Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1990/10/10 AGENDA City Planning Commission Chula Vista, California Wednesday, October 10, 1990 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INTRODUCTORY REMARKS APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meetings of September 5 and September 12, 1990 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Planning Commission on any subject matter within the Commission's jurisdiction but not an item on today's agenda. Each speaker's presentation may not exceed five minutes. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: (a) PCZ-90-G: Request to rezone 2.52 acres located at 647 East Naples Street from R-1-10 to R-1-7 - George Merziotis (continued from 9-12-90) (b) PCS-90-04: Request to subdivide 2.52 acres known as Elks Ridge, Chula Vista Tract 90-04, located on the north side of East Naples, east of Foxboro Avenue - George Merziotis (continued from 9-12-90) 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-90-Q-M: City-initiated proposal to rezone certain territory, generally bounded by Palomar Street west of Broadway to the north, the southern City boundary to the south, Industrial Boulevard to the west and a line generally tending from the power easement east of Broadway to Fourth Avenue and Beyer Way to the east, from their City-adopted County zone classifications to City classifi- cations utilized throughout Chula Vista. Short form of title of proposal: "Harborside 'B' Part II" 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Draft Environmental Impact Report EIR-89-10, Rancho del Rey III 4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-90-15: Consideration of tentative subdivision map for Evergreen Gardens, Chula Vista Tract 90-15, located at 1424 Third Avenue - Conrad Prebys Trust AGENDA -2- October 10, 1990 5. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-89-27: Appeal from a decision of the Zoning Administrator granting approval of a low income senior housing project at 628/638 Third Avenue/Salvation Army - James Malcolm OTHER BUSINESS: Memo from City Attorney regarding Boards and Commission's Agenda Section Respond to Commission's inquiry on FAR for house under construction at 15 East 'J' Street Memo from Community Development Director regarding request for extraordinary meetings of the Planning Commission DIRECTOR'S REPORT COMMISSION COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT AT p.m. to the Study Session Meeting of October 17, 1990 at 5:00 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2 & 3. October 3, 1990 TO: Chairperson and Members of Planning Commission FROM: Kenneth Lee, Assistant Director of Planning Regarding Item I on the Agenda, the rezone and tentative map for Elks Ridge was continued from the Planning Commission meeting of 9/12/90 to 10/10/90 to allow applicant to revise the tentative map in accordance with the direction provided at the last hearing. The applicant has been unable to resolve the issues at this point and, therefore, have requested further continuance of the hearing until November 14, 1990. We would so recommend that it be continued. The Planning Department has provided advance notice of the proposed continuation to those property owners attending the last hearing. KL:je - Algert Engineering, In - 428 Broadway Chula Vtsl~a, California 92010 (619) 420-7090 October 2, 1990 City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 Attn: Planning Department Ref: Case # C.V. Tract 90-04, PCZ-90-G Dear Sirs: We hereby request a continuance of the Planning Commission meeting scheduled for this month. We request that you re- schedule for the meeting of November 14, 1990. Sincerely yours, James H. Algert Engineer for applicant JHA:kw Civil Engineers · Land Surveyors City Planning Commission 1 Agenda Item for Meeting of October 10, 1990 PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-90-Q-M City-initiated proposal to rezone certain territory, qenerally bounded by Palomar Street west of Broadway to the north, the southern City boundary to the south, Industrial Boulevard to the west and a line ~enerallv tending from the Dower easement east of Broadway to Hermosa and Beyer Way to the east, from their city-adopted County zone classifications to City classifications utilized throuqhout Chula Vista. The precise territorial limits and proposed rezonings are depicted on attached Exhibit "A". A. BACKGROUND 1. This proposal involves the rezoning of the Subcommunity of the Montgomery Specific Plan referred to as Harborside B Part II. The area is generally bounded by Palomar Street west of Broadway to the north, the southern City limits adjacent to the floodway to the south, and Industrial Boulevard to the west. On the east, the area is bounded by a line generally tending from the SDG&E power easement east of Broadway, to Hermosa Avenue and Beyer Way. Specifically, this request will convert the existing City- adopted County zoning to city zoning classifications. Those are as follows: A. M52 to C-C-P for the lots involved with the Palomar Trolley Center project in the north portion of Harborside "B" Part II. B. M52, M54, C37, RU24 and RMH10 to I-L-P for the industrial areas surrounding Jayken Way, for the area south of Anita Street between Industrial Boulevard and Silvas, for the majority of the area south of Main Street, and for the area south of Anita Street on the east side of Broadway. C. C36, C37, RU29 and M52 to C-T-P for the commercial areas on the west side of Broadway between Main Street and the SDG&E power easement, for the Auto Center on the east side of Broadway just south of the power easement, and for the block of land on the north side of Main Street between Industrial Boulevard and Silvas. City Planning Commission 2 Agenda Item for Meeting of October 10, 1990 D. RU29 and RMH10 to MHP for trailer and mobile home parks located on the north side of Anita Street between Jayken Way and Broadway. E. RU29 to R-3 for the apartments located on the north side of Anita Street between Broadway and the mobile home parks. F. S94, M54 and C37 - no change proposed - for the trolley station located on the southeast corner of Palomar Street and Industrial Boulevard, for the SDG&E power easement, for the block of residential development along Jacqua Street south of Main Street, and for the triangular piece of property on the southwest corner of Main Street and Broadway. 2. The Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an Initial Study, IS-88-4M and IS-88-65M, of potential environmental impacts associated with the Montgomery Specific Plan. Based on that attached Initial Study and comments thereon, if any, the Coordinator has concluded that this reclassification would cause no significant environmental impacts as per the previously adopted Negative Declaration issued on IS-88-4M and IS-88-65M. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Based on the Initial Study and comments on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, find that this reclassification will have no significant environmental impacts and re-adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-88-4M and IS-88-65M for the Montgomery Specific Plan. 2. Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance changing the zones as considered by the Montgomery Planning Committee and described on the attached Exhibit "A". C. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION8 On September 19, 1990, the Montgomery Planning Committee held a public hearing and unanimously recommended that the properties be reclassified as designated on Exhibit "A". city Planning Commission 3 Agenda Item for Meeting of October 10, 1990 D. DISCUSSION 1. Adjacent zoninq and land use North C-C-P Target & Ralphs commercial Center, other strip commercial I-L-P industrial suites R-3 single and duplex residential South A-l-10(San Diego) vacant/agriculture FW(San Diego) floodway West C-T-P vacant, commercial R-2-P single and duplex residential C36(County zone) restaurant and market I-L-P industrial suites M-1-B(San Diego ) industrial suites A-l-l(San Diego) agriculture field FW(San Diego) vacant East C-C-P commercial center S94(County zone) SDG&E power easement MHP mobile home park C-T-P Travelodge R-3-P Multi-unit dwellings R-2-P single and duplex dwellings M52(County zone) self-storage, industrial 2. Existinq site characteristics The topography of the area is generally flat with a slight slope towards the river and floodway in the southern portions. The majority of land area in Harborside B Part II is developed. There are, however, 20 vacant parcels totaling 24.41 acres and a number of other parcels that are used as open storage or are otherwise under utilized. The Palomar Trolley Station is located in the northwestern corner of the subcommunity. The large tract of land directly east of it is currently vacant and used as agriculture fields. The area has been approved for a Specific Plan change from Research/Light Industrial to Mercantile/Office Commercial and plans for the Palomar Trolley Center are currently being reviewed. The southeastern corner of this tract of land just north of the SDG&E easement is developed with a church and a number of residential units. City Planning Commission 4 Agenda Item for Meeting of October 10, 1990 The main north-south through street in the subcommunity is Broadway. The major east-west streets include Main Street and Anita Street. The predominant land use along Broadway north of Anita Street is commercial with a heavy emphasis on auto related services. On Broadway south of Anita, newer commercial/office buildings have been constructed. Industrial suites are found north of Anita surrounding Jayken Way. Residential uses in the form of trailer/mobile home parks and apartments are also located north of Anita between Jayken Way and Broadway. The area south of Anita between Industrial Boulevard and Silvas is a mixture of industrial uses. On the east side of Broadway south of Anita Street is found a newer auto center and then a small pocket of residential in the form of a trailer park and a few dwelling units along with an older 9-unit motel. The block of land on the north side of Main Street between Industrial Boulevard and Silvas is a combination of storage and distribution uses along with general commercial/light industrial uses. An auto dealer has recently located at the northwest corner of Main Street and Industrial Boulevard. Industrial suites are currently under construction toward the center of the block. On the east side of Broadway, the north side of Main Street is developed with a few used car lots and a mixture of commercial and light industrial uses as well as a few dwellings. The areas south of Main Street are developed with a wide range of industrial uses including storage and warehouse buildings, distribution and open uses of land. The southeastern portion of the subcommunity is part of a sand and gravel operation. Some non-conforming uses, in addition to the open salvage and storage yards, include residences and commercial sales. 3. Specific Plan. The Harborside B Part II Subcommunity Area contains several Land Use Designations on the Montgomery Specific Plan (per Exhibit "B"): MERCANTILE/OFFICE COMMERCIAL This applies to the block of land on the south side of Palomar Street at the north end of Harborside "B" Part II where the Palomar Trolley Center is proposed, to property on the west side of Broadway just south of the City Planning Commission 5 Agenda Item for Meeting of October 10, 1990 power easement and to the west side of Broadway between the apartment units and Main Street. Land uses include commercial strip centers and individual commercial uses as well as a trailer park. Zone recommendations are for M52 to C-C-P and for C36, RU29 and C37 to C-T-P. The "P" designator will require a precise plan for development to ensure comaptible land uses and design. RESEARCH AND LIGHT INDUSTRIAL a. A small block of land to the north of the SDG&E power easement: A church and a sampling of residential units are located here. The zone recommendation is from M52 to I-L-P to be consistent with the Montgomery Specific Plan. The precise plan requirement will again ensure compatible land uses and design on future projects. b. Along Marsat Court, Jayken Way, and Anita Street: Existing land uses include existing single story industrial suites and various trucking & distribution centers. Zone recommendations here are for M54 and M52 to I-L-P. The "P" mofifier will hold the same requirement as discussed above. c. Along the east side of Broadway north of Main Street and along the south side of Main Street: Zone amendments include M54 and M52 to I-L-P, C37 to I- L-P and RU29 to I-L-P, all with the same precise plan requirement as mentioned. Existing land uses in this area of Research-Light Industrial include a mixture of distributors, mini-warehouses, open storage yards, lumber and wood manufacturers and a large sand/gravel/concrete operation. Residential land uses are also scattered throughout the area. The residential areas along Jacqua Street and the Otay Market at the southwest corner of Main Street and Broadway are not proposed for zoning at this time and will be studied further to consider the residential and commercial land uses in the middle of industrial development. In addition, the Montgomery Planning Committee recommended deferring zoning for a block of land on the south side of Anita, east of Broadway. It is currently developed with a motel and residential units and is proposed to go from RU24 to I-L-P. After discussions with the property owner, staff and the property owner both concur that the I-L-P zoning is appropriate at this time. city Planning Commission 6 Agenda Item for Meeting of October 10, 1990 PARKS/OPEN SPACE and OTHER The Parks/Open Space designation applies to the SDG&E easement in the northern portion of the subcommunity and to the floodplain area at the south of the community. The SDG&E area is not proposed for zoning at this time; the floodplain area is proposed for the I-L-P zone due to the amount of activity already taking place in the area (trucking, distribution and sand/gravel). The trolley station in the northwestern corner of the subcommunity is designated "Other" and identified as the trolley station. No zone change from the County S94 zone (open space) is proposed here. HEAVY COMMERCIAL a. East side of Broadway: The automotive center development south of the power line easement is recommended for a zone change from M52 to C-T-P. The precise plan requirement will be used to review projects for conformity with existing newer development. b. North side of Main Street between Industrial Boulevard and Silvas: Existing land uses include a trucking distribution yard, a car lot, new industrial suites under construction and a variety of light industrial and commercial uses. The zone recommendation is from C37 to C-T-P. The "P" designator will again require the precise plan to ensure compatible land uses and design. MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL This applies to the mobile home parks on the north side of Anita Street. Zone recommendations are for RMH10 and RU29 to MHP. HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL This applies to the apartment units on the north side of Anita next to the mobile home park. The zone recommendation is for RU29 to R-3. City Planning Commission 7 Agenda Item for Meeting of October 10, 1990 E. ANALYSIS Several factors support the rezonings described above: 1. The Montgomery Specific Plan was adopted by Chula Vista City Council on January 12, 1988. These zone classifications are primarily proposed to implement that Specific Plan. 2. The proposed zone classifications for the industrial area are intended to implement specific goals established for the Main Street corridor and will allow the development of the area to move toward cleaner, light industrial uses more in keeping with research-industrial development. Existing non-conforming scrap and open storage uses will be allowed to be phased out over a 24 month period. 3. The deferment of zoning in the Special Study Area will allow the city to consider the needs of a park or open space lands in the area of the power line easement. 4. The deferment of zoning in the residential area along Jacqua Street and in the commercial area at the southwest corner of Main Street and Broadway will allow the City to consider residential and commercial uses adjacent to industrial land. 5. In all cases, the proposed zone amendments are our best attempt to convert city-adopted County zoning to equivalent City zoning, keeping in mind consistency with existing land uses, without adversely impacting development capability of the properties. a:%hbp2pc.rpt ATTACHMENT 1 SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS FOR APPLICATION OF "P" MODIFIER Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 1956.041, the "P" modifying district is applied based on the following: 1. The property or area to which the "P" modifying district is applied is an area adjacent and contiguous to a zone allowing different land uses, and the development of a precise plan will allow the area so designated to coexist between land usages which might otherwise prove incompatible. Zoning surrounding Harborside "B" Part II includes commercial, residential and industrial designations. The floodplain is adjacent to the south. The precise plan requirement will help create developments that are compatible with surrounding residential, commercial and industrial development that currently exist in the area and that are being proposed as the Montgomery area rejuvenates. In addition, zoning designations internal to Harborside "B" Part II vary. The precise plan requirement will provide the same review for land use compatibility. 2. The area to which the "P" modifying district is applied consists of two or more properties under separate ownership wherein coordination regarding access, on-site circulation, site planning, building design and identification is necessary to enhance the public convenience, health, safety and general welfare. Ownership and lot configuration varies within Harborside "B" Part II. The "P" modifier will require coordination of design to ensure that future developments add to the improvement of the community. ADDENDUM IS-88-4M MONTGOMERY SPECIFIC PLAN PART III May 6, 1988 1. The State of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and the City of Chula Vista's Environmental Review Procedures provide that when a project has been subjected to CEQA, no further review is required unless: a. Subsequent changes are proposed in the project which will require important revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental impacts not considered in a previous EIR or Negative Declaration on the project; b. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, such as a substantial deterioration in the air quality where the project will be located which will require important revisions in the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental impacts not covered in a previous EIR or Negative Declaration; or c. New information of substantial importance to the project becomes available. Because the preparation of the Montgomery Specific Plan has been the subject of a previous environmental review, and now part III of the plan has been drafted providing new information not previously known about the nature of implementation of the plan, a new initial study (IS-88-~M) was required. It is the conclusion of the initial study that prior environmental review of the Montgomery Specific Plan contained within IS-88~4M continues to accurately assess the same impacts or circumstances of the Plan, given the additional information regarding implementation of the document contained in part III. Previous Project The Montgomery Specific Plan is a detailed guide for growth, development, redevelopment and conservation for the proposed planning area, and when adopted and implemented, supercedes the existing zoning ordinance currently in effect for the area. The plan consists of a statement of community goals, objectives, policies and diagrams. It contains an implementation program and a statement of the relationship between the Montgomery Specific Plan and the Chula Vista General Plan. The majority of existing land uses would, in general, be maintained under the proposed plan. However, residential use types outlined within the plan diagram range from 3 to 26 dwelling units per acre, where current residential zoning ranges from 4-29 dwellings per acre. Industrial land uses are constrained to the Research and Limited Industrial Use Type, where uses permitted by the present zoning allow general and heavy industrial activities to take place. The specific details of the plan document are contained within Part II. The plan includes provisions for development of a civic/mercantile center for the community to be developed within the vicinity of Third Avenue and Oxford Street, the site of the Lauderbach Community Center. In addition, present deficiencies in the provision of parklands are addressed through proposed retention of SDG&E transmission lands for parks and open space, as well as property adjacent to Rice Elementary School, and parcels on the southeast corner of Fourth Avenue and Orange Avenue. All proposed parkland and civic mercantile uses are reserved as special study areas pending further analysis of issues involving socio-economic, environmental, housing, townscape planning and traffic concerns. Two areas within Montgomery would be earmarked as "Whitelands" or special comprehensive study areas, the first area lies within the subcommunity known as West Fairfield, and the second encompasses all lands within the floodplain for the Otay River Valley. The area south of Main Street between Industrial and Broadway is earmarked as a special study area in conjunction with Research and Limited Industrial uses, due to encroachment of the floodplain into an area for which industrial and other uses are presently conducted. Proposed Project Part III of the Montgomery Specific Plan is comprised of "Zoning and Special Regulations" and "Additional Plan Implementation" standards. Zoning and Special regulations address the County Zoning Plan which presently governs land use within Montgomery, and the City of Chula Vista's zoning regulations which govern land use in the balance of the municipality. Of greater significant, Part III proposes a special "Montgomery Zoning Plan," which would consist of selected City zoning provisions, and the addition of custom tailored "Special Montgomery Regulations." Zoning and Special Regulations also include townscape planning and urban design guidelines. Additional Plan Implementation addresses Cttywide and special subdivision controls capital improvement programming; code enforcement and coordination; conservation, rehabilitation, and redevelopment; incremental planning efforts and the Neighborhood Revitalization Program. The implementation portion of the plan does not rezone property, the rezonings called for under the Table of Translation on page 5A of the plan will be undertaken separately and are subject to additional environmental review. -2- Analysis 1. Groundwater/Drainage Since potentially inappropriate development in flood inundation areas is precluded by the plan through the use of special study area and whitelands designations, no additional significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required at this time. 2. Land Use/Social Development Three potential impact areas were identified in plan II with proposed land uses which would conflict with existing uses or uses currently permitted, and which have the potential to displace residents or employees on site. Those areas include: a. Brodericks Otay Acres Since development has not occurred at currently permitted residential densities in conflict with the draft plan, and since the predominant land use density conforms to that proposed by the plan, no adverse impacts will occur and no mitigation is required. b. Mace and Center Street south of Main Street Current land uses within this area involve scrap operations and heavy industrial activities in conflict with the Research and Limited Industrial land use designation proposed by the Draft Plan; those uses would eventually be terminated as a result. However, since the proposed land use designation would foster industrial activities offering other employment opportunities without the unsightly characteristics existing in scrap add dismantling operations, no significant adverse impacts will occur and no mitigation is required. c. Parcels east of Third Avenue between Naples Street and Kennedy Street Commercial land use designations are proposed for areas with existing established single family dwellings as part of a proposal for the Oxford/Third Avenue Civic Mercantile Focus. However, since implementation of the commercial land use is precluded by the requirement for assessment of impacts to residences and appropriate mitigation, through inclusion in a special study area, no significant impacts will occur and no mitigation is required. d. Transportation/Access Both tqontgomery Specific Plans II and III suggest certain proposals to revise and expand traffic circulation through the Montgomery area, chief among these being the widening of the MTDB bridge over Main Street at Industrial/Hollister Street, and extension of Second Avenue to Banner Street at Orange Avenue. Since both plan texts preclude implementation of the proposals pending support of traffic and engineering studies, no significant adverse impacts will occur and no mitigation is required at this point. -3- e. Land Form/Topography The Woodlawn Park subcommunity is characterized by steep rolling topography and inadequate access. Further development for single family residences may include significant alteration of existing slope conditions. Nowever, standard development regulations require grading and construction permits at the project level with attendant environmental review. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts will occur at this point and no mitigation is required pending future review. ~.~nclusion The Montgomery Specific Plan III will result in the same impacts as identified in the Negative Declaration issued for case number IS-88-4M. Therefore, the Negative Declaration issued on case number IS-88-4M, Montgomery Specific Plan II, may also apply to case IS-88-65M, the Montgomery Specific Plan III. Pursuant to Section 15162 of the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, and based upon the above discussion, I hereby find that Part III of the Montgomery Specific Plan will result in the same or less impacts as those identified for Parts I and II and recommend that the ~ontgomery Planning Committee, Planning Commission, and City Council adopt this addendum and Negative Declaration IS-88-4M prior to taking action on the project. UGL~ D.