatement for the
patio areas on the north and east faces of each of the proposed buildings. Noise abatement shall
consist of a solid barrier on the face of the patio from the base to a height of five feet. The
barrier may be made of masonry, wood, glass plexiglass, or similar material.
10. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the ApplicantJDeveloper shall submit plans to the City
Building Official and Environmental Review Coordinator that include noise abatement for the
proposed recreational area south of the Palomar Street right-of-way. Noise abatement shall
consist of a solid barrier along the northerly boundary line of the recreational area from grade to
a height of five feet. If a gate is proposed, then it shall be installed in a manner that does not
render ineffective the proposed acoustical attenuation qualities of the barrier. The barrier may be
made of masonry, wood, glass plexiglass, or similar material.
11. Prior to the issuance of building pennits, the Applicant/Developer shall submit data to the City
of Chula Vista Environmental Review Coordinator and the City Building Official demonstrating
that noise levels would be less than 45 dBA in habitable rooms of residence units facing north
and east of each of the proposed buildings.
12. The Applicant/Developer shall be required to install central air conditioning units for each
northerly and easterly facing dwelling unit impacted by noise from any identified source.
Traffic
13. In order to reduce cumulative significant impacts at the intersections of Frontage Road &
Palomar Street and Walnut Avenue & Palomar Street, the "applicant shall construct a partial
median closure along the centerline of Palomar Street that would prohibit left turns and through
movements from Frontage RoadlWalnut Avenue onto Palomar Street to the satisfaction of the
City's Engineer.
E. Consultation
1. Individuals and Organizations
City of Chula Vista:
Stacey Kurz, Community Development
Mary Ladiana, Community Development
Miguel Tapia, Community Development
Brian Catacutan, Planning and Building
13
Josie Gabriel, Planning and Building
Steve Power, Planning and Building
Luis Hernandez, Planning and Building
Jim Newton, Engineering
Anthony Chukwudolue, Engineering
Luis Pelayo, Engineering
Sandra Hernandez, Engineering
Ben Herrera, Engineering
Tom Adler, Engineering
Khosro Arninpour, Engineering
David Kaplan, Engineering
Silvester Evetovich, Engineering
Richard Preuss, Police Department I
Richard Gari, Fire Department
ApplicantJProperty Owner: The Olson Company
Agent: Tony Pauker, Regional President, the Olson Company
2. Documents
City of Chula Vista General Plan, (December 2005)
Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code
Air Quality Impact Analysis, EDA W, Inc., August 2006
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, SECOR, June 30, 2004
Phase II Environmental Site Assessment SECOR, December 6, 2004
Revised Work Plan for Pesticide Assessment and Remediation, August 4, 2006
Bay Vista Walk Biological Survey, July 7, 2005; Site revisit: 10/18/06
Water Quality Management Plan, Lundstrom & Associates, July 23, 2007
Preliminary Drainage Study, Lundstrom & Associates, July 23, 2007
Preliminary Geotechnical Findings,.GEOCON, July 13,2004
Cultural Resources Survey Report, Brian F. Smith and Associates, May 9,2005
Paleontological Record Search & Resource Assessment, Brian F. Smith and Assoc., May 2, 2005
Acoustical Analysis, Davy & Associates, Inc., August 25,2006; Update 7/24/07
Traffic Impact Study, Katz-Okitsu and Associates, November 2005
14
Initial Study
This environmental determination is based on the attached Initial Study, and any comments
received in response to the Notice of Initial Study. The report reflects the independent judgment
of the City of Chula Vista. Further information regarding the environmental review of this
project is available from the Chula Vista Planning and Building Department, 276 Fourth Avenue,
Chula Vista, CA 91910.
Date:
Benjamin Guerrero, Senior Planner
.
J :\Planning\BenG\PalomarBayVista WalkMND.doc
15
~I~
-'.-
.,..- ---
~~
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
CI1YOF
(HUlA VISTA
1. Name of Proponent:
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
I
3.. Addresses and Phone Number of Proponent:
4. Name of Proposal:
5. Date of Checklist:
6. Case No.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS QUESTIONS:
Issues:
It AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,
but not limited to, trees, rock outc~ppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare,
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?
1
The Olson Company
City ofChula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91911
Tony Pauker, Regional President
9171 Towncenter Dr., Suite 450
San Diego, CA 92122
(858) 784-6538
Bayvista Walk
July 24, 2007
IS-05-012
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
No Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
.
o
o
o
.
o
o
o
.
o
o
o
.
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Comments:
a) No significant scenic vistas or views open to the public exist through the site.
b) In a~cordance with the City's General Plan, Palomar Street is not designated a scenic roadway.
However, the General Plan lists Palomar Street between 1-5 and the trolley station as a Gateway. The
General Plan calls for appropriate special treatment iIrcluding signage, streetscape improvements,
pedestrian path improvements, underground parking and landscape material improvement at these
segments to signify arrival and progression at an important City entry point. All of these treatments
consistent with the adopted City General Plan and ordinances are proposed along Palomar Street.
These project improvements would ensure that aesthetic impacts to the Palomar Street Gateway are
deemed less than significant.
c) The vacant project site js within an urbanized area and contains overgrown non-native vegetation and
exposed soils. The development of a planned mixed residential/commercial development would not
substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site or surrounding area.
d.) Proper architectural design would ensure compliance with Section 19.66.100 of the Chula Vista
Municipal Code. Exterior lighting would not be directed upward and would be designed and installed
with appropriate shielding if necessary, to ensure that light does not spill horizontally beyond the
limits of the development area onto adjacent roadways, and surrounding commercial or residential
uses.
Miti2ation: No mitigation measures are required (See land use discussion under Section C ofMND).
n. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the
proj ect:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or 0 0 0 .
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Fannland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or 0 0 0 .
a Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environmen~ 0 0 0 .
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion ofFannland, to non-agricultural use?
2
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Comments:
a-c) The project site is presently located in a fully urban setting. The project site is neither in current
agricultural production nor adjacent to property in agricultural production and contains no agricultural
resources or designated farmland areas.
Miti2ation: No mitigation measures are required.
iI'
ill. AIR QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
o
o
.
o
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
o
.
o
o
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions, which
exceed quantitative thresholds. for ozone
precursors)?
o
.
o
o
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
o
o
.
o
3
Issues:
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
Comments:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
No Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
.
a-e) The project site is located within the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB). The proposed project would result
in a minor increase in air pollutants during the construction phase. Mitigation measures found in Section
F gf the Mitigated Negative Declaration would result in construction related air impacts being less than
significant.
Mitieation: No mitigation measures are required.
IV.BIOLOGIC~ RESOURCES. Would the project: .
a) Have a substantial adverse effec~ either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community identified
in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by
the California Department ofFish and Game or U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on. federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological intelTUption, or other means?
4
o
o
o
.
o
o
o
.
o
o
o
.
Issues:
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
With
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
0 0 0 .
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
- biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy
or ordinance? .
o
o
o
.
~ Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
o
o
o
.
Comments:
a) The project site is located in a fully urbanized developed area. Based upon a Biological Survey conducted on
June 29, 2005 by EDA W, Inc., a Biological Consulting Finn, no candidate, sensitive, or special status species are
present within or immediately adjacent to the proposed development area.
b) Based upon the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and field inspection by an EDA W staff biologist on June 29,
2006, no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community are present within or immediately adjacent to the
proposed project site.
c) Based upon field inspection by an EDA W staff biologist on June 29, 2005, no wetlands are present within or
immediately adjacent to the proposed development area.
d) Based upon the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and field inspection by an EDAW staff biologist on June 29,
. 2005, no native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or native wildlife nursery sites exist within or immediately
adjacent to the proposed development area.
e) No impacts to any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance would result from the proposed project development.
fj No impacts to local, regional or state habitat conservation plans would result since the project site is a designated
development area pursuant to the adopted Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan.
Miti2ation: No mitigation measures are required.
5
Issues:
PotentiaUy
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
v. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of a historical resource as defined in State CEQA
Guidelines 9 l5064.5?
o
o
o
.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of an archaeological resource pursuant to State CEQA
Guidelines 9 l5064.5?
o
o
o
.
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological 0 . 0 0
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred 0 0 0 .
outside of fonnal cemeteries.
Comments:
a,b,d) A cultural survey was conducted by Brian F. Smith and Associates (BFSA) on April 25, 2005.
Based on this survey no cultural resource's were identified within the project area, and no previously
recorded sites are located within the project boundaries. Therefore, no cultural resources will be
impacted by the proposed construction, and no further archaeological investigations are recommended
for this project.
c) A paleontological record search and resource assessment has been completed by Brian F. Smith &
Associates on May 2,2005. The report states that because of the high paleontolgical resource potential
of the Bay Point Fonnation and the "nearshore marine sandstone," paleontological monitoring of mass
grading, excavation, and utility trenching activities in areas so mapped should be required to mitigate
impacts to any undiscovered nonrenewabl~ paleontological resources (i.e. fossils).
Mitigation: Paleontological monitoring of mass grading, excavation, and utility trenching activities in areas so
mapped shall be required to mitigate impacts to any undiscovered nonrenewable paleontological resource.
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project:
a) Expose people or strocturesto potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or
death involving:
6
Issues:
1. Rupture of a known earthquake faul~ as delineat~d
on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the
area or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault?
11. Strong seismic ground shaking?
lll. Seismic-related groWld failure, including liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,
or that would become unstable as a result of the
projec~ and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, creating substantial
risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available for
the disposal of wastewater? .
7
Potentially
Significant
Impact
o
I
o
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
.
o
.
o
.
o
.
.
o
o
.
.
o
o
.
Issues:
PotentiaUy
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Comments:
a-e) The site has been previously graded and developed with single family residential units. There are
no known or suspected seismic hazards associated with the project site. The project site lies over
one mile west of the La Nacion Fault Zone (an inactive fault zone). The closest recently active
fault is the Rose Canyon Fault, located about 8 miles northwest of the site. The site is not located
within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. Therefore, project compliance with applicable
Unifonn Building Code standards would adequateliaddress any building safety/seismic concerns.
According to the City's Engineering Division, the project will require a grading permit. A
preliminary Geotechnical/Soils was prepared by GEDCON on July 13, 2004. The report states that
the development of the site will include remedial grading to address any presence of expansive
soils. The preparation and submittal of a final soils report will be required prior to the issuance of a
grading pennit as a standard engineering requirement.
In order to prevent silt discharge during construction, the developer will required to comply with
best management practices in accordance with NPDES Order No. 2001-01. The appropriate
erosion control measures would be identified in conjunction with preparation of final grading,plans
and would be monitored and implemented during construction by the Engineering Division.
Therefore, the potential for the discharge of silt into city drainage systems would be less than
significant.
Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
,VIT. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant bawd to the public or the
enviromnent through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
o
.
o
o
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
o
.
o
o
c) Emit .hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
o
o
o
.
8
Issues:
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a resul~
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
t'
ef For a project located within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within.
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area?
o For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residences are intennixed with
wildlands? .
9
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
No Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
DO
D
D
.
D
o
o
.
D
D
D
.
D
o .
D
.
D
D
D
.
Issues:
PotentiaDy
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Comments:
a-d)A Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment reports were prepared by SECOR on
December 6, 2004 for the project site. Historical research as part of the Phase I report identified the
eastern half oithe project site as an area formerly dedicated to agricultural uses. The Phase I
recommended a shallow subsurface investigation to evaluate the presence of residual pesticides.
The Phase II carried out soil sampling activities that detected four samples with pesticides above
the State of California hazardous waste level of 1.0 mglkg. Three of these samples were above the
.1
U;S. EPA Region 9 preliminary remediation goals (pRGs) of 1.7 mg/kg. A remediation workplan
. was subsequently prepared and submitted for review and approval by the City and County
Department of Environmental Health.
e-t)The project is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of an airport.
g) The project as proposed and based on its location would not interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan. No impacts are noted.
h) The project site is not adjacent to a wildlands area. No impacts related to significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires are noted.
Mitb~ation: The applicant/developer shall comply with the procedures and methodologies delineated in the
Revised Work Plan for Pesticide Assessment and Remediation prepared by SECOR International
Incorporated, dated August 4, 2006 and as approved on August 22, 2006, by the County of San Diego
Department of Environmental Health Land and Water Quality Division for the project site. The remediation
measures shall be implemented during the grading and construction phase of development to the satisfaction
of the City's Environmental Review Coordinator.
VITI. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.
Would the project:
a) Result in an increase in pollutant discharges to
receiving waters (including impaired water bodies
pursuant to the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list),
result in significant alterarion of receiving water
quality during or following construction, or violate any
water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
o
.
o
o
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that
there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a
o
o
o
.
10
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
With
Issues: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., ~e
production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would
drop to a level which would not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which pennits have been
granted)? Result in a potentially significant adverse
impact on groundwater quality?
.,
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the 0 0 0 .
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
d) SUbstantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a s1ream or river, substantially increase the
rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or off-site, or place
structures within a IOO-year flood hazard area which
would impede or redirect flood flows?
e) Expose people or structures to a significant risk ofloss,
injury or death involving flooding, including flooding
as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
fj Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed
the capacity of existing or planned stonnwater
drainage systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff?
11
o
o
o
.
o
o
o
.
o
o
o
.
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Comments:
a) The proposed grading and development of the vacant site has the potential to increase pollutant
discharges, however standard BMP requirements will reduce any potential impacts to water bodies
to less than significant.
b) The project would not result in a substantial depletion of groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge.
c) The proposed grading and development of the vacant site would result in changes in absorption
rates, drainage patterns, and the rate and amount'ot surface runoff but would not result in adverse
impacts to streams or rivers that would result in substantial erosion or siltation.
d) The proposed grading and development of the vacant site would result in -changes in absorption
rates, drainage patterns, and the rate and amount of surface runoff but would not result in adverse
impacts to streams or rivers that would result in substantial flooding or place structures in a flood
zone.
e) The proposal would not expose people or structures to significant risk of loss or injury or death
involving flooding.
f) The proposed grading and development of the vacant site would result in changes in absorption
rates, drainage patterns, and the rate and amount of surface runoff but would not exceed the
capacity of existing stonnwater drainage facilities.
Mitieation: Mitigation Measures are required. See Section F of the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the
project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
o
o
o
.
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including, but not limited to the general plan,
specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mirigating an environmental effect?
o
o
.
o
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan
or natural community conservation plan?
o
o
o
.
12
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Comments:
a. The proposal would not result in any impacts that would physically divide a community as the site has been
. previously developed with residential uses. I
b. The General Plan designates the project site as Transit Focus Area (IF A). The mixed-use project will be
consistent with the General Plan designation subject to approval of a Conditional Use Pennit (CUP) and a
zone change frOIJ;l CTP to CCP.
c. The project would not conflict with the adopted City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan.
Miti2ation: No mitigation measures are required.
X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availibility of a known mineral 0 0 0 .
reso1]!Ce that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important 0 0 0 .
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Comments:
a-b) The proposal would not result in any loss of any known mineral on-site. Pursuant to the Environmental
Impact Report for the City of Chula Vista General Plan, the State of California Department of Conservation
has not designated the project site for mineral resource protection.
Mitieation: No mitigation measures are required.
XI. N 0 ~SE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general
o
.
o
o
13
Issues:
plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of.
other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels?
c) A-substantial pennanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would
the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
~ For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
14
PotentiaUy
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
No Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
.
o
o
.
o
o
o
o
.
o
o
o
.
o
o
o
.
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Comments:
a-d) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E.
e) The project is not located within an airport land use plan nor within two miles of a pu~lic airport or public use
airport; therefore, the project would not expose people residing or worlGng in the project area to excessive noise
levels.
f) . The project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip; therefore, the project development would not
expose people working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
Miti2ation: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section F.
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the
project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of road or other inftastructure)?
o
o
o
.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
o
o
o
.
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
o
o
o
.
Comments:
a-c) The proposal involves a minimal increase in population and would not induce population growth or displace
housing or people.
Miti2ation: No mitigation measures are required.
XIll. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or
15
Issues:
Potential]y
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
physically altered governmental facilities, the.
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other perfonnance
objectives for any public services:
Fire protection? 0 0 0 .
Police protection? 0 0 0 .
Schools? 0 0 0 .
Parks? 0 0 0 .
Other public faciljties? 0 0 0 .
Comments:
a) According to the Fire Departmen~ the proposal would not have a significant effect upon or result in a need for
new or altered fire protection services.
b) According to the Police Departmen~ the proposal would not have a significant effect upon or result in a need for
substantial new or altered police protection services.
c) The proposed project would not induce significant population growth, However, since schools are presently
impacted in the area, the Chula Vista School District recommends that the project applicant set up a Mello-Roos
type of community facilities district.
d) Because the proposed project would not induce population growth, it would not create a demand for
neighborhood or regional parks or facilities or impact existing park facilities.
e) The proposed project would not have a significant effect upon or result in a need for new or expanded
governmental services and could continue to be served by existing public inftastructure.
Miti2ation: No mitigation measures are required.
XIV. RECREATION. Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?
o
o
o
.
16
Issues:
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities, which have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
Comments:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significlnt
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
No Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
.
a) Because the proposed project would not induce significant population growth, it would not create a demand for
neighborhood or regional parks or facilities nor impact existing neighborhood parks or recreational facilities.
b) The project does not include or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities.
Mitb!ation: No mitigation measures are required.
xv. TRANSPORTATION I TRAFFIC. Would the
project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or
highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g.; sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
17
o
o
o
.
o
.
o
o
o
o
o
.
o
o
o
.
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
With
Issues: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 0 0 0 .
~ Result in inadequate parking capacity?
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus,
turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Comments: See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E.
o
o
o
.
o
o
o
.
Miti2ation: See mitigation measure(s) required. In Section F of Mitigated Negative Declaration
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.
Would the project
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
cons1Iuction. of which could cause significant
enviromnentaI effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project ~om existing entitlements and resources, or are
new or expanded entitlements needed?
18
o
o
o
.
o
o
o
.
o
o
.
o
o
o
o
.
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider, which serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
o
o
o
.
Q - Be served by a landfill with sufficient pennitted capacitY
to accommodate the project's solid. waste disposal
needs?
o
o
.
o
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
o
o
.
o
19
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Comments:
a) The project is loc.ated within an urban setting presently served by all utilities and service systems and would
not exceed the wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB. Therefore, no adverse impacts to
wastewater treatment facilities would occur as a result of the proposed project.
b) No construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or the expansion of existing facilities
"Yould be necessary to serve the project. Develop1)1ent ~f the project will not impact existing water or
wastewater treatment facilities.
c) No construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities would be
necessary as a result of the proposed project. The project is required to implement Best Management
Practices to prevent pollution of storm drainage systems and comply with the City Storm Water
Management Requirements therefore environmental impacts would be less than significant.
d) The project site is within the Sweetwater Water District service territory. The Water District has stated
that they have the capacity to serve the proposed project.
e) The City of Chula Vista has adequate wastewater capacity to serve this project. No impacts are noted.
~ The project will be served by a local landfill that has adequate capacity.
g) The proposed project will comply with all state and local solid waste requirements.
Miti2ation: No mitigation measures are required.
XVII. THRESHOLDS
Will the proposal adversely impact the City's
Threshold Standards?
A. Library
The City shall construct 60,000 gross square feet (GSF)
of additional library space, over the June 30, 2000 GSF
total, in the area east of Interstate 805 by buildout. The
construction of said facilities shall be phased such that
the City will not fall below the citywide ratio of 500
GSF per 1,000 population. Library facilities are to be
adequately equipped and staffed.
o
o
o
.
20
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
With
Issu es: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
B) Police
a) Emergency Response: Properly equipped and staffed D D 0 .
police units shall respond to 81 percent of "Priority One"
emergency calls within seven (7) minutes and maintain an
average response time to all "Priority One" emergency
calls of 5.5 minutes or less.
b)- Respond to 57 percent of "Priority Two" urgent calls
within seven (7) minutes and maintain an average
response time to all "Priority Two" calls of 7.5 minutes or
less.
C) Fire and Emergency Medical
Emergency response: Properly equipped and staffed fire and D 0 0 .
medical units shall respond to calls throughout the City
within 7 minutes in 80% of the cases (measured annually).
D) Traffic
The Threshold Standards require that all intersections must
operate at a Level of Service (LOS) "C" or better, with the 0 . 0 0
exception that Level of Service (LOS) "D" may occur during
the peak two hours of the day at signalized intersections.
Signalized intersections west of 1-805 are not to operate at a
LOS below their 1991 LOS. No intersection may reach LOS
"E" or "F" during the average weekday peak hour.
Intersections of arterials with freeway ramps are exempted
from this Standard.
E) Parks and Recreation Areas
The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres
of neighborhood and community parkland with appropriate
facilities/I,OOO population east ofI-805.
o
o
o
.
F) Drainage
o
o
o
.
The Threshold Standards require that stonn water flows and
volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual
projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with
the Drainage Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards.
21
Issues:
PotentiaUy
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
G) Sewer 0 0 0 .
The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and
volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual
projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with
Sewer Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards.
H) Water
The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage, 0 0 0 .
trea1men~ and transmission facilities are constructed
concurrently with planned growth and that water quality
standards are not jeopardized during growth and construction.
Applicants may also be required to participate in whatever
water conservation or fee off-set program the City of Chula
Vista has in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
22
Issues:
PotendaUy
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Comments:
a) The project would not significantly induce population growth; therefore, no impacts to library facilities would
result. No adverse impact to the City's Library Threshold standards would occur as a result of the proposed
project.
b) No adverse impact to the City's Police threshold standards would occur as a result of the proposed project.
Police Department states that they can continue to proviqe service at current levels
. c) According to the Fire Departmen~ adequate fire protection and emergency medical services can continue to be
provided to the site. Although the Fire Department has indicated they will provide service to the project, the
project will contribute to the incremental increase in fire service demand throughout the City. This increased
demand on fire services will not result in a significant cumulative impact. No adverse impact to the City's Fire
threshold standards would occur as a result of the proposed project
d) The surrounding street segments and intersections continue to operate in compliance with the City's Traffic
Threshold Standards at LOS "C" or better with the exception of the intersection of Frontage Road/W alnut Avenue
& Palomar Stree~ which operate at an LOS "F" during AM & PM peak hours with or without the project.
However, since the project trips comprise less than 5% of the total intersection entering volume, the intersection
and segment impacts would be deemed as cumulative impacts. In order to reduce this cumulative impact,
mitigation is required. See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section F.
e) The project proposes residential development west on-805; this Threshold Standard is not applicable.
~ The applicant proposes new drainage facilities on the project site in order to properly convey stormwater from the
developed site to existing city drainage facilities. No adverse impacts to the City's stonn drainage system or
City's Drainage Threshold standards will occur as a result of the proposed project
g) Based on the Sewer study prepared by Lunds1rom & Associates on August 24, 2006, the Engineering Division
has determined that the existing sewer facilities are adequate to serve the proposed project. No new sewer
facilities are anticipated to be required and no adverse impacts to the City's Sewer Threshold standards will occur
as a result of the proposed proj ect.
h) Pursuant to correspondence received from Sweetwater Authority, there is a lO-inch water main located on the
north side of Palonm Stree~ a 16-inch water main located on the east side of Industrial Avenue, and a 6-inch
main on the east side of Frontage Road. Sweetwater Authority indicates that water service can be provided at the
required pressures once the owner enters into an agreement for water facility improvements. The existing
domestic water services and fire service that cUlTently service the project site are adequate and will not need to be
altered. Project impacts to the Authority's storage, treatment, and transmission facilities would be less than
significant.
23
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
XVill. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the 0
quality of the environmen~ substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
leveJs, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal '
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of
a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
o
o
.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually 0
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current project, and the effects of
probable future projects.)
o
o
.
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which 0
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
o
o
.
Comments:
a) The project site is currently vacant but has been previously developed with residential units. The project site
is located within an established residential and commercial community. The site lies within the designated
development area of the adopted Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. There are no sensitive plant or animal
species or cultural resources on the site.
b) M described in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, significant direct project impacts would be mitigated to
below a level of significance through the required mitigation measures. No cumulatively considerable
impacts associated with the project when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, other current
projects and probable future projects have been identified.
c) See Mitigated Negative Declaration, Section E.
XIX PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES:
Project mitigation measures are contained in Section F, Mitigation Necessary to Avoid
Significant Impacts, and Table 1, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, of
Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-05-012.
24
xx. AGREEMENT TO IMPLEMENT MITIGATION MEASURES
By signing the line(s) provided below, the Applicant and Operator stipulate that they have each read,
understood and have their respective company's authority to and do agree to the mitigation measures
contained in MND 18-05-019, and will implement same to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review
Coordinator. Failure to sign the line(s) provided below prior to posting of this Mitigated Negative
Declaration with the County Clerk shall indicate the Applicant's and Operator's desire that the Project
be held in abeyance without approval and that the Applicant and Operator shall apply for an
Environmental Impact Report.
Air Quality
_ 1. The following air quality mitigation measures shaH be implemented during grading and construction;
a) Minimize simultaneous operation of multiple construction equipment units
b) Use aqueous diesel fuel and lean NOx catalysts for all heavy diesel engine construction
equipment
c) Use electrical construction equipment as practical
d) Use catalytic reduction for gasoline-powered equipment
e) Water the construction area twice daily to minimize fugitive dust
f) Pave permanent roads as quickly as possible to minimize dust
g) Use electricity from power poles as opposed to mobile power generators
h) Pave last 100 feet of internal travel path prior to exiting onto a public street
i) Install wheel washers by a paved apron prior to vehicle entry on public roads
j) Remove any soiVdirt from public streets within 30 minutes of occurrence
k) Suspend all soil disturbance and travel on unpaved surfaces if winds exceed 25 mph.
2. Prior to issuing a building permit, the Applicant/Developer shall provide a list of the
architectural coatings that will be used on the project demonstrating that the average VOC
content would ilot exceed 125 g/L, extend the time of application, or provide a plan that will
show that the combination or ft;duced VOC and extended time of application will result in
emissions less than 55 pounds per day.