~REID ENVIR~.IMENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR WPC 5244P -4- negative declaration--' PROJECT NAJqE: Montgomery Specific Plan PROJECT LOCATION: 3.5 square mile area located in the southwesterly part of the City of Chula Vista PROJECT APPLICANT: City of Chula Vista CASE NO: IS 88-4N DATE: August 21, 1987 A. Project Setting The Montgomery Specific Plan comprises an area of approximately 3.5 square miles located in the southwesterly part of the City of Chula Vista. It lies within the area generally bounded by Interstate 5 on the west, "L" Street on the north, Interstate 805 on the east, and the San Diego City Limits on the south. The Montgomery Specific Plan area is divided into several subcommunities which are significant in reference to land use planning. They have been identified by considering such factors as social relationships, historical reference, and geographical place name. -The subcon~unities are: Broderick's Otay Acres, Castle Park, Harborside and West Fairfield, Otay, and Woodlawn Park-East Woodlawn Park. (Please see map, Exhibit A.) Within the Montgomery planning area lies a diversity of land uses which vary substantially by their degree and intensity. Residential, commercial and industrial land uses are fully represented within the planning area, and in several instances are intermixed to the point where substantial land use conflicts are occurring. Generalized existing land use is shown in Exhibit B of this report. Residential uses are distributed'throughout the planning area and occupy 878 acres, or 50% of the community. Of these existing residential uses, single family housing types constitute 522 acres (30%) mobilehomes occupy 155 acres (9%), apartments occupy 155 acres (9%) and duplexes constitute 48 acres (3%). Although each of the subcommunities contains substantial acreage devoted to residential usage, Castle Park contains the bulk of residences, containing 55% of all single family acreage in Montgomery and 71% of all apartments. The Otay statistical area contains 78% of the mobilehome acreage. Commercial activities are conducted on approximately 144 acres within tlontgomery, representing roughly 8% of the planning area. Most commercial use types follow a strip pattern of development and predominate along Broadway, Main Street and Third Avenue. city of chula vista planning department CI]YOF environmental review section CHULA VI A Industrial uses exist in major concentrations within the subcommunities of Harborside B and Otay; industrial uses occupy lll acres or 42% of Harborside 'B' and 166 acres or 32% of Otay. Together, they represent 89% of all industrially used land in the planning area. Substantial areas given over to industrial uses within the planning area are intermixed with residential and commercial, and the combination tends to result in land use conflicts. By the same token, heavy and light industrial uses are intermixed resulting in continuing adverse impacts from noise, dust, parking, and aesthetic conflicts. Public and quasi-public land uses include such uses as schools, churches and other public facilities, comprising a total of 83 acres or 5% of the planning area. The predominant land use in this respect is the public school system within the planning area, consisting of two high schools, two elementary schools, and a district administrative center. Park uses within the planning area are confined to one public park of 3.9 acres within the Lauderbach Community Center; this acreage includes buildings for the community center and parking. The C~ula Vista General Plan establishes a park standard ratio of 4 acres of local park land for every l,O00 persons served, which includes the combined total needs for both neighborhood and community parks. Using this standard, the existing park requirement for the Montgomery planning area is 100 acres. There are 202 acres of )and within the planning area classified as vacant, or agricultural land. Larger parcels and concentrations of vacant land are located within the subcommunities of Harborside 'B' and Otay, amounting to 136 acres or 67% of the total. (These figures do not include 151 acres located within Castle Park owned by.the San Diego Country Club for use as a golf course.) Of the vacant property, only 64 acres or 3.6% of the project area are suitable for development. The remaining 138 acres are subject to constraints imposed by lack off access, adverse topographic conditions, or location within the Otay River floodplain and its associated wetlands. Additional areas classified as under-utilized constitute 342 acres within the planning area. Under-utilized territory is defined as property which contains land uses of a type or intensity substantially below that currently permitteo by zoning and any physical constraints which limit permitted uses. Areas surrounding the ilontgomery Planning Area include the San Diego Bay to the west, the City of Chula Vista to the north, Interstate 805 and the Otay River Valley to the east, and the Otay River Valley and the City of San Diego to the south. B. Project Description The Montgomery Specific Plan is a detailed guide for growth, development, redevelopment and conservation for the proposed planning area, and when adopted and imple~nted, supercedes the existing zoning ordinance currently in effect for the area. The plan consists of a statement of community goals, objectives, policies and diagrams. It contains an implementation program and a statement of the relationship between the Montgome~ Specific Plan and the Chula Vista General Plan. Please note that the scope of this initial study only addresses Parts I and II of the Montgome~ Specific Plan, and does not include Part III, the implementation phase. ~ additional initial study will be required upon completion of that document. The majority of existing land uses would, in general, be maintained under the proposed plan. However, residential use types outlined within the plan diagram range from 3 to 26 dwelling units per acre, where current residential zoning ranges from 4-29 dwellings per acre. Industrial land uses are constrained to the Research and Limited Industrial Use Type, where uses permitted by the present zoning allow general and heavy industrial activities to take place. The specific details of the plan document are contained within Part II. The plan includes provisions for development of a civic/mercantile center for the community to be developed within the vicinity of Third Avenue and Oxford Street, the site of the Lauderbach Co, unity Center. In addition, present deficiencies in the provision of parklands are addressed through proposed retention of SDG&E transmission lands for parks and open space, as well as property adjacent to Rice Ele~ntary School, ano parcels on the southeast corner of Fourth Avenue and Orange Avenue. All proposed parkland and civic mercantile uses are reserved as special study areas pending further analysis of issues involving socio-economic, environmental, housing, townscape planning and traffic concerns. Two areas within Montgomery would be earmarked as "Whitelands" or special comprehensive study areas, the first area lies within the subcommunity known as West Fairfield, and the second encompasses all lands within the floodplain for the Otay River Valley. The area south of Main Street between Industrial and Broadway is earmarked as a special study area in conjunction with Research and Limited Industrial uses, due to encroachment of the floodplain into an area for which industrial and other uses are presently conducted. C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans Part Two of the Montgomery Specific Plan is fully consistent with the spirit, purpose, and primary goals and objectives of the Chula Vista General Plan, and its text and diagram are designed to ~thodically express and depict the General Plan at a larger scale, and a finer detail. D. Identification of Environmental Effects Groundwater/Drainage There are two areas which involve water courses as they flow through the Montgomery Planning area, the Telegraph Canyon Creek and the Otay River Valley. Both water courses flow from east to west araining into the San Diego Bay. Areas subject to potential environmental impacts from location within a floodplain are shown on Exhibit C of this report. 1. Telegraph Canyon Creek The Telegraph Canyon Creek flows through the northern portion of the ~lontgomery Planning Area from approximately 400 feet east of Third Avenue and "L" Street through property south of Arizona Street crossing Industrial Boulevard where it flows to the "J" Street Marsh. At present, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is engaged in channeling the creek from 450 feet east of Fourth Avenue west to Industrial Boulevard, which will remove properties aajacent to the channe! from the 100 year floodplain. The channelization project does not include properties within 500 feet of either side of Third Avenue, and some areas which are not contained within a channel will continue to be subject to inundation. The proposed plan shows these flood impact areas as parks and open space (west of Third Avenue subject to further study) ano private country club to signify flood areas contained within the golf course east of Third Avenue. Both proposed land uses involve presently vacant areas of land for activities which do not propose permanent structures ana are, therefore, compatible with the floodplain designation. In addition, since the special study area requires project specific environmental review to assess potential issues with respect to any biological resources present, the proposals will not result in significant adverse environmental effects. 2. Otay River Valley The Otay River Valley bounos the southern edge of the planning area between Main Street and Palm Avenue (within the City of San Diego). At present, large tracts of vacant land are interspersed with two batch plant operations and marginal industrial activities such as open storage and manufacturing yards. The area s~uth of Nain Street between ~roadway and Industrial ano a small area north of r.lain Street between Industrial Boulevard and Interstate 5 (see Exhibit C) also within the 100 year floodplain for the Otay River. The area north of Main Street was developed with inaustrial buildings under County regulations prior to annexation under development regulations requiring pad elevations to protect from inundation, if and when flooding occurs. The area south of Main Street contains a combination of large industrial uses with interim type storage and industrial yards, intermixed with residential and commercial uses, as well as vacant and under-utilized properties. The area north of Main Street is urbanized under current County floodplain development regulations so that a permanent development pattern has already been establisheo. The area south of ~qain Street is proposed for Research and Industrial land uses subject to special study prior to designation of pemanent land uses. The balance of parcels within the Montgomery portion of the Otay River Valley is proposed for inclusion as "Whitelands." Under this designation, no new land use activities would be permitted until the con)pletion of comprehensive biological and wetlands determination studies, as well as development of a regional park, green belt/open space or nature preserve plan, subject to review by neighboring jurisdictions as well as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The special study area and "Whitelands" function ,s a holding designation pending resolution of 'complex environmental and jurisdictional land use issues. As such, no adverse environmental impacts will result from implementation of the proposals outlined in the plan. Land Use/Social Displacement There are three areas within Montgomery for which the draft plan proposes land uses that are substantially different from land uses which presently exist or are permitted under present zoning. These areas are: 1) properties south of Main Street between Date Street and Rios Avenue (Brodericks Otay Acres), 2) properties south of Main Street, and 3) parcels east of Third Avenue between Naples Street and Kennedy Street, adjacent to Del I,~ar Avenue. (See Exhibit C.) These areas have the potential for displacement of residents or people employed on these sites as an indirect result of a change in )and use designation. The specific effects are discussed as follows. l) Brodericks Otay Acres The area known as Brodericks Otay Acres is developed primarily with single family dwellings having access to narrow residential streets in combination with the use of private streets and drives. Historically zoning restricted development to single family uses. In i.lay of 1965, the zoning and General Plan for the County's Southbay Community Planning Area was amended to allow development of multiple units with a density not to exceed 14.5 net dwellings per acre. In the interval that multi family units have been permitted no actual approvals and/or construction of apartments have occurred. The draft Montgomery Specific Plan proposes to return the designated land use to single family development with a density of no more than five dwellings per ac re. Since the proposed land use designation is in keeping with the existing land uses present and the circulation system available, and since there are no actual apartments developed within this subarea, no substantial adverse environmental impacts will occur from this action. 2) Mace and Center Street south of Main Street Parcels whic~ access Center Street and Mace Street are currently zoned to allow Heavy Industrial Uses. Most of those properties operate under major use permits which allow scrap operations and include scrapyards and auto dismantling yards. The activities conducted at these locations occur for the most part as open uses wi thin fenced yards. Those uses are unsightly by nature and are subject to numerous conditions through the use permit process to mitigate the adverse aesthetic impacts resulting from operation of these businesses. The proposeo land use designation under the draft plan would prohibit scrap and dismantling operations and restrict development to Research and Limited Industrial uses. Although displacement of existing scrapyards.and auto dismantling yards would occur, development of other industrial activities which do not result in adverse aesthetic impacts could take place under implementation of the specific plan. The development of other industrial uses which are not unsightly will result in a beneficial environmental effect to the area, while employment associated with limited industrial uses will mitigate the displacement of people currently employed at these sites to a level below significance. 3) Properties east of T~ird ~venue between Naples and Kennedy T~e draft Montgo~ery Specific Plan proposes to develop a focus point for community civic and commercial activities within the area surrounding the Lauderbach Community Center of Oxford Street and along Third Avenue between Naples and Oxford Street. This civic and co~nercial activity center is referred to in the plan as the Third Avenue/Oxford Street Civic-Mercantile Focus. Part of this proposal entails deepening and expansion of commercial land use designations along the east side of Third Avenue to encompass properties along Del Mar Avenue, as shown in Exhibit C. The expansion of commercial land use designations would take place on properties which are currently residential in nature, and could displace residents and affect existing housing as an indirect result of development according to the plan. However, the area subject to adverse impacts has been designated as a special study area, and the text of the plan indicates that: "Any rezoning of building sites within the Focus to a commercial classification should be preceded by comprehensive studies which address socio-economc, environmental, housing, townscape planning, and traffic issues." The special study area is structured so that commercial development on properties with existing residential uses is precluded until appropriate studies and mitigation is effected. In addition, any specific proposal for development is subject to further environmental study and must include these comprehensive studies as part of the review. Therefore, the proposed action at this point does not constitute an adverse and significant environmental impact. Transportation/Access Among the proposals presented within the Montgomery Specific Plan are suggestions for revisions to circulation, transportation drainage and infrastructure. Chief amongst these suggestions are proposals to widen the right-of-way for hain Street beneath the MTDB bridge at Industrial Boulevard/Hollister Avenue, and to reopen Banner Avenue at Orange Avenue. While these actions would result in traffic effects which are not known at this time, the text stipulates that these revisions not occur unless supported by traffic and engineering studies which would assess these effects. Therefore, the proposals to revise or enhance traffic circulation systems are contingent upon further assessment and as such do not constitute significant adverse environmental impact. Landform/Topography One subcommunity within the Montgomery Specific Plan, $Ioodlawn Park, is located in rolling, often steep terrain containing a number of larger parcels with substandard or nonexistent access. Further development of this area for single family residential uses as outlined by the Montgomery Specific Plan would potentially involve substantial alteration of existing topography. However, standard development regulations outlined within the grading Ordinance for the City of Chula Vista require that grading anO construction permits be obtained for development of those properties, as well as proposed circulation improvements to the area. Further environmental assessments are also required at the project stage to assess specific impacts, as required through the Environmental Review Procedures Manual for the City of Chula Vista. Given these standard development regulations, no significant and adverse environmental effects will occur to existing steep topographic conditions at the plan stage. E. Project Modifications Groundwater/Drainage Since potentially inappropriate development in flood inundation areas is precluded by the plan through use of special study area and whitelands designations, no mitigation is required. Land Use/Social Development Three potential impact areas were identified with proposed land uses which would conflict with existing uses or uses currently permitted, and which have the potential to displace residents or employees on site. Those areas are listed as follows: A. Brodericks Otay Acres Since development has not occurred at currently permitted residential densities in conflict with the draft plan, and since the predominant land use density conforms to that proposed by the plan, no adverse impacts will occur and no mitigation is requi red. B. Mace and Center Street south of Main Street Current land uses within this area involve scrap operations and heavy industrial activities in conflict with the Research and Limited Industrial land use designation proposed by the Draft Plan; those uses would eventually be terminated as a result. However, since the proposed land use designation would foster industrial activities offering other employment opportunities without the unsightly characteristics existing in scrap and dismantling operations, no significant adverse impacts will occur and no mitigation is required. C. Parcels east of Third Avenue between Naples Street and Kennedy Street Commercial land use designations are proposed for areas with existing established single family dwellings as part of a proposal for the Oxford/Third Avenue Civic Mercantile Focus. However, since implementation of the commercial land use is precluded by the require for assessment of impacts to residences and appropriate mitigation, through inclusion in a special study area, no significant impacts will occur and no mitigation is required. Transportation/Access The plan suggests certain proposals to revise and expand traffic circulation through the Montgomery area, chief among these is the widening of the MTDB bridge over Main Street at Industrial/Hollister Street, and extension of Second Avenue to Banner Street at Orange Avenue. Since the plan text precludes implementation of these proposals pending support of traffic and engineering studies, not significant adverse impacts will occur and no mitigation is required at this point. Landform/Topography The Woodlawn Park subcommunity is characterized by steep rolling topography and inadequate access. Further developnmnt for single family residences may include significant alteration of existing slope conditions. However, standard development regulations require grading and construction permits at the project level with attendant environmental review, therefore, no significant adverse impacts will occur at this point and no mitigation is required pending future review. F. Mitigation necessary to avoid significant effects No mitigation measures are necessary because the plan has been modified to avoid any significant impact. G. Findings of Insignificant Impact l) Since the proposed plan affords protection from premature development within floodplain with the potential for biologically sensitive areas, pending completion of comprehensive assessment studies and implementation of appropriate mitigation measures, the proposed project will not degrade the quality of the environment. 2) Through implementation of the proposed plan, both short- and long-term planning and environmental goals will be achieved through protection of riverine open space, gradual termination of unsightly and marginal heavy industrial uses, and expansion and improvement of the traffic circulation system within the Montgomery Planning Area. 3) The draft Montgomery Specific Plan is an area wide plan in which no significant and adverse environmental effects have been identified; there are no environmental effects which are individually limited but cumulatively conservative. 4) Implementation of Montgomery Specific Plan will not cause substantial adverse effects to human beings either directly or indirectly. G. Consultation 1. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista: Julie Schilling, Assistant Planner Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer William Wheeler, Building and Housing Department Carol Gove, Fire Marshal Chuck Glass, Traffic Engineer 2. Documents l) Chapter 19.70, Title 19 (Zoning), Chula Vista Municipal Code 2) General Plan, City of Chula Vista 3) Draft Montgomery Specific Plan Parts I and II, 1~87 4) "Telegrapn Canyon Creek Channel Realignment, San Diego County, California, "Department of the Army Los Angeles District corps of Engineers Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment, March 1987 5) "Telegraph Canyon Creek Detailed Project Report for Flood Control ano Draft Environmental Impact Statement" U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, September 1979 6) Floodway, Flood Boundary and Floodway Map Panels 060284-2152, 06D284-2154, 060284-2158, Federal Emergency Ilanagement Agency June 15, 1964 , 7) South Bay Community PI.an, County o~ San Diego, May 1985 8) City of Chula Vista Grading Ordinance 9) Design Standards for Street Construction, City of Chula Vista Environmental Review Procedures, City of Chula Vista The Initial Study application and evaluation forms documenting the findings of no significant impact are on file and available for public review at the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010. ENVIRON~TAL REVIEW COORDINATOR EN 6 (Rev. 5/85) city of Chula visla planning department CIW OF env,ronmental review section CHULA VISTA EXHIBIT B O~E~O EXHIBIT C FOR OFFICE USE Case No. IS-88~65M Fee _ -- INITIAL STUDY Rec~ ~ Date Rec'd - -- City of Chula Vista Accepted bp f't/'~'3- Application Form Project No.~-: J~'Z~ A. BACKGROUND 1. PROJECT TITLE Montgomery Specific Plan - Part Three 2. PROJECT LOCATION IStreet address or description) The community of Montgomery (Please see map, Exhibit A) Assessors Book, Page & Parcel No. 3. BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project is the concluding part of the three part Montgomery Specific Plan. It embodies the implementation or re~ulator, y mechanisms whic~h are desiqned to ex~cutp nr effPrt.ate lhe plan. 4. Name of Applicant City of Chula Vista, Planninq Departmept Address 276 Fourth Avenue Phone 691-5101 City Chula Vista State CA Zip 92010 5. Name of Preparer/Agent Daniel M. Pass, Principal Planner and Frank J. He~rera, Assistant P~T6ner Address Same as #4 Fnone City State Zip Relation to Applicant_ Agent 6. Indicate all permits or approvals and enclosures or documents required by the Environmental Review Cpordinator. a. Permits or approvals required: General Plan Revision Design Review Committee Public Project Rezoning/Prezoning -- Tentative Subd. Map ~Annexation Precise Plan Grading Permit ~ Design Review Board ~X Specific Plan -- Tentative Parcel Map ~ Redevelopment Agency Cond. Use Permit Site Plan & Arch. Review Variance --Other b. Enclosures or documents {as required by the Environmental Review Coordinator}. Location Map Arch. Elevations Eng. Geology Report Grading Plan ~ Landscape Plans -- Hydrological Study Site Plan Photos of Site & -- Biological Study Parcel Map -- Setting Archaeological Survey Precise Plan Tentative Subd. Map --Noise Assessment Specific Plan -- Improvement Plans Traffic Impact Report Other Agency Permit or ~ Soils Report ~ Approvals Required ~ ~ Other ?; 2 (Rev. 12/B2) 3/3/88 I~ONTGOMERy SPECIFIC PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS DRAFT PART THREE PAGE I. INTRODUCTION A. Survey, Evaluation, Forecast, Plan, and Implementation 1 B. Past Plan Implementation 1 C. Present Plan Implementation 2 D. Proposed Plan Implementation 2 II. ZONING AND SPECIAL REGULATIONS 3 A. Adopted County Zoning Plan/City Zoning Plan 3 B. Proposed Montgomery Zoning Plan 4 1. Zoning and Residential Density Controls 4 2. Proposed Zoning Amendments & Table of Translation 5 3. Special Hontgomery Regulations 6 4. Townscape Planning and Design Guidelines 8 III. ADDITIONAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION l0 A. Citywide and Special Subdivision Controls l0 B. Citywide and Special Capital Improvement Programming 12 Code Enforcement and Coordination 13 D. Conservation, Rehabilitation, and Redevelopment 13 E. Montgomery Neighborhood Revitalization Program 15 IV. CONCLUSION 16 WPC 4173P DRAFT tiONTGOMERY SPECIFIC PLAN PART THREE I. INTRODUCTION A. Survey, Evaluation, Forecast, Plan, and Implementation The Montgomery Specific Plan is comprised of three principal parts. Part One provides the foundation or basis for the plan proper. It contains the City planning survey, evaluation, trends analysis and forecasts. Part Two, the Plan Proper, is the heart of the Specific Plan. It sets forth the plan's goals, general objectives, policies, .principles, and planning and design proposals, which constitute the "concept" of the Specific Plan. Part Three embodies the implementation or regulatory mechanisms which are designed to execute or effectuate the plan. It contains the implementation proposals, regulations, and conclusion of the Montgomery Specific Plan, which are set forth in the following text. Past Plan Implementation Past plan implementation efforts in Montgomery were predicated upon the San Diego County General Plan. The goals, policies, and objectives of this plan were countywide or regional, in both application and scope, and were not focused solely on Montgomery. Consequently, implementation of the plan was also focused on general countywide concerns, rather than the particular planning needs of ~ontgomery. Specifically, the past plan implementation efforts in I.~ontgomery were confined mainly to zoning regulation, subdivision controls, and the review of requested discretionary land user permits. Particular planning concerns of the Montgomery Community such as urban decline, rehabilitation, urban design, and -1- missing infrastructure were not addressed by the County General Plan. Thus, there was not a fully-powered implementation thrust formulated in conjunction with these issues. C. Present Plan Implementation Since the annexation of Montgomery, implementation of the Chula Vista General Plan has primarily consisted of Current Planning's administration of the City's adopted County Zoning Plan, and Chula Vista's Subdivision Ordinances, Capital Improvement Program, and general urban design criteria and guidelines. The Specific Plan calls for an overall program of effectuation which is more identifiable with the special issues, concerns, and needs of Hontgomery and its several subcommunities. D. Proposed Plan Implementation The following text is comprised of "Zoning and Special Regulations" and "Additional Plan Implementation" standards. The former addresses the County Zoning Plan which presently governs land use within Montgomery and the City of Chula Vista's zoning regulations which govern land use in the balance of the municipality. Of greater significance, this section proposes a special "Montgomery Zoning Plan," which will consist of the introduction of selected city- zoning provisions, and the addition of custom-tailored "Special Montgomery Regulations." The Zoning and Special Regulations Section also includes townscape planning and urban design guidelines. A special feature of the Zoning and Special Regulations Section is the "Table of Translation," which provides general guidance for the City's methodical effectuation of the Specific Plan, and its incremental reclassification of the Montgomery Community from "County Zoning" to "City Zoning." -2- The Additional Plan Implementation section addresses Citywide and special subdivision controls; Citywide and special capital improvement programming; code enforcement and coordination; conservation, rehabilitation, and redevelopment; incremental planning efforts; and, the Neighborhood Revitalization Program. It should be recognized that Part Three establishes an Implementation Program, but does not rezone territory. The rezonings called for under the Table of Translation must be undertaken separately. II. ZONING AND SPECIAL REGULATIONS A. ~opted County Zoning Plan/City Zoning Pla. The Montgomery Community is primarily governed by the San Diego County Zoning Ordinance, as adopted by the City of Chula Vista upon the annexation of Montgomery in December, 1985. The County Zoning Ordinance is a very modern complex plan, and its intricate and flexible regulations are designed to accommodate a wide variety of developments over a broad geographical area. The Chula Vista Zoning Plan, embodied in the Chula Vista Municipal Code, is a "classical" Euclidean ordinance which has gradually grown in size and sophistication with the growth and development of the City's urban fabric. It can be readily administered and executed, and its text and graphics are clear and understandable. Urban design and review are important features of the Chula Vista Zoning Plan. While County zoning has much merit, its retention or partial retention in Montgomery would make local zoning administration both confusing and costly. It would tend, furthermore, to divide instead of unifying Chula Vista. Montgomery's idegtity and unique -3- land-use problems can be protected and resolved by City zoning, as modified by the special provisions and regulations of the Implementation Program. The "Special Montgomery Regulations," prescribed in Subsection C of this section of Part I~I, shall take precedence over other land use regulations, if and where there is a conflict between them. B. Proposed Montgomery Zoning Plan 1. Zoning and Residential Density Controlt The Montgomery Specific Plan shall be the primary determinant of the precise zonal districts and regulations applied to the territory of Montgomery. Other determinants shall be the existing land-use and circulation patterns; the existing public facilities, services, and infrastructure; and, the physical, social, economic, and environmental needs of the involved areas, Montgomery Community, and City of Chula Vista-at-large. Therefore, the zoning classifications applied to certain lands, at a given time, may be more restrictive than the land-use parameters of their Specific Plan designations. This holding or transitional zone concept is a fundamental basis of the Implementation Program. With respect to residential areas, the gross densities or texture of the Specific Plan are expressed in dwelling unit per acre "ranges." The actual net densities authorized by the zoning districts and regulations, however, may or may not permit the dwelling unit yields at the upper levels of these Specific Plan ranges, dependent upon the determinants mentioned in the above paragraph. The ~ontgomery specific Plan's gross residential density categories, as employed in Part Two, and its net residential density standards, which are fundamental to zoning regulations, are predicated upon traditional city-planning definitions. These definitions, as succinctly restated in Charles Abrams' The Language of Cities, at Page 85, are: "~et residential density is the density of the building site. Gross residential density is the density of the building site plus traversing streets, alleys, and drives, and one-half of bounding streets and one-quarter of bounding street intersections." As a rule-of-thumb, the net density of a tract of land is approximately 20% higher than its gross density. Therefore, if a tract has a net density of 12 dwelling units per acre, it has a gross density of lO dwelling units per acre.