The air quality mitigation measures shall be shown on all applicable grading, and building plans and
details, notes, or as otherwise appropriate, and shall not be deviated from unless approved in advance in
writing by the City's Environmental Review Coordinator.
Paleontological
3. The developer shall have a qualified paleontological monitor on the project site at all times during
mass grading, excavation, and utility trenching activities in order to mitigate potential impacts to any
undiscovered nonrenewable paleontological resources (i.e. fossils).
25
HazardslHazardous Materials
4. The applicant/developer shall comply with all the procedures and methodologies delineated in the
Revised Work Plan for Pesticide Assessment and Remediation prepared by SECOR International
Incorporated, dated August 4, 2006 and as approved on August 22, 2006, by the County of San Diego
Department of Environmental Health Land and Water Quality. Division for the project site. The
remediation measures shall be implemented during the grading and construction phase of development to
the satisfaction of the City's Environmental Review Coordinator.
Hydrology and Water Ouality
5. In order to reduce potential water quality impacts, the applicant'developer shall be required to comply
with the National Pollution Discharge Eliminati9n I System (NPDES) regulations including the
preparation and implementation of a Construction Stonn Water Management Plan (CSWMP) and a
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The stormwater plan shall be prepared pursuant to the
provisions of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region Order No. 2001-
o I. The applicant/developer shall also implement water quality Best Management Practices (BMPs) as
approved by the City of Chula Vista NPDES Storm Water Engineering Section.
6. All runoff from the project area shall be directed to, and pre-treated by, a Treatment Control BMP
before discharge to public storm drainage systems. The design of high efficiency BMP's such as
vegetated swales shall be in accordance with criteria established by the California Stormwater
Quality Association in the California Stormwat~r BMP Handbook (BMP#TC-30).
7. Prior to commencement of grading, temporary desilting and erosion control devices shall be
installed. Protective devices shall be provided at every storm drain inlet to prevent sediment fi:om
entering the stooo drain system. These measures shall be reflected in the grading and improvement
plans to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Environmental Review Coordinator.
Noise
8. Pursuant to Section 17.24.050(1) of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, project-related construction
activities shall be prohibited between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Monday through Friday and
between 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. Saturdays and Sundays.
9. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the ApplicantJDeveloper shall submit plans to the City Building
Official and Environmental Review Coordinator that include noise abatement for the patio areas on the
north and east faces of each of the proposed buildings. Noise abatement shall consist of a solid barrier on
the face of the patio from the base to a height of five feet:-- The banier may he made of masonry, wood,
glass plexiglass, or similar material.
10. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the ApplicanVDeveloper shall submit plans to the City
Building Official and Environmental Review Coordinator that include noise abatement for the
proposed recreational area south of the Palomar Street right-of-way. Noise abatement shall consist of
a solid barrier along the northerly boundary line of the recreational area from grade to a height of
five feet. If a gate is proposed, then it shall be installed in a manner that does not render ineffective
the proposed acoustical attenuation qualities of the barrier. The barrier may be made of masonry,
wood, glass plexiglass, or similar material.
26
11. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the ApplicanuDeveloper shall submit data to the City of Chula
Vista Environmental Review Coordinator and the City Building Official demonstrating that noise levels
would be less than 45 dBA in habitable rooms of residence units facing north and east of each of the
proposed buildings.
12. The AppIicant/Developer shall be required to install central air conditioning units for each northerly and
easterly facing dwelling unit impacted by noise from any identified source.
Traffic
13. In order to reduce cumulative significant impacts at the intersections of Frontage Road and Palomar
Street and Walnut Avenue and Palomar Street, the AppIicantlDeveloper shall construct a partial median
closure along the centerline of Palomar Street that would prohibit left turns and through movements from
. Frontage Road/Walnut Avenue onto Palomar Street bthe satisfaction of the City's Engineer. .
Tony Pauker
~~~~~~~~ !
. .'. San DIego-In Town Communities -;fl C a-7
The Olson Company (~ _' f
Tony Pauker, Regional President (PRINT NAME) Date
7/2-,i,,-
~
XXI. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated,"
as indicated by the checklist on the previous pages.
. and Use and Planning . TransportatioruTraffic
o Population and Housing OBiological Resources
o Geophysical 0 Energy and Mineral
Resources
o Public Services
o Utilities and Service Systems
o Aesthetics
o Agricultural Resources
. HydrologylWater
. Air Quality
. Paleontological
Resources
. Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
. Noise
o Cultural Resources
o Recreation
o Mandatory Findings of Significance
27
XXII. DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the 0
environment, and a Negative Declaration will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the .
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in
the project have been made or agreed to by the project proponent. A Mitigated
Negative Declaration will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project may have a signific'Plt effect on the environment, 0
and an Environmental Impact Report is required:
I find ~at the proposed project may have a "potentially significant impacf' or 0
"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environmen~ but at least one
effect: 1) has been-adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis as described, on attached sheets. AIl Environmental Impact Report is
,. - required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could h.ave a significant effect 'on the 0
environmen~ because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards
and (b) have been avoided or 'mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Negative
Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed projec~ nothing further is required.
7-Z,~.. 07
Date
1 :\Planning\BenG\IniriaJ Study\IS-05-O 12.doc
28
ATTACHMENT "A"
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP)
Hi!yvista Walk Proiect - IS-05-012
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared by the City of Chula Vista
in conjunction with the proposed Bayvista Walk Townhome project. The proposed project has
been evaluated in an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared in accordance with
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and City/State CEQA Guidelines (IS-05-
012). The legislation requires public agencies to ensure that adequate mitigation measures are
implemented and monitored for Mitigated Negative Declarations.
AB 3180 requires monitoring of potentially significant and/or significant environmental impacts.
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for this project ensures adequate
implementation of mitigation for the following potential impacts( s):
1. Air Quality
2. Paleontological
3. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
4. Hydrology and Water Quality
5. Noise
6. TransportationlTraffic
MONITORING PROGRAM
Due to the nature of the environmental issues identified, the Mitigation Compliance Coordinators
shall be the Environmental Review Coordinator and City Engineer of the City of Chula Vista.
The applicant shall be responsible to ensure that the conditions of the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program are met to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator and
City Engineer. The applicant shall provide evidence in written form confirming compliance with
the mitigation measures specified in Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-OS-012 to the
Environmental Review Coordinator and City Engineer. The Environmental Review Coordinator
and City Engineer will thus provide the ultimate verification that the mitigation measures have
been accomplished.
Table 1, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Checklist, lists the mitigation measures
contained in Section F, Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Effects, of Mitigated Negative
Declaration IS-06-005, which will be implemented as part of the project. In order to determine if
the applicant has implemented the measure, the method and timing of verification are identified,
along with the City department or agency responsible for monitoring/verifying that the applicant
has completed each mitigation measure. Space for the signature of the verifying person and the
date of inspection is provided in the last column.
1/1
...
I:
ell
E
E
0
0
"0 ~
III ro
... Q
III
C. (/)
E ro
0 :e
t) e:
-
~ ...
~ Q)
III a.
:g 0
C 'iij >- Q3
>
0 1:1:: Q)
010 Q
~ 0.0.. :;::,
1/1 I:
~ ell ~
0::
" is.
Z a.
)ooooi <(
~ ~...
0111
0 0..8
~
= 01.,.;
CIII
'Cc: X X
::10 )(
Q ...e: QU )(
o.Q
~ a)" .;
c ~ QlfII
'E~ ...c:
~ 11.0
.- III U X )( )( )(
Z 1->
; 011 1:0)
0 :5: 0) o _
~ ~ rtJ I: e (/) rtJ e:._
2 :0 e: 2~E
~ ~ nI 0. (II
Z 0 e: ... E o ::J ell
0 Z 0 I- 011 (!) 11: Zlnl1.
~ ...c: ro .!9 ro t'IJ
- - ....
0,2 e: e: I: I:
Z C1I Q) C1I Q)
'C... E,!!J.9 E,!!J.9 E,!!J.9 E,!!J.9
0 o ~ e: 0 ... I: 0 ... e:o'" e: 0 ...
1: .- o C1I 0 0Q).9 o Q) 0 . 0Q).9
~ ....,:: .=: '0'::: ~ .=: '0"- ~ .=: '0'::: ~ .=: '0"- ~
GlI.
~ 2 ell' >... e:._ >... 1:._ >... 1:._ > ... e._
el1.o~ el1.o~ el1.o~ 1:11.0~
< > w_~> w_~> w_~> w_~>
C "0 Q) en E ro e >- .... I.. nI ~ .... ~ =Q)OQ)Q)=
)ooooi 0 > I/) .... ~ 0 ro ,t: .- ,t: ,t: .~
Q).o==o'" ::J rn 0 .... rn .r:....~.......
~ 'E-.!!1~~ ~ ro "0 ::J 1: I: rJJ B
Q) 'C 0 Q) Q) rJJ e O)'C e
~ ~~~~~ ::J .r:. C1I a. 0 .... ~ ...o"'e:==.Q
~ I.. ~ Q) Q) ::J
.... ~"OOQ)O~
,!rJJrJJiijo rJJ [ij 1: .!::! .9:1 0) '0 e:
I: '01 :.c e 'E ::J Q) -,t:
~ a. rJJ nI.>.!::: g ... Q) E ~ ,t: rJJ .Q1/)Q)~rtJ=
E....rtJQ)> .g ::J 'c 0 'x 0) Q)::J- 0.
E .... "0
~ .- e: I: 'C e: E > 0 > ~ -= a.
0. Q) E Q) ('I') Q) Q) Q) t'IJ ..J .- nI
- Q)Q)nI W ,!!J >
"Q .oEc.~rtJ Q) B ':; N 0 .9 0 0.00'0>==....
a. rn :~ .... e nI
Q) - c- o .... a. :;::,=> 0
~ >. ... :E
=1...... >. :;::i ~ Q) - 'C ... 0 e I:'~ ~iijQ).
~ ro.- I: '0 :!: :s e C1I 0 ...
-;5-Q)eO '5 nI "0 'E ]5 Q) .;: .;: .~ ::J ~"'Q),-.sE1U
E ~ I.. ~ rn a. 0. e:
(/)~~=Q) a. 'm 0 a.~ O)'C ~ "0
C1I fI! >~= rJJ ~ .9 rJJ 0. J:. e ,!!J 0 0'....~Q)e:"o...
.... x a. .... e C1I
I.. ::J~erJJ>- 0 0 nI ~ 0 0 nI 0> <(rJJC1I~~Q)~
::I z'E .... 0 a. a. a. ~ > 0) > a. "0
I/) rJJ Q) a. "0 .0 e: a. '(ij rJJ rJJ ro .... ro Q)e:COX e:rJJ
10 roJ:.Ee:O) e: e: Q) C1I I "0 ro ro Q) rJJ ... J:. ~ Q) Q) "0
ell Q)I-.-roe: 0 E Q) > "0 - ....ro ....roxe:
roE e: ~ >. Q) .2
2 E "O-~ ~ 0.= rJJ ~ "0 -gQ)o Q)::J
. c:: Q)'- ro !.e- .- 0 ~ 0) > :c e ::: ;;cQ)'OO
~ 1 u '0 .... 10 ro
!: C:C:co.joj~ "O~ ::J (f) ~
0 00 C1I C1I C" ro ';:j [ij a. Ero _~c:a.
';;:;::i e'i: e a. cO" a. a. ~ 0)1.. ==>roLO
.... ro U 0) 0..- 0 ro 0) Q) CD nI c- ... I: ro o..a n; == e 0 It)
10 I: I.. ~ ~ ... E I:
0) :J.- 0 B C rn ~ >-
CI ;,j:iL..(/).... -0 0 .E ro ro e ro 0)~:6'E 0.0 ffi
:2 .- u; Q) 0. rJJ Q).- :g I: .0 .0
E 1:"0 o.ffi ::J ::J.... e: e: (/) .... ... e:!: Q) ...>.r:.
....0 a. ~
2 0 _::J ::J 0 0 "0 '5 't ::JJ:. :2 'fi 0 1: 0 "0 ....
~8Q)nI> C1I ... ro tio.
Q)l:; .... ~ ~ E Q) :0 '-"'e:O Q)rJJ
:: ]5Q)"O e r.n r.n r.n 0 e .... .r:. :r;E ::JCU:;::iO 'o~
co"O~rJJro.. .!!1 e: ::J ::J ~ Q) rJJ :::.
.- I.. Q)e 0 "0 I.. .... ~ co '0 -10 .oO)~......5::J-
5-1:._~I:O 3~ .- 0 .... I:
ro - .- - "00 0 ~ rn Q) >- == rJJ rJJ 'ON coJ:.....()~"OrJJ
... a. Q) "0 co E'c e 0 "0 rn"O ....rnO~Q)1:
.- a..r:. I: rJJ Q) ~ 0 8 I: .... 0.... -co >. ....c "'0
rooco....Q).- '(j) ::J ::J C :;::; co '0 ,-Q) Q) 0 C Q) =Q) g>oo>::I..'(j)
~ O).S _ 0 ~ "E .... 0.- .;: >. E :s~ Q) ... co Q) .-....E......a.orn
Q)c Q)O) .... m Q) ....~ .r:.o co 0 "O~ ::JrJJ a.c,-
:J C"Om rJJ'" 0 NO) ::J C 0 J:. Q) 00 rJJ.... ~:: Q)C rJJ.-Q)rJJrooE
'-ro nla.o c-Q) Q) .... Q).... ~rn C Q)
~ t>> I: I.. 0.0 .- E ~ .... a. -ro _.0 > ~ rn-"O"O ~Q)
<( Ea. ro- O> ... 0) I.. C1I.!:1 01.. Q) rn .- ro C
_ Ooco Q) 2 Q) - ::J o ::J....roC
:;:) Q)Q) .!!10. E ::J 0."0
coe .rn~ 'c ':; 0) m Q) 0) > >- rn e ....Q)....ooe:.-
0 ro rJJl: ro.o me: Q) 0 "0 0 .-
....c~mm.!!! .- 0" rJJ Q) r.n r.n ~ ro ::J._ ...._Q)a. .o:!:
0::: Q) .;: 0 ! ,! > ~Q) :J:r; :J :J 11. :J~ 11.5- '::0 0:::8 (/J~ o>'-.EQ)E::J
<( .r:.::J.r:. 0 e~ .;: e e 0 E 8 rJJ
l-"OI/)e:::J . . . . . . . . . . . a.. a.o.o~ ~
I: ci
oZ
..GI
ca I.. .ci U ::i.
a);:' ,- 'C Q) .,.; 0) .r:. N
.- I/)
~IO
2G1
2
.... .... ...
Q) Q) Q)
a.
a. a. 0
0 0
Q) Q) Q)
>
> > Q)
Q) Q) 0
0 0
~ ~ ~
C C C
~ ~ ~
c. c. C.
a. a. a.
<( <( <(
...-""
filII!
00
0.0
m;,J
C'fj
';:C )( )( )(
=0
00
<oJ
GIll! )( )( )(
"C
0.0
0
c ~
Eo<! o .- Eo<!
.....~ )( Q.I~ '"
o b/) )(050c )( g ~ .~
;::: ~.S rJ) C !E
~ E-; "0 ;::: ~~ a. CIS E-; "0 ~
<IJ ;::: fL~ <~ <IJ;:::~~
<oooP. <oooP.
ro I/) 0 .!!J.fI B >-.=:5 ro 00 .!!J ~ B ~-g
+JO'" o .a .-..........J:
C Q) ~.~ g>~~cw CQ) "roo>
Q) .~ Q).O' 0 c
E e .'". Ee 'c E~o E... ..... .t:
5 a. 0 ca..... .-.....c:J~ CCl.....~O>~
o 0 .!!JOOI/) e .9 ~,.= C
.: ::::~ .: ::::~c!.:cc .- 'c " .- :t:
> C._ > c._._ C > O:J > O';::=O>t1I
C 0.... C oQjt1lgcUO C Q):Jc....
w_::E~ w_::E>E w_o w_::E>a:lWUJ
-I/)C" Q)"C'OtDOQ; Q)Q)E"t:CQ)oOc"eoOI/) "Q).c:Ct1Iro
~ UJ'- Q) .cQ) 0 Q)OO>..... .c:.cQ)COI1l.c Q)Q)....UJIO C 0> 0>'- .- .-
ro ....- C C
.- ro ... .....1/):;::I.....OQ)ro ...............100.[.......... "'Q)eo 1O.c:Q)......
O>EI/)Q) .- t1I t1IN'-~ -.c:UJ Q) ocE~c....... - .c: .a .e .e
o Q) > . =~:c'O 0 1/).....>- ~ .....Q)Q) Q)-I/)
'5 o>E 8 ~ 00.... ==
IO~Q) -NC t),~ (J) 5 C ..... E 0> ~ C) eo a. .....000=1010
C c,~ UJ'1ij Q)E~Nt1I-g t1I .- - .Q ~ a. t1I a. .c::E '0 .- 111 c.> c.>
o .;: '0 :c I/) .c.c:Q)....._(J)11I a.~ 1ij~c:Joc l/)a:I Q)"C.c:
Q):JIOC.e ::::....~~!I).... E o.c ...._ Q)!I)Q) t1I Q)(J).......... o~.Q)UJQ)
Cii'O :J. ~c 050'0 '-EOlOc>"'>~.awQ) Q)o~UJ.c:Q)
c.UJCJ>.~ .- '0 C. C >. 8 ~ ar'fi t!! 5. Q) 0 g. UJ .=~"'C~..,=
Q) C C'- >-'Oc8~~11I :::: c....Q)a. o....=o..-~ '0.0 111>. 0'
'OE~IO; _Q)ro c...J eo 0'- o.~ " oS 10 Z Q) ._ Q)c..~~.o M
a...... :J :J......5 c~.!!JroJ: ~o .0 00 C,
Q).- ~ en EIO'ECCOJ: >-
1;:"" co CT'O[jj Q):>,o 10 IIJ~ 00 Q)O 10 _~I-'C'C'-U
:: Q) .... ... ..J Q) -ou.... I-
8cQ) - ... ~ :6 ~ :g g.> a. :6 ~ 6: 'Ciia:l'Q)~ ~
t1I=~!!J:J <( :: Eeo'O m. :J
:JIO 0 Q).- 10_... C J:-!I)....1/)5~
CT_~~ 00 a: =~~5~~I~ <( 1ij 5-Q) C):Jo 0.10 E~....~.... l/)eE!:::._
t1I::: a.~ w 10 !I) Q):;::I 0 >-_1/) ::> ~Q)o>cOCl.Q):;5~0:::1/) IOC$Q).o1ij~
10 .- E ~ .cQ)I/)IO'" .!!J..... 0 .......- .oJ:.... a.Q)"; Q)ollJC).!!J'-CD
Q)~3._~ 1IJ'-IIJCo..o 0 ~ eo Q) ~ -g Qj Q; = U (J) (J) UJ a. a:I Q) ...u>-Q)I/)g.....
0><("'0. CQ) :;::I.oo1)..........t1I 6<( ~ 10 IIJ>Q)UJ~
> 00 " 'Cii 'CD o Q)ro"':;Q)'~ W ......... 00 !l)O
....- - "'"EO C _ I/) C ro 10 .c: '0 ~ Q)'- Q) >-.-
t1I C.- 0 (J) Q)o~.f!l)Oci5. ~ oSeoO'-~~ UJ o.c:'~.c:= g> O~Q)t1IlO<(O
.c:OIO~- ::> Q) 0> .- .0
...J _Q) Q)B 0 8''8'0 t1ILi)oQ) ~ &. ~ 00 t1I ~ ~.~I- e I- ~ w '0' E 1O.c: Q; "
- .c :;::I ~ '0 .,... .:: .c ....... CO.... C
<( _.~ ........ c .......5 EoO... .0......0'Z> a. t1I .- .- Z>
t1IeCOo 0 Q)-IIJOc.....>..... 0 IO:J'" 10
c.> .c: 0..2 a. Q) ~ >Q)<I)Ot1lo:)c.... Q)Q)C.-....o Cl.eo'E'- Q)"'UJo:::J:
Z OO'I01ijO....~Q) :JQ) ...U Q)...." t1I
a 00 roQ)'Cii .~ ~ECl.w cw.e <( :JO..... (J) "'Q) J:~ UJ.c::JCl.
...Q)>1ija. ~"...(J)tDo....c 'O-:J'S Q):5.....c:.c:<I).....<I) .....IOED..::::O~
0 ~ :5 ~ .2> ~ CCo 0>-00 >- Q)Q)=o>c .c CIO....Q.IO.c: ~~O~~ CD
...J ~IO....>-~:;:: '(ij "'>OQ)Ot1l ....Q)~ ~.....
0 ocx::::.o J: (') Q)Cl.....:;::I 1-0E oc >- ....oUia:l~......
(j; :::!I)c.o cc'::; 0 .9 ~ .!!J c/! . UJ a. I/) ..... .Q _ .0
I- ~oQ)E~ o.Q)t1I .(1)<1)'- .... Q)Q)
-.C ....... 0 .....c :t:~o>-c""''''''
Z 0 o....-".q:J EO ...J ...c-(J)Q).......a.c-'E~o(l)-g
<I)"'oiO(l) 0 o-=Ot1l~~
0 "0 .... C ex: 1O,gCl. ~r;; gt:~ ~ ~ ~ wED:: a. .~ ~ 10 ro S E > cro.oC'C
W :::: .= ... (I) ~ Q)~t1I:Jl/)lO::: ~ ....- 00 Q)I-Cl.._ Q)'O:J!I) Q) 0 2 ~ ~.~ ~ E E
...J Q)c'OQ)2 Q) 0 5 o.o>.a 0.10 0 0c.:;::ICl.a.03::>"ffi~ca.5.
<( ~~~"Eo J:e3::~:J:JQ):J >- ca.IOZE~(J)eQ)....:JoEa. =~ ~ B.9
a. o>oc J: I- a. o.<(.!!!.oo J: _ <( Z ......._ ...... o.~ (/) o.c.> ._ t1I <( 0..9 Q) t1I (/) (J)
to to
M .t
... ... ...
Q) Q) Q)
a. a. 0.
0 0 0
Qj Qj Qj
> > >
Q) Q) Q)
0 0 C)
~ ~ ~
c c c
~ ~ ~
a. a. a.
0. a. a.
<( <( <(
.....
)( >< )(
)( >< ><
c: ~ c:
E~ o ,- 0 00
Q) ~ '" Q) !: '"
)( 8 ~ ,g )(O;oC: ..... ,- c:
)( O::g ra
c: ~ C._ -
~f-<"I:;)~ ra o(j 0. ra='CI...
rJ'1i=:~~ <~ <co
~Ob.Oc..
00..... j9~.9~~ m I/)
......c: .. c:
C 1'0 CQ) Ij:t:: C m
Q) ... Q).~ 0 Q) -
E ~(/) EO 0>0. E 2J .9 >- o>a..
~~-gC;::6 ... C Q) co'" Co>
C a.. 0 .-... o.c.-c:
Q)"'~o :;:; o .....~~ o Q)..~~._
.!:: .- Q) Q) .!:: '0' ,- Q) '0
'8 ~ IE ~ >-~ > c._ ,_ rn > ... c ._ ._ -
CO'" >.- ca.~ ~ ~'5
uwo!!! ~'> w_~~!!!g w_ >...m
O)Q)O ''0'" m(/)'Co ro.!9~~mm~ Q)Z.1ijroQ)Q)E:!::Q3(/)~ Q)m>-Q):!::
c>.....EcQ) "Q)co .c'-.cc(/).coc (I) .c-:;:!:.cc
:;:n::; .. Q) co Q) .!!?:;:; co .. .cc..............Oc .. C) .- .. '0 .- C .....,CC)'C::J~
:=OQ)..... C >.- 0 UJQ)....... 0.. 0 "00 ~Q)c=o
> 'T""
rn ~ C ~ CI'O> :;:;E 'EE.EoUj~~ O';ZCI :;Q)l1Irn .OQ)'3Bc:
Q) 0'- I/) C C .Q)..... CI1I "'='111 UJ .... .c 0 .-
1'0 0 . C ~c......c'-mE .!!!.cro~ o Q)-o..... O"E
'O"'c 'Ow -sroo.Q) :!::o.....~C!2
~ ~ '(ij'S !!! Z' eco~.c ._......~ O:>,'iij (ij Q) 0 E Z. Q) .-
'ccoQ) IL'~ ~ m 8 (I) '0 E 'CQ)co rncg.... ...._-g.!!!:2.E
cu'C...e!o>'- C)0S!.! ...oo...~...-o ._0 ~yco~~'C
1.Q)'C'tJ C) Q):gOQ) . O'wQ).... 'cQ) Q)" lQ)coQ.rn"
0_ (I) Q) m ....0-.... Q. o'tJ~.;:!:Od)IOQ) Q) d)L..Q)
ro - 'C
E~EE:5,f; 'c::JT"".crn Q)c(!.orn~ECO..: (/)UQ) 0"'0'" 0=''0 .c...-....rn
~'-~ >. c rn..!.co:;::o.'Occu CI~.9 Q) 0 g
Q)~B.9c""": .....o'Oro .c-ro~(/)OEro cu~8..c.cCUrn $E .5..~.!!!(/)o
.... rn c '0 .. ctI 1..-
......-UJ(/).-Oo 08~cuC '-Q) .........Q):n 0)0.(1) 0) Q).-.......
-2rn.!!!co'c" c .-O'C:'C'" cum :!2cu,_OEc
ci~~Q)a!6ro =' ::J $ IE '0 .. Q) :;:; ro .- >... .- 0 Q) .c (I) .-.....'Cc
:::;- 0 ~CI) :!2..Q)O'.....oQ)1ij..~.c....: ='1'00,,0Q)
.~ Q) :; '0 :;:; .~ '-0 (/)Ecu>-E .-.-rt: Q)... CO
......'C.c'C'C E c o.m ='E Q)Q)UJ CI.... >-'C: 'c'CoroQ.c
'0=> 0'0 "'O>(I)~2 E'" .. ,C ..
~ ~ Q) g>~ ~ 0 o Q) Q) 'C: C 'c,CiU:;.bm(l)ro(l)t;cu(l) .....i:u..Q)....