* 2. Proposed Zonin~ Amendments & Table of Translation The following table embodies proposed zoning amendments and changes which are essential to the effective implementation and execution of the Montgomery Specific Plan, and the conversion of Montgomery to Chula Vista's standard City zoning. The subject table is more than a compilation of recommended County-to-City zoning changes. It also incorporates a guide for the direct t~anslation of the Montgomery Specific Plan's land-use designations into zoning classifications, and is therefore called the "Table of Translation." * Gallion & Eisner, in The LIrban Pattern, Fourth Edition: "Net density" is {the) area exclusive of public rights-of-way...whereas "gross density" usually pertains to the number of dwellings in relation to an area of land including all public rights-of-way and other related land uses. A distinction between these definitions may serve a useful purpose for certain technical measurements and comparisons, but the significant measure for the general texture of the physical form is expressed by gross density. -5- 3. .~pecial Montgomery Regulations a. Land Use (1) The Montgomery Specific Plan basically calls for a planned equilibrium of medium density residential, park and open space, institutional, commercial, and light industrial uses. Existing open uses of land, such as automobile salvage yards, scrap metal yards, waste processing facilities, rock, sand, or gravel operations shall be regarded as nonconforming and shall not be expanded or continued beyond their existing time limits, or within 24 months after the date of the rezoning of the involved sites to "I-L, Limited Industrial," whichever occurs last. This protracted time limit is designed to provide the involved land users the opportunity to convert their open uses of land into well-designed, authorized light-industrial developments. All of the subject uses which are not time-limited shall be governed by the City's Nonconforming Uses regulations, as specified in Chapter 19.64 of the Chula Vista ~unicipal Code. (2) Existin~ vehicular and equipment storage yards and open impounds shall not be governed by the above provision, but shall not be increased in size, scope or tenure. New vehicular and equipment Storage yards or open impounds shall be generally discouraged, but may be proposed and approved under the conditional use permit process. -6- (3) While mixed land uses, home occupations, and cottage industries are encouraged, they must be preplanned; thoroughly reviewed by the Montgomery Planning Committee and the City Planning Commission; and, approved under the City's conditional use permit process. Except for a preplanned mixed land use development, residential land use shall not be permitted in industrial or commercial zones. (4) Cardrooms, as defined and regulated under Chapter 5.20 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, shall be permitted within the C-T, Thoroughfare Commercial Zone, upon the prior obtaining of a conditional use permit. In all other zones, cardrooms shall be prohibited. (5) The Director of Planning, upon the recommendation of the Montgomery Planning Committee and the Chula Vista Design Review Committee, may authorize a maximum 25% net density residential bonus for a project proposed for development within an area designated "Low/Medium~ Density Residential" (3-6 dwelling units per acre). This authorization must be predicated upon the Director's finding that the proposed project would be characterized by outstanding planning or urban design; and, would not become effective or operational in the absence of its ratification by the Planning Commission. The subject residential bonus would not be applicable to a project which qua]ifies as a Senior Housing ~evelopment, as defined in Section 19.04.201 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code or which qualifies for an affordable-housing density bonus under -7- Section 65915 et seq. of the California Government Code, or the provisions of the ~ousing Element of the Chula Vista General Plan. b. Height The height of commercial and industrial buildings and structures located adjacent to residential uses shall not exceed two stories, or 28 feet. c. Setbacks All buildings constructed along the Main Street, Broadway, or Third Avenue corridors shall maintain minimum 15 foot, landscaped setbacks, measured from the front and exterior side property lines abutting upon the rights-of-way of these thoroughfares. Vehicular parking and maneuvering shall not be permitted within the required setback areas. 4. Townscape Planning and Design Guidelines a. A prior finding of "consistency and conformity with the Montgomery Specific Plan" by the Design Review Committee shall be prerequisite to its approval or conditional approval of a developmental project. b. The Besign Manual of the City of Chula Vista shall be the fundamental guide for the design review of projects proposed for development within Montgomery. Under special circumstances, such as the proposal to develop or redevelop malls, the Third Avenue/Oxford Street Focus, shopping precincts, mixed residential-commercial enclaves, or civic facilities, the Montgomery Planning -8- Committee may determine that the townscape-planning guidelines of the Town Centre No. I Design Manual are appropriate, and may request their employment by the Design Peview Committee. c. The use of enclosures, patios, and plazas should be promoted in the development of residential, commercial, industrial, and civic projects. d. All outdoor areas proposed for the display or sale of vehicles, equipment, or merchandise are to be artistically landscaped, and shall utilize ground-plane landscaped flooring, and ornamental plant materials. The landscape of these areas should enhance and be integrated with the landscape on the balance of the sites upon which they are located. e. The use of landscaped buffer areas and strips between residential and other land use categories shall be encouraged. f. The maximum sign area for a proposed commercial project should not exceed one square foot per one lineal foot of the involved parcel's street frontage. Where an industrial use or group of industrial uses is not readily identifiable from a major street, a maximum, twenty-five square foot off premises directional sign may -9- be permitted through the conditional (major) use permit and design review processes. A directional sign permitted under this provision shall not be located within, or overhang a street right-of-way. g. New development should reflect the basic design character and land use pattern of the subcommunity in which it is sited. While the basic character of Woodlawn Park and Broderick's Otay Acres is rural, the character of Castle Park and Otay is suburban. The character of the Third Avenue/Oxford Street Focus is definitely urban, and could achieve, through adroit planning and urban design, high levels of urbanity and sophistication. h. Architectural diversity and freedom should be encouraged in'Montgomery. This diversity and freedom, ho~'~ever, will necessitate a strong emphasSs upon inter-project design coordination. i. Exterior works of fine art, such as fountains, sculpture, bas-relief, and ornamental clocks, should be fostered. These features could commemorate the history of the involved settlements, or symbolize their resurgence. j. Vertical or, roof-mounted structures which do not make an important design statement should be discouraged. III. ~DDITIONAL PLAN II.!PLEI1ENTATION A. Citywide and Special Subdivision Controls Typically urban areas grow and expand through the subdivision of vacant land or the replatting of existing subdivisions. This process establishes a lot and street pattern, which greatly -10- influences the use and character of the land. Montgomery, which is substantially subdivided and built, developed in this manner. Past subdivision and resubdivision activity in parts of Montgomery has been characterized by substandard platting practices, which permitted the creation of panhandle lots, substandard streets, and amorphous design. This has significantly impaired the Community's order and amenity, as well as its environmental quality and circulation. The Montgomery Specific Plan calls for the improvement of these conditions through replatting and physical reorganization. Chula Vista's citywide subdivision controls, which apply to Montgomery, constitute an important tool for implementing the Specific Plan. However, due to the aforementioned prior substandard platting practices, these controls need to be augmented with special subdivision controls designed to foster the more orderly arrangement of Montgomery's street and lot system. Such special subdivision controls should include the general prohibition of creating flag or gore lots; the establishing of private streets; and the sanctioning of hammerhead or other reduced-standard cul-de-sacs. The subdivision controls for Montgomery should also stress the improvement and perpetuity of alleyways, and the establishment of new alleys. This emphasis could substantially reduce on-street and front yard parking and storage, and thereby improve the overall appearance of Montgomery. Properly coordinated with other regulatory measures, the City's subdivision controls, as amended in 'accordance with the above suggestions, will facilitate the realization of the goals and objectives of the Montgomery Community. -ll- B. Citywide and Special £apital Improvement Pro~ramming Chula Vista's ~aster Public Facilities Plan addresses the major capital improvements of citywide significance. The Montgomery Specific Plan indicates, in greater detail, those specific capital improvements which will be anticipated within the Montgomery planning area to the year 2005. The provision of those public facilities for which the City is or may be responsible, such as recreation facilities, public libraries, sewer systems, thoroughfares, and fire stations, will have to be coordinated with public and private agencies, such as school districts and public utility companies. It will require an annual review of community needs and the estimate of resources available to satisfy them. This effort should be guided by the Montgomery Specific Plan. The Capital Improvement Program should provide a forecast of long-term demands on the City's revenues and borrowing capacity. The adroit allocation of resources through the Capital Improvement Program could facilitate the advance ~urchase of public sites at a substantial savings. This program could also encourage private investors, public utilities, business, and industry to coordinate their development programs with those of the City. Capital improvement programming for ~lontgomery should be oriented toward the revitalization of the community and its subcommunities. Montgomery's capital improvement program should be tied to the goals, objectives, policies, and proposals of the Specific Plan. -12- C. Code £nforcement and Coordination While the primary purpose of code enforcement is protection of the public safety, health, and general ~velfare, it also provides a plan-implementation opportunity. Code enforcement can be used to foster neighborhood integrity; reduce or stop community decline; and, promote revitalization. Code enforcement has public relations ramifications, and should be conducted with tact and sensitivity. It should be coordinated with other community programs, such as rehabilitation, redevelopment, and conservation. In Nontgomery, the code enforcement program should be predicated upon the goals, objectives and policies of the Specific Plan. D. Conservation, ~ehabilitation, and Redevelopment The Montgomery Specific Plan calls for the revitalization of Montgomery, and sets forth specific proposals to achieve this end. These revitalization proposals may be implemented through the selective application of urban renewal measures, such as conservation, rehabilitation, and redevelopment. These measures may be applied singularly, or in combination, depending upon the circumstances of the particular project. 1. Conservation is the most conservative form of urban renewal, and is applicable only where the decline of an area is not significant. It often involves the cleaning and Sprucing up of residential neighborhoods or commercial areas, and the provision of improved public services, works, and infrastructure. Conservation projects can be effectively undertaken by neighborilood groups and businesses, and usually do not entail extensive contributions from local government. -13~ In tile Montgomery Community, where much conservation activity is indicated, the ~ontgomery Planning Committee should promote it on an outreach basis. 2. Rehabilitation is a remedy which is applicable to an area where urban decline is discernible, and where the lack of concerted action by the private and public sectors could result in blight infestation. It often involves conservation, the remodeling of deteriorating structures, and the removal of any dilapidated buildings. Rehabilitation also involves, as a general rule, street improvements or additional public facilities. Rehabilitation means the "reinvestment of dignity," and requires a strong community commitment. Within the Montgomery Community, rehabilitation could be stimulated through the use of sound organic planning and zoning, code enforcement, Community Development's housing programs, and the City's Capital Improvement Program. 3. Redevelopment is the strongest renewal remedy, and should be used solely where urban blight is identifiable. While it includes the remedies associated ~ith conservation and rehabilitation, it goes much further, and usually involves the replanning of land use and occupancy; the removal of groups of buildings; the re?atting of territory; and the expenditure of considerable capital for public improvements. Under redevelopment, planning and development are controlled by the Redevelopment Agency, and land acquisition and public improvements are usually underwritten through tax increment financing. Unfortunately, there are enclaves within Montgomery, such as llest Fairfield, where land must be marshalled, cleared, replanned, and reurbanized, and the most practical remedy available is redevelopment. -14- The Montgomery Neighborhood Revitalization Program The Montgomery Neighborhood Revitalization Program (NRP) is a newly instituted City program which has the expressed aim of combining well organized public and private efforts to upgrade the physical facilities of Montgomery. Specific components of the program include: -- identification and prioritization of needed public capital improvements; -- promotion and expansion of the City's housing rehabilitation loan program; -- public education on zoning, building and other City codes; -- development of neighborhood based housing clean-up/fix-up programs. The program is proposed to concentrate its focus and resources in limited target areas. The following factors shall be considered prior to the determination of a neighborhood's eligibility for target-area status: -- need for public improvements; -- need for housing rehabilitation; -- neighborhood character; -- income status; -- demonstration of local support for NRP, -15- IV. CONCLUSION The Implementation Program expressed in the foregoing text and table is specifically designed to methodically implement the goals, objectives, statements of policy, principles, and proposals of Part Two of the Montgomery Specific Plan. The Program, like the Plan Proper, addresses the day-to-day planning demands of the Montgomery Community, in addition to its long-range, comprehensive, and general planning issues. The program is therefore an integral component of the City of Chula Vista's organic planning effort within the built-up environment of the urban center in question. The Implementation Program for Montgomery may also be called "incremental," since it prescribes the continuing, day-to-day application of the principles of planning to the Community. Finally, the Program is readily amendable, and can be rapidly modified or altered to meet the growth, development, or conservation requirements of Montgomery and its several subcommunities. WPC 4173P -16- - 7 - E. CERTIFICATION or Owner/owner in escrow* Consultant or Agent* HEREBY AFFIRM, that to the best of my belief, the statements and information herein contained are in all respects true and Correct and that all known information concerning the project and its setting have been included in Parts B, C and D of this application for an Initial Study of possible environmenta] impact and any enclosures for attachments thereto. *~f acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name. - 8 - Case No. CITY DATA F. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1. Current Zonin9 on site: . North South ; East West Does the project conform to the current zoning? ' ~'~ 2. General Plan land use designation on site:. North South East West Is the project compatible with the General Plan Land Use Diagram? Is the project area designated for conservation or open space or adjacent to an area so designated? Is the project located adjacent to any scenic'routes? l (If yes, describe the design techniques being used to protector enhance the scenic quality of Chula Vista.) How many acres of developed parkland are within the Park Service District of this project as shown in the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan? ,'I I What is the current park acreage requirements in the Park Service District? How many acres of parkland are necessary to serve the proposed project? (2AC/lO00 pop.) <j Does the project site provide access to or have the potential to provide access to any mineral resource? (If so, describe in detail.) - 9 - 3. Schools If the proposed project is residential, please complete the following: Current Current Students Generated School Attendance Capacity From Project E1 ementary Jr. Hi gh Sr. High 4. Aesthetics Does the project contain features which could be construed to be at a variance from nearby features due to bulk, form, texture or color? (If so, please describe. ,l? A 5. £ner~y Consumption Provide the estimated consumption by the proposed project of the following sources: Electricity (per year) ~ ~ ?~ Natural Gas (per year) .... Water (per day) 6. Remarks: Director ot Planning or Representative Date ?" /' 'r','~ - l0 ~ Case No. G. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 1. praina~e a. Is the project site within a flood plain? _ b. Will the project be subject'to any existing flooding hazards~ c. Will the project create any flooding hazards? __ d. What is the location and description of existing on-site drainage facilities~ e. Are they adequate to serve the project? f. What is the location and description of existing off-site drainage facilities? g. Are they adequate to serve the project? _ 2. Transportation a. What roads provide primary access to the project? b. What is the estimated number of one-way auto trips to be generated by the project {per day)? c. What is the ADT and estimated level of service before and after project completion? Before After A.D.T. d. Are the primary access roads adequate to serve the project? If not, explain briefly. ~//~ ~ e. Will it be necessary that additional dedication, widening and/or improvement be made to existing Streets? A/~ If so, specify the general nature of the ~-~-~ssa~ac~ions. -ll - Case No. 3. Geology a. Is the project site subject to: Known or suspected fault hazards? Liquefaction? Landslide or slippage? b. Is an engineering geology report necessary to evaluate the project? 4. Soils a. Are there any anticipated adverse soil conditions on the project site? ~/~ b. If yes, what are these adverse soil conditions? c. Is a soils report necessary? 5. Land Form a. What is the average natural slope of the site?_ b. What is the maximum natural slope of the site?_ 6. Noise Are there any traffic-related noise levels impacting the site that are significant enough to justify that a noise analysis be required of the applicant? - 12 - Case No. 7. Air Ouality If there is any direct or indirect automobile usage associated with this project, complete the following: Total Vehicle Trips Emission Grams of Iper day) Factor Pollution CO ~ X 118.3 = ~ Hydrocarbons ~ X 18.3 : ~ NOx (NO2) X 20.0 : Particulates ~ 1.5 : Sulfur fi' X .78 : 8. Waste Generation ~ How much solid and liquid {sewage) waste will be generated by the proposed project per day? Solid ~ ~iquid ~ Nhat is the location and size of existing sewer lines on or adjacent to the site? ~Y/A Are they adequate to serve the proposed project? . ~y//j 9. Public Facilities/Resources Impact If the project could exceed the threshold of having any possible significant impact on the environment, please identify the public facilities/resources and/or hazards and describe the adverse impact. {Include any potential to attain and/or exceed the capacity of any public street, sewer, culvert, etc. serving the project area.) Remark s/necessary mi tigation measures City E)~gi~e~r'o~J R4):~ntative ' Date - 13 - Case No. H. FIRE DEPARTNENT . 1. What is the distance to the nearest fire station and what is the Fire Department's estimated reaction time? 2. Will the Fire Department be able to provide an adequate level of fire protection for the proposed facility without an increase in equipment or personnel? - .. Remarks Case No. H. FIRE DEPART~IENT . 1. What is the distance to the nearest fire station and what is the Fire Department's estimated reaction time? ~2~/~L~Zz~d~ , 2. Will the Fire Department be able to provide an adequate level of fire protection for the p.roposed fa~lity without an increase~in equipment or personnel ? ~_~t~72~S~¢.o-~? ~ - ~ ' Eire Marshal O - 14 - EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS CASE NO. I. Analysis {Provide in Section J an explanation of mitigation proposed for all significant or potentially significant impacts.) YES ?OTENTIAL 1. Geology a. Is the project site subject to any substantial hazards, such as earthquakes, landsliding, or liquefaction? b. Could the project result in: Significant unstable earth conditions or changes in geological substructure? A significant modification of any unique geological features? ~ -'C~~ Exposure of people or property to significant geologic hazards? 2. Soils a.Does the project s'ite contain any soils which are expansive, alluvial or highly erodible? b. Could the project result in: A significant increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off-site? A significant amount of siltation? ,(.~ 3. Ground l~ater a. Is the project site Over or near any accessible ground water resources? --~ -15- Y~ES POTENTIAL b. Could the project result in: A significant change in quantity or quality of ground water? A significant alteration of direction or rate of flow of ground water? -- Any other significant affect on ground water? 4. prainage a. Is the project site subject to inundation? _L~~ b. Could the project result in: A significant change in absorptio~ rates, drainage patterns or the rate of amount of surface runoff? Any increase in runoff beyond the-capacity of any natural water-way or man-made facility either on-site or downstream? Alterations to the Course or flow of flood waters? Change in amount of surface water in any water body? -. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as, flooding or tidal waves? 5. Resources ' - Could the project result in: Limiting access to any significant mineral resources uhich can be economically extracted? The significant reduction of currently or potentially productive agricultural lands? _ ., 6. Land Form Could the project result in a substantial change in topography or ground surface relief features?' V YES POTENTIAL 7. Air Quality a. Is the project subject to an air quality impact from a nearby stationary or mobile source? b. Could the project result in: A significant emission of odors, fumes, or smoke? Emissions which could degrade the ambient air quality? Exacerbation or a violation of any National or State ambient air quality standard? Interference with the maintenance, of standard air quality? _ The substantial alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any significant change in climate either locally or regionally? .... A violation of the revised regional air quality strategies (RAQS)? 8. Water Quality Could the project result in a detrimental effect on bay water quality, lake water quality or public wa.ter supplies? _ _ . 9. Noise a. Is the project site subject to any unacceptable noise impacts from nearby mobile or stationary sources? b. Could the project directly or indirectly result in a significant increase in ambient noise levels? -17 - Y~ES POTENTIAL 10. Biology a. Could the project directly or indirectly affect a rare, endangered or endemic species of animal, plant or other wildlife; the habitat of such species; or cause interference with the movement of any resident or migratory wildlife? b. Will the project introduce domestic or other animals into an area which could affect a rare, endangered or endemic species? ll. Cultural Resources a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric, historic, archaeological or paleontological'resource? b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historical building, structure, or object? c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic or cultural values? d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? j 12. Land Use a. Is the project clearly inconsistent with the following elements of the General Plan? Land Use Circulation _ Scenic Highways Conservation -- Housing Noise Park and Recreation .'~-_'~ Open Space - Safety , Seismic Safety -. - Public Facilities YES POTEHTIAL NO b. Is the project inconsistent with the Comprehensive Regional Plan? _ 13. Aesthetics a. Could the project result in: Degradation of community aesthetics by imposing structures, colors, forms or lights widely at variance with prevailing community standards Obstruction of any scenic view or vista open to the public? Will the proposal result in a nevi light source or glare? 14. Social a. Could the project result in: The displacement of residents or people employed at the site? A significant change in density or growth rate in the area? _ Th~ntial demand for additional housing or--existing housing? 15. Community Infrastructure a. Could the project inhibit the ability of the urban support system to provide adequate support for the community or this project? _ b. Could the project result in a deterioration of any of the following services? Fire Protection L/ Police Protection Parks or Recreational Facilities - Maintenance of Pub) lc Facilities Including Roads ' -19- YES ~OTENTIAL NO 16. Energy Could the project result in: Wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy? A significant increase in demand on existing sources of energy? A failure to conserve energy, water or other resources? 17. Utilities Could the project result in a need for ne~.l systems or alternatives to the following utili.ties: Power or natural gas Communications systems Water . Sewer or septic tanks -- Solid v~aste & disposal 18. Human Health Could the project result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? __~ 19. Transportation/Access Could the project result .in: A significant change in existing traffic patterns? An increase in traffic that could substantially lower the service level of any street or highway below an acceptable level? 20. Natural Resources Could the project result in a substantial depletion of non-reneuable natural resources? __~ - 20 - YES POTENTIAL 21. Risk of Upset Will proposals involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of any hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset condition? b. Possible interference with an emergency plan or an emergency evacuation plan? 22. Growth Inducement Could the service requirements of the project result in secondary projects that would have a growth inducing influence and could have a cumulative effect of a significant level? 23. Mandatory Findings of Significance a. Does the project have a potential to degrade the quality of the environment, or curtail the diversity of the environment? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term to the disadyantage of long-term environmental goals? (A short term impact on the environment is one which occurs in the relatively brief, definitive period of time, whil~ long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively con- siderable? (Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable ~,~hen vie~ved in connec- tion with the effects of past project, the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? - 22 - K. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial study: L~It is recommended that the decision making authority find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby forwarded to the decision making authority for consideration and adoption. It is recommended that the decision making authority 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 the MITIGATION MEASURES described above have been ADDED to the project and a MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby fon,~arded to the decision making authority for consideration and adoption. It is found that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an-ENVIRONMENTAL I~-IPACT REPORT is required to evaluate the issues identified in this Initial Study. It is found that further information ~.~ill be necessary to determine any environmental significance resulting from the project and the technical information listed below is required prior to any determination. ron~en~a ¢ ~~ 'Envi ~w Coordinator ' ' ~te ~P-'?/-~'~ WPC 0169P October 9, 1990 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Barbara Reid, Associate Planner~ SUBJECT: Additional comments on DEIR Rancho del Rey III SPA Plan Please see enclosed correspondence regarding RDR III which had not been received at the time your packet was delivered. BR:Je Enclosure  2727 IIOOVER AVE. PO. BOX 9016 NATIONAL CITY CA 92050-6625 [~NCHODELREY (619) 477 4117 September 27, 1990 Mr. Doug Reid Planning Department CITY OF CHULA VISTA 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 Re: Draft supplemental EIR No. 89-10 Rancho del Rey SPA III Dear Mr. Reid: We have received the Draft EIR for Rancho del Rey SPA III and offer our comments. Attached are Attachments 1-6 which are our comments to the Draft EIR. Thank you for providing us the opportunity to comment. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding our comments. Sincerely, CF/kl~ cc: Bob Leiter, Planning Department Cliff Swanson, Public Works Department Tony Lettieri, Lettieri - McIntyre and Associates Betty Dehoney, P and D Technologies Attachment No. 1: Bankston/Pine letter dated September 20, 1990 Attachment No. 2: Cinti and Associates letter dated September 26, 1990 Attachment No. 3: RECON letter dated September 24, 1990 Attachment No. 4: Project Design Consultants letter dated September 25, 1990 Attachment No. 5: McDonald, Hecht and Solberg letter dated September 21, 1990 Attachment No. 6: GEOCON letter dated September 21, 1990 Bankston/Pine .._~........__~¢-~nci:~tp--~, Inc. ATYACHMENT NO. 1 2030 Addison Street, Suite 310 Berkeley, California 94704 (415) 843-9746 September 20, 1990 Mr. Craig Fukuyama McMillin Development 2727 Hoover Avenue National City, CA 92050 Subject: Review of Rancho Del Rey-SPA III DEIR Traffic Study Dear Mr. Fukuyama, At your request, we have reviewed the SPA III DEIR dated August, 1990. This DEIR represents a revision of the SPA III DEIR completed on April,1990. Bankston/Pine Associates prepared the base traffic analysis for both the earlier DEIR and the August, 1990 version. The Traffic Analysis for the earlier DEIR was prepared in the classic traffic impact analysis format. At the request of City staff, the traffic analysis for the most recent DEIR was prepared using the then existing ECVTPP to estimate existing plus cumulative and existing plus cumulative plus project (SPA Ill) traffic forecasts. This work was completed in July, 1990. Meanwhile, the City's consultant, Willdan Associates, was in the process of completing a revision of the ECVTPP which was made public August, 1990. The difference in the August, 1990 ECVTPP and the previous one is that the land use and cordon trip making for all traffic analysis zones outside of the area was updated from a 1986/1987 base to a 1995 base. This was done to provide a data base outside of East Chula Vista which is more consistent with the future projected by the model, ie., a cumulative future for the ECVTPP area which includes all Approved Projects or projects with Tenative Maps. In addition, the section of East H Street between 1-805 and Hidden Vista Drive was upgraded from 6 to 8 lanes. The effect of changing the base data outside the ECVTPP area from 1986/1987 to 1995 and increasing the capacity ( 6 to 8 lanes) of East H Street, was to attract more residential trips outside the ECVTPP area which in turn increased projected ADT on major streets near the boundaries of the area. That is, the projected traffic on East H Street and Telegraph Canyon Road east of 1-805 increased to 78,000 and 57,000 ADT respectively with Approved Projects plus SPA Ill. The previous equivilent projected traffic was 69,200 ADT on East H Street and 55,800 ADT on Telegraph Canyon Road. The August, 1990 ECVTPP analyzed a future with Approved Projects without and with RDR SPA III. The future with RDR SPA III revealed a potential problem at the intersections of East H Street/Hidden Vista Drive and Telegraph Canyon Road/Crest Drive. This is information not available at the time of preparation of the July, 1990 SPA III Traffic Analysis. However, we have already began to restudy mitigation measures for these two intersections and expect to have that Transportation Planning and Traffic Engineering Consultants Page Two Mr. Fukuyama September 20, 1990 work completed prior to the certification of the FEIR. Our review of the August, 1990 DEIR indicates that the conclusions about Intersection LOS (Table 4-7) and the section on Mitigation/Monitoring has been revised to be consistent with the July, 1990 Traffic Analysis. In addition, the July, 1990 Traffic Analysis is included in the DEIR Appendix. However much of the text of the August, DEIR reflects the earlier text based on the earlier Traffic analysis. Since the findings and recommended mitigations are included in the August DEIR the attached comments by us could be incorporated in the FDEIR at the appropriate time. The attached represents our recommended editing of the transportation section of the August, 1990 DEIR to make it entirely consistent with the current traffic Analysis. Given that, we intend to work expeditiously on potential mitigations to the two problem intersections noted above. Finally, I will be in attendence at the October 10, 1990 Planning Commission Public Hearing on the SPA III DEIR to answer questions as appropriate. Sincerely, BANKSTON/PINE ASSOCIATES, INC., Kenneth M. Bankston, P.E. Principal Attachments £XL~T]NG CONDITIONS Impacts to ~r~[C ~ated wl~h ~ R~c~ D~ ~y ~ojec~ have ~ e~mlned by Ur~ Sys~s A~da~, Inc. (USA)~ In L98~. Another ~s wu ~m~eted by ~A In O~b~ L~g6 ~d revl~d In M~ ~87 w~ch evicted the im~ ~ted with develo~en~ o~ SPA l.~In l~g~, B~n~o~P~e As~a:~, ~nc. ~e~ed t ~r~fIc ev~on for SPA ~I. A re'4~d tr~flc ev~on ~e~ed in 3~y l~ In r~e to t~ Clty o~ Ch~'s V~ Tr~ic De~en~. 5PA ~I ~ ~ El R~ D~ Ray S~ic PI~ [s located In the ~ea e~t of 1-805 ~d ~h of E~t H Sttee~ ~ed tou&~y by EM: H Street on the n~th. T~e~ C~n Road to ~e project is planned for a total of 1,380 residential units p~us a junior high school on 25-acres of the site. Phasing in of proposed land use is as follows: Phase 1. 530 multi-family (retirement) dwelling units. Phase 2. 245 single family dwelling units. Phase 3. 365 single family dweJling units. 240 townhouse dwelling units. 1 junior high school on 25 acres. Figure 3 shows the location of SPA3 phases 1, 2, and 3 as they relate to development phasing in SPA's 1 and 2. The SPA 3 Project will have primary access via East 'H" Street, Paseo Ladera, Paseo RAnchero, and East 'J' Street with secondary access via Paseo Del Rey , and Telegraph Canyon Road. (See Figure 4.) East "H' Street between 1-805 and Otay Lakes Road is a 6-lane divided roadway running east/west. Otay L~kes Road between East "H" Street and Bonita Road is 4 lanes and runs generally north/south. Telegraph Canyon Road between 1-805 and Paseo Ladera is a 4 lane divided east/west roadway. It is 2 lanes between Paseo Ladera and Otay Lakes Road. This roadway link is now being widened to 6 lanes. 1-805 is an 8 lane north/south freeway in the Project vicinity with interchanges at Telegraph Canyon Road, East 'H" Street, and Bonita Road; and a separation structure at 'J" Street. Bankston/Pine Associates, Inc. --'// 4 Bankston/Pine Associates, Inc. -~ 8 Traffic signals exist at the following intersections: Telegraph Canyon Road at the 1-805 'Northbound And Southbound Ramp terminals, Crest Drive, Paseo Del Rey, and at Medical Center Drive. East 'H' Street/1-805 Northbound Off-ramp. East 'H' Street/Hidden Vista Road. East 'H' Street/Otay Lakes Road. East 'H' Street/Paseo Del Rey. East "H" Street/Buena Vista Way. Bonita Road and 1-805 Northbound and Southbound Ramp terminals. Bonita Road/Otay Lakes Road. Otay Lakes Road/Ridgeback Road. Sputhwestern Co ege Driveway and Shopping Center Entrance. 1-805 Southbound On-ramp. 1' Paseo Ranchero. Otay Laks R. oad/Avenida Del Rey fi~ure~5 shows existia~ (1~8~ average 24 hour weekday tra~c levels "i · Bankston/Pine Associa[es, Inc. 9 S~wr~ ~~ w~r~ Included In th~ ~ls o~ ~t~n~ lm~ ~ t~ 1. An )nteF)~ Foad~ ~)th)n the 8tste Route 125 coFddoF )n Ohu)a ~st~ ~i~) not be co~p~ete~ ~th)n the t)~e fFs~e of th~s ~nsl~s)s b~ phase. Phases 1,2, and 3 are shown in Figure 3. 2. Tra~c requirements related to Ci~ policy on intersection Level of Se~ice are obse~ed and maintained for this analysis. That is, all intersections are mitigated to operate at Policy Threshold Standards set by the Ci~ of Chula V sra. Phue 1. ~30 m~-t~Uy ~e~rement) dw~llng ~its. P~e L 2~1 ~n~e f~ay dwelUn~ ~I~. ~ J~or ~ ~c~o~ on 2~ a=~. T~ T~o~ld ~cy re%~n~ tr~ic ~e~ to ~ovlda ~d m~nt~n ~ m~a and ~ldent street system w[t~n t~ C~ty by es~ls~ng s~n~ds ~or ~l ~d inte~ecUo~. Thee st~d~ ~e re~o~uced ~1aw: M~nt~n level o~ le~lce ~) "C" or ~tter at ~1 [nterse~o~ dty-wlde~ with the excep~on t~t LOS "D" m&y ~c~ at sl~li~d inte~ec~ons ~ae a ~od not to e~d ~ to/~ ol twa ~s ~r day. I~ these t~[d levela ~e ex~ded, the ~lt~m Growth M~a~ement Over~gh: Commltt~ ~ ~ln~ ta ev~te a moratorl~ on Brow/h. ........ ~-~ o Intersections wesz of IZg0~ _ _ may continue to ap~.rat~, at their current LOS, hu(.(h~l! not worsen. o No ml~rsection sl~3!l o~r~te at LOS "[:" as recast;red for thc ~verage weekd3y j~k hour. Notes to Standards as discus~d in :he thres~ld standards include: 1. LOS meM~ements shall ~ Jot the average weekday ~ak ~ur, exclu~n8 ~n~[ ~d s~d~ drcumstance vaHatlons. 2. The measurement o~ LOS slall ~ by the ICU (Intersection Ca.dry Utilization) calculat[gn utilidns the Cit/s published design standards. 3. [ntersectio~ ol City arterials with [reeway ramps sl~ll ~ excluded ~om this ~. Circ~tion im~ovements slm~d ~ Implemented priot to an:ici~ted ioratlon o[ LOS ~low established standards. · ' Implementation me. utes delineated include: Should the GMOC determine that the Threihoid Standard is not bain8 satls~ed, then the City c~uncil abel, with~n 60 days of the GMOC's report, schedule and'hold a public he~ring for the purpose of adopt[ns a moratorium on the acceptance o! new tentat4ve map appUcatlo~u, b~sed on ~[1 o~[ t~e ~ollowln~ criteria: 1. That the moratorium Ls limited to an area where4n a causal re~adonshlp to the M'oblem h~s been establtsbec~ and~ 2. That the moratorium ix'ovldes & mlti~[atlon measure to a spect~lc4dly identi[ied impact. Should & mocatorlum be establi~ed, the time shall be Used to expeditioUsly p~epare specific mitigation measures for adoption which a~-e intended to brfn8 the condition into conformance. The City o[ Chula Vista has adopted a Transportation Phasin& Plan (TPP) to establish an orderly P~o&ression of street imp¢ovemen[s to cocrespond with the development o! the E~stern Territories o! which this proiect is ~ Nrt. Street Improvements to rnalntaln an acceptable level o! service on the circul~tion system have been identified &s necessary to serve the to~l development o! the Eastern Territories as opposed to any individual development. Th~ timing of each improvement Is tied to a spedfic amount o! develol~nent (number of dwelling units or ~ross seres o! Industrial or comrnerc, l~l i~nd uses) as opposed to the development o! any l~rdcuJar I~rce! o! land. Since the geosr~phic order and Intensities o! deve~olxnent ~e not cer~In~ the TPP Is reviewed and revised nnnu~lly to re!leer current land clevelopmen~ proposals ~nd ch~n~ln~ conditions in the comrnunl~y. The review process begins In ~&nu~ry o! each year and cul~nln~tes In a noticed public he~in~ approximately April o! each year, at which time the City Council may consider any modiQcnQons to the TPP requirements. As part o! the £~s~e~n Territories, R~cho del Rey SPA III is subject to the ~s~ Chuia Vlst~ Transpor- tation Phas~n~ Plan and to nJl current or luture updates o~ the over,IL drcul~tion IMPACTS Trip generation for proiect trips except for retirement community are based an The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) trip generation rates. Retirement community trip rates are City of San Diego ra~es and recommended for use by the City of Ohula Vista. Trip generation rates are as follows: Besidential Single Family 10 ADT/DU Townhouses 8 ADT/DU Betirement 4.5 ADT/DU 3unior High School 40 ADT/Acre Tr~ generation for the proposed proieat' is shown by phase in Table 1. As shown in ~ able 1, the proposed project is estimated to generate 11,405 ADT. Project trip distribution was estimated by separating out SPA 3 assigned ADT from that generated by other sources. This was done by computing the ADT difference for the cumulative future condition without and with SPA 3 as estimated by separate ECTPP model runs. Figure 6 shows the percentage of project trips by direction as distributed by the model. Table 1 Project Trip Generation A.M. P.M. ADT Phase Land Use In Out In Out 1 530 Retirement D.U.'s 38 153 167 72 2385 2 245 S.F.D.U.'s 39 157 172 74 2450 3 240Townhouse D.U.'s 30 121 133 57 1920 365 S.F.D.U.'s 59 235 257 110 3650 25 AcresJr. High School 97 257 247 130 1000 TOTALS 263 923 976 443 11405 13 O Bankston/Pine Associates, Inc. 14 Using the trip distribution shown in Figure 6, project trips were assigned to the road system. These trips were then added to cumulative traffic volumes on the appropriate road segment. Average Daily Traffic based on ECVTPP model run output for the cumulative future without SPA 3 and with SPA 3 is shown in Figures 7a and 7b, respectively. SPA 3 only ADT is shown in parentheses in Figure 7b. The 1989 ADT shown on Figure 5 for East "H"Street between 1-805 and Ridgeback Road was counted by City staff during the week of February 6, 1989. These counts were taken at selected locations including East "H" Street and on ! Telegraph Canyon Road. It is apparent from these counts that approximately I 4,000 ADT (Average Daily Traffic) has shifted from Telegraph Canyon Road to East "H" Street. This shift in traffic is believed to be due to the recent opening of r the widened East "H" Street and the fact that congestion exists now on Telegraph ~.. Canyon Road. The congestion on Telegraph Canyon Road is a temporary condition which will be relieved when the current improvements are completed in 1990. At that time, the 4,000 ADT is expected to shift back to Telegraph Canyon | Road from East "H" Street. Accordingly, Figures 7a and 7b reflect this temporary shift from Telegraph Canyon Road to East "H" Street and back again. .I Bankston/Pine Associates, Inc. Bankston/Pine Associates, Inc. Morn~nH and afternoon Peal< Hour LOS ~7~es were m~e ~o~ e~s~ng~ e~s~n~ c~nula~ve~ e~s~n8 * c~a~ve Phase I + Ph~e 2 o~ SPA IIl~ and e~s~n~ + cum~ve. Ph~e I + Ph~e 2 + Ph~e SPA Ill ~ndI~o~. E~ng con~ao~ ~e b~ed on c~r.nt tr~ic voJanes witch the roa~y ~dil~as now in Nace, E~s~ng + cum~ative + Phase Ph~ 2 + Ph~e 3 o~ SPA III ~yses ~sume b~l~o~ ~ong wire r~dw~y Table ~-7 shows results from t~ese analyses by LOS based on volume/capacity (V/C) criteria. LOS levels range on a continuum from LOS "A" through "P" with L(~ ,A~, reflecting optimal conditions with minimal delays and LOS "F", tot.~ breakdown In tra~flc movement. LOS results based on anelysis o~ signalized intersections indicate the overall level ot service at which an intersection operates. Signalized inter~ection results are ba~ed upon volurne~ re{at{ye to Intersection capacity ratio~. Unslgnallzed intersection analysis re~uitm produce operational levels by movement. A range o! level} by movement is shown in Table /*-7 when an Intersection Is analyzed ,~ un~ignallzed/, As TaMe a-? shows, all intersections relevant to the project wl~l operate at LOS ,,C" or better in the AM and PM peak hours with completion oi proJecz with the exception of the But H Stree,./Pa~eo del Roy intersection. The East H .. Street/Paseo del Roy intersection operates at LOS "D" (with a ¥o{urne/Capaclty ratio o~ (Y/C) 0.~) In the PM peak hour at completion of project. Voltmne/Capa. city ratios as discussed earlier in this section are u~ed to determine LOS A-i= in the City of Chula Vista. According to the City of Chula Vimta's Threshold Standards, LOS "D" I~ an acceptable LOS tor up to two hours a day. The third highest hour cannot exceed · V/C ratio o~ 0.75 which is the upper Emit lot LOS "C-,o The third highest hour for thi~ intersection wa~ determined to be at a LOS "C"o Therefore, all of the intersections shown on TaMe ~-7 meet this threshold. SE~ 11 ~9~ 16:55 I~CMI~I IN OFFICES In s,.nmary) with the mitigations recotnmended below along with improvements already under c~nstructlon or in place, all facilities ~vlH o~rat= at an acc~ptabla level of service in ao:ordance wi~h City o! Chula Vista Policy Threshold Standards. MITIGATION/MONITORING As Identified in the Bankston-Plne study, certain midgations ~re needed to accommodate p~oject traffic. Recommendations ~e m~de to tailgate s~udy ~oadways to acceptable levels of service. In accordance wI~h sc~d~e shown in Table~, the Iollowing ~tc s~dfic ~oject related mitigation is needed. , ~ Existing + Cumulative Mit. isation Measures o - Signalize Telegraph Canyon Road and Pasco Ladera. ~xistin~. Cumulative + Phase 1 o! SPA III Mlti~ation ~e.asu~? o Open up the south lag of East H Street/East Business Park Eoad intemectJon where phase I tr~t~ic is assumed to enter &nd exit. Exi.stin~. Cum,dative. Phase I of SPA III ~i~tatlon Me. asurel o Construct Pasco Ranchero between H Street sad Te|e~raph Canyon Road. oExtend :] Street to provlc~e a' through two-lane road between Pasco del Roy and Pasco Ranchero./ o Place stop slsn controls on Paseo Ladera ~t E~st 3 Street, East 3 Street at Pasco Ranchero, a~d' Paseo Ranchero az T~egreph Canyon Road. (The intersection o! TeleD'aph Canyon P. oad/P~seo R&nchero operates at LOS E [or le[t turns out o! Pasco Ra. ncherot however~ low tra.[~i¢ rolL, nos on the mlno~ street do ,not meet signa~ warrants.) Ex~sdn~. Cumulative. Phase It 2~ and 3 o~ SPA III Mitigation Measure~ o $I~nallza TeleD'aph Canyon Road and Pasco Ranchero. Mitigation measures noted above relate to those ro&dway JacliitJes si&~JficantJy a~ected by~k~-X~$pA Ill development. [t Is assumed that all streets internal to the I~oJect ~outd be designed according to the cJassiJications ~'ov[ded in the p~oJect description. The developer will be required to implement the above mentioned mitigation measures. Mitigation mmasures beyond the nearby project environs resulting ~,'om either thru project or cumul&t~ve projects traHic ls heine accounted ~o~ ~n ~he on-~oin~ E~t Chul~ Vls~ ~r~ns~rtat~on Phasln~ Plan (ECVTPP). Th~ ECVTPP is ~ln~ mana~md by the Cl~y of Chula V~t~. The ECVTPP ~ea will be rean~lyzed on an annul basis to s:y ahead o~ development and to Ins~e ~t a comprehensive annul revle~ Is made to m~nt~n acceptable levels of service on ~1 ~ected Intersec~ons and roadways. The City En~neer ~ informed the R~cho D~ Rey Partners~p t~t the SPA III E[R s~u[d Indicate that SPA IH, as In ~[ other deve~o~ents, ~s sub~ect to ~y current or ~ut~e u~ates of the City-wide Trans~rtatian Phasing P~&n. [. l I I _.TrACHMENT NO. 2 Cinti & Associates Land Planning September 26, 1990 Mr. Craig Fukuyama McMillin Communities, Inc. 2727 Hoover Avenue National City, CA 92050 Subject: Comments on RDR SPA III Draft EIR Dear Craig: I have reviewed the Draft EIR being circulated for the SPA III project and offer the following comments/suggestions with page references for your consideration (any changes made in the body of the text should also be carried forward to the summaries): S-1 Par. 2, last sentence: "The closure of East J Street...,, This language infers that an existing street is being closed to traffic. In fact, the proposal is to eliminate a propos- ed link in the planned circulation system. This is an important distinction. S-4 Cultural Resources. As detailed below, the mitigation program required for SPAs II and III is complete and pub- lished. S-5 Public Services. The components of project which alleviate existing adverse infrastructure/service conditions should be documented. Especially the elimination of two sewer pump stations. S-ii Biology. The comparison of these alternatives to the proposed project does not appear to address the off-site mitigation program component of the project mitigation plan. 1133 Columbia St.' Suite 201 · San Diego, CA. 92101. (619) 239.1815 · FAX. (619)239.4737 MCMillin Communities, Inc. September 26, 1990 Page 2 Page The EIR should evaluate the comparative merits of preserva- tion of relatively small areas within a development project (Alt. Designs 1 & 2) versus the preservation of larger areas which are components of a large scale habitat conservation program. S-12 Land Use/General Plan/Zoning. The discussion of the Design Alternatives suggests that no impacts to land use compati- bility would occur even through a substantial reduction in development acreage is involved. The proposed project yields a total of 1,380 du with an average density of 6.6 du/ac. Alt. Design 1, at 1,380 du on 130 net acres, would have an average density of 11 du/ac and Alt. Design 2 would be 8.3 du/ac on 166 net acres. The development of Area D under Alternative 1 is extremely problematic. The loss of this 24 acre area would reduce the Alternative Design 1 area to approximately 106 acres which would yield an average density of 13 du/ac. These density increases would definitely change the charac- ter of the community away from the single family detached neighborhood of the proposed project to one with a signifi- cantly larger single family attached/multi-family com- ponents. Such a character change could easily create significant land use conflicts and disrupt the established single family detached neighborhood pattern on the surround- ing properties. Such increased density projects would not as readily fit in the community context for the project. Both alternatives would require General/Specific Plan Amendments for increased density, among other reasons. S-18 Off-Site Alternatives. It should be noted that some or all of the off-site alternatives fail to meet some of the goals of the project (i.e., the "project" is more than simply building houses) which must be achieved on the project site and/or within the City limits: 1) implementing the City's General Plan; 2) implementing the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan; 3) alleviating the current shortage of park and recreation facilities in the project area; 4) completing infrastructure links such as East J Street and Paseo Ranchero; and, 5) providing a junior high school site which is a current need of the school district. These issues affect both current and future residents of the project area. The school site is addressed in the alternatives discussion, but the other issues which are equally important should also be included under each appropriate topic. McMillin Communities, Inc. September 26, 1990 Page 3 Paqe Further, to the degree that each alternative site is not an "in-fill" location, potentially significant growth induce- ment impacts are associated with the extension of services to new areas. The EIR should identify such environmental impacts. 1-2 Par. 1. The SPA III Plan and tentative map are not required to receive Planning Commission "approval". The Commission recommends to the Council on these matters and the City Council is the only "approval" required. 2-4 Par. 1. The paragraph appears to be a series almost random sentences. Chapter I of the SPA Plan contains background information which could be utilized to clarify this informa- tion. 2.3 Par 1. Parcel CF-i, a community facilities site, should be mentioned in the project description. Provision of a such site for church, daycare, or public/quasi-public use is an important component of the neighborhood concept. 2.3 Par. 2. The issues involved with the Specific Plan Amendment and General Plan Amendment should be explained. The EIR should convey to the reader the necessity to change adopted plans (i.e., the area of conflict and what adopted policy/map/element must be changed or is proposed to be changed). Such information is provided in the SPA III Plan in Chapter I, Chapter II (density transfer), and Chapter III (East J Street). Also, same comment as above on "closure" of East J Street. 2-5 Figure 2-3. This is not the proposed General Development Plan which is Exhibit 2 in the proposed SPA III Plan and is dated 7/23/90. In addition, the statistics in Table 2-1 are not correct. Exhibit 2 in the SPA III Plan includes the current statistics. 2-6 The description of the location of the 10 acre park is actually the location of parcel CF-1. An accurate descrip- tion of the park location should be provided. 3-1 3.0 Par. 1. The project is 404.6 acres in size, not 408.4. The project site not located in the Eastern Territories Planning Area. It is within the Sweetwater Planning Area. McMillin Communities, Inc. September 26, 1990 Page 4 Paqe Par. 4. The Rancho del Rey Business Park is not 184 acres in size and the proposal to include an auto park in this area has been formally abandoned for some time. The Rancho del Rey SPA I General Development Plan indicates that the Employment Park is 102.4 acres (gross). 3-2 The EIR language infers that the EastLake project is in close proximity to the east of the project site. In fact this project is located 2 miles east of the site and has little, if any, influence on the project setting. 4-11 4.3 Landform Alteration/Aesthetics. This section does not discuss the provision of an open space buffer along East "H" Street which is a significant issue of consistency with the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan. 4-14 par. 2, last line. Fill volumes are estimated to be 2.0 to 2.5 million cubic yards. 4-15 Figure 4-2. This is not the proposed Grading Plan, as it shows East "J" Street extended to Buena Vista Way. The proposed Grading Plan is included as Exhibit 14, dated 7/23/90, in the SPA III Plan. 4-38 First "o". Only one sewer lateral is proposed to cross open space and it is not located in an area identified as con- taining rare plant populations or bird habitat. If there are other specific impacts associated with its location, they should be detailed. See also mitigation measures. 4-45 Mitigation/Monitoring. The mitigation program for SPAs II and III has been completed and accepted by the City. The report, entitled Data Recovery and Sampling Strategy Evalua- tion at SDi-9893, was prepared by RECON and published August 1, 1990. The discussion of a mitigation/monitoring program is irrelevant at this point. The EIR should document the analysis and conclusions of the work which has been complet- ed. 4-51 First "o". The City's Growth Management Oversight Committee is not authorized to hold hearings; any Growth Management hearings are held by the City Council based on input from the GMOC (see page 4-53 of the EIR). 4-63 4.8 Land Use/General Plan/Zoning. Because the project involves both General Plan and Specific Plan amendments, a McMillinCommunities, Inc. ~September-26, 1990 Page 5 P~qe complete discussion of these issues should be provided in this section. However, these issues are mentioned in passing, if at all. It must be assumed that the existing plans had some level of logic and were adopted based on a balancing of environmental impacts and public policy bene- fits which would be potentially disturbed by amendments. The EIR should present sufficient information so that the reader can understand why the amendments are proposed and which environmental impacts are avoided or minimized through the amendments. 4-64 Figure 4-11. Given the overwhelming importance of the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan as compared to the General Plan Land Use Map, in the evaluation of land use and adopted plan consistency, this discussion should emphasize the provisions of the Specific Plan. A greater level of detail regarding the Specific Plan would allow the reader to have a better understanding of the adopted planned uses for the project site and the areas of consistency/inconsistency between the proposed SPA Plan and the adopted Specific Plan. 4-65 Par. 1. The density transfers among the development parcels within SPA III are also the result of logical planning and an effort to avoid adverse land use/intensity conflicts with existing development. The EIR should provide a discussion of these aspects of the density transfer issue (see Chapter II of the SPA III Plan text). Par. 3. The area south of the project site is Otay Ranch which is not zoned PC nor within the City of Chula Vista (see Otay Ranch off-site alternative). Sunbow is to the west and south. 4-67 The parcel statistics and descriptions provided on this and the following page are not consistent with those presented in the SPA III Plan, specifically on the Site Utilization Plan, Exhibit 5, dated 7/23/90. Examples: the SPA Plan indicates 1,380 units on 208.8 acres at an average density of 6.7 du/ac; parcel R-2 contains 151 units; parcel R-6 contains 232 units; there is no parcel R-Sa in this pro- posal; 0S-2 is 53.7 acres in size. Parcels OS-i, OS-2 and 0S-6 comprise the southern leg of Rice Canyon which drains primarily to the west. While each "neighborhood" in SPA I and II was partially surrounded by open space, this is not true in SPA III (e.g., R-4 & R-5). This discussion should include parcel CF-1 which is currently not mentioned. McMillin Communities, Inc. S~ptember 26, 1990 Page 6 Page The selection of lot sizes and residential character in various locations was carefully evaluated in preparing the SPA III plan to insure maximum compatibility at all edges. This is a very important environmental issue for an in-fill project and deserves discussion in the EIR. This issue of consistency/ compatibility of the proposed project with the existing adjacent uses becomes very important when comparing it to the Alternative Designs which cannot readily blend with the existing community because of their higher average densities. 4-77 Parks, Recreation and Open Space. City staff has indicated that one aspect of the need to provide more park acreage than that required by the adopted Specific Plan is the local shortage of facilities. This issue is not discussed in the EIR. This is another issue which becomes important in the evaluation of alternatives. Provision of park area in some other location, while consistent with a 3 ac./1000 popula- tion standard, will do nothing to alleviate the existing adverse situation in this area which the proposed project will directly address. The fact that this additional park acreage necessitates a specific plan amendment probably should be mentioned in this section. The need for addition- al parkland, both for existing and project residents, is a readily understandable as a reason for the proposed amend- ment. The fact that the 2.0 park was a part of a balanced park system for the specific plan area as a whole and the subse- quent credit determinations for SPA I which led to the "shortfall" would also be appropriate. This would help the reader understand why the City has determined that a net deficiency of 2.3 acres is not a significant impact (p. 4- 78). 4-84 Par. 3. Planning for the middle school within SPA III would be the responsibility of the Sweetwater Union High School District. The discussion should note that the district is relying on this site to accommodate a new facility to serve existing as well as future needs. The district does not have an alternative site available in the short term to meet these needs. 