:g..,Cu.CU Q)c'C mQ) .!!! ~c...CI) =~~::JE1ij o 0)- 0
0>(/)1ij'C:~~0 0..- =' '0.0 J: ... .-
..!!!..... (/) '0_ cu.....(I)E .... ~.2"''O"" cu8...E .c~c.o
.... UJ (I) cu C) ~~~"8>~ 0)= 0 c 'i: .- ::J .- co.c
(I).... 0
o~'CcQ)(/)~ c='r::ro .......1/) 0- ro o...EmQ)... Q) 1/).- m.- ro
~'O}5'E .-m'- Q)Oco... ro c .. E .. Q) 'i: cu 0= ~.b~ Q)
......_Q)Q).cQ)Q) '0 ......cI/)Q).cO .cOCO(/)Q)Q)co'O!i;:=
C>'C J:'- 3~cu1::00Q) . crort:(/)J:....
Q) Q) '> E =..... > ....(1) ...::J I/).!:: (I) -'(jj c.... (I) E
.- J:..... ,C.-.c OZ ro.c (/) Q) > E 1'0 C .- (I) rn .0 .- I'OJ: C 0
.E '0 0 0 ~ 0 ~ r::eQ)..ro u..c ....f-(/) o C a.o->co (/) ::J (/)_0 c..
...... ..... o 0..0 en .... ... . ro r:: ... W $ CJ ~Ij:'- a. Q) ... rn... m E'- rn
~o o.....rn (/)- :;:; '0>-' o (I) .9 (I) a~ . ~ 1'0(1) I'OQ) 0J:0 (/)Q)"Q) cu
... .. cm o .Q)~E ~ 15'o6'c,f; = CO '0 a! a,f- ui .- 0. C <I; (I)
C"Q)C'Cm" Q) Q) ..... . -= cu= c..a;.- oQ)'Cm
Q)8'cQ)Q)-~ CI)'C:ocm roc.- x rn-- m ro'O..= rn (l)QJEiU'C-g
E _E50. > 0.- C '0 C Q) (I) .- ~.~ .....c 5 J: .s Q) ..: m
0'- 00 0.....'00:=0....0. .c>C'o m
E'iij._(/)!:E oU'5~o "'1/)'" ::J (I) (I) 2 ~ 0 rn 0.Q)(/):;.91:g .....(I)olElt)
8g"ca!~Q)5 ~cgrn.o~~~ o IE '0 ,C .. ,C (I).S t: .- 0'" ..,..c
.... ~ .. .- 1::
_0..00 1'0 U 1'0 .- I;: .9~Oc'5~>-.c ~m~
'(ij rn (/) E E .!:: c~Q)~'C ma. Q)'Ct.....!!! 0~~0r::0
OOrn..... Q)> o..~!i;Q)I'OOOi Co> oE-O(l)._'co. ..cWClcuc
.....~cQ)>c W ~ '0 ,c ro ~ ~cQ)(/) .........0'0 ~ .5 = gI
...Q) Q)(/)ow CI) ..._ Q) (/),c.._ .-'0 Q)(I)Q) Q)(I)-
(/)'c=o . ... E .- 0 8. '0 .c '0 "':::'C::Jro...c'C=t:"c'C ... ::: m '0 c
.Q '0 '> ~ Q) ~ '0 a "'::Jl'OoE 0.0>'- ._0>0 o 0.= - Q) ro 1: m 1'0 .. 0 Oo."=UI.-
.- Q).....O-.-o 'C: o..!!? ::J rn 0
...cQ)..."CEc ::J~,C.. . 6:~o::~~g~~ 'i: a. ::J 0 ... ,c 0 ... ,C Q).... 0
a.. ro '0 0. f- ._ ro Z a.. I/) I'- 0. a..<I;m.~ 1'01'0 c: ClI/).~ 0 ~ a..<I;>m..91~
r-..: c:i ....
00 oj ....
T""
='0>-
CU I: I:
t;n!n!
.~ >- E
o'i: e
+'Q)....
J:.Q)
'Ct:(/)
Q) 0.-
.... I: 0
.- C
~J:. >-
Q)O..c
... CU
Q)'O
OJ
Q)........
.cOO
_n!
- C,
- E
~~--
(/)c....
::3'c
... ::3
~~O)
0.- c
- 1:--
Q)o=
> .- Q)
Q):!: ~
0'0'0 .
:;:,81:0)~
I: c5
~ '0 0
.- .... CU (/)
Q..(ij.... '0
a. >- Q)
<C-~<;::
~Q):;:
Q)........c
I:rtJQ)
J:.Q)n!'t)
I- 0 Q)._
N
,..
....
Q)
a.
o
Qj
>
Q)
o
:;:,
I:
n!
.~
Q.
a.
<C
x
x
c
o
Q) ." -;
....""'0
xg~c.<IJ
1'0 I- E ~
<J> - ~
<( Pot
.!!! 0
I: 0)::
Q) J:. c..c (/)
E.!B.9:+" .~~ ...
l:05~ Q) ~
e ,~:!: '>. I: ~ ~ Q)
.- 0 c..... .- - .... :=:
>... .- .if:;' 0).... 0 ..,..
I:o....@ ~.- c.!!!> ~
W_o::::>UWrtJ;;>_
Q)'C:s....oJ:. 0
J: I: ,. 0) .... .
....n!J:.Q)::sc...
+' rtJl:OoQ)
co.... .-.... Q)
Q)....~J:Q)c:
J!J~c$+'::S'5
0+'~1:'OC:1:
~(/)~~ ~ ~W
Emc'Q)(/)<C.(/)
.-En!.cc....~
+-' ... L.,. :) U'-
c .Q ~ o),;:! c
B a.co +' I: \f;: (ij Q)
t;: ..2 Q)?=
'c~Qj co-~....
01 Q)Q):!:'OO
.iii'"..........c n! c
"'+'::3:EOo
Q)n!(/)(/)o((:;:
>0 0... 0
:;: a:: ... "0 a. Q) ro
CO ro 0)....
3Q)Ec:!2ro.!!1
O)oro::3........
Ero-'-oc:n!
::s....roaJ~ortJ
o5o..E....u:~
~u:O/j(ij~E-;
::3 .- .... +'
't)o~t:Q)e....
Q) ccuQ)....Q)
....(/)Q)a.... ~
oC>n!~.!!!""
+' .2 <C .... VI I: (/)
L.,...... 0"-0)'-
Q)g....:J[\]E[\]
E 'E(I)~~EQ)E
....... oa;(ijI:.Q>.Q
\. .... oroOro
I- .:,~~ 00.. Eo..
C")
,..
.,'-.--....
Public Comments and Staff Responses on the Bayvista Walk
MND 18-05-012
(This document provides a transcript of comments received.)
Theresa Acerro's 8/9/07 comment letter (Rec'd E-Mail copy on 8/15/07)
To Mayor Cox and members of the RDA, members of the CVRC, and David Garcia:
Having read the MND for Bayvista Walk and several of the technical reports I formally
request that staff be directed to correct the obvious errors in the document and reissue
the MND.
Comment #1: The project description in the MND and all the technical reports is for the
previous project. The description in all the documents and the description and the
diagrams in the technical reports need to be updated to the currently proposed project.
Indeed the current project has 10 town homes less, but CEQUA (misspelling) clearly
requires an accurate project description. Also in the MND and the Air Quality report it
is stated (p.4 MND, etc.) that construction will start in September of 2006 and all
residential and retail will be completed and occupied by end of 2007. This is obviously
incorrect.
Response to Comment #1: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15063 & 15071a brief
project description must be provided in the MND including a commonly used name for
the project, location of the project and the environmental setting. Details regarding the
reduction in Development Standards are included in the Precise Plan for the project and is
not a requirement ofthe MND project description.
The project description provided by the MND is correct and up to date. Technical reports
support the preparation of the MND. The Air Quality report and the Noise report were
subject to a third party review by City of Chula Vista environmental consultant RECON
using the new site plan design as the basis for their expert review. These reports were
deemed adequate for the proposed project with the exception that a recommendation for a
minimum five-foot solid wall be constructed along the northerly perimeter of the project
site for the purposes of adequately attenuating noise for a designated open space area.
The applicant's civil engineer (Lundstrom and Associates) prepared the drainage study,
water quality technical report, and sewer report based on the new project description and
site plan design. The project site has remained vacant with no significant change and
therefore the cultural report, paleontological report, geotech report, biological survey, and
the phase I and Phase II environmental site assessment reports were utilized as originally
prepared since the conditions and potential impacts that these reports evaluated would not
be affected by the proposed site plan design.
Comment #2: On page 6 of the MND it states, "A human health risk assessment will be
prepared prior to the issuance of a grading permit and will need to accompany any
proposed corrective grading or capping operation. " It is inappropriate that this HRA is
MND 05-012 - Response to Comments
Page 2 of3 7
not included in the MND. The decision makers cannot certify this document without this
HRA assuring that the health risks from Hazards/Hazardous Materials have been
adequately analyzed and dealt with. (In this case from the pesticide contamination on the
site.)
Response to Comment #2: With the original proposal, the site was subject to the
preparation of a Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, and a workplan
that delineated the remediation of the pesticide contaminated soil. The technical reports
and soil remediation workplan were subject to review and approval by the San Diego
County Department of Environmental Health, Site Assessment and Mitigation Division.
The workplan prepared by Secor International, Inc (environmental consultants) was
approved by the County Department of Environmental Health on August 22, 2006.
Since that approval date by the County, the applicant submitted a new development site
plan. The new site plan layout was submitted to the County Department of
Environmental Health for their evaluation. Based on this subsequent evaluation, the
County Department of Environmental Health approved the workplan on August 15,2007
and made the following determinations:
. An estimated 2,892 cubic yards of impacted soil are found at the site
. The new site layout is sufficient to support the impacted soil relocation due to the
required grading for the site
. The concentrations of pesticides found at the site were compared to the EP A
Region 9 Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs). [NOTE: PRGs are risk-based
concentrations of contaminants used to assist risk assessors in evaluating human
health risk.] Of the eighteen soil samples taken only four (4) showed being
slightly higher than the PRG.
. As a remediation solution and based on federal regulations, the applicant's
geotechnical engineer has recommended in the revised workplan, that soil over
the entire site be excavated and recompacted to varying depths below the ground
surface, and that the impacted soil be placed below the structure foundations with
a minimum of three feet of clean cover. Based on this recommendation, the
County D EH has determined that a human health risk assessment will not be
required.
The County Department of Environmental Health will be notified prior to startup of the
excavation/remediation activities for the site. The proposed development offers the
opportunity to clean up the environment by adequately remediating contaminated soils
from within an existing residential community.
Comment #3: The hydrology section of the MND concludes that the run-off from this site
will not adversely impact "the existing 24-inch RCP" in Palomar St., but does not deal
with the effect upon the channel along the Salt Ponds into which this pipe empties or the
capacity of the pipe going under the freeway. Likewise it says that the street curb will
keep the flow going down Industrial from flooding project and street, but does not deal
with effect upon natural channel between Ada and Dorothy into which this water will
MND 05-012 - Response to Conunents
Page 3 of37
flow, and which is already stressed or the capacity of the narrow pipe going under the
freeway there.
Response to Comment #3:
. 24-inch RCP crossing Palomar Street
The 24-inch RCP that cross Palomar Street, near Trenton Avenue, was constructed as
part of a Capital Improvements Project (CIP No. ST-922) for Palomar Street and it was
designed to convey a lO-year, 6-hour storm event.
The City of Chula Vista, in October and December of 2000, prepared two reports titled:
"Drainage Study for Palomar Street Improvements from Interstate 5 to Industrial
Boulevard!! and HSupplement No.1 / Drainage Study for Palomar Street Improvements
from Interstate 5 to Industrial Boulevard" that analyzed the drainage patterns of Palomar
Street and the vicinity areas to size the stonn drain system and other street improvements.
The site ofthe proposed Bay Vista Walk project was a part of the area of study of the CIP
No. ST -922. The "Drainage Study for Palomar Street Improvements from Interstate 5 to
Industrial Boulevard" assumed that the ultimate condition of the area under
consideration was going to be a combination of suburban and commercial land use; with
this rationale, the runoff coefficient "C" for the project site ranged from 0.70 to 0.90.
The 2000 drainage analysis detennined that the runoff generated by the tributary area
discharging to Palomar Street, for a 10-year stonn event, was going to be 20.04 cfs,
which required a 24-inch pipe to convey the flow.
The drainage study prepared by Lundstrom & Associates for the Bay Vista Walk Project
titled: "Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulic Study Bayvista Walk", detennined that the
flow generated by the 10-year stonn event was 9.48 cfs. Comparing the flows calculated
by City staff in the 2000 drainage study for CIP No. ST -922, and the flows calculated by
Lundstrom & Associates for the Bay Vista Walk Project, we could conclude that the 24-
inch RCP stonn drain crossing Palomar Street would not be impacted by the runoff
generated by the proposed Bay Vista Walk Project.
. Downstream Stonn Drain System (Under Interstate 5 Freeway)
The City of Chula Vista, as part of the construction of the street improvements for the
Palomar Street, analyzed the capacity of the downstream storm drain system. The
analysis was presented in the report titled: "Supplement No. 1 Drainage Study for
Palomar Street Improvements for Interstate 5 to Industrial Boulevard", dated December
14, 2000. The hydrology for the abovementioned study was based on the criteria stated
in Section 3-200 of the City ofChula Vista Subdivision Manual and the as-built plans for
Interstate 5 (Caltrans Contract No. 11-122404, sheet 47 of 437). Per Caltrans as-built
plans, there currently exist a trio 5' X 3" reinforced concrete box culvert (RCB) that
conveys the runoff associated with the proposed Palomar Street project across Interstate
5. It was determined that the overall capacity of the trio 5' X 3' RCB is approximately
MND 05-012 - Response to Comments
Page 4 of37
310 cfs, compared to the 176 cfs that the tributary basin (including the proposed Bay
Vista Walk Project) will generate. The results of the City's capacity analysis showed that
the trio 5' X 3' RCB is adequate to convey the associated runoff.
. Storm Drain Improvements Along Industrial Boulevard
The existing 12-inch PVC stonn drain that crosses Industrial Boulevard at the
northeasterly side of the proposed Bay Vista Walk Project, was designed as part of the
CIP for the Palomar Street Improvements (CIP No. ST-922). In the "Drainage Study for
Palomar Street Improvements from Interstate 5 to Industrial Boulevard, it was
detennined that the runoff that the tributary area will generate for the IO-year stonn event
was 1.36 efs. The drainage study prepared by Lundstrom & Associates for the Bay Vista
Walk Project titled: "Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulic Study Bayvista Walk",
detennined that the flow generated by the 10-year stonn event tributary to the existing
12-inch PVC stonn drain was 1.52 cfs. Comparing the results from the City's 2000
drainage study and Lundstrom & Associates' drainage report for the proposed project, we
could conclude that the existing 12" PVC stonn drain that crosses Industrial Boulevard is
adequate to convey the associated runoff.
Comment #4: The trip generation figures were incorrectly calculated as 6 per du, which
on the SANDAG chart is for apartments. 8 is the figure commonly used for
condominiums/duplexes. Podium dwellings may be apartments, but at least 104 du are
town homes and should use 8 for calculation of ADT.
Response to Comment #4: The traffic report counted the number of units on the site,
including those on the podium building, as 164 units (project is now 154 units). The site
itself is just over 5 acres. This equates to approximately 32 units/acre. In preparing
traffic reports, the City estimates traffic generation characteristics based on rates in the
SANDAG (Not So) Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego
Region (April 2002). Trip generation rates are as follows:
Condominium (or any multi-family 6-20 DU/acre): 8 trips/DU
Apartment (or any multi-family units more than 6-20 DU/acre): 6 trips/DU
Based on the proposal, 6 trips per DU is an appropriate figure to use to detennine trip
generation rates for this project.
Comment #5: Page 13 #13 Mitigation for traffic impacts is the exact same mitigation
already assigned to a Marsella Villas in January 2007. This mitigation was assigned for
impacts of 40 town homes and obviously is inadequate for 154. Also since it will be built
by the time this project starts construction some other mitigation needs to be found for
this project's impacts.
Response to Comment #5: Cumulative impacts are those impacts that are not
necessarily caused by one development alone - they are caused by overall growth of an
area. In areas where traffic related thresholds are close to being triggered, it is quite
possible for any development, no matter what size, to trigger a cumulative impact. In this
MND 05-012 - Response to Comments
Page 5 of37
case, either the construction of Marsella Villas OR the construction of Bayvista Walk,
would trigger the impact at the intersection of Frontage and Palomar.
As a result, whichever project is built first, Marsella Villas or Bayvista Walk, will need to
mitigate the cumulative impact at the intersection of Frontage and Palomar. The fact that
the mitigation language is identical for both projects demonstrates consistency in the
assessment of project traffic impacts. On Page 23 of the Bayvista Walk traffic study,
traffic volumes expected from Marsella Villas was accounted for (at the time the report
was written, the project was not called Marsella Villas, it was called Bay View).
Additionally, the project at the southwest corner of Ada and Industrial was also
accounted for as well (see page 23 of Bayvista Traffic Report).
Comment #6: The Frontage entrance can not be considered as the primary entrance
since the median will prevent left turns in or out at Frontage and Palomar. This most
likely will only be used as an exit when going east or entrance when exiting freeway from
the south or coming from Bay Blvd. This will put the major traffic load onto Industrial.
The effect upon Industrial of the median has not been analyzed.
Response to Comment #6: Until the proposed phase II portion of this project is built,
the Frontage Road access will remain as the primary entrance and exit to the project site.
In addition, the Frontage Road entrance will remain as a primary entrance to the site (for
those vehicles traveling east on Palomar Street from Interstate 5). The intersections of
Industrial Boulevard & Ada Street and Industrial Boulevard & Palomar Street were
analyzed by the traffic study and found to operate at acceptable levels for both for the
short term and long term scenarios. No direct or cumulative traffic impacts were
identified by the traffic study that would adversely affect the level of service of the
aforementioned intersections. The City Traffic Section has further reviewed the proposed
Palomar Gateway Beautification improvements with respect to this project and found that
there are no direct or cumulative impacts that would adversely affect the level of service.
The traffic study prepared by Katz, Okitsu & Associates (KOA) clearly states that with
the proposed mitigation (whether a signalized intersection or construction of a partial
median closure) to alleviate peak hour traffic impacts to the intersection of Frontage
Road/W alnut Avenue & Palomar Street would improve the operational performance of
this intersection to an acceptable level of service, under all study scenarios (page 36 KOA
report November 2005). Pursuant to Tentative Map condition #25 the applicant will be
required to construct the partial median at the intersection of Frontage Road/W alnut
Avenue & Palomar Street.
Comment #7: The Traffic Report needs to be redone. Air Quality and Noise also need to
be redone because they are based upon this outdated Traffic Report. Even the updates
used the incorrect figures in the Traffic Report issued in November 2005.
Response to Comment #7: The Air Quality Report and Noise study were reviewed by a
third party consultant (RECON) and were found to be adequate with the one
MND 05-012 - Response to Comments
Page 60f37
recommendation for a five foot sound wall to be added along the northerly perimeter of
the proposed open space area of the project site.
Errors in Traffic ReDort:
Comment #8: (#1) Page 20 Existing Plus Project Roadway segments incorrectly reports
42,025 when the city's TMP reports 44,238 as an existing condition in 2005 between 1-5
and Industrial.
Response to Comment #8: See Response to Comment # I O.
Comment #9: (#2) Page 24 reports 42,533 as Existing plus Cumulative plus project.
City's TMP reports 44,238 as an existint condition in 2005 between 1-5 and Industrial
without the project and 56,963 as the count in 2008 without the project.
Response to Comment #9: See Response to Comment #10.
Comment #10: (#3) Page 28 Horizon Year 2010 Daily Roadway Segment Conditions
reports 43,000 while the city's TMP count reports 56,963 as the count in 2007.
STA OLD ST FROM TO 2005 2006 2007
STA Names
Pal-1 335 Palomar Bay Blvd 1-5 nc nc nc
St.
Pal-2 336 Palomar 1-5 Industrial 44236 nc 56963
St.
Pal-3 337 Palomar Industrial Broadway 33191 nc 35073
St.
Pal-4 338 Palomar Broadway Orange nc nc nc
St.
Nc = no count
Response to Comment #10: The City Traffic Section section did count the volume of
Palomar Street as part of the 2007 TMP Program. After the large difference in volume
between the traffic report and the 2007 count was pointed out, the City repeated the
volume count on Palomar Street. Our most recent count (conducted in August 2007)
resulted in a volume of 44,650 vehicles per day. The City also asked the traffic
consultant on the project to re-count the volume on Palomar. The consultant expects an
increase of approximately 3,950 - 4,500 trips over what was originally counted. Traffic
Engineering therefore feels the 56,963 was a flawed count (potentially created by a loose
tube or incorrect setting on the counter). The 3,600+ increase in trips (difference between
40,957 and 44,650) this creates along Palomar is approximately 8%, matches what the
MND 05-012 - Response to Comments
Page 7 of 37
traffic consultant expects to see, and fits the City range of 1-4% per year of increased
trips on Chula Vista roadways.
Because of this 8% volume increase, the City has asked the traffic engineering consultant
for the project to send us a letter addressing what additional impacts, if any, are now
expected on Palomar and Industrial.
Comment #11: (#4) Page 25 Existing plus Cumulative Projects Plus Peak Hour
Intersection Conditions has the intersection of Frontage and Palomar as F and Industrial
and Palomar as C with the project, but the 2006 TMP Segment LOS without project or
cumulatives mentioned in report have the whole stretch as D and E all day long in 2006
and 2005:
The report is obviously dated and the data is questionable when compared with the city's
own data. It does conclude on page 38 that the mitigation suggested would not change
the F condition at all, which would make an MND inappropriate for the project since this
would be an unmitigated negative effect. All impacts must be mitigated to below
significance for an MND to be valid. It would also make the project in violation of
Cummings.
2006 TMP SEGMENT LOS
ALL TIME PERIODS
ARTERIAL INTERCHANGE SEGMENTS (report of GMOC 2005- '06FY)
1-5
7-8AM 8-9AM 11:30-12:30 12:30-1:30 4-5PM 5-6PM
class Dir LOS speed LOS speed LOS speed LOS speed LOS Speed LOS speed
Palomar
Bay EB D 12.1 ('06) D 9.4('06) E 8.9('06) E 8.5('05) E 8.1 ('05)
Blvd.-
Industrial
(TMPII, WB C 18.7 ('06) D 12.8('06) D 11.5('06) D 11.5('05) D 12.6('05)
HCM4)
Response to Comment #11: The LOS F for the intersection of Frontage and Palomar
mentioned as an intersection LOS is inaccurate - it is not an intersection LOS, it is a
minor movement LOS. The LOS for the intersection is B, the LOS for the northbound
minor move is F. The City specifically report the left turn minor movement at
uncontrolled intersections to see impacts sooner or to a greater degree. The letter further
compares intersection LOS for Industrial and Palomar with segment LOS of Palomar. It
should also be noted that GMOC thresholds do not apply to this section of Palomar, as it
is an interchange segment, not a local roadway segment. Lastly, the portion regarding
page 38 discussing no change to the LOS F condition is incorrect. Page 38 actually
shows post mitigation levels of service in the B and C range. The proposed project
although very similar in description and design proposes less number of dwelling units
than the project that was analyzed by the traffic study. The traffic study prepared by
Katz, Okitsu & Associates (KOA) clearly states that with the proposed mitigation
(whether a signalized intersection or construction of a partial median closure) to alleviate
peak hour traffic impacts to the intersection of Frontage Road/Walnut Avenue & Palomar
MND 05-012 - Response to Comments
Page 8 of 37
Street would improve the operational performance of this intersection to an acceptable
level of service, under all study scenarios (page 36 KOA report November 2005). The
project would not result in unmitigated effects, therefore an MND is an appropriate
document to disclose the projects impacts.
Comment #12: (#8) The project clearly contributes to the city's violation of the
Cummings Initiative and growth management ordinances, since it will contribute to a
traffic condition that violates the threshold. We are aware that the GMOC thresholds do
not include freeway interchanges, but Cummings does not make any distinction between
streets that involve freeway interchanges and others. 19.80.010: "C This intense
development has overloaded the capacity of the city streets and thoroughfares to move
traffic safely, efficiently, and has failed to meet traffic demands.. ." 19.80.020: ""ensuring
that the future traffic demands do not exceed the capacity of the streets.. . /I The wording
clearly applies to all city streets. There is also the problem that the project is not paying
anything toward its negative impacts (no traffic fee, no mitigation?). This is out of
compliance with (19.80.030 A.) "If the existing major city streets and thoroughfares
(Palomar) do not have capacity to accommodate the proposed development without
substantially altering existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street system,
then construction or widening of a major link or links in the major traffic network shall
be staged as necessary to ensure the quality of existing traffic flow is maintained. /I
Clearly Palomar needs to be widened to 6 lanes from Bay Blvd. to Frontage at the very
least to correct this problem that has been exasperated by the three condo projects
already built and occupied on Ada since 2005. The volume/capacity standards for city
streets is being surpassed. The city must enlarge the street to increase its capacity to
what existing traffic demands before new traffic can be added. If the city can not now
afford to increase the capacity of the street, obviously it can not now afford this project.
This is what the purpose and intent of Cummings requires. It is the citys and the
developer's responsibility to pay their fair share as CALTWS informed the city on July
10,2006 in a letter specifically concerning the EIR for the UCSP, but in general
reminding the city of the two recent court cases that have found jurisdictions responsible
for cumulative effects upon regional facilities caused by approvals within that
jurisdiction.
::~~..~.~~~':=...~i:;
~. ... ........... III ""'. ....I.=tr..f~Di.6-...ir.. .... _~J. ~d"'_ "... ._.. .~
...... '~,)IQ1~~. .. ........ .ar.t '*.....ID ~ '" '6R lid
~ ..1 Alri........ ......."'...,~
Response to Comment #12: The GMOC 2007 Annual Report found that "All Citywide
signalized arterial segments are operating at level of service in compliance with threshold
standards.." with the exception of a portion of Heritage Road in the eastern portion ofthe
City.
In the late 1980's, a citizen initiative referred to as the "Cumming's Initiative" was
passed by a majority vote of the electorate and was incorporated as Chula Vista
Municipal Code (CVMC) Section 19.80 (Ord.2309 Initiative 1988). The Ordinance
contains provisions that limit the rezoning of a property. Section 19.80.070 (D) states
that:
MND 05-012 - Response to Comments
Page 9 of37
"Rezoning commercial or industrial property to a residential zone shall
be pennitted only to the maximum residential density corresponding to
the potential traffic generation that was applicable prior to the rezoning
to residential."
It should be noted that the proposed rezone is from commercial to commercial (CT -P to
CC-P). Nonetheless, since the CC-P zone allows residential development at an R-3
density, the following analysis, as set forth in Section 19.80.070(D), provides a fonnula
for comparing the potential development under the CT-P zone and the proposed
development.
For the proposed rezone, the comparison would be between the existing potential traffic
generation associated with the development under the existing CT-P zone and the
corresponding maximum residential density that could be pennitted. Based on standard
traffic generation rates (SANDAG 2002 "Not So Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic
Generation Rates for The San Diego Region"), commercial and office uses generate
significantly greater traffic than residential uses. For example, the existing 4.89 acre site
(213,008 square feet) zoned CT-P would have the potential to develop up to a 319,512
square foot building. This is based on the CT-P zone's existing development standards
which allow 50% lot coverage (50% x 213,008 sq. ft. site = 106,504 sq. ft.) and up to a
three story height limit (3 stories x 106,504 sq. ft. per floor). Using SANDAG's standard
traffic generation rates for commercial uses (40 trips /1,000 square feet), a total of 12,780
trips would be generated from a potential commercial building of that size.
Based on the criteria in Section 19.80.070 (D) above, the maximum residential density
could not be more than the potential traffic generated by the commercial use (i.e. 12,780
trips). This equates to up to 2,130 multi-family units (12,780 trips divided by 6 trips per
multifamily dwelling unit) on the 4.89 acre site, which would be 435 dulac. Pursuant to
the November 2005 "Traffic Impact Study" prepared by Katz, Okitsu & Associates
(KOA) this project has potential to generate 1,944 trips with the combined residential and
commercial components. Because commercial and office uses generate significantly
greater traffic than residential uses, a zone change from commercial to a multi-family
residential category could never result in residential traffic generation greater than the
corresponding potential traffic generation from a commercial development. Therefore, as
illustrated above, zone changes from commercial to a commercial zone that allows
residential development would not conflict with Section 19.80.070 (D) of the ordinance.
The project will be required to contribute its fair share towards the improvement of public
services and facilities through payment of the City's Development Impact Fees and other
conditions of approval. These include existing City Public Facilities Development
Impact Fees (PFDIF), park acquisition and development (PAD) fees, sewer, traffic signal
fees, as well as a future Western Transportation Development Impact Fee (WTDIF).
Theresa Acerro's 8/27/07 comment letter
MND 05-012 - Response to Comments
Page 10 of37
Comment #13: The purpose of CEQUA is full disclosure of environmental impacts. This
requires a detailed and specific project description. The project description on page 1
fails to provide a full and detailed description of the project. 15124. Project Description
Discussion: This section requires the EIR to describe the proposed project in a way that
will be meaningful to the public, to the other reviewing agencies, and to the decision-
makers. Although the statute contains no express requirement for an EIR to contain a
project description, the statutory points of analysis need to be supplemented with a
project description for the analysis to make sense. This section is a codification of the
ruling in County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles, cited in the note. There the court noted
that an accurate description of the project has been required by case law interpreting the
National Environmental Policy Act. The state court of appeal declared that an accurate,
stable, finite project description is an essential element of an informative and legally
sufficient EIR under CEQA. Public Resources Code. This is an MND but similar
requirements should be expected for a full and complete project description.
Response to Comment #13: See Response to Comment #1.
Comment #14: Figure 3 appears to show a . 13-acre recreation area in the same spot as
the water quality BMP in the technical report. The decorative pavements that are meant
to provide a porous surface appear much smaller than in the water quality report.
Response to Comment #14: Pursuant to mitigation measures #5, #6 and #7 of the
Mitigated Negative Declaration, the project has been conditioned to comply with all
requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
regulations including the preparation and implementation of a Water Quality Technical
Report (WQTR) and a 8tonn Water Pollution Prevention Plan (8WPPP). The applicant
/developer is required to implement water quality Best Management Practices (BMPs) as
approved by the City Engineer.
It is not clear if comment # 14 refers to the two bio-retention sand filters located near the
northerly boundary of the project, almost at the middle of the site. If this is the case, then
please note that those bio-retention sand filters were sized to capture the runoff generated
from the 2-year stonn, or 85th percentile. According to the Treatment Control BMP
Infonnation shown in the appendix of Lundstrom & Associates' WQTR for the proposed
Bay Vista Walk Project, BMP # 1 (Bio-retention Sand Filter # 1) should have a filter bed
surface area of 229 sq ft, and BMP # 2 (Bio-retention Sand Filter # 2) should have a
filter bed surface area of 275 sq ft. The dimensions of the bio-retention sand filters
recommended by the WQTR will be implemented in the grading plans as a condition of
approval. The small areas required for the bio retention sand filters have been
incorporated into the design of the open space area.
Comment #15: The primary entry to the project cannot be on Frontage due to the
elimination of left turns caused by the median to be built as a condition of Marsella Villas
project.
MND 05-012 - Response to Comments
Page 11 of37
Response to Comment #15: See Response to Comment #6.
Comment #16: On page one it is stated, "the city required parking for the mixed use
podium would be provided in a subterranean garage." Figure 3 shows most of this lot
covered with parking. There is insufficient detail regarding this podium project for it to
be included in the MND. It must have its own environmental analysis in the future. The
Water Quality Technical Report also states that it must have its own water quality study.
Response to Comment #16: The application packet for the proposed project contains all
the basic information to adequately conduct the required environmental evaluation and
determinations for the entire project. Figure 3 of the MND is the proposed site plan for
the entire mixed use project. As a site plan, it only shows the surface layer of the concept
plans, which includes level one of the condominium project (Lot I) and the five-story
building on Lot 2. The packet submitted by the Applicant includes drawings in
schematic format for the rest of the floors of the corner building, including the
underground parking, the surface level (shown on Figure 3), and building levels two,
three, four and five. Pursuant to Conditional Use Permit condition #38, Phase 2/Lot 2 of
the project will be required to conform to various design guidelines and a design review
permit.
The MND analyzes the environmental impacts of the entire project site (Lots 1 and 2) for
154 residential units and 5,000 to 10,000 square feet of retail uses as detailed in the site
plan. The podium building in Lot 2 and its potential impacts to the environment have
been adequately analyzed by the MND through the preparation of many applicable
technical reports including cultural, paleontological, traffic, noise, biological, air quality,
phase I & II, sewer, drainage and hydrology and water quality technical assessment.
Comment #17: The description does not include the variances being requested, which is a
critical part of the problem with the effect of the project on aesthetics and community
character. On page 2 there is reference to ''future neighborhood park on Oxford. " Is a
new park planned or is this just another proof an old document was used?
Response to Comment #17: See Response to Comment #1 and #16. The project is not
requesting a variance. The site is designated as a "Precise Plan" (P) modifying district
and is proposing a precise plan as noted in the project description. Through the precise
plan, the project proposes a reduction in the amount of open space and a reduction in the
front yard building setback. A precise plan, which is a mechanism provided by the Chula
Vista Municipal Code (19.56.041) is used to allow diversification in the spatial relationship
of land uses, density, buildings, structures, landscaping and open spaces, as well as design
review of architecture and signs through the adoption of specific conditions of approval for
development of property in the city. Within the boundaries of the Precise Plan modifying
district, the location, height, size and setbacks of buildings or structures, open spaces, signs
and densities indicated on the precise plan must take precedence over the otherwise
applicable regulations of the underlying zone. The Precise Plan and the required findings
will be presented in the reports to the Planning Commission, Chula Vista Redevelopment
MND 05-012 - Response to Comments
Page 12 of37
Corporation and the City Council. The Precise Plan will be considered by these review
bodies and will be subject to their approval during the public meetings.
The referenced park on Oxford Street was recently built and is currently in operation. In
addition to the Oxford Park, the 2005 General Plan calls for the construction of a future
neighborhood park in the area bounded by Industrial Boulevard, Ada Street and Dorothy
Street. Policy LUT 43.14 states the following:
"Provide for the development of one Neighborhood Park within or near the
Palomar Gateway District. "
Comment #18: An urban design strategy, entitled "Palomar Gateway TOD District
Conceptual Development Strategy" was developed for the entire Palomar Gateway
District with no input from the existing residents, no approval or input from any
commissions or the city council. This document is being used to justify this project. This
is entirely inappropriate and inconsistent with practice anywhere else in the city of Chula
Vista. This is a neighborhood in the lowest income area of Chula Vista. Environmental
Justice requires that the residents be given the same opportunity to plan what is best for
their community as the rest of the residents in the city. Instead the developer was made to
hire an outside planner who has in effect written a specific plan for an entire
neighborhood and now city staff is implementing it without any involvement of the
residents of the area. The General Plan was meant to be a general document giving
broad ideas for a large area, not specific design guidelines or parcel-by-parcel planning.
The existing zoning should stay in place until changes have been vetted with the
community and through all legally required processes. This has not been done in the
southwestern part of the city and the residents are suffering the consequences of this
piecemeal planning. This is clearly an environmental justice issue since such practices do
not occur in other areas of the city. The concept of a precise plan is only used
consistently in the southwest to circumvent the need for a community developed specific
plan. The planners choose to work with favored developers and ignore the community
and the negative effects upon the community of this type of planning. CA Government
code ~ 65040.12:
(e) For the purposes of this section, "environmental justice" means the fair treatment of people of all
races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and
enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.
Response to Comment #18: See Response to Comment #17. In December 2005, after
several years of community input, the General Plan designation for the project site was
amended from Residential-Low Medium (3-6 dwelling units per acre) to Mixed-Use
Transit Focus Area, and the site included in the future Palomar Gateway District.
General Plan Objective LUT 43 calls for the establishment of a Mixed Use Transit Focus
Area around the Palomar Trolley Stations and provides a set of detailed policies in tenns
of development uses, intensity, design and amenities for the District.
The "Palomar Gateway Transit Oriented Development District Conceptual Development
Strategy" was not used to justify the project. The project has been evaluated for
MND 05-012 - Response to Comments
Page 13 of 37
consistency with the relevant goals and policies of the 2005 General Plan. In staff s
opinion, the Project sets a positive precedent for implementation of the new General Plan
goals and objectives and for the revitalization ofthe neighborhood.
Comment #19: This MND does not treat the residents of the Palomar Gateway or
southwest area fairly, since they were excluded from the planning of this project and
their input at the single public meeting held in 2005 or 2006 at Harborside School was
totally ignored as was the input given at the MAAC Project on June 25, 2007. The
existence of a plan conceptual or not is evidence of this unfair treatment and the
premeditated plan to exclude the community. Presentations on planning were given for
three months to the members of the SWCVCA at which consistently the existence of a
plan was denied and the community was assured they would be able to contribute to a
specific plan.
Response to Comment #19: In addition to the community outreach associated with the
General Plan Update, the following is a brief summary of the project specific public input
received to date.
The first application from Olson was submitted to the City for review on February 8,
2005 (Initial Study) and a subsequent application for Design Review was received on
April 22, 2005. Olson first presented the proposal to the public at a neighborhood
meeting on October 6, 2005. These applications called for the construction of 104
residential units and 5,000 square feet of commercial space. This application was
submitted at the time when the City was in the process of formulating its General Plan
Update, which was adopted in December 2005. In 2006, the project was significantly
modified in order to more closely conform with the updated General Plan Mixed-
Use/Transit Focus Area (TF A) land use designation. It then went through another round
of review by City staff and an informational presentation to the Design Review
Committee and Sub-Committee in January 2006.
The modified plan called for the construction of 154 units and 8,244 square feet of
commercial space, and the remaining required applications were submitted to the City on
September 8, 2006 for a zone change, conditional use permit and tentative map. The
modified proposal was presented at a neighborhood meeting at Harborside Elementary
School on September 28, 2006. In October 2006, the modified proposal was presented
for preliminary review to the Design Review Committee. However, at the end of 2006,
the Olson Company decided to withdraw that plan due to concerns about construction
costs and market conditions. In February 2007, Olson submitted yet another preliminary
site plan, which included the same number of residential units and commercial space but
provided a different product type and site arrangement.
As a result, staff considered the site plan as a new submittal and has thus required the
project to be subject to the new Redevelopment Advisory Committee (RAC) and Chula
Vista Redevelopment Corporation (CVRC) review and approval process. The purpose of
the RAC is to gather early public input through a community-based advisory board on
MND 05-012 - Response to Comments
Page 14 of37
development applications, with emphasis on design and on conformity with adopted
plans, ordinances, and guidelines.
The project was presented to the RAC for an initial review on May 3, 2007 and
subsequent review on August 2, 2007. In addition, the applicant attended the July 25,
2007 Southwest Civic Association meeting, and the project was brought to the CVRC for
preliminary design review on August 9,2007.
Comment #20: The result for the southwest community has been the burden of regional
traffic congestion, streets packed with cars due to inadequate parking, and a high
concentration of homeless individuals littering the streets and frightening community
members as well as overtaxed and inadequate infrastructure.
Response to Comment #20: See Response to Comment #10, #18 and #19.
Comment #21: Indeed this project is near a trolley station, but this station is already on
the line with the highest volume of use in the county. There is already standing room only
on the cars during rush hours. Essentially there is no more room for increased rider ship
and the blue line needs extensive repairs: Black-and-Blue Line in need of makeover
Trolley passengers get rough ride on deteriorating north-south route By Steve Schmidt
STAFF WRITER UNION_TRIBUNE May 20, 2007 Because of excessive traffic on
Palomar anyone choosing to ride the trolley would probably drive over there rather than
walk. It is not likely that many if any of the residents of the town homes will regularly use
the trolley.
Response to Comment #21: Comment is noted.
Comment #22: Public Meetings - There is no mention of the public meeting at
Harborside in the MND, which was attended by close to 30 fairly vocal people as I
recall. It is mentioned that no one commented on the Initial Study, but people essentially
did not understand what the city was up to nor that they were expected to send in
comments. This was before the General Plan was adopted and before the community was
aware of the need to get involved. If the Notice had been sent again when the developer
returned with a new plan there would have been comments. This is essentially another
attempt to disempower the community by ignoring the many barriers they face to
involvement.
Response to Comment #22: See Response to Comment #18 and #19.
Comment #23: The plans I saw in the folders at planning did not list the brand names of
the paints and other coverings that would be used. Without this information it is
impossible for the public to know if indeed the voe will be reduced below the threshold
or not. This information must be provided since there is a huge difference in VOC content
in architectural coatings. There needs to be a way of monitoring the length of time for
application. There is no timeline included, so the public has no means of verifying these
statements.
MND 05-012 - Response to Comments
Page 15 of37
Response to Comment #23: Mitigation measure #2 of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration requires the applicant/developer to demonstrate, that prior to the issuance of
any building pennits, the selected architectural coatings, their application and time line
used will not exceed 55 pounds per day ofVOC.
Comment #24: Traffic - Page 4 talks of long-term impacts using incorrect data. The trips
were calculated as 6 per unit when the correct figure for town homes is 8. Also 105
driveway trips for the morning is too low considering we are talking about 154 families
who must all have at least one employed member to be able to afford these homes. Most
will have two employed members-each driving separately. It is inappropriate to reduce
this by 10% since the trolley line is already at capacity. There is also the inaccurate
statement that homes and businesses would be completed in 2007. Using an outdated
traffic report from 11/05 is not acceptable since the city's TMP shows an increase of
almost 15,000 cars per day on Palomar since then. This would significantly increase the
pollution as well.
Response to Comment #24: See Response to Comment # 4 and #10.
Mitigations
Comment #25: Air Quality - There is no mention of the mandatory AQIP. On 9/22/06
Olsen submitted a custom building program plan for the Green Star Building Efficiency
Program, using solar and exceeding Title 24 by IS%. What happened to this plan?
Considering that the city has increased its CO by 35% (because of residential
development) instead of reducing it to 1991 levels as called for by the Growth
Management Program, all residential developments should be required to start doing
their share to get these figures going down instead of steadily increasing. This is a
cumulative effect upon an area of non-compliance with a standard. What is Olson going
to do? This is not mentioned in the MND or the Air Quality Report.
Response to Comment #25: CVMC 19.09.050 outlines requirements for public facilities
finance plans, air quality improvement plans (AQIP), and water conservation plans
(WCP). While CVMC 19.09.110 exempts the developed areas of the City trom the
submittal of a PFFP, AQIP or WCP, the City's implementation guidelines for AQIPs and
WCPs approved in 2003 require all projects greater than 50 units to submit a AQIP and
WCP. The AQIP and WCP are tied to the building or construction phase rather than the
environmental analysis process of the project and must be completed and approved prior
to the issuance of building pennits and initiated in coordination with the approval of the
tentative map. The applicant has initially submitted the AQIP and WCP plan and will be
finalizing for approval prior to building pennit issuance.
The applicant has indicated that they qualify for points with the EED Program
(Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) headed by the United States Green
Building Council based on the proposed type of development. The LEED ND
(Neighborhood Development) encourages infill development near transit. In order to
qualify, the following must be met:
MND 05-012 - Response to Comments
Page 16 of37
. Infill (located in existing community not "sprawl")
. In close proximity to schools and existing "infrastructure"
. Transit Oriented (within ~ mile oftransit stop)
o Reduced automobile dependence (fewer trips)
o Higher Density (more homes in less space=more efficient)
o Pedestrian connections throughout the development and to public street
o Contains an "affordable housing" element
In addition, the applicant will be incorporating the following environmentally conscious
design standards:
. High efficiency irrigation equipment
. Reduced planting areas with minimal turf
. Drought tolerant/water efficient plant choices
. Low "E" energy efficient glass
. Energy Star Appliances
. Extra Insulation
. More efficient water heaters (not tankless)
Comment #26: Hazards and Hazardous Materials - It is not stated in the MND but is
stated in DEH letter 8/15/07 that all neighbors have to be given written notice of grading
and potential hazard from contaminated dust before any grading starts. This notice must
be in English and in Spanish.
Response to Comment #26: See Response to Comment #2 and Mitigation Measure #4.
The County DEH letter states that excavation activities must follow the DEH approved
Community Health and Safety Plan prepared by the applicant's environmental consultant.
As part of the Community Health and Safety Program a public notification program will
include the preparation and distribution of notices to residences and businesses adjacent
to the site where work is being performed. Notices will also be posted around the
perimeter of the site for interested parties. During each step of the grading process,
including the soil removal and burial process, reasonable precautions and measures will
be taken to control dust from the site. This includes the use of frequent spraying of water
in order to control dust migration off of the site.
MND 05-012 - Response to Comments
Page 17 of37
Comment #27: Hydrology - Appendix D of the Drainage study is supposed to give a
complete analysis of existing capacity and effects of project but essentially confines itself
to pipes in immediate vicinity. This is an incomplete analysis. 7.9 acres will drain
through node 100 and 400 under Palomar and Trenton. It is really not adequate to say
that this pipe once improved will be able to carry all storm runoff. This pipe eventually
must cross under the freeway through a rather undersized pipe and drain into a natural
channel that makes its way to the bay through a natural channel between salt ponds. This
channel is tidal and the combination of high tides and extreme storm events has not been
added to the calculation, nor is there an evaluation as to the size of the pipe going under
1- 5, which obviously can not be altered and is the weakest point in the system since the
added permeable surface will increase the runoff according to the report.
It appears that nodes 200 and 300 (about an acre) will drain through a barely
large enough pipe that will likely cause water back up to the curb height (a possible
danger to increase traffic on Industrial) and be directed for some strange reason across
Industrial to a natural channel along trolley track:s that now drains through a pipe back
across Industrial into the natural channel between Ada and Dorothy that has significant
problems already. 1 Sanchez was allowed to build condos in the floodplain by building a
ten-foot wall on the north side of the channel. There are properties at the same level as
the channel on the south side. The pipe going under the freeway not only is small in
width, but the amount of trash in the channel would indicate a good chance of clogging
in the event of a storm event. This would obviously cause potential flooding of property
(homes) to the south. It would seem that this should be dealt with in this report and the
project should pay its share of improving the channel and keeping it clear of trash. This
area in the secret plan is dedicated open space park. I believe that the property owners
on each side actually own it unless the city has an easement.
Response to Comment #27: The proposed site of the Bay Vista Walk project was
divided into four drainage basins for its study: Basin 100, Basin 200, Basin 300, and
Basin 400. The Basin 100 will drain into the existing 24" RCP stonn drain that crosses
Palomar Street; it is estimated that the flow for the lOa-year stann event is 13.1 cfs.
Basin 200 will drain to the existing 12" PVC stonn drain that crosses Industrial
Boulevard and the laO-year stonn event flow is 2.0 cfs. The laO-year event runoff of 2.4
cfs of Basin 300 will be conveyed through the curb and gutter along Industrial Boulevard.
The 100-year stonn event runoff of 1.0 cfs of Basin 400 will be conveyed through the
curb and gutter along Frontage Road.
Per the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), the proposed Bay Vista Walk Project is not
within the "Special Flood Hazard Area Inundated by lOO-year Flood" and is not subject
to flooding.
The Lundstrom & Associates' drainage report analyzed the impacts of the nearby pipes
and detennined that since the runoff generated by the proposed project was equal, or less
than the runoff assumed in the design of existing utilities, then no significant impact was
triggered downstream of the stooo drain system.
. 24-inch RCP crossing Palomar Street
MND 05-012 - Response to Comments
Page 18 of37
The 24-inch RCP that intersects Palomar Street, near Trenton Avenue, was constructed as
part of a Capital Improvements Project (CIP No. ST -922) for Palomar Street and it was
designed to convey a 10-year, 6-hour stonn event.
The City of Chula Vista, in October and December of 2000, prepared two reports titled:
"Drainage Study for Palomar Street Improvements from Interstate 5 to Industrial
Boulevard" and "Supplement No.1 / Drainage Study for Palomar Street Improvements
from Interstate 5 to Industrial Boulevard" that analyzed the drainage patterns of Palomar
Street and the vicinity areas to size the stonn drain system and other street impro_vements.
The site of the proposed Bay Vista Walk project was a part of the area of study of the CIP
No. ST -922. The "Drainage Study for Palomar Street Improvements from Interstate 5 to
Industrial Boulevard" assumed, that the ultimate condition of the area under
consideration was going to be a combination of suburban and commercial land use; with
this rationale, the runoff coefficient "c" for the project site ranged from 0.70 to 0.90.
The 2000 drainage analysis detennined that the runoff generated by the tributary area
discharging to Palomar Street, for a 10-year storm event, was going to be 20.04 cfs,
which required a 24-inch pipe to convey the flow.
The drainage study prepared by Lundstrom & Associates for the Bay Vista Walk Project
titled: "Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulic Study Bayvista Walk", determined that the
flow generated by the 10-year storm event was 9.48 cfs. Comparing the flows calculated
by City staff in the 2000 drainage study for CIP No. ST -922, and the flows calculated by
Lundstrom & Associates for the Bay Vista Walk Project, we could conclude that the 24-
inch RCP storm drain crossing Palomar Street would not be impacted by the runoff
generated by the proposed Bay Vista Walk Project.
. Downstream Stonn Drain System (Under Interstate 5 Freeway)
The City of Chula Vista, as part of the construction of the street improvements for the
Palomar Street, analyzed the capacity of the downstream storm drain system. The
analysis was presented in the report titled: "Supplement No. 1 Drainage Study for
Palomar Street Improvements for Interstate 5 to Industrial Boulevard", dated December
14, 2000. The hydrology for the abovementioned study was based on the criteria stated
in Section 3-200 of the City ofChula Vista Subdivision Manual and the as-built plans for
Interstate 5 (Caltrans Contract No. 11-122404, sheet 47 of 437). Per CaItrans as-built
plans, there currently exist a trio 5' X 3" reinforced concrete box culvert (RCB) that
conveys the runoff associated with the proposed Palomar Street project across Interstate
5. It was determined that the overall capacity of the trio 5' X 3' RCB is approximately
310 cfs, compared to the 176 cfs that the tributary basin (including the proposed Bay
Vista Walk Project) will generate. The results of the City's capacity analysis showed that
the trio 5' X 3' RCB is adequate to convey the associated runoff.
. Storm Drain Improvements Along Industrial Boulevard
MND 05-012 - Response to Comments
Page 19 of37
The eXIstmg 12-inch PVC storm drain that crosses Industrial Boulevard at the
northeasterly side of the proposed Bay Vista Walk Project, was designed as part of the
CIP for the Palomar Street Improvements (CIP No. ST-922). In the "Drainage Study for
Palomar Street Improvements from Interstate 5 to Industrial Boulevard, it was
determined that the runoff that the tributary area will generate for the 10-year storm event
was 1.36 cfs. The drainage study prepared by Lundstrom & Associates for the Bay Vista
Walk Project titled: "Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulic Study Bayvista Walk",
detennined that the flow generated by the 10-year stonn event tributary to the existing
12-inch PVC stonn drain was 1.52 cfs. Comparing the results from the City's 2000
drainage study and Lundstrom & Associates' drainage report for the proposed project, we
could conclude that the existing 12" PVC storm drain that crosses Industrial Boulevard is
adequate to convey the associated runoff.
Comment #28: There are problems with the Water Quality report. The bioretension is
only sized to be adequate for a two-year event. More rain will bypass the system entirely
and enter the storm drains untreated except by filters in the drains, which must be
maintained regularly by someone. There is an increase from .41 pre-development to .79
post development. Why is this being allowed? The condos on Moss were required to
retain all their runoff in underground basins for filtration. In the east projects are now
also required to retain all their increase in runoff for slow release or infiltration. The
greater storm events will send an increased amount of runoff quickly into an already
challenged downstream system that this report does not even mention.