4-84 Impacts. The EIR should identify the adverse existing conditions which will be improved (benefits) as well as the C McMillin Communities, Inc. September 26, 1990 Page 7 Paqe negative potential impacts of the project. As noted above, the project will have clearly positive impacts to sewer service and schools by providing needed new facilities. 4-87 School. It should be noted that the seniors housing pro- ject, which is a significant fraction of the 1,380 total units would generate no school age children, if it is fully implemented. The EIR should note that the analysis present- ed here is a worst case scenario and assumes no seniors housing component. The seniors housing would be subject to the Mello-Roos tax however, potentially creating a financial benefit to the school districts (additional revenue without additional children to serve). 5-1 Compliance with Threshold Policy. The text in this section seems to confuse threshold compliance with project impacts. It is quite possible to have an impact while maintaining threshold compliance. The traffic threshold requires maintenance of specified intersection LOS; the threshold compliance discussion should make reference to LOS not ADT. The police threshold requires maintenance of specified response times not staffing levels. Changes in equipment or efficiency could easily change staff levels required to achieve the necessary performance. Same with fire protec- tion. 6-1 Alternatives. The second paragraph in this section states that consideration of alternative sites is not necessary. Section 6.4 is a consideration of alternative sites. This inconsistency should be resolved. 6-2 No Project - Existing Specific Plan. Given that the fea- tures of the proposed project which require Specific Plan and General Plan Amendments avoid some potential adverse environmental impacts, this alternative which does not include these features would have some additional adverse impacts when compared with the proposed project. These issues should be discussed in this section. 6-3 Alternative Designs. As noted earlier, both.of these alternatives have potentially significant land use/intensity compatibility impacts associated with them. Each alterna- tive substantially reduces the amount of land devoted to residential development. So to maintain a project yield of 1,380 units, significantly higher average densities are required. These densities change the character of develop- McMillin Communities, Inc. Septembe~ 26, 1990 Page 8 Paqe ment by increasing the amount of attached and multi-family units which are inconsistent with surrounding projects as well as Specific Plan designations. Potential incompatibil- ity impacts associated with each of these alternatives should be clearly identified. The biological analysis for each of these alternatives should compare and evaluate the conservation of on-site areas, which will be impacted by adjacent development (as discussed in the biology analysis of the proposed project), to the off-site mitigation proposed by the project. The off-site mitigation component does not appear to enter into these discussions, yet it is a critical factor to be consi- dered. It should also be noted that some disturbance in the areas taken out of development will occur in order to extend roads and infrastructure. 6-24 Otay Ranch Alternative. Since there is no adopted plan for Otay Ranch, the reader should be informed as to which development plan is being compared to the SPA III develop- ment concept. Because the site is not within the City, the planning analysis should describe fully the required steps for project development (in the City or County?), annexation to service agencies, GPA, zone change, etc. This alterna- tive would also impact the current City/County Task Force Planning Program for the Otay Ranch as a whole. Extension of infrastructure to this area would have growth inducing impacts and additional expense, and development of this site would do nothing to solve the infrastructure and facilities problems existing in the area of the proposed project site. The EIR should include these facts in its discussion of this site alternative. Many of these same impacts/shortcomings are associated with the other alternative sites. McMillin Communities, Inc. September 26, 1990 Page 9 This concludes our comments. If you have any questions regarding them, please give me a call. Sincerely, CINTI & ASSOCIATES Jay Kniep Associate ATTACHMENT NO. 3 REC N Regional Environmental Consultants September 24, 1990 Mr. Craig Fukuyama McMillin Development 2727 Hoover Avenue National City, CA 92050 Reference: Comments on the SPA 3 EIR (RECON Number R-1559E) Dear Mr. Fukuyama: I have reviewed the biology section of the SPA 3 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and f'md it to be substantially factual and accurate. In reviewing thc mitigation measures, I do have a concern regarding the sixth itemized measure concerning the mitigation of California gnatcatcher habitat (page 4-39). Tho language which requires the acquisition and conservation of either (1) off-site property of specific minimum size and resident gnatcatcher population density, or (2)the on-site Specialty Housing area, eliminates the candidacy of potential conservation sites which might have higher conservation value to California gnatcatcber while not meeting the requirements of the measure's language. Resolution of this concern might be accomplished by adding a new item "d" to the measure stating: d. Or acquire and preserve an off-site area of coastal sage scrub habitat acknowledged by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the City of Chula Vista to equal or exceed the conservation goals of the options listed above. This would allow the acquisition of properties in satisfaction of this mitigation measm-e which might be recognized critical links in natural open space design, which do not meet [he specific area o~ density requirements of the first three options, while providing for continued U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service involvement. Please call if you have questions. Cameron Patterson Director, Biological Services CCP:st 1276 Morena Boulevard · San Diego, CA 92110-3815 · (619) 275-3732 ,, FAX (619) 275-3619 5099 East Grant Road, Suite 301A · Tucson, AZ 85712 ° (602) 325-9977 3050 Chicago Avenue · Riverside, CA 92507 · (714) 784-9460 ATTACHMENT File: 671.40 VIA Septerr~er 25, 1990 Craig Fukuyama McMillin Communities 2727 Hoover Avenue National City, CA 92050 SUBJECT: Review Comments to the Draft EIR dated August 1990 for Rancho Del Rey Dear Craig, Following are our comments to the draft EIR listed by Page Number: PAGE NO. COMMENTS 4-9 The last sentence of the second paragraph of this page should be deleted and the following added: "Other smaller existing storm drains include a 24-inch pipe in Buena Vista Way at East "J" Street; a 24-inch pipe in Paseo Ladera at Paseo Entrada; and a 24-inch pipe in Forester Glenn Drive at East "J" Street. 4-14 Second Paragraph. This paragraph discusses maximum cut and fill slopes and volume of earthwork for the project. The maximum cut slope will be 25 feet located in the vicinity of the community facility east of Paseo Ladera and the maximum fill slope will be 70 feet located in the vicinity of the specialty housing area south of East "H" Street. The total cut volume and fill volumes for the project are estimated at 4.0 million cubic yards each including 1.6 million cubic yards for the specialty housing area. 4-14 Last paragraph, second to last sentence should be revised to read: "Many of the large manufactured slopes would be visible to motorist transiting along East "H" Street, Telegraph Canyon Road, and Paseo del Rey. Craig Fukuyama September 25, 1990 Page 2 4-35 Fourth paragraph. The first sentence should be revised to read: "The proposed access road (Paseo Ranchero) that connects East "H" Street and Telegraph Canyon Road through SPA III project site would cross the south leg of Rice Canyon, a major drainage channel on the site." 4-35 Sixth paragraph. The second sentence should be revised to read: "The City of Chula Vista requires that each major storm drain outlet be accessible by a road." 4-82 The discussion in the third paragraph should be continued as follows: "In 1990 the City of Chula Vista entered into an agreement with Eastlake Development Company allowing them to temporarily divert pumped sewage flows to the Telegraph Canyon Road trunk sewer until the necessary gravity systems are developed. The diversions could affect the capacity of the Telegraph Canyon Road sewer, in which case, the agreement also provides for Eastlake Development to increase the capacity of the affected sewers when required." 6-2 First paragraph. The fourth sentence should be revised to read: "In addition, beneficial affects associated with the project, including completion of important circulation element streets, provisions of housing tax revenues and construction of a junior high school site would not be achieved." 6-6 Second paragraph. This section of the EIR discusses Alternative Number 1 Site Development. Area D is an area now designated open space laying along Telegraph Canyon Road west of Paseo Rancho. This paragraph discusses development potential for the Area D site, however, it fails to recognize that the site abuts Telegraph Canyon Road and a major drainage channel which occupy most of the flat portions of the site. The remainder of the site is steep hillside slopes abutting the existing residential property. The site has no development potential beyond open space designation. 6-6 Insert the following sentence after the fourth sentence in the sixth paragraph: "Elimination craig FUk~yama Septe~ber 25, 1990 Page 3 of development in Area E would reduce the amount of canyon placed fill requiring a significant amount of soil export in order to develope Area B." 6-16 Second paragraph. This paragraph should also include discussion on the gravity sewer to be built through Area A even if the area is not developed. Also, see comments to the biology section discussion of Alternative 1 on Page 6- 8. Following are some general comments to the EIR: 1. The overall tone of the EIR would suggest that either one of Alternatives Number 1 or 2 would be preferred over the proposed project. In addition, the EIR fails to adequately portray the importance of the public facilities built with SPA III that are required irregardless of the proposed development here. Those facilities include the completion of East "H" Street and Paseo Ranchero and the elimination of existing pump stations and force mains which were built in anticipation of completion of an ultimate gravity sewer network with the SPA III plan. Elimination of any of these facilities would be critical to the ultimate development of the community and the impact of their not being constructed should also be analyzed. 2. Enclosed with this letter is a revised version of the mitigation and monitoring program marked to reflect the time frame of mitigation as discussed in the EIR. The above constitutes our comments to the EIR. Very truly yours, Wi ck, P.E. Project Manager WRD/cw Enclosures c: Keith Keeter Thom Fuller Gary Cinti C R~u'qCHO DEL REY SPA III MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAM (Continued) Mitigatic Re~pormible for Rempomible for Date of Complete. D: Tas. k TLmg Frlm~ T~k Verification Completion ;~nd Vcri_f Parks. Recreation and Oc, en Sp~c~ Provide a detailed concept TM Applicant C'hula V'~ta Depart- plan for proposed park. merit of Park.~ and Re~...atioa and Parlm atai Rea:rem. ion Com- miadon Dcs~gm 4:1 slopes or le.~ for TM Applicant Chula V'mta Depa~- pm'k. mea~ of Pa~k~ and Re~'eafiem Emcr h~ am ag~eemea~ ~t~ TM Applicant Chela V'~a Depar~- t~e Sweetwa£er U~oa I4~ me~ of Parks and School Distfic~ and the Cky Recrca~oa of Chula VEta to km,~e pub- Hc ac.~:eas to the re~eatJoaal amcnk~ea of thc pmp~ j"'";or h~h school whid~ would ~ncludc socr~r ~elda, b.~l-'tbsll c~ur~ and Provide f,,,,di~g for the dif- ~ AppHcaa£ Ch~da V'mta Depart- fere~ce ~ cost bc~veem facili- ~f.~.~ mea~ of Parks and ties b~dll ~o scoot! s~andar~ Re~ea6oa amd facilities b,,~k to Cky ~e~m-~a. Appl~caa~ C~tfla V'm~a Depa~- tlcnal facilitiea to City of Ch,~la VBta staadar~ a~d b~ ,--~'?.~, Rc~eatioa D~ p~k so ~at it ~d ba~ of b~ fa~ o~o R~fion the ~k D~ p~k to pr~de adc- ~ App~t ~ ~ De~- q~te ~ib~ ~om g~o J me~ S~ R~fioa Pro~de a~ to ~e ~l ~ App~t Ch~ W~ De~- p~g 1~ for ore.ow p~k- m~ ~ P~ ~d mg from p~k. R~fioa P,.ANCHO DEL REY SPA MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAM (Continued) Mitigation Re.spomible for Respo~iblc for Date of Complete,Dat~ Task Tim~ Fr~m0 Tick Verification Cq~mpletion ~nd V~riF.,:2 Cultural R es 9 u r<;¢,5 (Continued} Prepare report~ der~ill.g the TM Applicant/Cultural C. hula Wtsta Depart- invc~tigat/o~ of both sitc~ Re$ourc~Consultant ment of Pla,,,~,g and submit to the City of Chula V'mta, SDSU Cleari~g- hotme, and The M~eum of MaJl. TransDortatign $i~naliT~. Telegraph Canyon .'~..:, Pha.s~ I App~t Ch~ W~ta De~- Road ~d P~ ~dcr~ me~ of planni.g O~n sou~ Icg of ~t H ~ App~t Ch~ ~mm ~- Road Ntcrsc~ion where P~ I trgfic ~ ~mcd to cater ~d c~t. ~m~ Pmco R~cro ~ Applier ~ Wmm Dc~- ~n H S~cct ~d Tclc- ~a~ ~yon Roa~ ~cnd J S~t to pro,dc a ~h~ 2 App~t ~ ~ ~. ~o~ ~l~c road ~- ~u P~ del Rey ~d Pla~ stop s~ ~auo~ on ~ P~ 2 AppU~t ~ Wmta ~- P~ ~dera at ~ J S~t ~t J S~e~ at P~ R~ero, ~d P~ R~- eeo at Tel~aph Rind. Si~aID~ Tele~aph ~yon ~ P~ 3 App~ Ch~ W~ ~- ~d P~ R~ero. ~ m~ p~anning ~p~ ~ E~Pf~ ~ App~ ~ W~ta Dec- -eat ~d ~t~e u~t~ to m~t~ a~ptable leve~ of ~ ~ ~ m~ plann~n~ ~ on ~ ~f~ ~ter- ~o~ ~d road~y ~g- I C RANCHO DEL REY SPA Ill MITIGATION ..MND MONITORING PROGRAM (Continued) Mitigafio~ Responsible for Reaponsiblc for Date of Complete,Da Ta~k Tim~ Frying T~k Verification Comvletion and Vq:rili.~ Re, cord a conservation ease- Grading Permit Applicant Chula VLqta Depart- mcat with an agency of ap- ' mcat of plan~;,~g propriate jurisdiction over the ~ off-site mitigation area if ownership of thc mitigation sit,- doea eot transfer prior to issuance of a gxa,~i-g permit. I~nplemen/~arcatchcr mirage- TM Applicant Chula VLsIa D~part- Uoa program, mcat O[ ^cqul~c and preserve 0.4 Grading Permit Applicant ChulaV',qa Depart- acr~ of vernal ~ a.saociat.ed mcat of pl,~n;ng lands that is acceptable to thc City of Chula Vista and thc USFW$. Prepare and implement ~ Grading Permit Applicant/Biological Chula V'mta Depart- pool reatoration plan if miti- Consultant mcat of planning gation site requires r~tora- tiaa. Proh~it grading ha RDR SPA Grading Permit Applicant Chula VLsta l~patI- ltl vernal pool area prior to me.m: of acr. omplinhlng the off-site acqulaition. Fence off vernal pool miti?. Grading Permit Applicant Chula V't~ta Depat~- tioa site with a six-foo( eh,~;., me~t of link fence ;,,,,,,cdiately upon acquisition of the site. Secure a U.S. Army Corpa ~ /~-D Applicant/Biological Chula Vista EMpart- Nationwide pcnniL "" Consultant mc~ of plann;,,g Dcdicatc thc off-site acquiai- Grading Permit Applicant C~ula V'~,ta Depart. tion/mitigatioa vernal pool mcat of site to thc appropriate public agcncy. ImptemeaU vernal ~ mifiga- ailai!~(.~ ~ Applicant/Biological (2hula V'ma Dep~rt- tion program. Comultant meal of Secure a Streambed Altera. Grading Permit Applicant/Biological Chula VL.qa Depart- rion Agrccmcnt a.s stated Consultant mcnt of planning under Section 1602-1603 of the California Fish and Game Code, for proposed road (Pa..~o Ranclicro). C'- P..ANCHO DEL REY SPA MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGR. AM (Continued) Mitigation R~ponsible for Responsible for Date of Complete, Date T~k Tim~ Fr~m~ Tilsk Verification Comnletion and Verifie~ BioloL,:v (CQntinued'} Desig~ and [mplemeat moM- F'mal Map Applicant/Biological Chula Vista Depart- taring program to determine Consultant meat O{ plannln~.. thc effect of thc SPA III development on the popula- tion of Ca. iiforula gnat- catchers. Dealgn and incorporate Final Map Applicant/Biological Chula V'uta Depot. projc~-widc rev~afion plan Consultant mcat of pla,~.;.g that includes a transplant program for cacti and a five yeal' rna;ntenanc~ and moulto- ring plan. Acquire and pre~n,c an arco TM Applicant/Biological C-'hula Vista Depart- of coastal sage scrub habitat Consultimt mcat of planning to redur'' impacts to thc t~al[forula 53~ar~tchcr accord- hag to conditions established in thc SPA III ELR. Evaluate mitigation site for TM Applicant/Biological Cliula Vista Depart- u.~ by Calit'orma gnatcatchcr. Cons. ltant meat of Approve gnatcatcher mitiga- TM Chula Vista Chula Vi.sro Depart- Depart- tiaa site. meal of pb,..;.g, meat of USFW$, CDFG In.sure that ~atcatch= mkiga- TM Applkant/Biologlcal Chula V'ma Depart- tiaa site is within, adjacent to Consultant meat of or cannoned by an appro- priate land.w, ape corridor to a larger area or intercooncc- texl act of patches of habitat that arc curreatiy ia public owocrahip or de4gaatcd op~n space or re. asonably expected to remain i~ a natural state. Thc habitat would be 800- 1,000 ac~es. ProMbit grading activities ~ Applicant/Biological Chula V'~ta Depart- which would adversely affect Consultant of men( the habitat of the ~pe~ialty hou,,i. $ area. Dedicate off-site aequisition/ Grading Permit Applicant Chula Vista Depart. mitlgatio- site to the respou- meat of aihle public agency. RANCHO DEL REY SPA 111 MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAM (Continued) Mitigation Responsible for Responsible for Date of Complete, Dated Task Time Frame T~k V~ fi flc. il[ignComt~letion and Air Qualltv (Continued'~ Implement mitigation mca- TM Appli~nt Ch~ V~ Dep~- s~ to r~u~ ~tcn~ for ment Of planning ak ~ufioa 'hot s~' at ~terscctiom. A~er~ to re~mmen~fion TM Ch~ V~ta Dep~- ~ V~ Dep~- made by ~e 1982 SIP reg~d- meat of planning mc~t of ~g 1~ p~idpatioa ~ ~ erosion redu~on ~d the fo~h~m~g San Diego ~ O~ PI~. Monitor grading to reduce Grading Permit Applicant/Biological Chula V'ma Depart- impact~ to co~tal sage scrub Consultant meat of planning habitat. Hand cl~ar t-rfc buffers that Grading Permit Applicant Claula V'ma Depart- encroach into open spac~ moot of Plan.lng Rev~getate open s@ac~ areas ~ Applicant/Biological Chuta V'mta I~part- and areas impacted by sewer ~.. i~ Consultant meal of planning lateral~ wi~ coa~al r~age ~ st:~ies native to the site. In~ure that biologi.~ has bede,. ~ Applicant Chula V'ma Depart- r,.~insrl to d~-sqs~ rc'.~etaliou meat of program and that a five-year re~getation pro.am has bee-. d.'~i~ed that is accep. table to C~ staff. Positio,. sewer taterals to C--r ," " Applicant/Biological ChulaV'maDcpasx- cau~ minimUm impacta to ~ p Coesuttaal meal of planning biological rcsourc~'~: Locate -a'a~ng areas for coo- ~ Applicant/Biological C-'hula V'ma Depart- sLruction tO minimiz~ impact$, Comsulta,.t me.~ of plannino.. tO seasidv~ biological re.sour- ~r p Stake sewer installation cot- ~ Applicam/Biologicat Chain Vista Depart- ridors prior to design finaliTa- Consultant meat of planning tion. Adjust comdors if requested by monitoring bio- k, gi~. RANCHO DEL REY SPA MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAM (Continued) Mitigation Responsible for R~ponsible for Date of Complet,",Dat Task 'Hm~: Fram{ Ta~;k Verification Comrfletion and Vq:rifi~ Geology and ~oil'5 (Continued) Insure that temporary slopes LD..a. Applicant/Geotech- Chula Wt..qa Depart- meet ~c minimum, require- ~,~-~ mc. al Consultant mcnt of menr~ of appLicable Health and Safety Codes. Insure that outer portion of - .'l~..' Applicant/Geotech- Chula V'tsta Depart- l-ill slop~ arc composext of ~..? uical Consultant mcnt of Eaginecrmg compacted granual soll fill. Bring site to finai sub~rade ~ Applicant/Geotech- C..hula Vhta Depart- elevations with struclurul ~ ~_.' ~ nical Consultant ment of !~n~,,e~g compacted i~ layers. Monitor for pre..senc~ of ~ ~ ? Applicaat/G~otech- Chula Vi.sea Depart- groundwater, ulcal Consultnnt ment of Engineer/n{ Remove alluvial/colluvlal ~,~ p Applicant/G~otech- Chula V'mta Depan- depo~.s in the canyons ad- ulcal Consultant ment of ~n~n,-~rlng jac~nt to the proposed toes of t-gl slopes. Uncle. rail portion of tr~nOion at=M--~.+~ Applicant/Geole~:h- Chula V[.~.a settlements a minim~ll O{ niC~ Consultaat mcntofl~n~ thrr~ feet and replace by low ~a.~i~ ~anual soLIs. Grade site to allow soils ~1'~ Applicant/Oeoie~.h- C~uhV'~D~pan- withi~ three fe~t of fi.ich ' Mc. al Consultant meat grade to po¢se.&s an expansion illdex of le.~ than Include the design and con- '~aM--~,. ~ Applicant/Gcoiex. h. Chula V'~j Depart- strua~n rccom~cncia6ona oa ulcai Constdtant meat of the 6aal gradln~ and founda- tion plans. Review ['u~d grading plans. Grading Permit Applicam/Gcotcc. h- Chula V'ma Depart- ulcal Consultant mcnt of Monitor on-site grading to ~ Applicant/Geoiech- C~ul~ V'tsia Depart- conftrm soil conditions a.s ~'~ ~ical Consultant merit original, ring anticipated. Provide tenting and obsorva- Building Permit Applicant/Gco~cch- Chula V'uta Dcpan- tion report to verdy that ulcal Consultant ment ofEaginccriag design and construction reco- mmendations are completeA according to grading plan,: RANCHO DEL REY SPA III MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAM Mitigation Re~poaaible for R~pormibte for Date of Complete,Date Task Time Fram~ Task Verification Comeletion and Geolo~,v and Soils Approve and evaluate fill Tentative Map(TM) Applicant/GeraecA~- ChulaV'~ta Depart- material at lea~ two days Meal Con~uJta~t meet of prior to fill importation. Evaluate cut and fdi dopes TM Applicant/Geo{ec.h- Chu.la V'uta Depart- for coaformanc~ with apo:ific- Meal Comsultaat meet of Eag~eering ation~ ~tabKshed by geotech- Mai report. Analyxi~ a.~d evalttafion of ~ -, /~-GX~Applieam/Geotex. h- Claula V'~ta Depart- appr°priatel°~ati°e°fstabil-(~a..O~"~ ~"~-t"~"T~-*~'%/lfieal Comultant meat of Engineering izafioe In.~tall subdra;nq at the bas~ ~ Applieaat/Geotex. h. Chain Vista Depart- of fills in eanyon~ and draws Meal Consultant meat of Engineering or over area~ of potential ~. ~ seepage. Determine location~ duging grading. Conduct ~'ading in ancot- .'~..~ Applieant/G~otex. h- Chula V'k~lta Depart- danc~ with City of Chula Vista Grad;nE Regulation. ~- ~:~ Ma. al Con.'mltant meet of Engineering Adhere to ,miform build;nE -q:M-(~..t~ Applie. aat/Geo(eeh. Chain V',~ta Depart- code for con~t~uetiom M~I Consultant m~nt of Design foundatiom% slabs, TM Applieam/G¢oleeJa. Chain V'~,a Depart- fao'in?, slid retaining ~ in f' M--, meet oe tiona ideatifie, d by geoteelmi- . · cai report. Review and approve final -q~ Applieant/Geoteeho Chain Vig. a Depart- grading and foundatioe plan, ~'~ *' $"~ nlcal Conaultant meat of Engi~egring for the project ait¢. Plae~ bentonitic clay~ u.~ed a.~ ~ Applicant/Gem:ex.h- Chain V'ma Depart- fill material a minlmtllll of 10 feel: below finished grade and ~' ~ Me. al Con.~ultant m~ of 1~ f~t in~ide fdl slopes. Pla~ oepan~,,~ soils correctly. ~ Applieaat/Geoteeh- Chula '~t.qa Depart- Meal Consultant meet of F~neering Mov~ Fill not removed by TM .~::> Applicant/G~eeh- Chain Vi~a Depart- planned grading ol~ratio~ to Meal Consultant meat of Engineering fh'm natural ground. ATTACHMENT NO. 5 ~cDoNALD, HECHT ~c SOLBEI~G ..... c~ocE S-~E~E~ September 21, 1990 VIA TELECOPIERfU.S. MAIL Mr. Craig Fukuyama McMillin Communities 2727 Hoover Avenue National City, California 92050 Re: McMillin/Rancho Del Rey/Draft Environmental Impact Report for SPA III Dear Craig, You requested that we review and provide our comments to the above referenced Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for SPA III. You provided for our review the EIR. Subsequent to receipt of the document and our initial review, we discussed this matter with you and Betty Dehoney of P&D Technolo- gies. During our telephone conversations, we indicated a concern that the EIR does not consider the impact that the proposed amendment of the Specific Plan will have previous development entitlements. We suggest that written comment be provided to the City which questions if the change in the level of service standard of the Specific Plan necessitates any reconsideration or further environmental analysis for projects which have already been approved within SPA I and SPA II. Pursuant to our telephone conversation with Ms. Dehoney, she indicated that in her opinion, the EIR is adequate as it relates to the level of service issue and that no further environmental review is necessaD'. We will be more comfortable with Ms. Dehoney's opinion if the response to the written comments specifically address this issue and that it is adequate to meet the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Our second area of concern relates to specific provisions of the text. Specifically, on Page S-12 (Table S-2) under the "transportation" issue, in the columns designated "alternative design 1" and "alternative design 2", the following sentence occurs: "No full length General Plan of East "J" Street would occur." We are unable to determine the intent or meaning of the above referenced sentence. Mr. Craig Fukuyama September 21, 1990 Page 2 The EIR discusses grading for SPA III in several different locations. Specifically, on Page 4-4 under "impacts" a reference is made to "conventional mass grading techniques involving the cutting of ridge tops and filling of canyons". We suggest that a comment to the draft EIR be submitted to soften the references throughout the document to the mass grading of the site (See also Page 4-14). We hope this information is of assistance to you in preparing your response to the draft EIR. Should you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely yours, Charles R. Gill McDONALD, HECHT & SOLBERG CRG/mq {f~- ATYACHMENT NO. 6 GEOCON Geotechnicai Er~grneecs and Engineering Geologists File No. 04228-03-01 September 21, 1990 McMillln Communities Incorporated 2727 Hoover Avenue National City, California 92050 Attention: Mr. Craig Fukuyama Subject: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) SPA III SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA MODIFICATION TO PAGE 4-5 Gentlemen: In accordance with your request, we have reviewed the geology and soi/s section of the draft EIR and suggest that the Geologic Hazards section page 4-5 be changed as follows: Geolo~ o Based on the findings of the Geocon report (dated March 8, 1989) the branch of the La Naclon Fault present on the site dies out in a series of small folds on adjacent property to the north. In addition, the fault does not displace sediments of the Pleistocene Lindavista Formation. Therefore it is the opinion of the project geologist that the fault does not represent a significant seismic or ground rupture hazard to the development. However, the site could be subjected to moderate-to- severe groundshaking in the event of a major earthquake on more remote faults such as the Coronado Banks, Rose Canyon, or Elsinore Faults. If you have any questions, or ffwe may be of further service, please contact the undersigned at your convenience. Very truly yours, NCORPORATED Michael W. Hart CEG 706 MWH:slc 6960 Flanders Drive San Diego, CA 92121-2974 619 558-6900 FAX 619 558-6159 " United States Department of the Interior · FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE FISH AND WILDLIFE ENHANCEMENT SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA FIELD STATION Laguna Niguel Office Federal Building, 24000 Avila Road Laguna Niguel, California 92656 October 1, 1990 Barbara Reid City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Ave Chula Vista, California 92010 Re: Rancho Del Rey Spa-3, Chula Vista, California Dear Ms. Reid: In May of 1990 the City of Chula Vista (City) requested that the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) review the document titled Preliminary Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Rancho Del Rey Sectional Planning Area (Spa) III Plan, City of Chula Vista, San Diego County, California. At the Lime of r~view the Service expressed concerns to the City regarding the impact of the project on biological resources, particularly long term adverse affects to coastal sage scrub habitat, vernal pools and the California gnatcatcher (~oliop~il~ ~allforni¢~). As you know, the Service has the legal responsibility for the welfare of all migratory birds, anadromous fish and endangered animals and plants occurring in the United States. The pro3ec~ as proposed will result in the direct loss of 256 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub and the degradation of the remaining habitat due to indirect impacts resulting from adjacent dlst~rbances. Coastal sage Scrt~b is a declining habitat type in San Diego County. It is estimated that Over 70% of the original acreage of this habitat in the County has been destroyed. Several candidabe species for listinD as endangered are dependent upon coastal sago scrub habitat including the California gnatcatcher. Forty-six individuals consisting of nine pairs of this sensitive bird were detected on-site. The large scale destruction cf coastal sage scrub in southern California has had a corresponding impact on the California gnatcatcher. In 1980, only 1,000 to 1,300 pairs of this species were estimated to occur in southern California, with ]ess than 400 occurring in San Diego County. G~ver~ the rate of development that has occurred since that estimate was made, in coastal areas a greatly reduced number of California gnatcatchers probably remain. The California gnatcatcher has been extirpated from Ventura and San Bernardino Counties. Remaining concentrations Ms. Barbara Reid 2 of this species in the United States reside in Orange, Riverside and San Diego Counties. A second sensitive species of concern to the Service is the coastal cactus wren (gamD¥1orhynchus ~ san~iegensis). 