Response to Comment #28: The California Regional Water Quality Control Board
Sand Diego Region Order No. R9-2007-0001, NPDES No. CAS0108758, requires that
all Treatment Control BMP for a single Priority Development Project be collectively
sized to comply with the following numeric sizing criteria:
i. Volume-based treatment control BMPs shall be designed to mitigate
(infiltrate, filter, or treat) the volume of runoff produced from a 24-hour 85th
percentile storm event, as determined from the County of San Diego's 85th
Percentile Precipitation Isopluvial Map; or
11. Flow-based treatment control BMPs shall be designed to mitigate (infiltrate,
filter, or treat) either: a) the maximum flow rate of runoff produced from a
rainfall intensity of 0.2 inch of rainfall per hour, for each hour of a storm
event; or b) the maximum flow rate of runoff produced by the 85th percentile
hourly rainfall intensity (for each hour of a storm event), as determined from
the local historical rainfall record, multiplied by a factor of two.
The two bio-retention sand filters were sized following the first numeric sizing criteria
for a volume-based treatment control BMP.
Although the existing land use of the project site has a runoff coefficient of 0.41, the
existing storm drain pipes were sized with the assumption that this land will be eventually
developed to a mix of commercial and residential land use. For this reason,
when detennining the runoff generated by the site to size the existing infrastructure, it
MND 05-012 - Response to Comments
Page 20 of37
was assumed that the runoff coefficients were between 0.70 to 0.90 and therefore, the
existing stonn drain system is adequate
In addition, the City, as mandated by the California Regional Water Quality Control
Board, required that this project implement Low Impact Development (LID) BMPs to
minimize directly connected impervious areas and promote infiltration.
Comment #29: There appear to be only 3 BMP planters or basins or porous decorative
stone areas. Considering the number of roads they should all be made of porous
substances or at least include some kind of biocells. There are only 3 sand-filled
percolation basins. This really seems quite inadequate especially since it is only designed
for a 2-year event.
Response to Comment #29: To the maximum extent possible, this project implemented
Low Impact Development (LID), Source-Control, and Treatment-Control Best
Management Practices that combined will treat the identified pollutants of concern.
Pursuant to Tentative Map condition #16 and Conditional Use Pennit conditions #17 and
20, the following BMPs will be required for the project:
Low Impact Development (LID) BMPs
. Narrower residential streets
. Alternative pavers in the driveways
. Common-area efficient irrigation
. Runoff-minimizing landscape design
. Efficient landscape maintenance
Source-Control BMPs
. Stonn drain stenciling and signage
. Material and trash storage area design
. On-lot treatment measures
. Homeowner outreach
. Lawn and gardening practices
. Water conservation
. Hazardous waste management
. Trash management
. Outreach for commercial activities
Treatment-Control BMPs
. Bio-retention sand filters
Comment #30: Noise - The occasional freight train is daily at 2 or 3AM and it blows its
air horn at every crossing. It can be heard starting in National City at 43rd until Palm
Ave. in San Diego the neighbors say, especially when the east wind blows. This report
was prepared based upon the outdated traffic report of 11/05, which grossly
underestimates the traffic and therefore the noise. The 201 O-estimated traffic in the
traffic report is less than the actual count for 2007 and therefore invalid. It is foolish to
MND 05-012 - Response to Comments
Page 21 of37
put people's patios on Palomar. There is nothing pleasant about listening to 56,OOOt
cars going by. This is not useable open space. These patios should be within the project
area not on a street with this high a traffic volume. Keeping windows closed and using
air conditioning in order to deal with the excessive noise is not a sustainable building
practice. Again there is inadequate information provided to allow the public to make a
valid judgment as to the environmental impacts of the project.
Response to Comment #30: See Response to Comment #7 and #10. Project specific
noise mitigation measures # 9, #10, #11 and #12 found in the Mitigated Negative
Declaration, will ensure that the project complies with the City of Chula Vista Noise
Standards. Noise from the occasional freight train was also evaluated by the Noise
report.
Comment #31: Actually the buildings should be backed away from the street perhaps
behind a wall and trees. The variance for setback is ridiculous and unhealthy for the
residents. This is not a relatively quite 2 or 4 lane street in a downtown. This is a
56,OOOt-vehicle 6 lane major thoroughfare. There are numerous semi trucks passing by
here to Wal-Mart, Office Depot, Food For Less, Target, Michaels, Costco, etc. In fact if
measurements were taken the air quality from this traffic mix might be as deadly as
within 500 feet of a freeway. There is nothing pleasant about being on this street. In fact
it might be dangerous to have sliding glass doors and patios, which can be easily broken
into facing a major street such as this. 60-inch high solid walls may reduce the noise but
they will also block breezes, sunlight, and views and can be jumped relatively easily.
Response to Comment #31: See Response tq Comment #10. The proposed building
setback along Palomar (2 -3 feet) is intended to create a more urban edge between the
proposed building and the sidewalk and Palomar Street. While the proposed setback
would be modified from the standard in the Zoning Ordinance for the Central Commercial
(CC) Zone, the reduction in the setback would afford the project a more urban and
pedestrian-oriented character by being closer to the sidewalk, as compared with a
suburban type of development with larger front setbacks.
In addition to the urban and pedestrian orientation afforded by the projects interface with
Palomar Street, the SANDAG TOD grant project would provide 5 feet of landscaping along
Palomar with Cypress trees to create a long stately row on each side of the street and aligning
the walkways with Myrtle hedges to create a comfortable separation zone from busy traffic
for pedestrians. The pedestrian walkways will be 5 feet of sidewalk provided through the
grant with an additional1.S to 6 feet (varies) provided by the Bayvista Walk in order to
provide wider sidewalks (minimum 6.5 feet).
Access to the Palomar trolley station would also be enhanced with thirty two (32) of the
units accessing directly onto Palomar Street and the remaining units provide a clear
pedestrian access and connections through the site to the trolley station.
Comment #32: Traffic- As already mentioned several times the traffic report is outdated
and inaccurate. The intersections of Walnut and Palomar and Frontage and Palomar are
MND 05-012 - Response to Comments
Page 22 of37
already F and the rest of the street is D for more than 2 hours a day, and may change to
F when the traffic from this project is added. Cummings clearly states that under
capacity roads need to be fixed before any new development takes place. (19.80.030 No
development without adequate public services and facilities. A. If the existing major city
streets and thoroughfares do not have the capacity to accommodate the proposed
development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or overloading the
existing street system, then construction or widening of a major link or links in the major
traffic network shall be staged as necessary to ensure the quality of existing traffic flow is
maintained.)
Response to Comment #32: See Response to Comment #11 and #12. As analyzed, the
project has no direct or cumulative impacts that would adversely affect the level of
service at the intersections of Palomar Street and FrontagefWalnut. However, pursuant to
Tentative Map condition #24, the Applicant shall pay all applicable Western
Transportation Development Impact Fees (WTDIF) at the rates in effect at the time of
approval of the final map or building permit.
Comment #33: Since these intersections are already F and there apparently is no way to
improve them. The project needs to be delayed until such time as the volumelcapacity of
the roads can be increased. Jnaccurate information was given to the RA C by a city
employee who admitted to a citizen that he was wrong because he used the wrong
SANDAG budget information when he told the RAC J-5 would be widened all the way to
the border and the bridge and off ramps causing the major problem here would be
widened. He declined to correct himself in public, and Ann Hix's brushed it off as "There
is always inaccurate information given at these meetings." (This upset our citizen
because he thought people were inclined to assume staff told the truth.) This is simply not
acceptable. The report mentions a future alternative to relieve congestion. This
alternative in the likely SANDAG budget scenario will only go as far as J Street and
therefore have no effect upon Palomar. The bottom line is that increased density is not
appropriate here because of the current congestion that probably will continue to worsen
and there is no plan at any level of government to improve the situation.
Response to Comment #33: See Response to Comment #11. For impacts to the 1-5
freeway segments identified in the 2005 General Plan Update, Table 5.10-4, the 1-5
freeway will need to be widened to provide additional capacity, depending on the
segment, as shown on the most recent SANDAG Regional Transportation Plan. Since the
freeway system is developed and managed by CaItrans, the City has only limited ability
to affect the level of congestion on these roadways, as such, mitigation is not within the
authority of the City of Chula Vista sufficient to avoid the cumulative contribution to
traffic on this roadway and the impact remains significant, as previously concluded in the
General Plan EIR.
Comment #34: This is a clear Environmental Justice issue. This community and indeed
the entire southwest have been forced to endure an unequal share of the impacts of
regional traffic congestion. The intersection of Orange and 805 was widened to provide
some relief for the more affluent users in the east, but neither the city nor the county nor
MND 05-012 - Response to Comments
Page 23 of37
the state have any plans to relieve the congestion here in the foreseeable future. At the
very least the fair thing to do is to limit the increased density to minimize the increased
congestion to the degree possible. The project is said to be a cumulative impact of 5%.
This is an unjust increase upon an already impacted community. The two paragraphs
under I- 5 South Corridor Study are misleading and do not reflect the recent report
presented to the public by SANDAG, which clearly indicated no possibility of a budget
being implemented that would relief congestion on Palomar Street.
Response to Comment #34: See Response to Comment #11 and #33. The Palomar
Street overpass and related intersections of the 1-5 off-ramps are within Caltrans right-of-
way and the City therefore relies on Caltrans for maintenance and any needed
improvements.
Comment #35: Cummings makes no distinction between freeways or su1ace streets. It
also emphasizes capacity. The city's own capacity studies clearly show Palomar is
already way over capacity. 5% more is not acceptable. Both the MND and the Traffic
report acknowledge that the intersection of Frontage and Palomar is and will continue to
be F. This is an unmitigatable negative condition that the project would cumulatively
make 5% worse. Unless the city wants to do an EIR and declare over-riding conditions,
which in itself is a violation of Cummings this project must be denied under CEQUA.
Response to Comment #35: See Response to Comment #11 and #12.
Comment #36: Mitigations - Air Quality: The mitigations are inadequate. There is no
AQIP, which is required by the city. There is no indication on the plans as to which
architectural coatings will be applied. It is not adequate to say this will occur before a
building permit is issued. It must be part of the environmental document or the public's
right to know is not fulfilled.
Response to Comment #36: See Response to Comment #22 and #25.
Comment #37: Hazards: This statement is out of date. The directions in the letter dated
8/15/07 must be adhered to.
Response to Comment #37: See Response to Comment # 2 and #26.
Comment #38: Hydrology/Water Quality: " Courts have held EIRs to be inadequate when
the mitigation measure Hdoes no more than require a report be prepared and followed,
or allow approval by a county department without setting any standards. "1 This is
substantially what this MND does when it refers water quality issues to the city's Storm
Water permit, which is not specific to this project. It is impossible for the public to be
assured of compliance with these plans without more specific information about BMP's
and a commitment to use Low Impact Development Techniques as recommended for all
projects by the RWQRB.
I Endangered Habitats League, Inc. v. County of Orange, 131 Cal.App.4th 777, 794 (2005).
MND 05-012 - Response to Comments
Page 24 of37
Response to Comment #38: All development projects are required to follow the City of
Chula Vista Subdivision Manual and comply with the California Regional Water Quality
Control Board Sand Diego Region Order No. R9-2007-0001, NPDES No. CAS0108758.
Please note that as part of approval of a Water Quality Technical Report, each project
must identify the pollutants of concern that will be generated by the land use, and
following the guidelines of the City's Stonn Water Pennit, implement Low Impact
Development (LID), Source-Control, and Treatment-Control Best Management Practices.
In addition, the project will be conditioned to comply with all grading permit
requirements, pursuant to mitigation measures #5, # 6 and #7.
Comment #39: The Hydrology report states that their bioretension facilities are only
designed for 2-year storms and greater events will bypass these units. The lack of open
space in the project for which a variance is being asked precludes the use of vegetated
swales. Therefore the water quality issues have not been fully mitigated either.
Response to Comment #39: Please see response to Comment #14, #28 and #29.
Comment #40: Noise: The use of air conditioning causes a negative impact on energy
resources, which the general plan EIR showed to be strained and potentially inadequate
for the development, contemplated for buildout. The mitigations suggested in the noise
study may be inadequate, because they are based upon an outdated traffic study and
traffic was found to be the greatest source of noise. The public is deprived of the
information needed to fully evaluate this situation, because the outdated traffic report
contains inaccurate data.
Response to Comment #40: See Response to Comment #7, #10 and #30. Only the
northerly facing units are being required to install air conditioning units by mitigation
measure #12 ofthe Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Comment #41: Traffic: This mitigation was already assigned 12/20/06 to Marsella Villas
project. This mitigation will eliminate left turns and therefore put almost all of the traffic
from this project onto Industrial. This impact was not analyzed at all in the traffic report
or the MND. This large omission must be corrected, because this is another intersection
of concern.
Response to Comment #41: See Response to Comment #5, #6 and #10. The City
Traffic Section has reviewed the proposed mitigation improvement and found that there
are no direct or cumulative impacts that would adversely affect the level of service on
Industrial Boulevard.
Comment #42: Environmental checklist Form: III This project does contribute
significantly to an existing or projected air quality violation-CO or at the very least does
not help the city's reduction goal, because low impact development techniques are not
being used and air conditioning is being provided and recommended for use due to
excessive noise from traffic.
MND 05-012 - Response to Comments
Page 25 of37
Response to Comment #42: See Response to Comment #23 and #25. Use of air
conditioning units is an acceptable mitigation for noise abatement. Only the northerly
facing units are being required to install air conditioning units by mitigation measure #12
of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. General reduction measures including that this is
an infill project that is in close proximity to a public transit station are important factors
that contribute to the reduction of CO gases. Specific reduction measures will be
outlined as part of AQIP that will be finalized at the building permit stage.
Comment #43: If a variance is given for setbacks residents will be excessively close to a
very high traffic road and there is growing evidence that this will cause children, seniors
and adults with respiratory problems ill effects. (ARB Land Use Handbook and other
sources)
Response to Comment #43: See Response to Comment #30. The project design features
will be done in accordance with the provisions of an approved Precise Plan. No threshold
of significance standards have been established by any local, state or federal regulatory
agencies that would allow an adequate analysis, conclusion, recommendation or
mitigation of the described concern.
Comment #44: V. The Cultural Resources Survey is completely inadequate. The one for
Marsella Villas showed a huge number of sites within a mile of this property, but the
report for this project only deals with the site itself. This is inadequate and does not meet
CEQUA standards
Response to Comment #44: The archaeological report prepared by Brian F. Smith and
Associates provided the level of information required by the City to satisfy CEQA
requirements for the evaluation of potential impacts to cultural resources of a project.
The one-mile-radius statement applies the review of records information for a one-mile
radius to observe the pattern of recorded archaeological sites in the area. However, since
no resources were identified on the project, a lengthy discussion is not relevant.
Furthermore, detailed information regarding archaeological sites in the area is not meant
to be available to the public. On Page 6 of the BFSA report, the statement is included
that nine archaeological sites are recorded within a one-mile radius. The Confidential
Appendix supplied to the City for this project includes all of the records information.
The size of a report is not the measure of adequacy. All of the pertinent information
required for CEQA review was included. The fact that the records searches and survey of
the property did not reveal any cultural sites is sufficient information to conclude the
project will not impact any cultural resources.
Comment #45: VIII There is a potential for increasing pollutant discharges because the
project is not using low impact development techniques and has inadequate amount of
pervious surfaces to absorb and treat runoff. The report did not adequately analyze the
ultimate destination of the runoff so it is impossible to evaluate how it would impact the
current drainage system. Another example of the public being deprived of it right to
MND 05-012 - Response to Comments
Page 26 of 37
information needed to make an accurate judgment as to the validity of the environmental
document.
Response to Comment #45: Please see response to Comments # 27, 28, and 29.
Comment #46: IX The project requires a CUP. A CUP requires the following findings,
which cannot be made given the current description of the project:
Response to Comment #46: Pursuant to CVMC 19.14.080, findings related to the CUP
will be included in the CVRC Resolution.
Comment #46a:
1. This project provides no service or facility that contributes to the
general well being of the neighbors or the community. In fact it adds to
the impact of excessive traffic congestion that has been imposed upon
this low income ethnically mixed community.
Response to Comment #46a: The proposed project will enhance the livability of
Chula Vista by implementing the adopted 2005 general plan in creating a high
density mixed use transit oriented development project. In addition to providing
new high density housing across the street from the Palomar Trolley station the
project will also remove an underutilized blighted asset from the community. The
project upon completion will have an increase in assessed valuation of
approximately $60 million. This translates into about $600,000 dollars in annual
gross tax increment to the redevelopment agency of which the Agency will receive
approximately $240,000 annually while the County, and School Districts share in
the remaining $360,000.
Comment #46b:
2. This use will be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of
persons residing in the vicinity. It will add to the burden of significant
traffic congestion without offering any mitigation. It will also pay
inadequate park fees and no traffic fees since these have not been set at
a level equal to or higher than in the east. It will also not contribute
toward upgrading the drainage of the area or providing missing
infrastructure. The city has a grant to provide cosmetic improvements
including sidewalks, gutters, etc. for the Palomar area. While
homeowners and small businesses are required to bear all this expense
themselves. This project will bear none of the expense. This is unfair
and more evidence of how certain developers run the city.
Response to Comment #46b: See Response to Comment #11, #12, #31 and #51.
Comment #46c:
3. This property will not comply with regulations and conditions specified
in this code for such use. It will not comply with regulations for
MND 05-012 - Response to Comments
Page 27 of37
multifamily in CVMC especially those relating to multifamily residential
per R-3 zone, setbacks and off-street parking. The project is requesting
a 66% reduction in useable open space and a reduction in setbacks
from the sidewalk. This is detrimental to the health and welfare of the
potential residents due to the extremely heavy traffic on Palomar.
Response to Comment #46c: See Response to Comment #31 and #50. The
project complies with all regulations of the CC zone as modified by precise plan
standards adopted for the subject parcel based upon section 19.14.576 of the
Chula Vista Municipal Code. The proposed Precise Plan Modifying Standards
related to open space and front building setback are not detrimental to the health,
safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. The reduction in open
space and front building setback would allow the construction of a project with an
urban character and pedestrian orientation, as mandated by the Transit Focus Area
designation of the City's 2005 General Plan.
As proposed, phase one of the project contains a two-car garage for each of the
residential units, plus 28 parking spaces for visitors. However, the modified
standard proposed parking is that the majority of the garages provide tandem
parking (one space behind the other) instead of side by side parking. Of the 104
residential units, 76 have garages with tandem parking. Each of the spaces,
standard or tandem, would be assigned to an individual unit and contained within
an enclosed garage for the unit. CVMC 19.62.020 (E) indicates that tandem
parking shall not qualify as required parking unless specifically approved by the
Planning Commission. This review and approval authority has been delegated to
the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation pursuant to CVMC 2.55.050.
Tandem parking within a lOft x 40 ft. garage serves the same purpose as side by
side parking. A garage of 400 square feet of space can still accommodate two
vehicles and the two spaces would be available to the residents of the assigned
unit. Staff also believes that this parking situation takes on a lesser importance
because the proposed project is so close to the trolley station and allows for a
more compact development at the densities envisioned by the General Plan. The
proximity to the trolley station offers residents an important public transit
alternative to the private automobile.
Comment #47: There is no evidence that this project is complying with 19.09.050
Requirement for public facilities finance plans, air quality improvement plans, and water
conservation plans. No application for an SPA plan, or, if an SPA plan is not required,
no application for a tentative map, shall be deemed complete or accepted for review
unless:
Comment #47a:
1. It is accompanied by a PFFP, which has been approved by the city; There is
no indication that the applicant is working on such a plan. Townhomes
require a tentative map. This project should meet the requirement of a PFFP.
MND 05-012 - Response to Comments
Page 28 of37
Response to Comment #47a: Pursuant to CYMC 19.09.110 B., a project specific PFFP
is not required. As conditions of project approval, the project would be required to
contribute its fair share to finance identified public facilities and services. See Response
to Comment #12.
Comment #47b:
B. Air Quality Improvement Plans. No application for an SPA plan, or, if
an SPA plan is not required, no application for a tentative map, shall be
deemed complete or accepted for review unless:
1. It is accompanied by an air quality improvement plan which has
been approved by the city; or
2. An air quality improvement plan which includes the project has
already been initiated; or
3. The applicant initiates the preparation of an air quality
improvement plan in such form and/or containing such
information, including maps, drawings, diagrams, etc., as the city
director of planning and building shall require. There is no
indication that the applicant has submitted or plans to submit an
AQIP.
Response to Comment #47b: See Response to Comment #25.
Comment #47c:
C. Water Conservation Plans. No application for an SPA plan, or, if an
SPA plan is not required, no application for a tentative map, shall be
deemed complete or accepted for review unless:
1. It is accompanied by a water conservation plan, which has been
approved by the city; There is no indication that the applicant has
submitted a water conservation plan. In fact there is no
landscaping information to indicate what plants applicant plans to
use, including the required native plants. This is a glaring missing
part of the normal plans.
Response to Comment #47c: See Response to Comment #25.
Comment #4 7 d:
D. No SPA plan, nor any tentative subdivision map, shall be approved, or
deemed approved, without an approved PFFP, an approved air quality
improvement plan and a water conservation plan. To provide
consistency and implementation of said plans, the city council may
impose any condition to the approval of an SPA plan or tentative
subdivision map necessary to implement the PFFP, the air quality
improvement plan, the water conservation plan, the growth management
program, or the master facility plans.
E. No final map shall be approved until all the conditions of the PPFP, the
water conservation plan and the air quality plan have been met, or the
MND 05-012 - Response to Comments
Page 29 of37
project applicant has provided adequate security to the city that said
plans will be implemented.
F. No other discretionary planning approvals shall be granted unless the
city council finds that the project is consistent with an approved PFFP,
an air quality improvement plan, and a water conservation plan.
G. No building permit shall be issued unless the permit is consistent with
any applicable PFFP, the air quality improvement plan and the water
conservation plan and all applicable fees, including, but not limited to,
development impact fees, traffic impact fees, drainage fees, school fees,
park fees, sewer fees, water fees, or other development fees adopted by
the city council, have first been paid or provision for their payment has
been made to the satisfaction of the city council.
H. No development shall occur in a PFFP area if the demand for any
public facilities and services exceeds capacity and it is not feasible to
increase capacity prior to completion of development unless means,
schedule and financing for increasing the capacity is established
through the execution of a binding agreement providing for installation
and maintenance of such facilities or improvements in advance of the
city's phasing schedule. (Ord. 2790,1999; Ord. 2448 ~ 2, 1991).
H. Above Clearly indicates that this development cannot occur because it is
acknowledged that the traffic on Palomar exceeds capacity and it is not
feasible to increase capacity at this time.
Response to Comment #47d: See response to Comment #12, #47a, #47b and
#47c.
Comment #48: XII The project will induce substantial population growth in the Palomar
Gateway area through the building of 154 dwellings on 3.4 acres of now vacant land.
This will be 400 or more new people, including children who will have no safe place to
play.
Response to Comment #48: With the recent update ofthe General Plan, the Montgomery
Specific Plan was repealed and replaced with a new vision for this area of the
southwestern portion of the City. The General Plan Land Use and Transportation (LUT)
Policy 43.4 and 43.5 for this area state that development projects:
"Provide a mix of uses with a focus on retail and some office uses along Palomar
Street in the Mixed Use Transit Focus Area, with residential uses above and/or
behind the retail and offices uses. " and;
"Provide a mix of local-serving retail and office uses near the Palomar Trolley
Station and at the Gateways into the Palomar Gateway District. "
The proposed project site is currently zoned CT-P, which is a commercial zone that does
not allow residential development. Since the CT-P zone does not allow residential
development, the General Plan policies cannot be implemented by this zone. The CC
MND 05-012 - Response to Comments
Page 30 of 37
zone is currently the only zone district which allows development of mixed-use projects
through the issuance of a conditional use permit (CVMC 19.36.030 (0)). Therefore,
rezone of the project site from CT -P to CC-P would allow the proposed mixed-use
project and implement the General Plan's vision and policies for this area of the City.
The proposed CC zone will contribute to the public convenience and general welfare by
further assisting in the implementation of the General Plan MUR land use designation for
the site.
In relation to residential density within the area, LUT Policy 43.6 of the General Plan
states:
'7n the Palomar Gateway District, residential densities within the Mixed Use
Transit Focus Area designation are intended to have a district-wide gross density
of 40 dwelling units per acre. "
The overall project proposes 154 units on 4.89 acres, which results in a density of 32
dwelling units per acre. This density is consistent with the City's General Plan policy for
the site and represents the maximum density permitted by the proposed CC zone. While
this is less than the goal of 40 DU/ AC for the entire Palomar Gateway District, it is
equally important to provide a mix of densities throughout the District, with higher
densities adjacent to the trolley station as proposed on Lot 2 (56 du/acre) and lower
densities to the west and south of the subject site (26 du/acre). It is anticipated that more
dense projects will be developed in the future that will bring the average density up to
meet the goal for the overall District. The proposed residential density would provide an
urban, pedestrian-oriented project design that would complement the Palomar Trolley
Station and be compatible with the surrounding land uses.
Comment #49: XIII It is unclear if more public infrastructure will be needed because the
drainage study was incomplete.
Response to Comment #49: See Response to Comments #3, and 27.
Comment #50: Clearly more park space will be needed because an inadequate amount of
public and private space is to be provided by the project to accommodate the residents.
XlV. There is inadequate open space, which may induce residents to use nearby park
excessively.
Regponge to Comment #SO: Pursuant to Tentative Map condition #24, the Applicant
shall pay all applicable Parkland Acquisition and Development Fees (PAD fees) at the
rates in effect at the time of approval of the map or building permit in accordance with
C.V.M.C. Chapter 17.10.
CVMC 19.28.090 requires the provision of 400 square feet of usable open space for 1
and 2-bedroom units, and 480 square feet for units with 3 or more bedrooms. The open
space may be provided in common usable open space areas, private patios, balconies, or
common recreational facilities. In accordance with the standards set forth by Section
MND 05-012 - Response to Comments
Page 31 of37
19.28.090 and the proposed unit mix (40 one and two-bedroom and 64 three-bedroom),
the total usable open space requirement for the project would be 46,720 square feet. The
project's proposed open space is 35,730 square feet, which represents a difference of
10,990 square feet (24% reduction) of use able open space.
The open space provided by the proposed project consists of one large common area
(approximately 5,800 sq. ft.) in the northern section of the property, next to Palomar
Street, that contains a variety of elements including a tot lot, grassy area, barbeque pits
and several arbors, and is protected by a decorative wall along Palomar Street. Another
common area (approximately 4,380 sq. ft.) is located along Frontage Road that is made
up of grassy area and landscape areas, which serve for passive recreation. A third major
common area is represented by a paseo that extends along the center of the site, between
the interior building structures, in a north-south direction. This area offers a major
pedestrian connection between the southern driveway, the large common area and
Palomar Street. Another open space element that is part of the proposed project is
represented by decks and balconies at each of the residential units.
Community Development staff has been working with the applicant on a variety of ways
to enhance the proposed open space areas in order to make it more useable for the
residents and reduce the open space deficit to the maximum extent possible.
Comment #51: xv. The checklist acknowledges that the project will cause an increase in
traffic. This is not mitigated by the project in any way. It will result in a change in traffic
patterns, since it will substantially increase the traffic on Industrial Blvd. This could
increase the safety risk for pedestrians. Mr. Quinones was hit by a hit and run driver and
killed because there was no curb cut on Ada last year. The planned improvements for
Palomar mayor may not allow people to use sidewalks instead of being force into the
street. The design features of these townhomes will have entrances to garages opposite
each other in close proximity this could increase the hazard of collisions when drivers,
especially with larger vehicles enter or exit their garages. This is a questionable design
feature as are tandem garages, which require moving cars in and out of spaces
continually and could cause hazardous conditions.
Response to Comment #51: See Response to Comments #41. In 2006, the City received
a SANDAG Transit Oriented Design (TOD) grant to provide $2.1 million for street and
pedestrian improvements along Palomar Street, Industrial Boulevard and at the Palomar
trolley station. The improvements will include traffic calming features, landscaping and
streetscape amenities to augment the Transit Focus Area General Plan goals. The
pedestrian walkways will be 5 feet of sidewalk provided through the grant with an
additional 1.5 to 4 feet ( varies) provided by the Bayvista Walk to provide a total width of
6.5 to 9 feet of walkway. Additionally, the grant project is building enhanced pedestrian
crossings at the Industrial Boulevard! Ada Street and Industrial Boulevard/Palomar Street
intersections. The City Traffic Section has further reviewed the proposed Palomar
Gateway Beautification improvements with respect to this project and found that there
are no direct or cumulative impacts that would adversely affect the level of service.
MND 05-012 - Response to Comments
Page 32 of37
All of the residential buildings have a two-car garage for each dwelling unit. Each garage
has access from a 24- foot driveway that runs in the middle of two building or by the rear
of the buildings that front on Palomar Street. These driveways provide adequate space
for turning movements and vehicles exiting garages. The driveway dimensions comply
with CVMC Chapter 19.62.020, which requires that two-way driveways have a width of
24 feet. This driveway dimension also complies with the Fire Department minimum
requirements for access to fire equipment.
Comment #52: XVI The city currently will be over capacity for wastewater if
development continues. This project will add to this problem. The city has not yet dealt
with what is to be done to alleviate the problem of not having sufficient future capacity.
Until such time as the city deals with this very expensive problem, every project has a
potential negative effect upon the wastewater system. There currently are no water lines
or sewage lines or drainage pipes on the property all of these will need to be added. The
city has not met its recycling goals so the life of its landfill is not as long as previously
predicted and every new project adds to this problem.
Response to Comment #52: According to the GMOC 2007 Annual Report, flows in the
City sewer facilities are all currently within acceptable engineering standards. The
project will be required to contribute their fare share toward the acquisition of sewer
capacity by paying the currently approved sewer capacity fee.
Comment #53: XVII Thresholds:
a. The library currently does not meet its threshold and will not until Rancho Del
Rey Library is built. Every new project increases this gap.
b. Police currently do not meet their Priority two threshold and have not for some
time. Every new project contributes to this problem
c. Traffic: The intersections adjacent to this project are operating significantly
below the 1991 levels and worsening. This project will contribute a cumulative
effect to this non-compliance and should not be built.
d. Parks and Recreation: the west has less than 1 acre per 1,000 people, every
increase in population without an increase in park space or adequate payment of
park fees makes this situation worse. This project will not pay an adequate park
fee so it is contributing to not reaching the threshold.
e. Drainage: the report is inadequate because it does not deal with the entire system
the project contributes to so it is impossible to evaluate this, which is in itself a
violation of CEQUA which requires that the public be provided with all
information to allow for a decision on the project.
i Sewer: There was no indication in sewer report of project being required to
provide improvements. Cumulatively every new connection puts further strain on
the system. San Diego maintains the main lines going to Point Loma and their
condition is questionable.
&. Water: We are being asked to cut back 20 gallons a day due to drought
conditions. Obviously adding users makes our water situation increasingly
precarious due to state and federal policies and over reliance upon imported
MND 05-012 - Response to Comments
Page 33 of37
water. Sweetwater provides much of its water locally, but every new resident
forces the SWA to import more water and puts us all at risk.
Response to Comment #53: See Response to Comment #3, #12, #25, #47a and #52.
Comment #54: XVIII b. The project will add to the significant cumulative effects of the
projects completed on Ada Street and planned for Ada Street. These projects have
created cars parked bumper to bumper along both sides of the street as well as added
wear and tear on the streets and strains on the drainage system between Ada and
Dorothy. This project will add to these problems that negatively effect the quality of life
of existing residents. These effects are cumulatively significant as are the effects to water,
sewer and solid waste capacity when viewed cumulatively.
Response to Comment #54: See Response to Comment #5, #20, #27 and #52. The
sewer study analyzed the impacts of this project and the capacity of the city sewer
facilities to serve surrounding uses. The project is in an infiIl project in compliance with
the City's general plan land use designation. There is no evidence based on the analysis
found in the technical reports prepared for this project that demonstrate a cumulative
significant impact for water, sewer and solid waste capacity.
Comment #55: c. The project will cause significant negative effects upon the human
beings who will inhabit it in that they will be exposed to excessive noise and air pollution
that have well documented negative effects upon physical, emotional, social and
psychological health. (League for the Hard of Hearing's NOISE & HEALTH FACT
SHEET, NOISE POLLUTION, Electric Library presents Encyclopedia. com,
http://www.newscientist.com/news/ - Ithaca, NY, 5/22/2001)
The mitigations offered are minimal and will not fully mitigate these negative effects.
The traffic situation as acknowledged in the outdated traffic report and the MND is a
clear exasperation of an existing non-compliance with a standard (traffic will not
worsen from 1991 levels). This clearly is above a violation of a CEQUA standard of
significance. Projects that add even cumulatively to a violation of a standard must be
found to cause a significant negative effect, which requires mitigation or an EIR and
a statement of Over-riding Conditions.
Response to Comment #55: See Response to Comment #7, #11, #13 and #30.
Theresa Acerro's email (Rec'd on 8/23/07)
Additional Comments on MND for Bayvista Walk:
Comment #56: Cultural/Historical Report The report I was given a copy of is totally
inadequate. It deals with the site alone. Law requires a mile around the site. the report
for Marasella Villas (that could be used here) was over 10 pages and had all kinds of
interesting information. This report is inadequate.
Response to Comment #56: See Response to Comment #44.
MND 05-012 - Response to Comments
Page 34 of37
Comment #57: Since a subdivision map is required according to Cummings a PFFP is
also required. Where is this report? It needs to be evaluated before the project can be
approved. These are Townhomes which is a subdivision. The PFFP is part of the review
process.
Response to Comment #57: CVMC 19.80 ("Cummings") does not require preparation
of a PFFP. See Response to Comment #12 and #47a.
Comment #58: The city is 35% worse off as far as co is concerned since 1991.
According to growth management threshold air quality is supposed to improve. What is
this project doing to improve the situation? Reports aren't adequate. What is LEED
certification? What is project doing to produce its own energy? Are tankless water
heaters being used? Olsen's promotional materials tout green building techniques. Is the
southwest not good enough to have a quality green project from this developer?
Response to Comment #58: See Response to Comment #25 and #42. According to the
GMOC 2007 Annual report, the City is in compliance with the Air Quality threshold
standard (page 1-28). Also, due to the projects proximity to transit, there is an expected
increase in public transit ridership and fewer air quality impacts would result from
individuals relying solely on the automobile.
In addition, this project is an infill development proposal that is transit oriented being
located directly across the Palomar Street Trolley Station. Projects of this nature
typically use less energy for space heating and cooling than standard suburban
development consisting of single-family detached residential homes.
Comment #59: Environmental Justice demands that the community impacts be
considered. This is the lowest income area of Chula Vista. It should not have another
inferior project with excess traffic, inadequate parking and inadequate open space. we
don't want a future slum here. There is inadequate space for children to play, excessive
loss of permeable surface area, inadequate on site treatment of runoff by vegetation, and
no use of energy saving sustainable building practices or energy generation that will
reduce its carbon footprint by at least 35% common building practices are now
exceeding standard. New state laws require greater reductions than project has.
Re~pon~e to Comment #59~ See Response to Comment #20, #34, #46 and #57. The
project is in an infill project in compliance with the City's general plan land use
designation. There is no evidence based on the analysis conducted as part of the
Mitigated Negative Declaration that adverse impacts to the environment have not been
adequately mitigated.
Theresa Acerro's email (Rec'd on 8/27/07)
Comment #60: You are absolutely right about page 38. I don't know how I got it in my
head to read across and not up and down. It does say that this will mitigate this
MND 05-012 - Response to Comments
Page 35 of 37
particular intersection, but the entire stretch of road is still over capacity unless
engineers get a different count than what they reported on TMP. CEQUA fortunately does
not rely upon the city's thresholds which deliberately avoid using any data that show a
problem. Road capacity is more in keeping with Cummings, which also says that roads
must be worse than 1991. Looking at 1991 data is only way to actually tell whether roads
meet threshold standard or not. I am 100% sure that Palomar exceeds this standard since
Palomar Trolley Center was not there in 1991. It and Target are responsible for a huge
amount of the traffic. You can include this comment in comments on MND, since now that
it has been pointed out to me I realize we need data from 1991 to see whether this street
exceeds city standard or not.
Response to Comment #60: See Response to Comment #11, #12 and #31.
Comment #61: page 17 in MND XV b. Would the project exceed, either individually or
cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads and highways. I wonder what county service
standard is? I bet it has to do with capacity?
Response to Comment #61: The City of Chula Vista utilizes our own Growth
Management (GMOC) and traffic standards for City owned streets.
Theresa Acerro's handwritten note (Rec'd on 8/27/07)
Comment #62: XIII. Environmental Checklist - Schools 8/18/06 SUHSD concerned
wants Mello-Roos neg. impact expected CPH/CPM 9/28/06 CVESD Dif pays only 25%
of cost of housing students wants CFD to get funding to avoid impacts.
Response to Comment #62: Pursuant to the comment letter received from the CVESD
on June 27, 2007 and CEQA, the district requires standard school fees are paid and
encourage but do not require the formation of community facility funding districts such
as a Mello-Roos District. A condition of approval will require the applicant to pay the
applicable school impact fee.
Comment #63.' Concern about sewage because report shows 15" pipe when Ind. Has 12"
and City's report on 3/05 showed maximum level reaching 6.8", 75% would be 9"
Report does not appear to include new condos on Ada which must also use this pipe.
Where is documentation to show Luis Pelayo's concerns were dealt with? Is there a new
report?
Response to Comment #63: Prior to the approval of the project, the developer will be
required to ensure to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that adequate capacity for its
project will be available on or before the date that a unit or units are completed.
Development shall not occur without adequate sewer capacity as determined by the City
Engineer. Building permits will not be issued if the City Engineer has determined that
MND 05-012 - Response to Comments
Page 36 of3?
adequate sewer capacity does not exist. All development must comply with the
Municipal Code, specificallyM.C. Sections 19.09.010 (A) 6and 13.14.030.
Comment #64: At Com Dev. I did see draft AQIP and H20 Conserv. Plan but where is
final?
Response to Comment #64: See Response to Comment #24, #25, #47a, #47b and #47c.
Jim Hunt's email (Rec'd on 8/27/07)
Comment #65: Ms. Theresa Acerro, our Southwest Chula Vista Civic Association
President is not alone in her concerns on the MND Bayvista Walk, case No. IS-05-012.
There are many residents in our area who are Spanish speaking and or don't own a
computer. If all the residents in the southwest section of Chula Vista could communicate
their concerns on how they're treated and not listened to, your office would be
overwhelmed with complaints.
For too long the City of Chula Vista has neglected Southwest Chula Vista and now that
there are changes that impact us we want to know how these changes will be done.
Ms. Theresa Acerro attends many city meetings and stays on top of what happens or will
happen. She keeps the Southwest Chula Vista Civic Association informed and for many
this is how we know what is being done. Many residents because of advanced age and
lack of convenient transportation are unable to attend city meetings. I suggest that
meetings should be conducted in Southwest Chula Vista that impact Southwest Chula
Vista. If this was done and the residents understood, could voice their opinions, and
were listened to what is at stake, there would be more harmony and satisfaction among
the residents.
Please consider this and keep us informed, not after the developers start developing, but
in the beginning, the middle and what the end result will be. The residents want to have
their thoughts and concerns a part of this process.
Response to Comment #65: Comments noted. See Response to Comment #18 and #19.
Theresa Acerro's email (Rec'd on 8/28/07) After Comment Period Ended
Comment #66: The traffic for industrial has been computed incorrectly. Too few cars are
mentioned for morning and evening from Project planned for corner of Ada and
Industrial. There are 90 town homes. This means there must be 90 workers, more likely
closer to 180 commuting morning and night. The vast majority of these workers will go to
Palomar to get to work. Very few will head toward Anita, since there are far far fewer
jobs to the south than to the north. it is now possible to actually measure how many
people from three condo projects now complete travel this way daily, although this
MND 05-012 - Response to Comments
Page37of37
number will have to be increased because many of these people now use Frontage and
when median is built will not use frontage any longer. as stated previously ahuge gap in
the Traffic Report is an insufficent and inaccurate analysis of traffic on Industrial, which,
will significantly increase (by 1,000 or more cars with the Bayvista Walk project. this is a
direct impact. I am not sure how Industrial can be classified as a class II collector since
the street lights aren It as close together as in the ordinance are they?
Response to Comment #66: See Response to Comment #4, #10 and #11.
Attachment 6
Bayvista Walk
PCZ-0701
Concept Plans
Under Separate Cover
ATTACHMENT 5
lAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
CHAPTER 5
8.4.3 Palomar Gateway District
Description of District
The Palomar Gateway District (Figure 5-23) is located at the interchange of Palomar Street and
Interstate 5, and is characterized by the Palomar Trolley Station, located at the southeast Quadrant
of Palomar Street and Industrial Boulevard.
Existing Conditions
North of Palomar Street are light industrial businesses and multi-family housing. South of
Palomar Street Is a mix of single-family and multi-family housing extending south to Anita Street
Vision for District
The Palomar Gateway District is the major southern gateway into the Ci~ and functions as one of
the activity corridors in the City. The District provides housing and support uses near a regional
transit route. Higher density residential development within walking distance of the Palomar
Trolley Station provides additional affordable housing opportunities.
Local retail and services are along Palomar Stree~ and more retail
and services are in mixed use developments south of Palomar
Street.
In addiUon to nearby community-serving retail uses on Broadway
and Palomar Street a new five.acre reighborhood park is located
. in the area north of Oxford Stree~ within walking distance of new
residential housing.
~\I~
-1fI-:
~
Page LUf-149 CHO\A~
6A~ CVhUltsltaa
-'Ir9""-"'"
I'-~ 0::;\:'-'
~V~~~;
Southwest Planning Area
Palomar Gateway Be
West Fairfield Districts
~
:>
iiS
i
~
-
CI .
-;,
"'i
'0
~
..
r"J".'\ "
RECREfJ 101 J
S~.tI DIEGO
,m~UFE
REF.;GE
,
;i::
;;S,
.'
~ ;'.~
\:, '110',
~, ':.~
\ \';
~, ';,::,
" -:.'
O~ford
St.
'lED.
't
, lMTED
b,i.'U5n',;,~
~~
~~
w"':":-:~r.~:?~:;:;~;;:
,-
REihl
:.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
:. ...
.
· MIX[D USE
· COMMERCIA.L
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
'.
.,
.,
.
.
.
..
..
..
: MaIn St
t'ii'if"'ijj";i;i;.;\i'ij'irt~\"~"r='-~;
WEST FAIRFIELD
DISTRICT
P'IOmar
St.
1ft
.
i
.
!
.c
-
PALOMAR
GA TEWA Y
DISTRiCT
LI~!liE'
1~~DLJ!:i7~
LI~,iTE:D
IUt:Li~tr.;~.~
LEGEND
r=I
1:.1
... ..an. FUTURE TRANSIT ROUTE
EXISTING TRANSIT STATION
+
.
e
t
[
PUBUC QUASI-PUBUC
(POTENTIAl. EDUCATIONAL FACILITY)
POTENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
I AREAS OF CHANGE
1 EXISTING LAND USE
NOT TO SCALE
Figure 5.23
Page LUT-150 City of (hula Vista General Plan
LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
CHAPTER 5
......~_.......,.~_.~.._.._"...._.... .,,, . .."._..._.~ ,..,..,._~,._.._....~.,__....,.~.~.....~_,_...~.-...___.,...~~...~~,__,_",~."_,.",__,,,~,'~"".""'__"_"_ ._.._..,._.,_._,__...__...._..H_"..R"___.._._.~"._',._..... ...,.....',..__..,_._...".....~"._,._.,_._._._."',_.
. ............ ....................... .......... _.......".......'......."". .........'.........".... ....... .....'.. ..,.,,".. ", ....,...y...,...,..,'_..._..~.. ....... ......"...,_,.....,.......__.."......._..__.,..__... ......._........ ...... ....'..'.._.,....,'.N.V.'_...'. . .'." ....'..,.'.'.'.......".......
~lt~~11~,,!~~~!~~~~j~~~~~~I~y~;IBjectileii{IUJl431~l~fJ1i~)llit~i;:f&g:~.t~~irf~~!~tr~~;
Establish a Mixed Use Transit Focus Area surrounding the Palomar
Trolley Station.
.__,_._~...__.',.."__,,_.__,.,~,,."...___'.'__,....__._..._._____..._______".-'..~'..,......"....,.~...__~_...~...___...~"__"._..,"..._.,.,....._J"_._."..'",."....'..........~_.~"_.._..'._.~......"..........-----....-,.,--.--..---.
...""H__"._.__..._..,___.___....,.............,..,".,.._,..,.u,,__...,..,,~.......___.'.',.,~._,_.,..._,.__.,..______.,..__ . ...._._.,__....__~_.,_.__'"_,'.._.,~..._..........__.,_.,..._.__...._.._..._.....__._..._n......._. .' ." ....'. ,~,_,_,~"'._"~.,~...."._,__._......'_'M... '.
Policies
LUT 43.1 The City shall prepare, or cause to have prepared, a specific plan, master plan,
or other regulatory document to guide the coordinated establishment of a
Mixed Use Transit Focus Area within the Palomar Gateway District on
properties north and south of Palomar Stree~ within walkable distance of the
Palomar Trolley StaUon. The specific plan or other regulatolY document shall
include guidelines and zoning-level standards for the arrangement of land
uses that include plans for adequate pedestrian connections and support
services for residents, as well as those using the transit station.
The City will prepare an Implementation Program to assure establishment of
the above plan/regulations. The Program will include interim provisions for the
consideration of any projects within this areas, prior to completion and
adoption of the according plan/regulations.
LUT 43.2 Provide for a five-acre neighborhood park within the Palomar Gateway District
Uses
LUT 43.3 Strive for a distribution of uses within the areas designated as Mixed Use
Transit Focus Area along Palomar Street to include retail, offices, and
residential. as generally shown on the following chart:
~.. ... 0 Resi~ential
. . 0 Retail
. .. I Offices
~\l0-
-~-
Page LUT-lSl O!~
6J.l;~'~~' Chula
.~,.. ::;. ~ ,:
..". ~.' ;J ~ ~ ·
.... ""..~.
"~;;'~H- Vlsta
\ 1fi'~'}v. ·
<Jr.:/ lSlon
" 2020
LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
CHAPTER 5
LUT 43.4
Provide a mix of uses with a focus on retail and some office uses along Palomar
Street in the Mixed Use Transit Focus Area, with residential uses above and/or
behind the retail and offices uses.
LUT 43.5
Provide a mix of local-selVing retail and office uses near the Palomar Trolley
Station and at the Gateways into the Palomar Gateway District
Intensity/Height
LUT 43.6 In the Palomar Gateway District residential densities withIn the Mixed Use
Transit Focus Area designation are intended to have a district-wide gross
density of 40 dwelling units per acre.
LUT 43.7 In the Palomar Gateway District, the commercial (retail and office) portion of
the Mixed Use Transit Focus Area designation is intended to have a focus
area-wide aggregate FAR of 1.0. Subsequent spedfic plans or zoning
ordinance regula~ons will establish parcel-specific FARs that may vary from
the district-wide aggregate (refer to Section 4.9.1, Interpreting the land Use
Diagram. for a discussion of district-wide versus parcel-specific FAR).
LUT 43.8 Building heights in the Palomar Gateway District Mixed Use Transit Focus
Area shall be low~rise, with some mid-rise buildings.
LUT 43.9 Building heights in the Residential High designated area shall be low-rise
buildings.
LUT 43.10 In the Palomar Gateway District, permit a maximum floor area ratio of 0.5
and low-rise buildings in the Retail Commercial designated area on Industrial
Boulevard adjacent to the area designated as Residential High.
DesiCTll
o
LUT 43.11 The specific plan or other regulatory document for the Palomar Gateway
District shall establish design and landscape guidelines for the improvement
of Palomar Street as a gateway to the Ci~.
LUT 43.12 Provide for safe, effective. and aesthetic pedestrian crossings and
improvements to Palomar Street and Industrial Boulevard.
Page LUT-152 Cily of (hula Vista General Plan
LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
CHAPTER 5
Amenities
lUT 43.13 Community amenities to be considered for the Palomar Gateway District as
part of any incentive program should include, but not be limited to those listed
in Policy LLIT 27.1.
t
lUT 43.14 Provide for the development of one Neighborhood Park within or near the
Palomar Gateway Districl
LUT 43.15 Establish a community/cultural center near Palomar Street and Third Avenue.
8.4.4 West Fairfield District
Description of District
The West Fairfield District (see Figure 5-23), originally part of the Fairfield neighborhood that was
severed by the constructIon of Interstate 5, is located on the west side of Interstate 5, between
Palomar Street and Main Street and is ftanked by San Diego Bay on the west
Existing Conditions
The West Fairfield District has a mix of light industrial and office uses interspersed with older,
single-family homes and vacant lots. West Fairfield is somewhat isolated from the rest of Chula
Vista, due to Interstate 5 forming its eastern edge. Pedestrian routes across the freeway are
limited and heavily traveled by cars and trucks, Freeway on- and off-ramps at Palomar Street
provide convenient freeway access into the District for vehicles.
Vision for District
The West Fairfield District has been redeveloped through a
well-planned and coordinated master plan. There are few land
use conflicts, and land uses have been expanded by
reclaiming an old San Diego settlement pond to the southwest
The West Fairfield District has good freeway access at Palomar
and Main Streets, and it is an employment center, with regional.'
retail and other employment uses. An educational facility is
also located in the West Fajrfield District
~\!~
-'*'-
~ ~
Page LUT-153 CH~~
ATTACHMENT 6
~(~
:~
~
.....-....-....
Pl~.nning
&
Building Depar1ment
Plar.!"Ii:1g Divi5iDIi I Oevc~op1!e~t Processin~
. ".'..,. . -,._,... ,....'.~..~...,-....,'
.. .,' ,. - ',' '..' . \.
H.:,-'\ 1";' ;'(., i'~~ APP'tiICATljlf)-~!. (JtVflOPM~NT PROCESSII\G . TYP~ B
j il LJ ).'.::;--:_.:.,-'_:....~-,.~"...;:;:.:.,ll J I' ;.' P iH I 1
~ ~ ! ; ~
Iu!'\\; ~j:O ~~ 7\W" ~.l_JI!
,I ! Lv...; U C' ;..~;..:) ''--.J r
! 1.:: I I
IxPe of Review Requ~stea,_,_"...._._""_..,,~.J i
o General Plan Amendm~nt ~', ;..},\,J:";. \: srA#.tdsE"ONL'y, . ; '.
~_.._.r...~.a.lt,.:;,;....~..L;.:......:,-~.'f'~ '...... ".' . .. ~ . '. .
o General Development Plan 0 New (or) 0 Amendment '. ", ". ciSe~". '.. ~C;1- . b1.~l ' ". ' ' "
D SPA/Specific Plan 0 New (or) 0 Amendment ", .' '~jng D~e: ' ,q./al O.lP Bvd:lk'.'< '.: '.