0nly 230 pairs Of this rare bird remain in San Diego County. Cactus wren nests were located on-site within cactus thickets. The Service would like to emphasize our increasing concern with the cumulative impacts of development projects on coastal sage scrub habitat. The Service strongly urges the City of Chula Vista and other local jurisdictional agencies to plan for its preservation, protection of remaining Coastal sage scrub habitat of sufficient size and quality can help preserve existing populations of sensitive species. Subsequent site inspections and meetings with the project proponent, McMillin Communities, Inc. and the City of Chula Vista have resulted in the development of additional mitigation measures. These measures are described in the document titled "Additional Mitigation Measures for Rancho Del Rey Spa-3" dated July 17, 1990 (enclosed). The Service believes these mitigation measures represent an appropriate approach to avoiding or mitigating the impact of the subject project on sensitive resources including coastal sage Scrub habitat, vernal pools and the California gnatcatcher. We appreciate the cooperation that the Servic~ has received from th~ City of Chula Vista and McMillin Communities, Inc. and we commend you for your efforts in the protection of biological resources. If we can be of any further assistance or if you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Nancy Gilbert of this office at (714) 643-4270. Sincerely, Brooks Harper Office Supervisor cc: CDFG, Long Beach, CA CDFG, San Diego, CA (Attn: T. Stewart) McMillin Company, Inc., National City, CA (Attn: C. Fukuyama) County of San Diego, CA (Attn: County Parks, Ann Ras~) Enclosure 1-6-90-TA-508 ADDITIONAL I',,{rI/GA~ON MEASURES i~OR RANCHO DEL P,.EY SPA-3 3uly 17, 1990 oI~nor.,to the .is. su~ce o.f a gr,dlng., permit wh!ch would disturb coastal sage scrub me specialty nousmg ama o~ SPA-3 ('F~gur;e. 1), the .applicant shall acquire and preserve, an area of coastal sage scrub habitat as d~scrib~i in one of thc following opuons: 1. Acquire and preserve an off-site ama of coastal sage sm-ub habitat encompassing at least 187 acres which supports at least 17 pairs of California gnatcatch~r, or 2. Acquire and preserve an off-site area of coastal sage scrub habitat ~ncompassing at least 256 acres which supports 10 pairs of California gnatcateher, or 3. If an off-sim mitigation ama cannot be found, shall preserve the 70 acres of coasm.I sage scrub habitat in thc Specialty Housing Ama 'on- site in a~klition to. the 117 acres of cbastal sage scab habitat proposed for open space as d~scribed in the Rancho Del Key SPA-3 This mitigation is to satisfy the take mad replacement for ail of SPA-3, not just for the .spcci.fl. ty. housing ama, The proposed mitiga~on site can be outside the c2ty limits, however, first priority shall be given, to the acquisidon of areas with the General Plan ar~a, and then to other areas within San Diego County. The preservation of this site is the responsibility of either a public or ,privat~ entity that is satisfactory to the City of Chula Vista ~.,-~, ~.o. r2sn an~. wlla. u.to ~ervice, county of San Diego, Cxty of Chula Visa). ~eterim .responsib, ility for .preservation of the mitigation site shall ~m~i, with project app.licant, until an acceptable public or private entity ts secured. The proposed rmtigauon site must be .a. ceeptable to the City of Chula Vista, La c,..onsulmnon with .the U.S. Fish and Wil ~d!L'% Service (USFW$) anti the California ~epartment of F~sh and Game (CDFG) in evaluating the she. The criteria for ~et.e. rmin. ing the acceptability of the mitigation site will be (1) its use by the t:anforma gnatcatcher, and (2) ~ts long-term conservauon potenual. The mitigation site will be evaluated for use by California Snatcatcher through surveys of the site on a minimum of three days at least a week apart If no gnatcatchers are heard after the fi-st visit, tapes of gnatcatchers will be used. A minimum of one hour should be expended for each 25 a~es of habitat surveyed. Surveys will be conducted in the morning between sunrise and 11:00 am., or after 3:00 p.m. Surveys should be conducted when air temperatures between 55 and 9.~ d~lvees Fahrenheit, and winds ar~ below 15 miles per hour. The mitigation sit~' should be within, adjacent to, or connected by ,~ approp- riate landscape corridor to a larger area or intercormected set of patches' of habitat that are currently in public ownership or designated open space or City Planning Commission' Agenda Item for Meeting of October 10, 1990 Page 1 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report~ EIR-89-10 Rancho Del Rev Sectional Planninq Are, ~.SPAI III Plan A. BACKGROUND The document which this staff report refers to is a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) which addresses the proposed Rancho Del Rey Supplemental Planning Area (SPA) III project. This SEIR should be read in conjunction with the previously prepared Final EIR (EIR-83-2). The document which this report refers to covers effects on the environment which are specific to the SPA III project and those that were not previously addressed as significant effects in the master EIR. 8. RECOMMENDATION Conduct the public hearing on the Draft EIR-89-10, close the hearing and give staff and ERCE direction for the preparation of the final EIR to be considered on November 14, 1990. C. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Rancho Del Rey SPA III is located in the City of Chula Vista, east of 1-805, south of East "H" Street and north of Telegraph Canyon Road. The Rancho del Rey SPA III Plan proposed the construction of 1,380 single-family dwelling units (DU) ranging in density from 3.8 to 10.6 DU/ac on eight residential parcels on approximately 206 acres. Included among the planned dwelling units are 583 DU~s of specialty housing on approximately 85 acres for a retirement community which will be composed of detached and attached housing. In addition, a junior high school site totaling 24.7 acres; a neighborhood park totaling 10.0 acres; two acres of community facilities; eight open space areas totaling 147.6 acres; and major circulation routes totaling 13.7 acres are proposed. This proposed project is the third and final phase of development of the E1 Rancho Del Rey Specific Plan. The first and second phase of the project, SPA I and SPA II are currently under construction. The SPA III Plan is in conformance with the overall specific plan. Included within the provisions of the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan is a mechanism to transfer density from one category to another as a part of the SPA Plan approval process. The density transfer will involve the transfer of 171 residential units within the SDA III project area. The approval of SPA III will include the SPA III Plan, a tentative map, a Public Facilities Financing Plan, Design Guidelines, a Development City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of October 10, 1990 Page 2 Agreement, and a Specific Plan Amendment for density transfers and park acreage additions. The closure of a portion of East J Street will require a Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment. D. IMPACT ANALYSIS The environmental analysis performed for the proposed project includes the following issues: geology/soils, drainage/groundwater/water quality, landform/aesthetics, air quality, biology, cultural resources, transportation/access, land use/general plan/zoning, community social factors, community tax structure, parks/recreation/open space and public services. The EIR includes an analysis of project conformance with the City's Threshold Policy standards for fire, police, sewer, water, parks/recreation and drainage. All of the threshold standards are met. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Geoloq¥/Soils Development of the proposed project will involve grading of ridge-tops and filling of side canyons and side slopes. Soils such as the San Diego Formation are susceptible to erosion. Although the La Nacion Fault traces cross the western portion of the site, they are not active. The geotechnical report identifies detailed grading and earthwork recommendations. The geotechnical consultant would monitor grading to confirm that field conditions are consistent with the conditions predicated by the preliminary investigations. Drainaqe/Groundwater/Water Quality The proposed project will result in additional impervious surface area which will increase surface water runoff rates. Development of the site will result in a change in the type and amount of contaminants contained in surface runoff. This represents a cumulative impact to local water quality. Existing drainage facilities are sufficient to handle runoff from the project and no mitigation or monitoring is necessary. Potential impacts to groundwater/water quality would be reduced to below a level-of significance through adherence to the regulations of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for stormwater discharge. [andform/Aesthetirs Development of SPA III would significantly alter landforms on-site and create up to 50-foot manufactured slopes which are considered significant landform and visual impacts. Grading would primarily be confined to the ridge-top areas, with the major canyon areas retained as open space. The degree of visual alteration is consistent with what was anticipated when the specific plan was approved. Grading associated with the project will be in conformance with the general grading slope bank standards set forth City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of October 10, 1990 Page 3 in the SPA III Plan. Implementation of the community design guidelines would partially reduce significant impacts. They include landscaping, fencing, design, community signing, lighting and parking design/street furniture. Air Quality The development of the proposed project would result in increased traffic on new and existing roadways and additional air emissions, and would result in cumulative impacts to the San Diego Air Basin. The project will be in conformance with the forthcoming State Implementation Plan (SIP) which is based on Series VII population projections. Short-term emissions from construction activities would generate dust and diesel emissions resulting in short-term emissions impacts. Emissions from residential activity and from the Junior High school site including the use of paint, industrial strength cleaners, fumigation, barbecues and gasoline power lawnmowers are not considered significant on a project level, but would have cumulative impacts to regional air quality. To reduce potential impacts to air quality the use of mass transit and bicycles within the project would be facilitated, and recommended actions to prevent the development of pollution "hot spots" at intersections would be implemented. Bioloq¥ Implementation of Rancho del Rey SPA III as proposed would result in significant impacts to coastal sage scrub (on a local and regional basis), vernal pools, California gnatcatchers, cactus wren and snake cholla. Impacts to the coastal sage scrub community would also include losses of sensitive plants such as the San Diego barrel cactus and ashy-spike moss. In addition to the California gnatcatcher and cactus wren, impacts to the orange-throated whip-tail, the coast cholla, and the San Diego horned lizard may result. With implementation of the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures, significant impacts to biology would be reduced but not to below a level of significant. Mitigation measures include the following: a qualified biologist Ito monitor encroachment of open space fill slopes, revegetation of coastal sage scrub native specifies on manufactured slopes, transplant program for cactus, monitoring program for California gnatcatchers and acquisition of land for preservation of gnatcatcher and vernal pool off site habitat. Perhaps one of the most interesting and innovative aspects of this Draft SEIR is the City's mitigation measures for the protection of the gnatcatchers. The options are as follows: 1. That the developer acquire and preserve an off-site area of coastal sage scrub habitat encompassing at least 187 acres which supports at least 17 pairs of California gnatcatcher; or City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of October 10, 1990 Page 4 2. Acquire and preserve an off-site area of coastal sage scrub habitat encompassing at least 256 acres which supports 10 pairs of California gnatcatcher; or 3. If an off-site mitigation area cannot be found the project proponent shall preserve the 70 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat in the specialty Housing Area on-site in addition to the 177 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat proposed for open space as described in the Rancho Del Rey SPA III EIR. This mitigation is to satisfy the taking of species and replacement for all of SPA-III, not just for the specialty housing area. The proposed mitigation site can be outside the city limits, however, first priority shall be given to the acquisition of areas with the General Plan area, and then to other areas within San Diego County. The ongoing management of this site is the responsibility of either a public or private entity that is satisfactory to the City of Chula Vista (acceptable private entities could be Nature Conservancy, Sierra Club; acceptable public entities Bureau of Land Management, California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, County of San Diego, City of Chula Vista). Interim responsibility for management of the mitigation site shall remain with the project applicant until an acceptable public or private entity is secured. The proposed mitigation site must be acceptable to the City of Chula Vista, in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) in evaluating the site. The criteria for determining the acceptability of the mitigation site will be (1) its use by the California gnatcatcher, and (2) its long-term conservation potential. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has been part of the project team to develop this proposal for mitigation and is in full support and, as mentioned in their attached letter, there has been a mutually satisfying professional relationship between McMillan, U.S. Fish and Wildlife and the City of Chula Vista. Cultural Resources Two archaeological sites located on the SPA III property have been identified as significant cultural resource sites and contain evidence which can address the question of the presence of early man in San Diego. The development of the proposed project would significantly impact these sites. The implementation of an extensive mitigation and monitoring program would reduce impacts to the sites to below a level of significance. This program has been implemented and all documentation is on file with the appropriate entities. Transportation The Draft EIR states that the future traffic to be generated by Rancho del Rey III is 23,047 ADT. All intersections relevant to the project will operate at LOS C or better in the morning and afternoon peak hours City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of October 10, 1990 Page 5 under buildout conditions with the exception of the East H Street?Paseo del Rey intersection. This intersection will operate at a LOS D during the afternoon peak period but not for greater than two hours and thus would be within the limits of the City of Chula Vista~s Threshold Policies for traffic. Potentially significant impacts would be mitigated to below a level of significance with implementation of the proposed mitigation. It is important that Commissioners note that the traffic section in the EIR for long range cumulative impacts used the 1986 regional travel forecast data which was the most current information available at the time it was written. The methodology used for analyzing traffic impacts was supplied by the City Engineering Department. The most recent updated draft TPP used 1995 regional travel forecast data. The project EIR states the impacts can be mitigated. The draft TPP says there may be problems with traffic at a few intersections if SPA III moves forward prior to the construction of 125. In order to resolve these two seemingly different conclusions to the Planning Commission and Council, it was determined that the draft TPP shall be addressed in an addendum to the EIR. Ken Bankston of Bankston and Pine will be working with Hal Rosenberg and Willdan to further analyze the project in light of the 1995 data and to propose possible mitigation measures. If the conclusions in the EIR, using 1986 data and the Addendum (using 1995 data), are the same that is the traffic impacts can be mitigated - then there is no need for further circulation and review of the EIR document. If there are significant new impacts not addressed in the EIR, it will be necessary to circulate for public revision a supplemental Draft EIR. Land Use The Rancho del Rey SPA III Plan as proposed, is in conformance with the land use policies and plans of the City of Chula Vista, the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan, and with existing and proposed land uses in the vicinity of the project site. Development of SPA III would not result~n significant land use impacts and mitigation/monitoring is not necessary. Community Social Factors No potential adverse impacts regarding community social factors are associated with the development of the proposed plan. Impacts to population, housing and employment are consistent with the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan. No significant impacts would be associated with the proposed project; no mitigation or monitoring measures are necessary. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of October 10, 1990 Page 6 ~ommunit¥ Tax Structur~ Implementation of the proposed Rancho del Rey SPA III would result in a net fiscal benefit of approximately $64,800 annually to the City of Chula Vista; therefore no adverse impacts would result to the community tax structure. No mitigation or monitoring measures are required. Parks, Recreation and Open Spac~ As part of the proposed project, an lO.O-acre neighborhood park would be developed on-site. A large portion of the site (36%) would be dedicated as open space. Although the park does not meet the required acreage as set forth in the City's parkland ordinance, upon meeting the conditions established by the City, the project would not significantly impact Parks, Recreation and Open Space. As a condition of approval of the tentative map, City staff would ensure that conditions for the lO.O-acre park have been implemented. Public Services The 1989 Water Allocation Report distributed by OWD limits the amount of new dwelling units that can receive water in one year. The receipt by the City of Chula Vista of a service letter from the OWD regarding the proposed project would allow the project to meet the Threshold Standards related to water, and potential impacts would be reduced to below a level of significance. Due to the regional shortage of water, the project proponents would work with the City of Chula Vista to develop a project level "Water Conservation Program" to reduce water consumption. The development of on-site sewage facilities consistent with the 1986 sewer study would provide adequate infrastructure to accommodate project flows. The City of Chula Vista has a surplus of contract capacity in the METRO sewage system and no significant impacts are anticipated. SDG&E would provide utility services to the project site and there would be no impacts associated with the provision of utilities. The proposed project would be served by the Chula Vista Police Department. ~ Development of the project would significantly impact police protection; however, the addition of 4.6 police personnel would reduce impacts to below a level of significance. Emergency fire and medical protection would be supplied in compliance with the Threshold Policy and no significant impacts are anticipated. Both the Sweetwater Union High School District and the Chula Vista City School District are involved in the planning and construction of new facilities which would provide adequate facilities for the additional students generated by the project. Project related impacts to schools would be mitigated through the phased implementation of additional facilities in eastern £hula Vista. The two Mello Roos Community Facilities Districts, (Sweetwater Union High School District Community Facilities District No. 3 and the City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of October 10, 1990 Page 7 Chula Vista City Schools Facilities District No. 3) will provide tax moneys directly to the school districts for implementation of their long-range development plans. Three off-site alternatives are addressed in the EIR. One is in the City of San Diego, one alternative is in the City of Chula Vista, and one is in the County of San Diego. None of these are under the ownership of the project proponent. The alternative sites would be either environmentally preferred or have similar impacts. Responses to Draft EIR No comments were received from any City departments or State agencies. Comments were received from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and following non-governmental services; San Diego Biodiversity Project, Bankston/ Pine, Cinti & Associates, Recon, Project Design Consultants, McDonald Hecht and Solberg, and Geocon. WPC 8340P September 21, 1990 Planning Director, (Environmental Review Coordinator) City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista~ Ci. 92010 qE: l]iolo~ical Impacts Associated ~ith the Rancho Del R~y Planning. &rea 'Po '?hem it ~lay Concern, lfter reviewing the Draft Environmental Impact !report for the ])el {ey Planning irea~ t]te San Diego ~]iodiversity Project offers the follow, ina comments for your consideration. We found the contents of this biological report to be extremely incomplete concerning adequate mitigation for the numerous sensitive species and habitats found in the planning area. :~e would hope that the City of Chula 'gists takes the following comments seriously to ave|de conflicts further into the planning process. C O,~,~NTS: 1) We will begin with the difficult vernal pool issue. First~ the entire southern California region has been in the state of drought for close to four years now. ~fernal pools, difficult to find in wet years, are near impossible to find in dry years. The statement that"5'ormaly~ even in d~y years~ weeds and plants of the surrounding associations do not invade the is false. ~lany pools~ such as those in Poway and on Del Mar Mesa~ are invaded by species such as the spike moss and buckwheat. This is due to the e~xtreme dryness of the soil after such a long period of drought. One cannot assume a basin is not a vernal pool when these plants are found in the basin area. ~ soil hydration test~ (to locate aquatic insects ~nd plants in a controled environment), is something that must be required for all areas of mime-mound topography when the area might support vernal pools in wet years. A thorough survey of basins surrounding the single onsite vernal pool must be conducteJd during the wet season (J~nuary) in an effort to locate vernal pool plants: that ~nay be found without the pressence of water. Surveys of vernal pools in this area (M series) were undertal(en in 1979 and in 1986. ~'~llen Ilauder 'mrst be contacted to verify tile number of pools at this project site. A]so~ as part of a total vernal pool petition package~ the riversi(]e Fairy Sbrimp~ a fresh wa~er vernal pool shrimp, is now being considered for ~'~NI)kNGERED SPECIP~S status by the Federal Government. Soil hydration tests ~nust he taken to determine tile presence of this species. ('[iversi(!e ?airy 7hri~p }lave been found into ~;an Diego County). Contact ~!arie Si~novich at USD '!|elegy Department for more information on these tests. ~|itigation proposed for the loss of the single onsite verna! pool is not acceptable. ,k 4:1 miti!~ation ratio is the minimum acceptabl~ ratio for vernal pool replacement. (USF.?'~{ and San Diego !{iodiversity Project "~equirements) in alternative mitigation proposal for this project is in the works. ~ will include an acceptable vernal j~ool mitigation proposal. (Letter Con',inued...) 2) Because there is no such thing as an ENDANGE2ED habitat Act~ we will simply focus on the numerous sensitive species that depend on these habitats. The two ~nost sensitive habitats onsite~ besides the vernal pool(s) include Coastal Sage Scrub~ and the sub-habitat~ Coastal Sage Scrub Cactus Thicket. The Coastal 3age 3crub h~bitat onsibe is home to three increasingly rare species includin~ bhe Ca]iforni~ Gnat'catcher~ bhe San Diego llornefl l,izard, and the Orange Throated "fhiptail Lizard. Coastal ~a~e Scrub, in the most recent estimates~ has been reduced by 85~ in San Diego County. California Gna~catchers, due to their relience on this habitat~ have also been reduced population wise by at least the same ~ercent. In f;tct~ due to proposed developments, this bird could easily be extinct within seven years. The two reptile species, although l~cking studies, are probably also facing the same decline. The sub-habitat, Coastal Sage Scrub Cactus Thicket, is home to the recently described Cactus wren, Campylorhynchus brunneic~pillus ssp. sandiegensis. This is an ENDANGE~U~D sub-species, with no more than 4fl0 individuals remaining IN THE ~t'0qLD. The US~gS~ in connection with the California Gnatcatcher is considering the Cactus ~tren for ENDANG~ED species status. This species is simply glossed over in the EIR for this- project. This population of ~rens ~T '-0T BE I~CTED ~k' A~ ~AY. Buffer areas of at least one hundred yards ~st remain in place around all cactus patches with corridors of at least twenty yards~ide ~st connect these patches with offsite protected open space. The mitigation proposed in the EIb1 for the Cactus gren and its habitat (trans- plantation of c~c~us patches) is TOTALY UNACCEPTA~{LE. This ~ou}d eli,nina~e this population of ~.grens. Appropriate mitigation plans will be included as a part o6 the upcoming Al%ernabive }.ii~iga~ion Proposal. ~ge~ ~s well as the US~gS, will require no impacts to the onsifie ~)opulation of C~c~us ~qrens. In regards to ~he California Gnatcg~cher mitigation proposed by we feel ~he proposed gnatcatcher peserve is no~ big enough to gdequatly mitigate the onsi~e qnatcabcher loses, in alternative proposal will he included in our Alternative ~litigation Proposal. lmpacb~ to the onsite po~-u]a~ton of the ~wo reptile species will he mitigated by the Gn~catcher Preserves. 3~ After fihe purchase of the off-si~e C~lifornia Gna~ca~cher and vernal preserves, fihese properties will no~ be placed into tbe hands of the BLM for managmenb, this federal agency.is well noted foe i~s pathetic mis-m~n~gment of public lands. Any of ~he other sugqes~ed land m~nagmen~ ~genciies are gccepbable. 4) The qF{ mentioned Che presence of bwo st~e listed plant species~ however~ no detail wa~provided. '~bat are these species? (~'fe are assuming they are Acanthomintba ilicifolia and }~e~uizonia conjugens) ~Iow will imnacts to these species be miti~ated? 5~ llacl~ to the subject of the California qnatcatcber~ it is now thouzht that a p~ir of gnatcatcher~ re~u~ires at least 26 acres for a territo,-y. /E~2 for ",tare' '.oute 56 ........ ,,~st; ,1,~ck Uountain ~oad to [-15) ~b~s will h~ve an effect on the size of the proposed Gnatcatcber Preserve. 9£096 ~'D 'U~ln[ ~'6 I x°lt '0~I d ,,Cl.ts a. ?o.qt o%a. l San Diego Biodiversity Project P.O. Box 1944 Julla~ CA 92036 (I:etter Continued...) 6) Wetlands that are to be disturbed willneed to be mitigated on a 4:1 ratio as par~ of the ~,krmy Corps of Engineers permit process. The '¥~I~ will act as an advisor to the Army Corps; llasicaly~ tile Army Corps will only ~rant the permit if the USerS says its 0.I(. Thi.s process will have an effect on the rest of the sensitive species issues associated with this projecl. To conc]ude~ we hope that the City of ChuIa gistr~ will take these comment into account before grantin~ per,nits ?or this project. Our ppinion is taken seriously hy the US~¥S~ as we would hope the ease would be with the City of Chula ?ist~. *Tithin two weeks~ we will submit an Alternative '~iti~=~tion Proposal for this project with more detailed guidelines for the ~iti~ation of the many onsite sensitive species. In the :neantime~ please sub,it this letter to '~ECON for consideration. In the future, we would hope that the city of Chula ~fista hire the Consultants for all projects. This would allow an unbiased opiniom to be issued in regards to the actual i~acis of any project. At this point in time~ consulting firms ~re hasicaly in the pocl¢et of the company or individual that hires them. This is the cause of MAN5~ faulty biological sur~eys in San Diezo County and elswhere. The S~n Diego ~liodiversity Project requests a reply to these eorwnents within a week of their reciept. '~ha~k you for your time .... ~incerly~ David Ilogan~ San Diego lliodiversity Project Please feel free to call 755-7593 or 765-1965 for more inFor'nation. 'OPE ~dum to Supplemental EIR 86-4 is prepared in accordance with the tal Quality Act (CEQA) Guidel/nes §15164. The purpose of dendum to an EIR is to comply with CEQA in instances in which the EIR ires "minor technical changes or additions that do not raise important new issues about the project's significant effects on the environment," and where no factors are present that would require the preparation of either a subsequent or supplemental EIR (§ 15164, [a]). "An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the Final EIR" (§15164 [b]). "The decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the Final EIR prior to making a decision on the project" (§15164 [c]). This Addendum to Supplemental EIR 86-4 evaluates additional information on the proposed EastLake Greens 18-hole golf course, clubhouse, and associated facilities. These amenities were evaluated at lesser detail as part of the EastLake Greens Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan in the Supplemental EIR 86-4. The analysis of the additional information focuses on four issues: noise, light and glare, hazardous materials, and hydrology. B. BACKGROUND A Master EIR for all the EastLake development was completed in February 1982. The EIR prepared for EastLake I in January of 1985 reviewed 392.1 acres of the EastLake Greens project. Supplemental EIR 86-4 was prepared in June of 1989 to evaluate environmental effects specific to the EastLake Greens/Trails site. This addendum addresses further refinements to the golf course and' amenities included in the EastLake Greens SPA plan. C. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The EastLake Greens site lies within the Chula Vista city limits (Figure 1-I). The proposed EastLake Greens project is the second development phase and third resident/al neighborhood to be developed within the EastLake Planned Community; 1-1 II. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS A. NOISE 1. Existing Conditions The site is currently undeveloped and has no on-site noise sources. Otay Lakes Road is located approximately 3500 feet north of the site and does not conu-ibute to the noise environment. The City of Chula Vista through its noise control ordinance has developed sound level limits for various land uses. The maximum sound level permitted is a function of land use and time of day. The sound level is measured by an hourly Equivalent Sound Level (Leq) using the A-weighted scale at the boundary or at any point within the boundary of the receiving land use. Leq is the average sound level measured over a period of time. The City's maximum permitted exterior sound levels for environmental noise in residential areas are summarized in Table 2-1. Table 2-1 SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL SOUND LEVEL LIMITS Environmental Noise Receiving Land Use Noise Level (dBA _L~q_ ) Category 7:00 a.m.- 10:00 p.m. 10:00 p.m.-7:00 a.m. Single-family Residential 55 45 Multi-family Residential 60 50 2. Impacts The proposed project consists of a clubhouse, golf course driving range, and tennis courts with a 200-person seating area for spectators. A public address system will be utilized at the clubhouse to provide information to the patrons. The expected hours of operation for the clubhouse and driving range are from dawn to 2-1 10:00 p.m. The tennis courts will be open from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Maintenance activities will begin at dawn and include operations such as mowing, fertilizing, seeding, and repairs. Sensitive receptors include single-family residences that are planned to be built approximately 320 feet north of the clubhouse, 360 feet northwest of the driving range tees and 600 feet northwest of the tennis courts. Multi-family residences are planned for lots approximately 250 feet south of the tennis court spectator area. The primary sources of noise expected to be generated by the project are crowd noise, noise from the public address system, and noise from maintenance activities. Crowd noise will be generated primarily at the tennis court spectator area. Precise noise levels cannot be quantified at this time, but sound level measurements conducted at public sporting events and extrapolated to this project indicate that the sound level will range from an average of approximately 60 to 70 dBA Leq with a maximum sound level of 81 dBA at 50 feet from the source. The noise level will depend on the size of the audience and nature of the event. Crowd noise is not considered to be a significant impact to any residential land use. The speakers of the public address system at the clubhouse will be directed away from sensitive receptors. The system will provide for variable amplification and will be calibrated to below a nuisance level. The public address system will not exceed the City's noise standards and is not considered to be the source of a significant impact. Noise associated with golf course maintenance activities are primarily from power equipment such as lawn mowers and ~ractors. Noise generated from these sources may exceed 80 dBA at 50 feet from the some. Lawn mower and tractor noise may exceed the City's noise standards and be a significant impact if'ihe activity occurs in close proximity to a residence prior to 7:00 a.m. In general, early morning maintenance within 200 feet of residences will disturb sleep and generate complaints. 2-2 3. Mitigation Measures Noise from maintenance activities which use power equipment such as lawn mowers and tractors shall be mitigated by restricting the hours of use to after 7:00 a.m. for areas within 200 feet of any residential building. In addition, all power equipment shall be maintained in proper working order and be fitted with the required mufflers. 4. Analysis of Significance Noise generated by use of power equipment for golf course maintenance may create a significant impact if used within 200 feet of a residential building prior to 7:00 a.m. Mitigation of this impact can be achieved by restricting the hours of maintenance activity and keeping equipment in proper working order. 5. Mitigation Monitoring The operator shall maintain a maintenance complaint log which will identify the nature of the complaint, location of the complaint and the action taken to investigate the complaint and eliminate the nuisance. The complaint log shall be available to the City of Chula Vista on request. B. LIGHT AND GLARE The discussion on light and glare impacts from the driving range lighting system is based on a computer simulation and study conducted by Golf Lighting and Development of Jacksonville, Florida in March 1990. 1. Existing Conditions The site is currently undeveloped and has no on-site light sources. 2. Impacts The area surrounding the clubhouse will have security lights on 12-foot poles and small accent lights. The tennis courts will be lit with 18 foot poles. These light 2-3 I. INTRODUCTION A. PURPOSE AND SCOPE This Addendum to Supplemental EIR 86-4 is prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines §15164. The purpose of an addendum to an EIR is to comply with CEQA in instances in which the EIR requires "minor technical changes or additions that do not raise important new issues about the project's significant effects on the environment," and where no factors are present that would require the preparation of either a subsequent or supplemental E1R (§15164, Iai). "An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the Final EIR" (§15164 [b]). "The decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the Final EIR prior to making a decision on the project" (§ 15164 lc]). This Addendum to Supplemental EIR 86-4 evaluates additional information on the proposed EastLake Greens 18-hole golf course, clubhouse, and associated facilities. These amenities were evaluated at lesser detail as part of the EastLake Greens Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan in the Supplemental EIR 86-4. The analysis of the additional information focuses on four issues: noise, light and glare, hazardous materials, and hydrology. B. BACKGROUND A Master EIR for all the EastLake development was completed in February 1982. The EIR prepared for EastLake I in January of 1985 reviewed 392.1 acres of the EastLake Greens project. Supplemental EIR 86-4 was prepared in June of 1989 to evaluate environmental effects specific to the EastLake Greens/Trails site. This addendum addresses further refinements to the golf course an~ amenities included in the EastLake Greens SPA plan. C. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The EastLake Greens site lies within the Chula Vista city limits (Figure 1-1). The proposed EastLake Greens project is the second development phase and third residential neighborhood to be developed within the EastLake Planned Community; 1-1 ndido Rancho Sante Fe Poway~ Del La Jollla San I [] c~. Grove Chula Vista ~ I ~EASRAKE GREENS/TI~AILS_ Imperial Beach ~ O NO SCALE SOURCE: Ctnti & Associates, 1989 FIGURE ~:~ ERC Environmental and Energy Regional Location Map 1 ' 1 Services Co. 1-2 the first phase was approved by the City of Chula Vista in 1982. The EastLake Greens project includes a detailed Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan for the mixed use of 830.5 acres just south of the present EastLake I development in eastern Chula Vista (Figure 1-2). The golf course and associated facilities examined in this addendum are incorporated into the SPA plan (Figures 1-3 and 1-4). The golf course will consist of 18 golf holes, a driving range (with lights for night use), and a practice putting green. The course encompasses approximately 130 acres of grass lined with trees, 6 man-made lakes, and concrete paths for electric golf carts. The course will operate from dawn to dusk, except the driving range, which will remain open until 10:00 p.m. Irrigation of the course would mostly occur during non-use hours. Maintenance will occur during regular hours; maintenance staff will have an I-acre compound with a 5,000 square foot building (Figure 1-4). The proposed 16,000 square foot clubhouse will house a restaurant with terrace, bar, kitchen, pro-shop, offices, restrooms and golf cart storage. The clubhouse will operate from dawn to dusk except for occasional events in the evenings. Five tennis courts adjacent to the clubhouse will remain open until I0:00 p.m. 1-3  C,~lt y Park 15.1 131313 ....,... w.,,. ~ FEET FIGURE ~ERC F, nvironmentsl Site Utlll~tlon Plan .-~.~ 1-2 ~vic~ Co. 1-4 (Letter Continued...) 2) Uecause there is no such thing as an F, NDANGE,~ED habitat Act, we will simply focus on the numerous sensitive species that depend on these habitats. The two !host sensitive habitats onsite, besides the vernal pool(s) include Coastal Sage Scrub~ and the sub-habitat~ Coastal Sage Scrub Cactus Thicket. The Coastal Sage Scrub habitat onsite is home to three increasingly rare species including the California Gnat'catcher~ the San Diego IIorned l,izard~ and the Orange Throated '/hiptail Lizard. Coastal Sage Scrub~ in the most recent estimates~ has been reduced by 85~ in San Diego County. California Gna*catchers~ due to their relience on this habitat~ have also been reduced population wise by at least the same percent. In fact, due to proposed developments~ this bi~d could easily he extinct witbin seven years. The two reptile species~ although lacking studies~ are probably also facin~ the same decline. The sub-habitat~ Coastal Sage Scrub Cactus Thicket~ is home to the recently described Cactus wren~ Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus ssp. sandiegensis. This is an ENDANGE~U~D sub-species~ with no more th~n 400 individuals remaining IN THE WO2LD. The US~ in connection with the California Gnatcatcher is considering the Cactus ~ren for ENDANG~ED species status. This species is simply glossed over in the EI2 for this- project. This population of ~rens ~gT ~OT ~E I~iCT2D T~' A~ ~lY. Buffer areas of at least one handred yards mu~t remain in place around all cactus patches with corridors of at least twenty yardswide ~st connect these pa~ches with offsite protected open space. The mitigation proposed in the EIb{ for the Cactus ~ren and its habitat (trans- plantation of cactus patches) is TOTALY UNACCEPTABLE. This would eli~ninate this population of ~rens. Appropriate mitigation plans will be included as a part o6 the upcoming Alternative ~',[itigation Proposal. ~e~ as well as the will require no i~upacts to the onsite population of Cactus l~rens. In reKards to the California Gnateatcher mitigation proposed by we feel the proposed ~natcatcher reserve is not hig enough to ~dequatly mitigate the onsite Gnatcatcher loses. :kn alternative proposal will be included in our Alternative ~,litigation Proposal. lmpact~ to the onsite po,relation of the two reptile species will be mitigated by the Gnatcatcher Preserves. 3) After the purchase of the off-site Calil'ornia {}na~catcher and vernal pnol preserves~ these properties will not be placed into the hands of the [ILM for ~nanagment. this ~ederal agency :is l~ell noted foe its pathetic mis-managment of public lands. Any of t}le other suggested land managment aKenciies are acceptable. 4) The EIb{ mentioned the presence of two state listed plant species~ h~wever~ no detail was, pro~ided. ~hat are these species? ('~e are assuming they are icanthomintha ilicifolia and Hemizonia conjuKens) How will impacts to these specios be miti~ated? 5) ~acl~ to the subject of the California ~;natc~tcher~ it ia now thouffht that a p'tir of ~[natcatchers re,uires at least 2fi acres ['or a territory. (EI~I For 'irate ~oute 56 'last; ::lack ',lountain lord to ~-15) This will have an effect on the size ~i' the proposed Gnatcatcber ~'reserve. The.p.rojeu~. proponsn[ ~ ~t ~ ~v~-~,- -~ ....... '~ . ~qmsmo~u~a~on s~ ~ me C~ of Chula Vista, Co~ of S~ Di= o, ~ o~. approp~a~ open ~ hol~r at ~ ~ ~ , .......... g-. ~ ~e mect a E , P of ~c s~to sh~ ~c~ P ~ pp c~t ~ ~ a~ptablo ~cafion of ~ l~d h~ ADDITIONAL Miq/GATION M. EASURES NOR RANCHO DEL R.EY SPA-3 July 17, 1990 Prior :o the issuance of a D'ading permit which would disturb coastal sage scrub on the specia/ty housing ar~a of SPA-3 (Figure 1), the applicant shall acquire and preserve an area of coastal sage scrub habitat as described in one of thc following options: 1. Acquire and preserve an off-sim ar~a of zo~ta.! sage scrub he. bitat encompassing at least 187 acres wl~.ch supports at lezst 17 pairs of California gnatca~cher, or 2. Acquire and preserve an off-site ~rea of coastal sage scrub habitat encompassing at least 256 acres which suppor~s 10 pa~rs of California grlamatcher, or 3. If a.n off-sim mitigation area cannot be found, shy preserve the 70 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat in the Specialty Housing Area 'on- site in addition to. the 117 acres of c0asua sage scrub habitat proposed for open space as desoribed in the Rancho Del Roy SPA-3 EIR: This mitigation is to satisfy the take md replacement for ail of SPA-3, not just for the specialty housing area~ The proposed mitigation site ca.a be outside ~e city l~mits, however, ~st priority shall be given to the acquisition of a~eas with the General Plan ma, and then to other a~as San Diego Coun. ty. The preservation of this site is uae responsibility of a public or ,private entity that is satisfactory to the City of Chula Vista (acceptable private entities m: - Nature Consonant?, Sierr:~ Club; accoptable public entities. Bureau of ~ Management, Ca. ILfonua Dep~a~zaent of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildiffe Service, County of San Diego, City of Chula Vista). Interim .responsibility for.preservation of the mitigation site shrdl rem,in with the project applicant un~/l an acceptable public or private entity is secuxed. The proposed mitigation site must be .a. cc..e~table to the City of Chula ¥ista, in consulmnon with the U.S. Fish and WgclH.e Service (USFWS) and th~ Calfforn/a Deparu'nent of Fish and Game (CDFG) in evaluating the site, The c~tem for determining the acceptability of the mitigation site will be (t) ~s use by the Ca. liforrfi~ gnatcatcher, and (2) its long-term conservation pmenti~l. The mitigation site will be evaluated for use by Ca.iiforr~a ~nztca:cher through surveys of the sim on a m~nimum of tkree days at least a week apar~ It' no gnatcatchers are heazd afmr the fi-st visit, tapes of g'natcatchcrs w~ be used. A mir~mum of one hour should be expended 1bt each 25 a~es ef habitat ~urveyed. Surveys wilI be conducted in the morning between sun,se and 11:00 a.m., or after 3:00 p.m. Surveys should be c~nducted when air temperatures between 55 ~d 95 degrees Fahrenheit, axxd winc[s are below 15 miles per hour. The mitigation site should b~ within, ,~jacent to, ee connected by ,'tn riate landscapz corridor to a larger are~ or inte~:o,'mec~cd set of patches of habitat that ate c:xrn~ntly in pu~iic own~rshlp or designated eFea space or ~.~o, nab!y expected to rem.in in a natur*, in mis block or in* ............ ,=, ~u~u~.. lnc gnatcatcner habitat · ^^~ , t~"-'~'alr~c,u scl o! patches should be b~tw ~,ua.~ acres in area, This · · e~en 800 to ............. miflganon/replacement site can be locat~i outside me t.ary or ~nuia wsta, ~r necessary, but must be within San Diego County. No gradinl~ or activities which would adversely affect the ha , cialty housing area, other th~ ~- ......... - bitat on the e- ama on the northeast end adjacent *- "'-- -*~ ~? me ,gr, ,a~ng ot the disturbed the 70 acres of ~uali,~ ~....~ ,~_~usco ~anc. ne.r.o wmcn is not included in accomplishing the off-site ac~uisiti~'~."" ~,~c scruo naoltat, shall occur prior to The project proponen! will make an irrevocable offer to dedicate the off-site acqu~s~tion/mtngauon s~te to the City of Chula Vista, County of San Diego, or other, appropriate ot~n space holder at the t/me of issuance of the grading pen:mt. If ownership of the si~e does not transfer prior to the issuanc~ of a ~rading perrnit, th~ app.i/cant shall record a conservation easement with an agencf of appropriate junsdiefi, on over the off-site mitigation a,-ea (lSd or 256 acres) prior to issuance of thc p~rnnt. Prior to issuance of a grading pea'mit which woukl disturb the m~m~ mound area indicated on Figure l, ~he project proponent will acquire and preserve 0,4 of v~rnal pool-associated lands. The vernal pool acquisition area is not required m be in the City of Chela Vista. This mitigation area is equivalent to twice the vernal pool ~r~a (0.2 acre) lost as a resuit of grading on the proposed project area. The Pr0.P~.sed' vernal p.ool mitigation site ruust be acceptable m the City of Chula V~sta m conselt~uon with USFW$. The criter/a fo~ determining the acceptability of the mitigation site will be (1) the pres- ence of vernal pool habitat, and (2) its long-term conservation potential. The acquired :vernal ~ool mifl¢,a,';,~,, - . ,, ...... shaU be an area r~osnized by th~ .USFW$ as an area supporting pool habitat and it sh',dl bo a vernal .pool ama that ~s curre.nfly in private ownersMp .and not protecte~l by conserva~o - .. ~T~_e_ miogatio.n si!e can ,have e~/smug vernal-~ools oe~,,-~,~,, ~, ~,n _,~as.ements ~ an area mat is Mstoncaliv known ,^ ..... ~_ .._._-~-~-_-_;~ ~..., ,~ ~r it may re. stored (reconsmacted). If, an ama requiring restoration is chosen site, a.,vemal pool ,re~torauon l~lan shall be nmnm-ed ~,,,4 ;.~_~ ........ a.,s a.cceptanie to th:City of Churn Vista m con-.-''..'~ ...... is shall ~uutauun w'~ U8FWS. The site be adjacent to or ~rmected by an appropriate la.ndscap~ corridor to larger ar~a or intercormecte, d set of patch:s of preserved vernal peel habitat that are curre.nrly in designated open space. No grading or activities which would advers:ly affect the. habitat in the ve.nml pool area (FiDlm 1) sh~ occur prior to accomplisl~ag the oft-site acqmsi- tion. Imme. diat~ly upon acquisition of a suitable vernal ~ool mitigation area, the acquired site shall bg fenced with a six-foot clmin-hnk fenc2 t,o .iamt.ect the. area. Thc applicant will ~ r'xlui.red to secure a conclkioned Nataonw~d~ permit, to b= issued by thc U.S. An:ny Corps of Engineers (Section 404 of Clean Water Aca), that contains the conditions outlined in tiffs section co.ncerning vernal pools. This Corps permit shall be applied for and r,'ceived prior to grading. The p.roject vropon~nt will make an irrev^~-~,- -~- .... '. acquisil~on/rnkf~ation si~e ,^ *'-- ,~- ~* .~,,w.u.. o~r~r_ to cup,cate me an acceptable dedication of th~ land occurred. r~asonably expected to r~m~t,~ in a natural stat~. Thc gnatcatchor habitat within this block or interconnect~ set of patches should be betw~n 800 to ~00~. a.c~...s. ,in. area.. This mitigation/replacement sim can be located outsic~ c City o~ t:nma vista, if necessary, but must be within San Diego County. eN.o gradinl[ or activities which would adversely affect the habitat on thc spe- ~alty housing area, other, than the construction of sewer improvements (as shown on Figure 2), the extcnsmn of Pasco Ranchero, and thc grading o£ the disturbed ~ea ~o,,n thc northeast e.n.d adjacent to Pasco Ranchcro which is not inclu.ded in /u, acres of quality coastal sage scrub habitat, shall occ~ prior to accomplishing thc off-site acquisition. Tho. Fr.oject ~rol~onent. will make an irrevocable offer to dedicate the off-siu~ acqmsxuoa/miu, gauon s~te to thc Ci5, of Chula Vista, County of San Diego, or other, appropriate open space holder at the lime of issuance of' the grading permit. If ownership of thc si~e does not wansfer prior to thc issuance of a l~p'ading permit, ~o app.Lte..rrqt, shall record a .cons.e.r.v. afio, n easement with ail agency of appropriate junsdic~on over file off-site milagauon area (186 or 256 acres) prior to issuance of the permit. Prior to issuance of a grading .pe.,rmit which would disturb the mlr~ mound area indicated on _Fi,gum l: the p. ro ?t proponent will pre erv¢ 0,4 acres of vernal poo~assocuate~l~, lan~. Ti~e vernal pool acqtusition area is not required to be m the City of Chula Vista. Thls mitigation a.~a is equivalent to twice the vernal pool area (0.2 acre) lost as a rcsLth of grading on the proposed project ..~ca. The ~oposed vernal pool mitigation si~ must be acceptable to the City of Chula Vista in consultation with USFW$, The criterig for determining the a~ceptability of the mitigation ~ir~ u,~ll e,ce or pool habitat, and lo,g-term CO SlPqation ;ae '. (1) the pr s- i~F~qui~d 'vernal pool ,mitiga~o.n .,ama shal~, be an area r~cognized by the .as a.n area. Supl:ga, tmg ~.ool lin?tat and xt shall bo a vernal pool ama tha~ curr?.nuy. 111 pnvate o. wn~-smp, .ann not .pro~ected by cotlservation easemenLs. e rmugauon s~.te can ~av¢ ex,sung vernal pools occurring on it, or il; may bc an ama that is historically known to support vernal pools and that could bo ~stored (reconsu'uctcd). If, an ama requiring r~toration is chosen as the s~te, a vernal pool rcstoraoon plan ,shall. be prepared and. implemented that is aecepmble to the City of Chula V~sta m consultation vath USFW$. The site shall be adjaeen.t to or connected by ~n appropriate lan~cap~ con'i~or to ~ larger a~ea or mte~o~mect~ set o£ patches of pre,erred vernal pool habitat that are currently in designated open space. No grading or activities which would adversely affect the habitat in the vernal pool area (Figure l) shall occur prior to accomplislg, ng the off-site acquisi- tion. Immediately upon eacluisition of a suitable vernal pool mitigation area, the aequirr, d sit~ shall be £enc~ with a six-foot chain-link fence to protect the area. The applicant will be required to secure a conditioned Nationwide permit, to be issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Section 494 of the Clean Water Acs), that contains the conditions outlined in this section co. nceming vernal pools. This Corps permit shall be applied for and received prior to grading. ADDITIONAL MITIGATION MEASURES 1;OR RANCHO DEL REY SPA-3 July 17, 1990 Prior to the issuance of a yading., remit which would disturb coastal sage scr?b on the specialty housing ama o~ SPA-3 (Figure 1), the app. hcant shali acquire and preserve an area of coastal sage scrub habitat as dose-ri, bed in one of thc following op,lons: 1, Acquire and preserve an off-site ama of coastal sage scrub habitat encompassing at least 187 acres which supports at least 17 pairs of Callfomia gnatcar~-her, or" 2. Acquire and preserve an off-site area of coastal sag~ scrub habitat tmcompassing at least 256 ac-ms which supports 10 pairs of C.~li~omia gnatcatcher, or ....... 3. If an off-sim mitigation ama cannot be found, shall preserve the 70 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat in thc Specialty Housing Ama site in ackiition to. the 117 acres of c6astal sage scrub habitat proposed for open space as described in the Rancho Del Roy SPA-3 EIR: .This mitgarion is ,to satisfy, the take and replacement for ail of SPA-3, not just. for the spcc~.~.ty, housmg ama. The propos~ mitigation sim can be outs,de thc city lirmts, however, first priority shall be given to the acquisition of areas with the General Plan ama, and then to other ames wir~_i_n San .Diego Coun. ty, The preservation of this site is the ms'-'-n-i'-:'~. -~ a puoli¢ or rwivar~ enfl~',, ,u^, .._ · . _ Fv ~ u~u~j~ ~ .... r-- .. V u~ ~a sauszaetory to ~ .City of Chula Vista ~,,.~, ,, ~un~:_,."i__u~e~au.....o.~.,..Lan!:l' .Manalement, Califorma Department of Fish and .---.--, ,-,.,~. -~.r!....anu wuo. uze ~erv'l?e, count), of San Diego, City of Chula Yis~. .l{1. tenm .msponslb, ility for .preservation of the mifigatlon site shall r~r~.{,~ u,~ pro~ect applicant unK1 an acc~l~table ~ublic ~or nr~w,,. ,..,~, The proposed mitigation site must be .a.c~table to the City of Chula Vi,s, ta, Ln consultanon with tho U.S. Fish and Wfl ~d!i/e Service (USFWS) and the California ,Depam, n, .ent of Fish and ,Game (CDFO) in evaluating the ske, The criteria for ~¢t.e.~mun, mg the ,acceptabili,w' of the mitigation site will be (1) its use by the ~-amorma gnatcatcn~, and (2) ~ts long-term conservation potential, The mitigation site will be evaluated for use by California Snatcatchcr th.rough surveys of the site on a minimum of thru, days at least a w'~k apart. If no gnatcatehers are heard after the first ws~t, tapes of gnatcatchers will be used. A minimum of one hour should be expended for each 25 a~es of habitat lU~m. CYo~rr· _S~.urv?.s..,.will be. conducwxl, in the morning between sunrise and 11:00 be~- r~..axtcr.~ ,t~ p.m.r.~urv.eys. Should be conducted when air temperatures arc con ==ana ~;~ aegr,~es l-am'cnnett, and winds are below 15 miles per hour, The mitigation sito should be within, adjacent to, or connected by ,~u approp- riate landscapa corridor to a larg.e,r area or intercom~ectccl set of patches of habitat that am currently in public ownership or d~signated open space or Ms. Barbara Reid 2 of this species in the United States reside in Orange, Riverside and San Diego Counties. A second sensitive species of concern to the Service is the coastal cactus wren (~amm¥1orbYnchus ~_r_unneic~_p_~ sandiegensis). 0nly 230 pairs of this rare bird remain in San Diego County. Cactus wren nests were located on-site within cactus thickets. The Service would like to emphasize our ~ ncreasing concern with the cumulative impacts of development projects on coastal sage scrub habitat. The Service strongly urges the City of Chula Vista and other local jurisdictional agencies to plan for its Preservation, protection of remaining coastal sage scrub habitat of sufficient size and quality can help preserve existing populations of sensitive species. Subsequent site inspections and meetings with the project proponent, MCMillin Communities, Inc. and the City of Chula Vista have resulted in the development of additional mitigation measures. These measures are described in the document titled "Additional Mitigation Measures for Rancho Del Rey Spa-3" dated July 17, 1990 (enclosed). The Service believes these mitigation measures represent an appropriate approach to avoiding Or mitigating the impact of the subject project on sensitive resources including coastal sage scrub habitat, vernal pools and the California gnatcatcher. We appreciate the cooperation that the Servlc~ has received from the City of Chula vista and McMillin Communities, Inc. and we commend you for your efforts in the protection of biological resources. If we can be of any further assistance or if you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Nancy Gilbert of this office at (714) 643-4270. Sincerely, Brooks Harper Office Supervisor cc: CDFG, Long Beach, CA CDFG, San Diego, CA (Attn: T. Stewart) McMillin Company, Inc., National City, CA (Attn: C. Fukuyama) County of San Diego, CA (Attn: County Parks, Ann Rast) Enclosure 1-6-90-TA-508 " United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE FISH AND WILDLIFE ENHANCEMENT SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA FIELD STATION Laguna Niguel Office Federal Building, 24000 Avila Road Laguna Niguel, California 92656 October 1, 1990 Barbara Reid City of Chula Vista 276 FOurth Ave Chula Vista, California 92010 Re: Rancho De! Ray Spa-3, Chula Vista, California Dear Ms. Reid: In May of 1990 the City of Chula Vista (City) requested that the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) review the document titled Preliminary Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Rancho Del Ray Sectional Planning Area (Spa) III Plan, City of Chula Vista, San Diego County, California. At the time of review the Service expressed concerns to the City regarding the impact of the project on biological resources, particularly long term adverse affects to coastal sage sorub habitat, vernal pools and the California gnateatcher (PolioD~ila callforni¢0)' As you know, the Service has the legal responsibility for the welfare of all migratory birds, anadromous fish and endangered animals and plants occurring in the United States. The pro3ec< as proposed will result in th~ direct loss of 256 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub and the degradation of ~he remaining habitat due to indirect impacts resulting from adjacent disturbances. Coastal sage scrub is a declining habita< type in San Diego County. It is st~mated that over 70% of the original acreage of e ' this habitat ~n the County has been destroyed. Several candidate species for listing as endangered ar~ dependent upon coastal sage scrub habitat including ~he California gnatcatcher. Forty-six i ' nd~viduals consisting of nine pairs of this sensitive bird were detected on-site. The large scale destruction of coastal sage scrub in southern California has had a Corresponding impact on the California gnatcatchez. In 1980, only 1,000 to 1,500 pairs of this species were estimated to occur in southern California, with ]ess than 400 occurring in San Diego County. Glver~ the rate of Oevelopment that has occurred since tha~ estimate was made, in coastal area~ a greatly reduced number of California gnatcatchers probably remain. The Califo£nia gnatcatcher has been extirpated from Ventura and San Bernardino Counties. Remaining concentrations Mr. Craig Fukuyama September 21, 1990 Page 2 The EIR discusses grading for SPA III in several different locations. Specifically, on Page 4-4 under "impacts" a reference is made to "conventional mass grading techniques involv/ng the cutting of ridge tops and filling of canyons". We suggest that a comment to the draft EIR be submitted to soften the references throughout the document to the mass grading of the site (See also Page 4-14). We hope this information is of assistance to you in preparing your response to the draft EIR. Should you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely yours, Charles R. Gill McDONALD, HECHT & SOLBERG CRG/mq GEOCON AT]~ACHMENT NO.'6 File No. 04228-03-01 September 21, 1990 McMillin Communities Incorporated 2727 Hoover Avenue National City, California 92050 Attention: Mr. Craig Fukuyama Subject: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) SPA III SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA MODIFICATION TO PAGE 4-5 Gentlemen: In accordance with your request, we have reviewed the geology and soils section of the draft EIR and suggest that the Geologic Hazards section page 4-5 be changed as follows: Geologic Hazards o Based on the findings of the Geocon report (dated March 8, 1989) the branch of the La Nacion Fault present on the site dies out in a series of small folds on adjacent property to the north. In addition, the fault does not displace sediments of the Plelstocene Lindavlsta Formation. · Therefore it is the opinion of the project geologist that the fault does not represent a significant seismic or ground rupture hazard to the development. However, the site could be subjected to moderate-to- severe groundshaklng in the event of a major earthquake on more remote faults such as the Coronado Banks, Rose Canyon, or Elsinore Faults. If you have any questions, or ffwe may be of further service, please contact the undersigned at your convenience. Very truly yours, ~' NCORPORATED Michael W. Hart CEG 706 MWH:slc 6960 Flanders Drive San Diego, CA 92121-2974 619 558-6900 FAX 619 558-6159 RANCHO DEL REY SPA III MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAM Mitigation Re~poruible for R~mible for Date of Complete,Date Task ~ ~ V tiff i n m [ i n nd V riff Geolo~ and Soil~ Approve ~d e~uate f~ Teua~veMap~ Appfi~nt/G~. Ch~ ~ta Dep~- mat¢~ at le~ ~o ~ ~ Co~t~t meat of~g prior to ~ Ev~uate cut ~d ~ flo~ ~ Appli~nt/G~. Ch~ ~u~ Dep~- for ~om~ ~ s~c- ~ ~t~t mcat of atio~ ~b~hed by ~ ~d eviction of ~ ~ /~ppli~/G~t~. ~ ~ta Dep~- approp~t~ l~fion ofs~b~- ~,~a ~ y~ tT~M~ ~t meat of l~t~ sub&a;.