[8] Zone Change., '" ~~ign~d'~I~er.:~ tn~A"" ';'" '
:.: Tentative Subdivision Map -;.'. -P~jecl~\~unl:~~'-~~'). " ': . ~.' ....
o Annexation' DepositAccount '\\lo!Q",'. ....
o Other. ..... 'R~iated Cases:'1:>~D5-0'\D..". P~~-O 1-0\ ~
Application Informaflon ". ,.' ~~~?~3~~ ?\Jr~~01-,O\
CI1Y OF
(HUlA VISfA
Applicant Name: Olson Urban HousinE!. A Delaware LLC
Applicant Address: 9171 Towne Centre Drive. Suite 450. San Diego. CA. 92122
Contact Name: Ric Pedraza Phone: (858) 784-6528
Applicanfs Interest in the Property (If applicant is not the owner, the owner's authorization signature at the end of this form is required
to process this request) , 0 Own 0 Lease 0 In escrow IZ1 Option to purchase
Engineer/Agent: Lundstrom + Associates Address: 1764 San Diego Ave. Suite 200
Contact Name: Trov Bums
Phone: (6191641-5900 San Diego. CA 92110
Primary contact is: !8J Applicant 0 Engineer/Agent
Email ofprimarycontactroedraza@theolsonco.com
General Project Description (all types)
Project Name: Bayvista Walk Prooosed Use: Mixed Use
General Description of Proposed Project A total of 154 multi-family condominium units with ground level retail
s'Qace and subterranean Darkin~. See attached Project Description.
~Ject Property Information (all types)
Location/Street Address: Southwest comer of Palomar Street and Industrial Boulevard
Assessor's Parcel #: 622-020-05.51.65.68 Total Acreage: 5.3 Redevelopment Area r~app6cabIe): Southwest
General Plan Designation: CR Zone Designation: CfP
Planned Community r~ applicable): N I A
Current land Use: Vacant Land Within Montgomery Specific Plan? 0 Yes r8J No
General Plan Amendment
N/A
Proposed land Use Designation:
Justification for General Plan change:
176 '\\lI'lh A\;Er'~1: I Chub Vi;l.a I CaWor~u I 'jl:",J I :6:~1; .j91.5\01
~t'1~.~
?!I"1
~v?-
-...-
~~ -
~~""""'==
-
..
arYOf
Qi\.iL.\ VISTA
APPLICATION · DEV[LOPME;\JT PROCESS I ~ G · TYPE ~
Perl 2
General Development Plan N/A
General Development Plan Name:
Proposed Land Uses /Total Acres:
Commercia] ! Acres Industrial! Acres
Parks I Acres Schools I Acres
Communjly Purpose I Acres : Circulation I Acres
Public I Quasi I Acres Open Space I Acres
Residential I Range:
Single Famiy Detached I to Units Acres
Single Family Attached I to Units Acres
Duplexes I to Units Acres
Apartments I to Units Acres
Condominiums I to Untls Acres
TOTALS! to Units Acres
Annexation N/A
Prezoning: LAFCO Reference to
Tentative Subdivision Map
Subdivision Name: Bavvlsta Walk ev Tract #:
Minimum lot size: 1.03 AC Number of units: 154 Average lot size: N / A
Zone Change
181 Rezoning 0 Prezoning
Proposed Zoning: CCP
o Setback
Authorization
Print applicanl name: JeffRal!land. Director of Acquisitions for Olson Urban Housing
,,. ..,
Date: jJ... J - 0(,
o ev for CIMA N.V.. A Netherlands Antille Co oration
Owner Signaturet: t.~ Date: () ~ S
*Note: Proof of ownership may be required. Letter of cons t may b provided in lieu of sigr,alure.
17& f!JJ:thi\"'H,I~ I ChulaVi:la I Ca!iI.H1:J I ~I:~': I ;6.~':1j91.51CI
~
L:.::::J
BA YVISTA WALK DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
PALOMAR STREET AT INDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD
Proiect Description
The proposal is for the construction of a two-phase mixed-use residential/commercial
project. Phase 1, on a 4-acre lot, would include 104 townhome condominiums in 10
building structures. The townhomes are proposed as three-story units with 2-car
garages. Phase 2, on a 0.89-acre lot, would be a mixed-use podium building consisting
of 5,000 to 10,000 square feet of retail commercial area on the first floor with the
remaining second through fifth floors consisting of 50 residential units. Parking for the
mixed-use podium would be provided in a subterranean garage. The project provides
private open space (in the form of decks or patios), as well as common open space in
the form of active and passive recreation and leisure I areas.
The proposed project requires the processing of the following applications: design
review application, re-zone of the site from CT-P to CC-P, Conditional Use Permit
application for the proposed commercial/residential project, and a Tentative Subdivision
Map for the condominiums. The following city review bodies would consider the
various aspects of the project: Redevelopment Advisory Committee, Housing Advisory
Commission, Planning Commission, Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation, and City
Council.
Compliance with ZoninQ and Plans
The project site is currently zoned Thoroughfare Commercial with a Precise Plan
designator (CT-P) and the General Plan designation is Transit Focus Area. The
applicant has applied for a rezone to Central Commercial with a Precise Plan modifier
(CC-P), as well as a conditional use permit to allow the proposed commercial/residential
(mixed-use) development, pursuant to the requirements of the Apartment Residential
zone (R-3). The proposed project will be consistent with the regulations of the R-3 zone
and the goals, policies and density requirements of the Palomar Gateway Transit Focus
Area identified in the City's 2005 General Plan.
Land Use Analvsis
The proposed project site is located on Palomar Street between Industrial Boulevard
and Frontage Road, within the Southwest part of the City. It is located across Industrial
Boulevard from the Palomar Trolley Station and approximately a quarter-mile from the
Interstate 5 Palomar Exit Ramp. The project site is part of the Palomar Gateway
District, and is designated by the 2005 General Plan as a Mixed-Use Transit Focus
Area. General Plan Objective LUT 43 calls for the establishment of a Mixed Use Area
around the Palomar Trolley Stations and provides a set of detailed policies in terms of
development uses, intensity, design and amenities for the District.
In addition to the General Plan objective and policies, an urban design strategy, entitled
"Palomar Gateway TOD District Conceptual Development Strategy" was developed to
provide further direction for transit-oriented design. Combined, these two documents
seek to ensure goals of the District are met, such as: urban development with low- and
high-rise development, higher density, clustering residential and retail (mixed-use),
affordable housing opportunities, providing a "Gateway" entrance, and pedestrian
connectivity to the trolley station and future neighborhood park on Oxford Street.
Intensity/Height
The proposed project includes two phases of development. The first phase provides
104 residential condominiums proposed on Lot 1 at a density of 26 DUlAC in three-story
townhome building structures. The second phase (Lot 2) includes the construction of a
mixed-use, podium building with 5,000-10,000 square feet of street level retail uses and
50 residential units on floors two through five for a density of 56.2 DUlAC on the corner
of Industrial Boulevard and Palomar, closest to the trolley station.
Between Lots 1 and 2, the project provides a mix of low- (3 stories) and mid-rise (5
stories) buildings per LUT Section 43.8. In addition, the podium building provides
street level retail development with residential uses above and behind it for a combined
density for Lots 1 and 2 of 31.5 DUlAC. While this is less than the goal of 40 DUlAC for
the entire Palomar Gateway District as mentioned in Section 43.6 of the LUT, it is
equally important to provide a mix of urban solutions in the District, with higher densities
adjacent to the trolley station as proposed on Lot 2. It is anticipated that more dense
projects will be developed in the future that will bring the average density up to meet the
goal for the overall District.
The General Plan and urban design strategy also identify objectives to provide
affordable housing close to the transit center and pedestrian connectivity to both the
trolley station and future neighborhood park. As proposed, Lot 2 will be conveyed to the
City for future development of affordable and market rate housing. While the
developers inclusionary requirement is 10% of the total project, or 16 units, this project
will leverage additional affordable units since projects with City participation have a
higher inclusionary requirement of 15% or 23 units. In addition, BayVista Walk
residents will have access to the trolley station to the northeast and future neighborhood
park to the south through a system of internal pedestrian walkways, a main pedestrian
paseo, enhanced pavement features, and direct access along Palomar Street for 32
units in Lot 1 with front doors adjacent to the sidewalk.
Overall, the combined project provides consistency with goals and objectives of the
General Plan Palomar Gateway District.
Disclosure Statement
Pursuant to Council Policy 101-01, prior to any action upon matters that will require discretionary action by the Council.
Planning Commission and all other official bodies of the City. a statement of disclosure of certain ownership or financial
interests. payments, or campaign contributions for a City of Chula Vista election must be filed. The fonowing information
must be disclosed:
1. list the names of all persons having a financial inlerest in the property that is the subject of the application or the
conlract, e.g" owner, applicant, contractor, subcontractor, material supplier.
C,\YVlA I tJV ;
the 01,(")111 LD(VtfOy. Y
2. If any person. identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals with
a $2000 investment in the business (corporation/partnership) enUty.
.'- I
3. If any person. identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit organization or trust. list the names of any person
serving as director of the non-profit organiZation or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust.
4. Please identify every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or independent contractors you have
assigned to represent you before the City in this matter.
~1~iII ~AII1JMII"'fe6 GI1AP - All ~t,y<<>
/JJWJ.s1w:'A.i, ;;y~:;j' ~JyaS
5.
Has any person. associated with this contract had any financial dealings fith _an offtciar* of the City of Chura
Vista as" relates to this contract within the past 12 months. Yes_ No~
If Ves, brfefly describe the nature of the financial interest the official.. may have in this contract.
6.
Have you made a contributioQ g!.more than $250 within the past twelve (12) months to a current member of the
Chula Vista City Council? N9-3. Ves _If yes, which Council member?
7. Have you provided more than $340 (or an item of equivalent value) to an official.. of the C~y of Chula Vista in the
past twelve (1~) IJWIill1s? (This includes being a source of Income, money to retire a legal deb~ gift, loan, etc.)
Yes_ NoL
If Yes, which official.. and what was the nature of nem provided?
Date: '? ..~ 7,. 0 7
*"
Person is defined as: any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal
organization, corporation. estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, any other county, city, municipality, district, or other
political subdivision, -or any other group or combination acting as a unit
Official includes. but is not limited to: Mayor, Council member, Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation member,
Planning Commissioner, member of a board, commission. or committee of the City, employee, or staff members.
September 6, 2006
~~(~
:-~
--~-
-""'--""+-
~~ -~
plann ng & Building Department
Planning Division I Developmenl Processing
CI1Y OF
(HULA VISfA
APPLICATION APPENDIX C
Development Permit Processing Agreement
Permit Applicant:
Applicant's Address:
Type of Permit:
Agreement Date:
Deposit Amount:
.J11' C) l~ CamIre"", d
9 11) JOI.()f){ C c..1\~ ~r.
"2 ::Jr'\(~_ en cl.n 3 Q... , '1 ~ t t.\.. ~ \.I"'\.
-1lEJ 05
JS" 0(71)
.
<;~..k.lf5J} ~') Ol!:)=' c(-\ qJtil.
$u b d ; v,.s." ~') IItcp, I)c.oH'-l" ?&1tu.J
This Agreement (-Agreement") between the City of Chula Vista, a chartered municipal corporation (-Cily") and the
forenamed applicant for a development permit ("Applicant"). effective as of the Agreement Date set forth above, is made
with reference to the following facts:
. Whereas, Applicant has applied to the City for a permit of the type aforereferenced ("Permit") which the City has
required to be obtained as a condition to permitting Applicant to develop a parcel of property: and,
Whereas, the City will incur expenses in order to process said permit through the various departments and before
the various boards and commissions of the City ("Processing Services"); and.
Whereas the purpose of this agreement is to reimburse the City for all expenses it will incur In connection with
providing the Processing Services:
Now, therefore, the parties do hereby agree. in exchange.for the mutual promises herein contained, as follows:
1. Applicant's Duty to Pay.
Applicant shall pay all of City's expenses incurred in providing Processing Services related to Applicant's Permit. including
all of City's direct and overhead costs related thereto. This duty of Applicant shall be referred to herein as "Applicant's
Duty to Pay."
1.1. Applicant's Deposit Duty.
As partial performance of Applicant's Duty to Pay, Applicant shall deposit the amount aforereferenced ("Deposit").
1.1.1. City shall charge its lawful expenses incurred in providing Processing Services against
Applicant's Deposit. If, after the conclusion of processing Applicant's Permit, any portion of the
Deposit remains, City shall retum said balance to Applicant without interest thereon. If, during the
processing of Applicant's Permit. the amount of the Deposit becomes exhausted, or is imminently
likely to become exhausted in the opinion of the e City, upon netice of same by City, Applicant
shall forthwith provide such additional deposit as City shall calculate as reasonably necessary to
continue Processing Services. The duty of Applicant to initially deposit and to supplement said
deposit as herein required shall be known as "Applicant's Deposit Duty".
2. City's Duty.
City shall. upon the c;ondition that Applicant is no in breach of Applicant's Duty to Payor Applicant's Deposit Duty.
use good faith to provide processing servic;es in relalion to Applicant's Permit application.
2.1. City shall have no liability hereunder to Applicant for the failure to process Applicant's Permit application, or
for failure to process Applicant's Permit within the time frame requested by Applicant or estimated by City.
270 Fourth Avenue I Chuld Vista 1 Caliiornia I Y1Y1U I {blYI &91-5101
~~~
~
'-..;;- ---:0;"
~ ,~
PI ann ng & Building Department
Planning Division I Development Processing
CI1" OF
CHUIA VISTA
Development Permit Processing Agreement - Page 2
2.2. By execution of this agreement Applicant shall have no right to the Permit for which Applicant has applied.
City shall use its discretion in valuating Applicant's Permit Application without regard to Applicant's promise to pay for the
Processing Services. or the execution of the Agreement.
3. Remedies.
3.1. Suspension of Processing
In addition to all other rights and remedies which the City shall otherwise have at law or equity, the City has
the right to suspend and/or withhold the processing of the Permit which is the subject matter of this Agreement 3S well as
the Permit which may be the subject matter of any other Permit which Applicant has before the City.
3.2. Civil Collection
In addition to all other rights and remedies which the City shall otherwise have at law or equity, the City has
the right to collect all sums which are or may become due hereunder by civ~ action, and upon instituting litigation to collect
same, the prevailing party shaH be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and costs.
4. Miscellaneous.
4.1 Notices.
All notices, demands or requests provided for or permitted to be given pursuant to this Agreement must be in
writing. AU notices, demands and requests to be sent to any party shall be deemed to have been properly given or served
if personally served or deposited in the United States mail, addressed to such party, postage prepaid, registered or
certified, with retum receipt requested at the addresses identified adjacent to the signatures of the parties represented.
4.2 Governing LawNenue.
This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California.
Any action arising under or relating to this Agreement shall be brought only in the federal or state courts located in San
Diego County, State of California, and if applicable, the City of Chula Vista, or as clQ.se thereto as possible. Venue for this
Agreement, and performance hereunder, shall be the City of Chula Vista.
4.3. Multiple Signatories.
If there are multiple signatories to this agreement on behalf of Applicant, each of such signatories shall be
jointly and severally liable for the performance of Applicant's duties herein set forth.
4.4. Signatory Authority.
This signatory to this agreement hereby warrants and represents that he is the duly designated agent for the
Applicanl and has been duly authorized by the Applicant to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Applicant. Signatory
shall be personally liable for Applicant's Duty to Pay and Applicant's Duty to Deposit in the event he has not been
authorized to execute this Agreement by Applicant.
4.5 Hold Harmless.
Applicant' shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officers and
employees. from and against any claims, suits, actions or proceedings, judicial or administrative, for writs, orders,
injunction or other relief, damages, liability, cost and expense (including without limitation attorneys' fees) arising out of
City's actions in processing or issuing Applicant's Permit, or in exercising any discretion related thereto including but not
limited to the giving of proper environmental review, the holding of public hearings, the extension of due process rights,
except only for those claims, suits. actions or proceedings arising from the sole negligence or sole willful conduct of the
City. its officers, or employees known to, but not objected to, by the Applicant. Applicant's indemnification shall include
any and all costs, expenses. attorney's fees and liability incurred by the City, its officers, agents, or employees in
defending against such claims, whether the same proceed to judgement or not. Further, Applicant. at Its own expense,
shall, upon written request by the City. defend any such suit or action .brought against the City, its officers, agents, or
employees. Applicant's indemnification of City shall not be limited by any prior or subsequent declaration by the
27b Fourth Avenue I Chula Vista I Caliiorniil I ~lYl0 I (bl!l) tiYl.51Ul
'.
f
~~(?-
~
..........,.;.,,"'"
~~"'-~
Planning & Building Department
Planning Division I Developmenl Processing
CflY OF
(HUlA VISTA
Development Permit Processing Agreement - Page 3
Applicant. At its sole discretion, the City may participate at its own expense in the defense of any such aclion, but such
participation shall not relieve the applicant of any obligation imposed by this condition.
4.6 Administrative Claims Requirements and Procedures.
No suit or arbitration shan be brought arising out of this agreement against the C~y unless a claim has first been
presented in writing and filed with the City of Chula Vista and acted upon by the City of Chula Vista in accordance with the
procedures set forth in Chapter 1.34 of the Chula VISta Municipal Code, as same may from time to time be amended, the
provisions of which are incorporated by this reference as if fully'set forth herein, and such policies and procedures used
by the City in the implementation of same. Upon request by City, Consultant shall meet and confer in good faith with City
for the purpose of resolving any dispute over the terms of this Agreement.
Now therefore, the parties hereto, having read and understood the terms and conditions of this agreement, do
hereby express their consent to the terms hereof by setting their hand hereto on the date set forth adjacent thereto.
Dated:
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA
By:
Dated: J J t) 0 ')
14 O~ Cu.
q I ; ] . ~ ~ C -{.I\"",~ ft I.j S" IJ
~(\ Di\"j~\ ((~ 9;2(?-:l-
By: UJI- ~
27b Founh Avenue I Chulil Vista I Caliiornia I Y1Yl0 I (blY) bYl-5101
ATTACHMENT 7
ORDINANCE NO. 2007-
-
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CHULA VISTA
AMENDING THE ZONING MAPS ESTABLISHED BY
MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 19.18.010 BY REZONING FOUR
PARCELS CONSISTING OF THE 4.89-ACRE SITE LOCATED AT
765-795 PALOMAR STREET FROM COMMERCIAL
THOROUGHFARE WITH PRECISE PLAN (CT-P) TO CENTRAL
COMMERCIAL WITH PRECISE PLAN (CC-P) AND
APPROVING PRECISE PLAN MODIFYING STANDARDS FOR
OPEN SPACE AND FRONT/EXTERIOR SIDE BUILDING
SETBACKS TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE
PROPOSED BA YVIST A WALK MIXED-USE PROJECT
RECITALS
A. Project Site
WHEREAS, the area of land, which is the subject of this ordinance is diagrammatically
represented in Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference, and for the purpose of
general description herein consist of 4. 89-acre site located at 765-965 Palomar Street, within the
Merged Chula Vista Redevelopment Project ("Project Site"); and
B. Project; Application for Discretionary Approval
WHEREAS, on April 22, 2005 duly verified application for Design Review Permit
(DRC-05-39), and on September 8, 2005 duly verified applications for a Rezone (PCZ-07-01)
with Precise Plan Modifying Standards for open space and front/exterior building setbacks,
Conditional Use Permit (SUPS-07-0l), and Tentative Subdivision Map (PCS-07-0l) were filed
with the City of Chula Vista on behalf of the Olson Urban Housing, LLC ("Applicant") to enable
the development of a 154-unit mixed use residential project with 5,000 to 10,000 square feet of
commercial space located at 765-965 Palomar Street ("Project"); and
WHEREAS, the proposed project was reviewed for compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act and an Initial Study, IS-05-012, was prepared in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Based upon results of the Initial Study, it was
detennined that the project could result in effects on the environment. However, revisions to the
project made by, or agreed to, by the applicant would avoid the effects, or mitigate the effects, to
a point where clearly no significant effects would occur. Therefore, Mitigated Negative
Declaration IS-05-012 was prepared for the project; and
WHEREAS, on November 13, 2007, the City Council adopted Mitigated Negative
Declaration (IS-05-0l2) for the Project; and
C. Planning Commission and Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation Record on
Application
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for an advertised public
hearing on said project, and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its
Ordinance No.
Page 2
publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, and its mailing to property owners
within 500 feet of the exterior boundary of the project, at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the project
on October 24,2007, at 6 p.m. in the John Lippitt Public Works Center 1800 Maxwell Road, and
after hearing staff presentation and public testimony, voted _ to recommend that the City
Council approve the Rezone and Precise Plan Modifying Standards, in accordance with the findings
listed below; and
WHEREAS, the proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning
Commission at the public hearing on this project held on October 24,2007, and the minutes and
resolution resulting there from, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceedings; and
WHEREAS, the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation held an advertised public
hearing on this Project on October 25, 2007 in the Council Chambers, 274 Fourth Avenue, and
after hearing staff presentation and public testimony, voted to recommend that the City Council
approve the Rezone and Precise Plan Modifying Standards, in accordance with the findings listed
below; and
WHEREAS, the proceedings and all evidence introduced on this Project before the Chula
Vista Redevelopment Corporation at their public hearing held on October 25, 2007, and the
minutes and resolutions resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this
proceeding; and
D. City Council Record on Application
WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing on the Rezone and Precise Plan
Modifying Standards was held before the City Council of the City of Chula Vista to receive the
recommendations of the Planning Commission and the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation,
and to hear public testimony with regard to the same.
WHEREAS, the City Council held an advertised public hearing on the project on
November 13, 2007, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 276 Fourth Avenue and, after
hearing staff presentation and public testimony, the Council voted to approve the
Rezone and Precise Plan Modifying Standards in accordance with the findings listed below.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby find,
determine, and resolve as follows:
Discretionary Approval and Ordinance
A. REZONE
The City Council does hereby find that the proposed rezone of the 4.89 acre site from
Commercial Thoroughfare with Precise Plan (CT -P) to Central Commercial with Precise Plan
(CC-P) is supported based upon the following findings of public necessity, convenience and the
general welfare and good zoning practices.
Ordinance No.
Page 3
1. The proposed CCP zone would provide an implementing zone for the existing
Transit Focus Area (TF A) designation of the City's 2005 General Plan, and will
contribute to the public convenience and general welfare by further assisting the
City's efforts to satisfy the goals and objectives of the General Plan Land Use and
Transportation (LUT) Policy 43.4, 43.5 and 43.6 for this area. The CC zone is the
only zoning district currently available that allows establishment of mixed use
high-density residential development standards in a manner that complies with the
City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
2. The rezoning of the property will allow the project to further the goals and
objectives of the Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan (2004) regarding
the removal of blight and physical improvement to this area of the redevelopment
project area.
The City Council further supports the proposed amendment to the City of Chula Vista
Zoning Map established by Section 19.18.010 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code to rezone the
site as depicted in Exhibit B from CT -P to CC-P (Central Commercial Precise Plan).
B. PRECISE PLAN FINDINGS
The City Council does hereby make the findings required by CVMC 19.14.576 for the
establishment of a Precise Plan Modifying District and Standard, as herein below set forth, and
sets forth, there under, the evidentiary basis that pennits the stated findings to be made.
1. That such plan will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental
to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity.
The proposed project will contribute to the public convenience and general
welfare by assisting the City's efforts to satisfy the goals and objectives of the General
Plan Land Use and Transportation (LUT) Policy 43.4, 43.5, 43.6, 43.11 and 43.12 for this
area regarding the provision of mixed use higher density residential development in a
pedestrian oriented environment, and the goals and objectives of the Merged Chula Vista
Redevelopment Project Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan (2004) regarding the
removal of blight and the provision of physical improvement to this area of the
redevelopment project area. The proposed CC zone and associated Precise Plan Modifying
Standards would allow a project to be developed that is consistent with the existing
Transit Focus Area (TF A) designation of the City's 2005 General Plan and allows the
orderly growth of this area of the city.
The proposed Precise Plan Modifying Standards will not have a negative impact
on the surrounding neighborhood because the proposed standards allow the applicant to
design a Project that is more compatible with higher density residential and transit-
oriented mixed-use development planned for the area. The surrounding area includes
Ordinance No.
Page 4
commercial uses, a transit station, and medium to high residential uses. The proposed
modified standards will allow the flexibility in establishing new development standards
for building setbacks and open space regulations that will permit construction of higher
density multi family and neighborhood serving commercial uses which is more
appropriate for the area, as it transitions from existing multi and single-family
development to transit-oriented high density residential and mixed use type development.
The proposed Precise Plan Modifying Standards related to open space and
building setbacks are not detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons
residing or working in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity. The reduction in open space and front building setback allow the construction of
a project with an urban character and pedestrian orientation, as mandated by the Transit
Focus Area designation of the City's 2005 General Plan. The proposed building setback
along Palomar (0.5 to 6 feet) is intentionally reduced to create a more urban edge between
the proposed building and the sidewalk and Palomar Street. While the proposed setback
would deviate from the Zoning Ordinance, the reduction in the setback would afford the
project a more urban and pedestrian-oriented character by being closer to the sidewalk, as
compared with a suburban type of development with larger front setbacks. The Precise
Plan Modifying Standards would also enhance a ccess to the Palomar Trolley Station with
thirty two (32) of the units closer to and accessing directly onto Palomar Street and the
remaining units provide clear pedestrian access and connections through the site to the
trolley station. Sidewalks along Palomar Street would be widened for a total walkway
width of 6.5 feet and separated from traffic along Palomar Street by a 5 foot wide
landscaped area (for a total 11.5 feet of parkway) to further promote the pedestrian
orientation and convenience of walking to nearby commercial and transit uses, and with
the potential of improving the health and safety of persons residing in the area.
Along Frontage Road, the required exterior side yard setback of the CC zone is 25
feet. The project's exterior side yard setback is proposed to vary from 15 feet to 50 feet. A
reduced side yard setback is only proposed at the comer of Palomar Street and Frontage
Road and then widens up to 50 feet south along Frontage Road. The modified standard at
the comer allows the building to be more prominent at this entryway and makes more of a
gateway statement (in keeping with the goals of the General Plan) than would otherwise
be possible using the more suburban standard of 25 feet.
The proposed project will enhance the livability of this area of Chula Vista
through the creation and maintenance of a mixed-use project that will help promote the
City as a stable and economically and socially diverse community.
2. That such plan satisfies the principle for the application of the P modifying district as
set forth in CVMC 19.56.041.
The Precise Plan Modifying District ("P" modifier) has already been established
on the site under the existing Commercial Thoroughfare zone (CT-P zone) and will
continue to be effective under the proposed Central Commercial zone (CC-P). The
Ordinance No.
Page 5
purpose of the Precise Plan Modifying District is to allow diversification in the spatial
relationship of land uses, density, buildings, structures, landscaping and open spaces, as
well as design review of architecture and signs through the adoption of specific conditions
of approval for development of property in the city. Within the boundaries of the "P"
modifying district, the location, height, size and setbacks of buildings or structures, open
spaces, signs and densities indicated on the precise plan shall take precedence over the
otherwise applicable regulations of the underlying zone. Pursuant to CVMC 19.56.041,
the "P" modifying district may be applied to areas within the city when one or more
circumstances are evident including:
"The subject property, or the neighborhood or area in which the property is
located, is unique by virtue of topography, geological characteristics, access,
configuration, traffic circulation or some social or historic situation requiring
special handling of the development on a precise plan basis. "
The Project proposes to utilize the existing "P" modifier to establish building
setbacks and open space standards that represent a modified standard from the Zoning
Code requirements The proposed precise plan modifying standards are necessary to
implement an urban pedestrian-oriented project, as called for by the 2005 General Plan
and provide the flexibility to allow construction of the Project.. The site is unique in the
sense that is close to the Palomar Trolley Station and is part of the General Plan Transit
Focus Area, which calls for the development of mixed-use, pedestrian oriented projects
with an urban character. The site is surrounded by existing and proposed urban and
pedestrian oriented uses such as commercial uses, a transit station, and medium to high-
density residential uses.
The proposed reduction in the front building setback (0.5 to 6 feet) along Palomar
Street will set the building close to the property line, establishing a closer relationship
between the building and the sidewalk. Along Frontage Road, the exterior side yard
setback of the CC zone is 25 feet. The project's exterior side yard setback is proposed to
vary from 15 feet to 50 feet. A reduced side yard setback is only proposed at the comer of
Palomar Street and Frontage Road and then widens up to 50 feet south along Frontage
Road. The modified standard at the comer allows the building to be more prominent at
this entryway and makes more of a gateway statement than would otherwise be possible
using the more suburban standard of 25 feet. The proposed open space standard will also
contribute to implement the project by providing unique open space elements that are
urban in nature, such as rooftop patios, vertical landscape elements, and seating areas.
3. That any exceptions granted which deviate from the underlying zoning requirements
shall be warranted only when necessary to meet the purpose and application of the P
precise plan modifying district.
The reduction in the building setbacks and open space are warranted and necessary
to accomplish an urban pedestrian oriented project, as mandated by the 2005 General Plan
vision and policies. While the required front building setback of the CC zone is 25 feet,
the building line map requires a five foot setback along Palomar Street. As noted in the
Ordinance No.
Page 6
Zoning Ordinance, the building line map takes precedence over the zoning district. The
proposed front building setback of 0.5 to 6 feet creates the urban character and interface
of the building with Palomar Street and sidewalk that is more pedestrian oriented as
envisioned by the General Plan. Along Frontage Road, the required exterior side yard
setback is 25 feet while the proposed setback would vary from 15 feet to 50 feet. A
reduced side yard setback is only proposed at the comer of Palomar Street and Frontage
Road and then widens up to 50 feet south along Frontage Road. The modified standard at
the corner allows the building to be more prominent at this entryway and makes more of a
gateway statement than would otherwise be possible using the more suburban standard of
25 feet.
The reduction in the open space is also warranted and necessary in that it allows
the construction of the proposed site plan layout. Attempting to accommodate the
required open space would reduce the area for buildings and associated improvement and
potentially the density as called for in the 2005 General Plan. At the same time, the type
and quality of the proposed open space offers a variety of open space elements with an
urban character that do not require additional land, such as balconies, rooftop patios, as
well as pedestrian corridors between building structures. These elements contribute to
maintain the desired density of the project, while providing high quality urban recreation
amenities.
Therefore, the requested modified standards under the Precise Plan are warranted in order
to achieve the purpose of the Precise Plan Modifying District.
4. That approval of this plan will conform to the general plan and the adopted policies of
the City of Chula Vista.
The Project has been designed and evaluated in accordance with the goals and
objectives of the General Plan, including the Transit Focus Area. The Precise Plan will
allow the Project to be consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan, and
the Chula Vista Municipal Code. The General Plan Land Use and Transportation (LUT)
Policy 43.4 and 43.5 for this area state that development projects should:
"Provide a mix of uses with a focus on retail and some office uses along Palomar
Street in the Mixed Use Transit Focus Area, with residential uses above and/or
behind the retail and offices uses. " and;
"Provide a mix of local-serving retail and office uses near the Palomar Trolley
Station and at the Gateways into the Palomar Gateway District. "
In order to implement the General Plan, the project proposes to rezone site from CT-P to
the CC-P zone, which allows mixed-use projects through the issuance of a conditional
use permit. For this area of the City, this is the only zoning district currently available to
implement the 2005 General Plan mixed-use designation. In relation to residential
density within the area, LUT Policy 43.6 ofthe General Plan states:
Ordinance No.
Page 7
"In the Palomar Gateway District, residential densities within the Mixed Use
Transit Focus Area designation are intended to have a district-wide gross density
of 40 dwelling units per acre. "
The project proposes 154 units on 4.89 acres, which results in a density of 32
dwelling units per acre. This density is consistent with the City's General Plan policy for
the site and represents the maximum density permitted by the proposed CC zone. The
proposed residential density would provide an urban, pedestrian-oriented project design
that would complement the Palomar Trolley Station and be compatible with the
surrounding land uses.
The General Plan provides further guidance on design and landscaping for the Palomar
Gateway through LVT Policy 43.11 and 43.12, stating:
"..the improvement of Palomar Street as a gateway to the City."
"Provide for safe, effective, and aesthetic pedestrian crossings and improvements
to Palomar Street and Industrial Boulevard. "
The Precise Plan and the proposed Modifying Standards for the reduction in the
building setbacks and open space confonn to the General Plan and its policies. The
reduction in the front building setback from the required 5 feet to the proposed 0.5 to 6 feet
and side yard reduction from 25 to 15 to 50 feet will create a more urban character and will
establish a closer relationship between the building and the sidewalk and street and increase
access to the Palomar trolley station. While the required setbacks were intended in the past
to create a suburban character, the reduced front and side yard setbacks create the urban and
pedestrian orientation called for by the General Plan, particularly since the proposed project
is designated as a Transit Focus Area.
The reduction in open space also confonns to the policies ofthe General Plan. While
the amount of open space provided is less than the required, the type and quality of the
proposed open space is consistent with a mixed.use, high density and pedestrian.oriented
project. The proposed open space and the elements that compose it, such as balconies,
rooftops, urban landscape elements, confonn to and create a more urban and pedestrian-
oriented project. The proposed composition of the open space elements provide the project
residents a high quality of recreational opportunities a more urban environment, which
conforms with the vision and policies of the General Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does
hereby approve the following:
A. The rezone of the 4.89-acre site located at 765-965 Palomar Street from CT-P to
CC-P. The City of Chula Vista Zoning Map established by Section 19.18.010 of
the Chula Vista Municipal Code is hereby amended to rezone the site as depicted
in Exhibit "B" from CT-P to CC-P.
Ordinance No.
Page 8
B. The Precise Plan Modifying Standard for open space and front building setback
are hereby adopted and supported by the required findings (CVMC 19.56.041), as
outlined above.
EFFECTNE DATE
This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force on the thirtieth day from and after its second
reading.
Presented by:
Approved as to fonn by
Ann Hix
Acting Community Development Director
Ann Moore
City Attorney
~~! I
'U)f~
--j ... ~
CU i
'-l:E!
1,(
/ \
/ \ ,
! : :
'\-,.j ,
~.
//
\. ..... !
-----....--:\'' .' I
i
/.. ,
/" I ,
../ i,
\\. / \ I i
\ i /
\ 'i i
\~ \ i I
\\11\ i! i
....\ I ,
\~\\ ~ I 1,\.-.- rl/, L--.--i
\~\ ~ ! (- ~, ~ ----
-\ \~ \ 1 I 1L0/ f/~
\ ' \ rJ ' c-~:::::.~
\ \ 'I _::::::---- ~__,
\ \ , - - - I
\\ IL--- ~~~~.
\ I I _ ~~.-- ~ I ,
~ ~~C( II
- \ // Il~~ ~.2 i I I I
\ ~ .--! r/~ /1.... L.r! ! !
\ ~ ~ 11. '2 ~ L. .-.. ~ I......'. ---f
) ~ ~\ I I Q...I ~~-! L . ,---j:
.-~..~~ ~\! h I I I J II i -.~, e'l
--- -c; \ \ I Iii <---'-----_ I 0
:c/' //\ -'-; II III i c
~ ~\ J?J ! r---, IT1=l
/ / ~~ \ ) I I-.L_! I !----j!
// . I, \ V .\.., I ,. I'
- I. /.' . i I
\ I !~..<1 .. 1..1.__1 -Jj
- / ! -- ~ffi" . \ 11/1 .-!!Ie'-','- i ,. .
/ --4{8(1 \ \ \ I Ii kl/___ i ! !.
/ (..~~\\ \ \ 1/ E - -TIILJ 1 Ii] ,~II
\/;("\ \ \ v(1 0 -- .', !_ i ----j [_I. , . i ,
''. . \ ~\ \ 1- 'I--T i' I ,
~/ \-..~ \\ \\\ \\ \)\ i ~ '. cj I I. I... .. (\ i ' --I
/ /\ \ \ Y '! r---l i i \ I ' I,
I \ , \ , \ 0---- -~r:J I ~---.J. _____~, .. I, 'L
/\ \ \ \~' I" j' --i J \! I II II
I " \ h'\U\ - I ~ i 'tr. 'I "1 I . f
1/ l~r\ ~ ~ l~~~ I
N \ .\ ~~
\
-----\
,
\
\ ................\------
v~
i
. ,/
1.---------
.-
r-----
.........~~~~......_._..-
.. -.. "'---'r
I"::: - - II
.---1 Ii'
--------- I i---- _'I
I 'I II
/~ 1---1 ,-----j I
-1 r?--.-..I r--) L-i I
L---.l i--~-JI L_~ I i I
"1 ~ i 'I j ~__-jl
/ I I I -J/----J I 'I
I c---- ,_., /.wi I i
/ I I 1 1 '----II\' , i I
. I ----y;'....c==-l;- IVII - I'
1-- --I--- I -" , -J , 1 . "
; I ,---- I r---!rg I I , .
' ..J _-II I' ,'tt 1/ ~
r-, ~I--_~ 1...----1 , I
! '---..-;, I I ,<JJ I I
,e -- --r 's ' 1_, "'__ _---II ,
'-----< '-, I, '~__----j , .
,- ------L___.--, 'I I - -', I----.. ---J, ;
I I I~fti j I I " '-... 1-..-.--.- .M
! --L ---IV~ ._~~ 1...---1 r--rr---J. '. '. I I '.
r-------,- Ii ,/ " "'I I 1
I I I I ! I I! 'i" ii,
I I ! 1 I i I I Ii' I Iii
I I 'I If)', J. LL....1..J L~______
\--~.___1..._..___, '-_____......... l....___.__ _.
. .--------..
~-----..~V\
\ \\
\ \
\ '
\ .
\,
r
,
..-.--------..--.----1
r
rj r--(i) ,
I . .
-, r I.W~
I I II ~
I I ------i! 1+1.0
I. I r--------',t'\
i' , I ,...,
I I f-----io'
! II bl\
I ! f .
I
I
!
.-- T
i
i
---------,
I
.... --'I
!
EXHIBIT A
~
o
~
.~
o
~
~.
~
m
~
~
Q)
~
.~
~
~
~
rd
~
T11
.~
~
~
~8J:
o I-
~ "
(,) 0
o z
oJ
EXHIBIT B
ATTACHMENT 8
RESOLUTION NO. PCZ 07-01
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE
ZONING MAPS ESTABLISHED BY MUNICIPAL CODE
SECTION 19.18.010 BY REZONING FOUR PARCELS
CONSISTING OF 4.89 ACRES LOCATED AT 765-795
PALOMAR STREET FROM COMMERCIAL
THOROUGHFARE WITH PRECISE PLAN (CT-P) TO
CENTRAL COMMERCIAL WITH PRECISE PLAN (CC-P)
AND APPROVING THE PRECISE PLAN MODIFYING
STANDARDS FOR OPEN SPACE AND BUILDING
SETBACKS TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE
MIXED-USE PROJECT KNOWN AS BAYVISTA WALK AT
THE SUBJECT SITE
WHEREAS, on September 8, 2006, a duly verified application for a Rezone (PCl-07 -01 )
of the 4.89-acre property located at 765-795 Palomar Street was filed with the City of Chula
Vista by Olson Urban Housing (Developer); and
WHEREAS, the Developer requests approval of the Rezone from CT -P to CC-P of said
property and a reduction in the required open space and front and exterior yard building setbacks
through the establishment of Precise Plan Modifying Standards to enable the development of a
154-unit mixed use residential project with 5,000 to 10,000 square feet of commercial space; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project was reviewed for compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act and an Initial Study, IS-05-012, was prepared in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act. Based upon results of the Initial Study, it was determined
that the project could result in effects on the environment. However, revisions to the project
made by or agreed to by the applicant would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point
where clearly no significant effects would occur. Therefore, Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, 18-05-012, were prepared; and
WHEREAS, a Planning Commission hearing time and place was set for said Rezone and
Precise Plan Modifying Standards and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was
given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, and its mailing to
property owners and residents within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property, at least
ten (10) days prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely October 24,
2007, at 6:00 p.m. at the John Lippitt Public Works Center, 1800 Maxwell Road, before the
Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed; and
Resolution No. PCZ 07-01
Page 2
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the Mitigated
Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, IS-05-012.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION
after considering all reports, evidence and testimony presented at said public hearing with respect
to the application (PCZ-07-01) to rezone the 4.89-acre property located at 765-795 Palomar
Street, does hereby find that the project is consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan
and Merged Chula Vista Redevelopment Project Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan
(2004), and thereby recommends approval of the rezone from Commercial Thoroughfare with
Precise Plan (CT-P) to Central Commercial with Precise Plan (CC-P) based upon the following
findings of public necessity, convenience and the general welfare and good zoning practices
which support the amendments to the Municipal Code.
I. The proposed CCP zone would provide an implementing zone for the existing
Transit Focus Area (TF A) designation of the City's 2005 General Plan, and will
contribute to the public convenience and general welfare by further assisting the
City's efforts to satisfy the goals and objectives of the General Plan Land Use and
Transportation (LUT) Policy 43.4, 43.5 and 43.6 for this area. The CC zone is the
only zoning district currently available that allows establishment of mixed use
high-density residential development standards in a manner that complies with the
City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
2. The rezoning of the property will allow the project to further the goals and
objectives of the Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan (2004) regarding
the removal of blight and physical improvement to this area of the redevelopment
proj ect area.
The Planning Commission further recommends approval of the City of Chula Vista
Zoning Map established by Section 19.18.010 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code to rezone the
site as depicted in Exhibit B from CT-P to CC-P (Central Commercial Precise Plan).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION does hereby
find that the proposed Precise Plan Modifying Standards have been reviewed and have met the
following findings, as required pursuant to CVMC 19.14.576.
1. That such plan will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental
to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity;
The proposed project will contribute to the public convenience and general
welfare by assisting the City's efforts to satisfy the goals and objectives of the General
Plan Land Use and Transportation (LUT) Policy 43.4, 43.5, 43.6, 43.11 and 43.12 for this
area regarding the provision of mixed use higher density residential development in a
pedestrian oriented environment, and the goals and objectives of the Merged Chula Vista
Resolution No. PCZ 07-01
Page 3
Redevelopment Project Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan (2004) regarding the
removal of blight and the provision of physical improvement to this area of the
redevelopment project area. The proposed CC zone and associated Precise Plan
Modifying Standards would allow a project to be developed that is consistent with the
existing Transit Focus Area (TF A) designation of the City's 2005 General Plan and
allows the orderly growth of this area ofthe city.
The proposed Precise Plan Modifying Standards will not have a negative impact
on the surrounding neighborhood because the proposed standards allow the applicant to
design a Project that is more compatible with higher density residential and transit-
oriented mixed-use development planned for the area. The surrounding area includes
commercial uses, a transit station, and medium to high residential uses. The proposed
modified standards will allow the flexibility in establishing new development standards
for building setbacks and open space regulations that will permit construction of higher
density multi family and neighborhood serving commercial uses which is more
appropriate for the area, as it transitions from existing multi and single-family
development to transit-oriented high density residential and mixed use type development.
The proposed Precise Plan Modifying Standards related to open space and
building setbacks are not detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons
residing or working in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity. The reduction in open space and front building setback allow the construction of
a project with an urban character and pedestrian orientation, as mandated by the Transit
Focus Area designation of the City's 2005 General Plan. The proposed building setback
along Palomar (0.5 to 6 feet) is intentionally reduced to create a more urban edge between
the proposed building and the sidewalk and Palomar Street. While the proposed setback
would deviate from the Zoning Ordinance, the reduction in the setback would afford the
project a more urban and pedestrian-oriented character by being closer to the sidewalk, as
compared with a suburban type of development with larger front setbacks. The Precise
Plan Modifying Standards would also enhance access to the Palomar Trolley Station with
thirty two (32) of the units closer to and accessing directly onto Palomar Street and the
remaining units provide clear pedestrian access and connections through the site to the
trolley station. Sidewalks along Palomar Street would be widened for a total walkway
width of 6.5 feet and separated from traffic along Palomar Street by a 5 foot wide
landscaped area (for a total 11.5 feet of parkway) to further promote the pedestrian
orientation and convenience of walking to nearby commercial and transit uses, and with
the potential of improving the health and safety of persons residing in the area.
Along Frontage Road, the required exterior side yard setback of the CC zone is 25
feet. The project's exterior side yard setback is proposed to vary from 15 feet to 50 feet. A
reduced side yard setback is only proposed at the comer of Palomar Street and Frontage
Road and then widens up to 50 feet south along Frontage Road. The modified standard at
the comer allows the building to be more prominent at this entryway and makes more of a
gateway statement (in keeping with the goals of the General Plan) than would otherwise
be possible using the more suburban standard of 25 feet.
Resolution No. PCZ 07-01
Page 4
The proposed project will enhance the livability of this area of Chula Vista
through the creation and maintenance of a mixed-use project that will help promote the
City as a stable and economically and socially diverse community.
2. That such plan satisfies the principle for the application of the P modifying district as
setforth in CVMC 19.56.041;
The Precise Plan Modifying District ("P" modifier) has already been established
on the site under the existing Commercial Thoroughfare zone (CT-P zone) and will
continue to be effective under the proposed Central Commercial zone (CC-P). The
purpose of the Precise Plan Modifying District is to allow diversification in the spatial
relationship of land uses, density, buildings, structures, landscaping and open spaces, as
well as design review of architecture and signs through the adoption of specific conditions
of approval for development of property in the city. Within the boundaries of the "P"
modifying district, the location, height, size and setbacks of buildings or structures, open
spaces, signs and densities indicated on the precise plan shall take precedence over the
otherwise applicable regulations of the underlying zone. Pursuant to CVMC 19.56.041,
the "P" modifying district may be applied to areas within the city when one or more
circumstances are evident including:
"The subject property, or the neighborhood or area in which the property is
located, is unique by virtue of topography, geological characteristics, access,
configuration, traffic circulation or some social or historic situation requiring
special handling of the development on a precise plan basis. "
The Project proposes to utilize the existing "P" modifier to establish building
setbacks and open space standards that represent a modified standard from the Zoning
Code requirements The proposed precise plan modifying standards are necessary to
implement an urban pedestrian-oriented project, as called for by the 2005 General Plan
and provide the flexibility to allow construction of the Project.. The site is unique in the
sense that is close to the Palomar Trolley Station and is part of the General Plan Transit
Focus Area, which calls for the development of mixed-use, pedestrian oriented projects
with an urban character. The site is surrounded by existing and proposed urban and
pedestrian oriented uses such as commercial uses, a transit station, and medium to high-
density residential uses.
The proposed reduction in the front building setback (0.5 to 6 feet) along Palomar
Street will set the building close to the property line, establishing a closer relationship
between the building and the sidewalk. Along Frontage Road, the exterior side yard
setback of the CC zone is 25 feet. The project's exterior side yard setback is proposed to
vary from 15 feet to 50 feet. A reduced side yard setback is only proposed at the comer of
Palomar Street and Frontage Road and then widens up to 50 feet south along Frontage
Road. The modified standard at the corner allows the building to be more prominent at
this entryway and makes more of a gateway statement than would otherwise be possible
Resolution No. PCZ 07-01
Page 5
using the more suburban standard of 25 feet. The proposed open space standard will also
contribute to implement the project by providing unique open space elements that are
urban in nature, such as rooftop patios, vertical landscape elements, and seating areas.
3. That any exceptions granted which deviate from the underlying zoning requirements
shall be warranted only when necessary to meet the purpose and application of the P precise
plan modifying district;
The reduction in the building setbacks and open space are warranted and necessary
to accomplish an urban pedestrian oriented project, as mandated by the 2005 General Plan
vision and policies. While the required front building setback of the CC zone is 25 feet,
the building line map requires a five foot setback along Palomar Street. As noted in the
Zoning Ordinance, the building line map takes precedence over the zoning district. The
proposed front building setback of 0.5 to 6 feet creates the urban character and interface
of the building with Palomar Street and sidewalk that is more pedestrian oriented as
envisioned by the General Plan. Along Frontage Road, the required exterior side yard
setback is 25 feet while the proposed setback would vary from 15 feet to 50 feet. A
reduced side yard setback is only proposed at the comer of Palomar Street and Frontage
Road and then widens up to 50 feet south along Frontage Road. The modified standard at
the comer allows the building to be more prominent at this entryway and makes more of a
gateway statement than would otherwise be possible using the more suburban standard of
25 feet.
The reduction in the open space is also warranted and necessary in that it allows
the construction of the proposed site plan layout. Attempting to accommodate the
required open space would reduce the area for buildings and associated improvement and
potentially the density as called for in the 2005 General Plan. At the same time, the type
and quality of the proposed open space offers a variety of open space elements with an
urban character that do not require additional land, such as balconies, rooftop patios, as
well as pedestrian corridors between building structures. These elements contribute to
maintain the desired density of the project, while providing high quality urban recreation
amenities.
Therefore, the requested modified standards under the Precise Plan are warranted
in order to achieve the purpose of the Precise Plan Modifying District.
4. That approval of this plan will conform to the general plan and the adopted policies of
the city.
The Project has been designed and evaluated in accordance with the goals and
objectives of the General Plan, including the Transit Focus Area. The Precise Plan will
allow the . Project to be consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan, and
the Chula Vista Municipal Code. The General Plan Land Use and Transportation (LUT)
Policy 43.4 and 43.5 for this area state that development projects should:
Resolution No. PCZ 07-01
Page 6
HProvide a mix of uses with a focus on retail and some office uses along Palomar
Street in the Mixed Use Transit Focus Area, with residential uses above and/or
behind the retail and offices uses. " and;
HProvide a mix of local-serving retail and office uses near the Palomar Trolley
Station and at the Gateways into the Palomar Gateway District. "
In order to implement the General Plan, the project proposes to rezone site from
CT-P to the CC-P zone, which allows mixed-use projects through the issuance of a
conditional use permit. For this area of the City, this is the only zoning district currently
available to implement the 2005 General Plan mixed-use designation. In relation to
residential density within the area, LVT Policy 43.6 of the General Plan states:
HIn the Palomar Gateway District, residential densities within the Mixed Use
Transit Focus Area designation are intended to have a district-wide gross density
of 40 dwelling units per acre. "
The project proposes 154 units on 4.89 acres, which results in a density of 32
dwelling units per acre. This density is consistent with the City's General Plan policy for
the site and represents the maximwn density permitted by the proposed CC zone. The
proposed residential density would provide an urban, pedestrian-oriented project design
that would complement the Palomar Trolley Station and be compatible with the
surrounding land uses.
The General Plan provides further guidance on design and landscaping for the
Palomar Gateway through LVT Policy 43.11 and 43.12, stating:
H..the improvement of Palomar Street as a gateway to the City."
HProvide for safe, effective, and aesthetic pedestrian crossings and improvements
to Palomar Street and Industrial Boulevard. "
The Precise Plan and the proposed Modifying Standards for the reduction in the
building setbacks and open space conform to the General Plan and its policies. The
reduction in the front building setback from the required 5 feet to the proposed 0.5 to 6 feet
and side yard reduction from 25 to 15 to 50 feet will create a more urban character and will
establish a closer relationship between the building and the sidewalk and street and increase
access to the Palomar trolley station. While the required setbacks were intended in the past
to create a suburban character, the reduced front and side yard setbacks create the urban and
pedestrian orientation called for by the General Plan, particularly since the proposed project
is designated as a Transit Focus Area.
The reduction in open space also conforms to the policies of the General Plan. While
the amount of open space provided is less than the required, the type and quality of the
proposed open space is consistent with a mixed-use, high density and pedestrian-oriented
Resolution No. PCZ 07-01
Page 7
project. The proposed open space and the elements that compose it, such as balconies,
rooftops, urban landscape elements, conform to and create a more urban and pedestrian-
oriented project. The proposed composition of the open space elements provide the project
residents a high quality of recreational opportunities a more urban environment, which
conforms with the vision and policies of the General Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION does hereby
adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council introduce an ordinance amending the
Zoning Maps established by Municipal Code Section 19.18.010 by rezoning four parcels
consisting of 4.89 acres located at 765-795 Palomar Street from the Commercial Thoroughfare
with Precise Plan (CT-P) Zone to Central Commercial with Precise Plan (CC-P) Zone and
approving the Precise Plan Modifying Standards for open space and building setbacks to allow
the construction of the proposed Bayvista Walk Mixed-Use project at the subject site.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of the resolution be transmitted to the City
Council and the Developer.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 24th day of October 2007, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABTAIN:
William Tripp, Chair
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas, Secretary