~ at the b~ ~ App~nt/G~t~- Ch~ ~ Dep~- of ~ M ~ ~d ~a~ M~ ~t~t mcat of En~ or over ~ of ~tenfi~ ~ seeped. Dete~ l~fiom d~g ~ndu~ ~a~g ~ a~r- ~.~ Appli~m/G~t~- ~ ~ma V~ Gradin~ A~er~ to ~orm b~ ~ Appli~t/G~. ~ Wu~ Dep~- ~e for ~m~oa. M~ ~t m~ of D~ fo~fio~ s~ ~ Appli~t/G~. ~ ~ De~- f~in~, ~d rerainlng ~ Uo~ id~n~ by g~t~- , , R~ew ~d approve f~ ~a~ ~d fo=~fion ph.~ p ~ ~p Appa~t/G~t~- Chm <~ Depm- Mr ~e proj~ site. M~ ~t~t mere of P~ ~ntoMfic ~ ~ m ~ App~/G~- ~ ~ma De~- ~ mate~ a mlnlm~ Of 10 f~ ~Iow ~nished ~ade ~d ~ ~ M~ ~t m~ of ~ ~ f~ ~de C~ slo~ P~ ~ ~ ~' ~ Appli~nt/G~. Ch~ ~a M~ ~ult~t meat of Mo~ fffi a~ remov~ by ~.i-~ Appli~nt/G~e~. ~aWmaDe~- planned ~a~ o~ratio~ to ni~ ~ult~t meat of [~m natm~ ~ouad. ATrACHMENT NO. ~ ~ ~ ~o~o. McDo~V~LD, HECHT & SOLBERo ..... c~ocE ~ September 21, 1990 VIA TELECOPIER~.S. M~L Mr. Craig Fukuyama McMillin Communities 2727 Hoover Avenue National Ci~, California 92050 Re: McMillin/Rancho Del Rev~ft Environmental Impact Repo~ for SPA Dear Craig, You requested ~hat we review and provide our comments to the above referenced Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for SPA III. You provided for our renew the EIR. Subsequent to receipt of the document and our initial review, we discussed this matter ~th you and Bet~ Dehoney of P&D Technolo- gies. During our telephone conversations, we indicated a concern that the EIR does not consider the impact that the proposed amendment of the Specific Plan will have pre~ous development entitlements. We suggest that written comment be prodded to the Ci~ which questions if the change in the level of se~ice standard of the Specific Plan necessitates any reconsideration or further en~romental analysis for projects w~ch have a~eady been approved ~t~ SPA I and SPA II. Pursuant to our telephone conversation ~th Ms. Dehoney, she ~dicated that in her opinion, the EIR is adequate as it relates to the level of so,ce issue and that no ~nher en~omental renew is necessa~. We ~1 be more co~o~able ~th Ms. Dehoney's opinion if the response to the ~itten comments specifically address this issue and that it is adequate to meet the requirements of the California En~ronmental Quali~ Act. Our second area of conce~ relates to spec~c pro~sions of the te~. Specifica~y, on Page S-12 (Table S-2) under the "transportation" issue, ~ the colums designated "alte~ative design 1" and "alternative design 2", the follo~ng sentence occurs: "No full length General Plan of East "J" Street would occur." We are unable to determine the intent or meaning of the above referenced sentence. ATFACHMENTS Attachment No. 1: Bankston/Pine letter dated September 20, 1990 Attachment No. 2: Cinti and Associates letter dated September 26, 1990 Attachment No. 3: RECON letter dated September 24, 1990 Attachment No. 4: Project Design Consultants letter dated September 25, 1990 Attachment No. 5: McDonald, Hecht and Solberg letter dated September 21, 1990 Attachment No. 6: GEOCON letter dated September 21, 1990 Bankston/Pine Associates, Inc. ATTACHMENT NO. 1 2030 Addison Street, Suite 310 Berkeley, California 94704 (415) 843-9746 September 20, 1990 Mr. Craig Fukuyama McMillin Development 2727 Hoover Avenue National City, CA 92050 Subject: Review of Rancho Del Rey-SPA Ill DEIR Traffic Study Dear Mr. Fukuyama, At your request, we have reviewed the SPA III DEIR dated August, 1990. This DEIR represents a revision of the SPA III DEIR completed on April,1990. Bankston/Pine Associates prepared the base traffic analysis for both the earlier DEIR and the August, 1990 version. The Traffic Analysis for the earlier DEIR was prepared in the classic traffic impact analysis format. At the request of City staff, the traffic analysis for the most recent DEIR was prepared using the then existing ECVTPP to estimate existing plus cumulative and existing plus cumulative plus project (SPA Ill) traffic forecasts. This work was completed in July, 1990. Meanwhile, the City's consultant, Willdan Associates, was in the process of completing a revision of the ECVTPP which was made public August, 1990. The difference in the August, 1990 ECVTPP and the previous one is that the land use and cordon trip making for all traffic analysis zones outside of the area was updated from a 1986/1987 base to a 1995 base. This was done to provide a data base outside of East Chula Vista which is more consistent with the future projected by the model, ie., a cumulative future for the ECVTPP area which includes all Approved Projects or projects with Tenative Maps. In addition, the section of East H Street between 1-805 and Hidden Vista Drive was upgraded from 6 to 8 lanes. The effect of changing the base data outside the ECVTPP area from 1986/1987 to 1995 and increasing the capacity ( 6 to 8 lanes) of East H Street, was to attract- more residential trips outside the ECVTPP area which in turn increased projected ADT on major streets near the boundaries of the area. That is, the projected traffic on East H Street and Telegraph Canyon Road east of 1-805 increased to 78,000 and 57,000 ADT respectively with Approved Projects plus SPA III. The previous equivilent projected traffic was 89,200 ADT on East H Street and 55,800 ADT on Telegraph Canyon Road. The August, 1990 ECVTPP analyzed a future with Approved Projects without and with RDR SPA Ill. The future with RDR SPA III revealed a potential problem at the intersections of East H Street/Hidden Vista Drive and Telegraph Canyon Road/Crest Drive. This is information not available at the time of preparation of the July, 1990 SPA Ill Traffic Analysis. However, we have already began to restudy mitigation measures for these two intersections and expect to have that Transportation Planning and Traffic Engineering Consultants STATE OF CALIFORNIA--THE RESOURCES AGEN~ GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, ~rnor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME ~ 330 Golden Shore, Suite 50 Long Beach, CA 90802 (213) 590-5113 April 13, 1990 Barbara Reid City of Chula Vista 276 4th Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 Dear Ms. Reid: We have reviewed the Notice of Preparation of a Draft EIR for the Rancho Del Rey SPA III project SCH 90010292. To enable our staff to adequately review and comment on this project, we recommend the following information be included in the Draft EIR: 1. A complete assessment of flora and fauna within and adjacent to the project area, with particular emphasis upon identifying endangered, threatened and locally unique species and sensitive and critical habitats. 2. A discussion of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts expected to adversely affect biological resources, with specific measures to offset such impacts. 3. A discussion of potential adverse impacts from any increased runoff, sedimentation, soil erosion, and/or urban pollutants on streams and watercourses on or near the project site, with mitigation measures proposed to alleviate such impacts. Stream buffer areas and maintenance in their natural condition through non-structural flood control methods should be also be considered in order to continue their high value as wi]dlife corridors. More generally, there should be discussion of alternatives to not only minimize adverse impacts to wildlife, but to include direct benefit to wildlife and wildlife habitat. Those discussions should consider the Department of Fish and Game's policy that there should be no net loss of wetland acreage or habitat values. We oppose projects which do not provide adequate mitigation for such losses. State of California The Resources Agency Memorandum /0/4 C~,*e $~ ! 2 1990 1. Oordon F. Snow, ?h.D. To Assistant Secretary for Resources 2. City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue San Diego, CA 92010 Attention: Barbara Reid From Del~rtment ~Wat~ Res~uKN Los Angeles, CA 90055 Sub~: DEIR for Rancho Del Rey SPA III, on 405 Acres, SCH 90010292 Your subject document has been reviewed by our Department of Water Resources staff. Recommendations, as they relate to water conservation and flood damage prevention, are attached. After reviewing your report, we also would like to recommend that you further consider implementing a comprehensive program to use reclaimed water for irrigation purposes in order to free fresh water supplies for beneficial uses requiring high quality water supplies. For further information, you may wish to contact John Pariewski at (213) 620-3951. Thank you for the opporth%nity to review and comment on this report. Sincerely, Charles R. White, Chief Planning Branch Southern District Attachments bCC: Nadell Gayou, Room 215-4 Ruth Lambert, Room 733 ': JPariewski:mep (WSEVL/SCH EIR) Dr. Snow/Ms. Reid September 26, 1990 Page Two The Draft SEIR states that adverse geological conditions, such as cut slopes containing clay beds dipping out of slope, exist on the project site and may require remedial measures. Potentially- unstable slopes should be sfabilized, as well as all other adverse geologic conditions. The amount and type of remediation for unstable slopes may significantly impact the proposed site grading plan. The SEIR should address the proposed remedial grading in sufficient detail that the impacts can be evaluated. Therefore, the Final SEIR should include the grading recommenda- tions so that they can be reviewed. Geologic and seismic data needed for adequate review were not included or appended to the Draft SEIR. The referenced geotechnical report and a complete listing of the recommendations for mitigating geologic hazards and soils/grading impacts are contained in Appendix A, which was not provided for our review. The Draft SEIR does not contain a grading plan at a scale that can be reviewed. Thus, the relevant geologic and seismic data which should be included in the SEIR was not available and, therefore, could not be adequately reviewed. Based on the information provided, we recommend additional evaluation of the seismic hazards at the project site, including ground shaking and the potential for surface rupture. Ground motion parameters to be considered should include peak ground acceleration, duration of shaking and site amplitude. We recommend that all relevant faults, including the Rose Canyon, Elsinore and La Nacion Faults, be considered in the seismic hazard evaluations. In addition, any exposure of the La Nacion Fault during grading should be documented by a Certified Engineering Geologist. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Roger Martin, Division of Mines and Geology Environmental Review Project Manager, at (91~) 322-2562. Dennis J. O'Bryant Environmental Program Coordinator DJO:CG:skk cc: Roger Martin, Division of Mines and Geology Catherine Gaggini, Division of Mines and Geology *"State'of California THE RESOURCES AGENCY OF CAUFORNIA 'M e m ora n d urn Io :Dr. Gordon F. Snow Ome : September 26,.1990 -- Assistant Secretary for Resources Subie~: Draft Supplemental Ms. Barbara Reid Environmental Impact City of Chula Vista Report for Rancho 276 Fourth Avenue Del Rey SPA III, Chula Vista, CA 92010 SCH# 90010292 From : DepaMment~Con~ation--OfficeoftheDir~tm The Department of Conservation's Division of Mines and Geology (DMG) has reviewed the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the Rancho Del Rey Spa III project. The project site is located in the eastern foothills of Chula Vista and includes a 206-acre residential development for 1,380 single-family residences. We are unable to perform an adequate geological assessment of the project because the geotechnical report by GEOCON (1989), and detailed grading plan, were not included in the SEIR. However, we offer the following comments. Se's 'c zards - We recommend that a seismic hazards analysis be done to assess the potential for strong ground shaking and surface rupture at the project site. The Rose Canyon Fault is less than 7 milas from the project site, and is considered active (Lindvall et al., 1989, and Anderson, 1989). It has a maximum credible earthquake (MCE) of M 7.1 (moment-magnitude) (Wesnousky, 1986), and may produce a mean peak ground acceleration of 0.36g at the project site (Joyner and Boore, 1982). Other faults that may impact the site include the Elsinore, San Clemente, Coronado Banks, San Jacinto, San Andreas, and La Nacion Faults which have MCEs of magnitude 7.0, 7.7, > 6, 7.5, 8.0, and 6.5, respectively (Anderson, 1989). The Rose Canyon Fault, as well as these other faults, should be considered when evaluating potential strong ground shaking at the project site. Because the project site is located on the trace of the La Nacion Fault, the potential for surface rupture should also be evaluated. Ground motion parameters to be considered for the project site should include peak ground acceleration, duration of strong shaking, and site amplification. According to the 1988 Uniform Building Code (UBC), the San Diego area is located in seismic zone 3, which has an effective peak ground acceleration of 0.3g. Since a mean peak ground acceleration of 0.36g can be expected from a MCE event on the Rose Canyon Fault, the UBC design requirement for seismic zone 3 may not be adequate for the project. Grad~n~ - The Draft SEIR does not clearly show the proposed project grading in sufficient detail to allow adequate review. The Draft SEIR refers to the geotechnical report (GEOCON, 1989) for data on the project's geologic hazards. This report should be appended to the SEIR to allow for review of the geologic and seismic impacts, and adequacy of the proposed mitigations. ~ Dr. Snow/Ms. Reid September 26, 1990 Page Three Anderson, J.G., 1989, Past and Possible Future Earthquakes of Significance to the San Diego Region, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1989. Joyner, W.B., and Boore, D.M., (1982), Prediction of Earthquake Response Spectra, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 82-977, 16 pp. Lindvall, S.C., Rockwell, T.K., and Lindvall, C.E., 1990, The Seismic Hazard of San Diego Revised: New Evidence for Magnitude 6+ Holocene Earthquake on the Rose Canyon Fault Zone, Proceedings of ~he Fourth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, May 20-24, 1990, Palm Springs, California. Wesnousky, S.G., 1986, Earthquakes, Quaternary Faults, and Seismic Hazard in California~ Journal of'Geophysical Research, Vol. 91, No. B12, p. 12,587-12,631, November 10, 1986. ..... 0CT-01-1990 1~:05 ~ROi"l RADIO ~1~0~ Memorondum To ~ State Clearinghouse ~ S~pte~er 28, 1990 Attention T. ~velady ~le ~.~ 11-SD-805 6.1-7.8 Draft SEIR for the Rancho del Rey Sectional Planning Area III Plan. SCH 90010292 We note that there will be a project-specific ADT of 42,306 (page S-4) and that the cumulative traffic impacts of the Rancho del Rey Specific Plan Area will contribute to the degradation of ~he existing circulation element and would, therefore, be considered significant but mitigable (page 7-1). The SEIR needs to analyze those traffic impacts that can be expected at Interstate Route 805 and commit to the indicated mitigations. Our contact person for Interstate 805 is Jim Linthicum, Project Manager, Project Studies Branch "B", (619) ~88-6952. For traffic information, locally funded projects, and encroachment permits our initial contact person is Richard Coward, Project Services Branch Manager, (619) 688-3303. T. CHESHIRE, Chief ~ Environmental Planning Branch -~ MO: ec  2727 IIOOVER AVl P.O BOX 9016 NAT[ON,\L CI'[Y CA 92050 6625 R~,NCIIO DELREY (619) 477 4117 September 27, 1990 Mr. Doug Reid Planning Department CITY OF CHULA VISTA 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 Re: Draft supplemental EIR No. 89-10 Rancho del Rey SPA III Dear Mr. Reid: We have received the Draft EIR for Rancho del Rey SPA III and offer our comments. Attached are Attachments 1-6 which are our comments to the Draft EIR. Thank you for providing us the opportunity to comment. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding our comments. Sincerely, cc: Bob Leiter, Planning Department Cliff Swanson, Public Works Department Tony Lettieri, Lettieri - Mclntyre and Associates Betty Dehoney, P and D Technologies ~ San Diego Biodiversity Project P.O. Box 1944 Juliam CA 92036 (Letter Continued...) 6) ~Yetlands that are to be disturbed willneed to be mitigated on a 4:1 ratio as par~ of tile Army Corps of Engineers permit process. The U({~S will act as an advisor to the Ar,ny Corps; llasicaly, the Army Corps will only grant the permit if the USerS says its O.K. This process will have an effect on the rest of the sensitive species issues associated with this project. To conclude~ we hope that the City of ChuIa Vista will take these comment into account before granting permits for this project. Our opinion is taken seriously by the US~¥S~ as we would hope the case would he with the City of J Chula ?ista. 'Tithin two weeks~ we will submit an Alternative ~litig;~tion Proposal for this project with more detailed guidelines for the mitigation of the many onsite sensitive species. In the meantime~ please submit this letter to ~ECON for consideration. In the future~ we would hope that the city of Chula Vista }lire the Consultants for all projects. This would allow an unbiased opiniom to be issued i~ regards to the actual impacts of any project. At this point in time~ co~sulting firms are basicaly in the pocket of the company or individual that hires them. This is the cause of ?,[ANW faulty biological surveys in San Diego County and elswhere. The San Diego ~iodiversity Project requests a reply to these comments within a week of their reciept. Thal, k you for your time .... ~incerly~ David Hogan~ !~an Diego []iodiversity Project Please l'eel free to call 755-7593 or 765-1965 for more information. (Lotter Con!inued...) 2) .qecause tbere is no such thing as an ENDANGERED habitat Act, we will simply focus on the numerous sensitive species that depend on these habitats. The two most sensitive habitats onsite~ besides the verngl pool(s) include Cogstal Sage Scrub~ ~nd the sub-bgbibat~ Coastal Sage Scrub Cactus Thicket. The Cogs~l Sage 3crub habitat onsite is home to three increasingly r~re species including the Californi~ Gngt'catcher~ the San Diego llorned Lizard~ and the Orange Throgted "lhiptail Lizard. Coastal ~age Scrub~ in the most recent esbima~es~ has been reduced hy 85~ in ~an Diego County. C~lifornia Gnatc~chers~ due ~o their relience on this habit~t~ have ~lso been reduced population wise by ~t least ~he s~me percent. In fac~ due to proposed developments~ ~his bi~d could e~sily be extinc~ within seven years. The two reptile species, although lacking studies, are probably ~lso facin~ the same decline, The sub-babitat, Coastal Sage Scrub Cactus Thicket, is home to the recently described C~c~us wren, Campylorhynchus brunneicgpillus ssp. sandiegensis. This is an ENDANGE~ED sub-species~ with no more than 4~0 individuals remaining IN THE W0qLD. The US~gS~ in connection with the California Gnatcatcher is considering the Cactus ~ren for END~G~ED species status. Tbis species is simply glossed over in the EI~ for this- project. This population of Wrens ~3T ':~T qE I~ACTED IN k~ WAY. Buffer areas of at least one hundred yards must remain in place around all cactus patches with corridors of at least twenty yardswide nmst connect these patches with offsite protected open space. The mitigation proposed in the EI;{ for the Cactus wren and its habitat (trans- plantation of cactus patches) is TOTALY UNACCEPTABLE. This would eliminate this population of ~grens. Appropriate mitigation plans will be included as a part o6 the upcoming Alternative Mitigation Proposal. We, as well as the US~gS, will require no impacts to the onsite ~opulation of Cactus Wrens. In regards to the California Gnatcatcber mitigation proposed by ~ECON] we feel ~he proposed gn~tc~tcher peserve is no~ big enough to adequatly mitigate the onsi~e qn~c~tcher loses. An ~]ternative proposal will he included in our Alternative Hi~igation Proposal. lmp~ct~ to the onsite po,~ulation of tbe two reptile species will he mitigated by the Gnatcatcher 3) After the purcbase of the off-site California qna~catcher and vernal pool preserves~ these properties will not be placed into the han~s of the BIM for managment, this federal agency.is well noted foe its pathetic mis-managment of public lands. Any of the other sug%ested land mana,~ment agenciies are acceptable. 4) The EIb{ mentioned the presence of two state listed plant species, h~wever~ no detail was. provided. :~'hat are these species? (b'e are assuming they are Acanthomintba ilicifolia and Hemizonia conju~{ens) }tow will i~pacts to these species bo miti~ated? 5~ ~acl- to the subject of the California ';natcatcher, it is now thou~ht ~bat ~ pair of ffnatcatchers re~uires at least 26 ;~cres for a territory. (EI'L for qtate ',oute 5fi East; :lack '3o~ntain o~d to r-15) This will bavo an effect on the size oi the proposed (;natcatcher Preserva. 9£0~6 PD 'uvr-'-In[pp6I x~' 'O~I .laafo. d Kl.ts a.q o!lt offa! r P.O. Box 1944 Jullan, CA 92036 September 21, 1990 Planning Director~ (Environmental Review Coordinator) City of Chula ~ista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista~ CA. 92010 'IE: Biological Impacts Associated with the i{ancho Del rt~y Planning Area To '~hom it ~lay Concern~ After reviewing the Draft Environmental Impact ~teport for the '{ancho Del {ey Planning krea~ t}ie ~an Diego Biodiversity Project offers the following comments for your consideration. ~ge found the contents of this biological report to be extremely incomplete concerning adequate mitigation for the numerous sensitive s9ecies and habitats found in the planning area. ~ge would hope that the City of Chula Vista takes the following comments seriously to agoide conflicts further into the planning process. C 0}.BIENTS: 1) "lc will begin with the difficult wernal pool issue. First~ the entire south~-rn Californi~ region has been in the state of drought for close to four years now. Vernal pools, difficult to find in ~et years~ are near impossible to find in dry years. The statement that"Yormaly, ewen in dyy years, weeds and plants of the surrounding associations do not invade the pools." is f~lse. Many pools~ such as those in Poway and on Del Par Mesa, are invaded hy species such as the spike moss and buc~heat. This is due to the extreme dryness of the soil after such a long period of drought. One cannot assume a basin is not a vernal pool when these plants are found in the basin ~rea. k soil hydration test, (to locate aquatic in~ects and plants in a controled environment), is something that must be required for all areas of mAma-mound topography when the area might support vernal pools in wet years. A thorough sur~ey of basins surrounding the single onsite vernal pool ~nust be conducted durin~ the wet season (January) in an effort to locate vernal pool Dlants. that ~ay he found without the pressence of water. Surveys of vernal poDls in this area (M series) were undertal:en in 1979 and in 1986. ~{llen ~]auder 'aust he cnntacted to verify the number of pools at this project site. Also~ as part of a total vernal pool petition package~ the riverside Vairy ~hrimp~ a fresh wa~er vornal pool shri,np~ is now being considored for z]MPkNGUiED qP~'~CII,]~ status by the Pederal Government. ';oil hydration tests ~nust be taken to determinm the presence of this species. ('liwerside Pairy ~;hrimp have been found into qan Diego County). Contact }larie ~imovich at USD '~ioloay Department for more information on these tests. ~liti~ation proposed for the loss of the single onsite verna~ pool is not acceptable, k 4:1 mitigation ratio is the minimum acceptable ratio for vernal pool replacement. (USP=~5~ and :lan Diego ~iiodivorsity Project '{equirements) An alternative miti%ation proposal for this project is in the works. I! will include an acceptable vernal pool mitigation proposal. Bankston/Pine Associates, Inc. 4 Bankston/Pine Associates, Inc. 8 ~-P 11 '90 16:a9 iYk:ZMi'~'~N OFFICES Traffic signals exist at the following intersections: Telegraph Canyon Road at the 1-805 'Northbound And Southbound Ramp terminals, Crest Drive, Paseo Del Rey, and at Medical Center Drive. East "H" Street/Io805 Northbound Off-ramp. East "H" Street/Hidden Vista Road. East 'H" Street/Otay Lakes Road. East "H" Street/Paseo Del Rey. East "H" Street/Buena Vista Way. Bonita Road and 1-805 Northbound and Southbound Ramp terminals. Bonita Road/Otay Lakes Road. Otay Lakes Road/Ridgeback Road. Sputhwestern College Driveway and Shopping Center Entrance. 1-805 Southbound On-ramp. 1' Paseo Ranchero. Otay Laks R. oad/Avenida De Rey ~gure,5 show~ existing (1989) average 24 hour weekday tra~c levels (AD~. gg 16:48 MCMILLIM OFFICES ~XISTING CONDITION~ -- Imams ~o ~r~tlc ~ated with ~ R~c~ D~ Rey ~oject have ~ e~mlne~ In ~v~ pte~o~ s:u~. An ~y~s o~ ~he ERDR S~flc Plan w~ ~eted by Ur~ Sys~s A~at~, Inc. CUSA)~ In ~8~. Another ~s w~ ~m~eted by ~A In O~b~ l~S& ~d tevl~d In M~ 1~87 w~ch ev~:ed the im~ u~ted with develo~en: o~ SPA l.~In 1~89, Ban~:o~P~e As~atm, Inc. ~e~ed ~ ~t~Ic ev~on lor SPA~I. A tevi~d IrOnic ev~on w~ ~e~ted in ~y 19~ In t~e to ~ City o~ Ch~a's V~ Tr~ic SPA ~1 ~ ~ ~1 R~ D~ ~ey S~d~lc PI~ is loc~ed In the ~a& ~d ~h o~ [~t H Sttee~ ~m~d tou&My by [M: H Street on the n~th. T~e~a~, C~n Road to t~ so~h~ Suen~ Vls~ ~ay tn ~e project is planned for a total of 1,380 residential units plus a junior high school on 25-acres of the site. Phasing in of proposed land use is as follows: Phase 1. 530 multi-family (retirement) dwelling units. Phase 2. 245 single family dwelling units. Phase 3. 365 single family dwelling units. 240 townhouse dwelling units. 1 junior high school on 25 acres. Figure 3 shows the location of SPA3 phases 1, 2, and 3 as they relate to development phasing in SPA's I and 2. ~e SPA 3 Project will have prima~ access via East "H" Street, Paseo Ladera, Paseo ~nchero, and East 'J' Street with seconda~ access via Paseo Del Rey and Telegraph Canyon Road. (See Figure 4.) East "H' Street be~een 1-805 and Otay Lakes Road is a 6-lane divided roadway ~nning east/west. Otay L~kes Road between East "H" Street and Bonita Road is 4 lanes and runs generally north/south. Telegraph Canyon Road between 1-805 and Paseo Ladera is a 4 lane divided east/west roadway. It is 2 lanes between Paseo Ladera and Otay Lakes Road. This roadway link is now being widened to 6 lanes. 1-805 is an 8 lane north/south free~ay in the Project vicinity with interchanges at Telegraph Canyon Road, East 'H" Street, and Bonita Road; and a separation structure at 'J" Street. Page Two Mr. Fukuyama September 20, 1990 work completed prior to the certification of the FEIR. Our review of the August, 1990 DEIR indicates that the conclusions about Intersection LOS (Table 4-7) and the section on Mitigation/Monitoring has been revised to be consistent with the July, 1990 Traffic Analysis. in addition, the July, 1990 Traffic Analysis is included in the DEIR Appendix. However much of the text of the August, DEIR reflects the earlier text based on the earlier Traffic analysis. Since the findings and recommended mitigations are included in the August DEIR the attached comments by us could be incorporated in the FDEIR at the appropriate time. The attached represents our recommended editing of the transportation section of the August, 1990 DEIR to make it entirely consistent with the current traffic Analysis. Given that, we intend to work expeditiously on potential mitigations to the two problem intersections noted above. Finally, I will be in attendence at the October 10, 1990 Planning Commission Public Hearing on the SPA III DEIR to answer questions as appropriate. Sincerely, BANKSTON/PINE ASSOCIATES, INC., Kenneth M. Bankston, P.E. Principal Attachments Bankston/Pine Associates, Inc. 9 SeveraJ ~ssurnptlons were Included tn 'the ~naJysis o~ ~en~ Imams o~ t~ .. proud ~oJect on ~he ~re~r~on ~em o~ Ch~ V~. G~de~n~ ~d ~s~p~o~ ~or t~a ~Is In~ude ~he ~ollowIn~ 1. An interim roadway within the State Route 125 corridor in Chula ~sta will not be completed within the time frame of this analysis by phase. Phases 1,2, and 3 are shown in Figure 3. 2. Tra~c requirements related to Ci~ policy on intersection Level of Semite are obse~ed and maintained for this analysis. That is, all intersections are mitigated to operate at Policy Threshold Standards set by the Ci~ of Chula Vista. Ph~a ~. ~0 m~-~ ~e~emant) dw~]~ ~. 2~0 ~=wn~ dw~n~ ~. T~ T~ld P~c~ ~e[~n~ ~c ~e~ ~o ~ov~de ~d m~nt~n ~ ~e and d~I~ent stree~ system w[~n t~ City by es~ls~n~ s~n~ds ~or ~1 ~d In~e~,c~o~. Thee st~d~ ~a re~oduced ~Iow: o M~nt~n ]eveI o~ sa~[ce ~) "C" or ~tter ~ ~I ~n~erse~o~ ~y. wide~ with the excap~on ~t LOS ~D" m~y ~c~ a~ sl~i~d in~e~ec~ona fo~ ~ ~od not to e~d a to~ o~ two ~s ~r d~y. ]~ these t~,~ld lewis ~e ex~d~d~ ~he Cites Growth M~agement Over~&h~ Commltt~ ~ ~ln~ to ev~e ~ moratorl~ on 8rowth. ........ O-~l 0 Intersections west o[ I-~:05 may Continue ~o o~rat~, az their current (19~7} [,OS, but sh~ll not worsen. o No h~tce~octlon ~1~11 O~rstc at LOS "F" as measured for the weeEd~y l~aE hour. Notes to Standards as discus~d in the thres~ld standards include: 1. LOS me~ements shall ~ ~or the ·verage weekday ~ak ~ur, excluding ~a~nal and s~ ~c¢um~tance variations. =.. 2, The measurement o~ LQS slall ~ by the ICU Ontersection Cavity Utilization) calcul~tlgn ut~li~nK the Clt~s p bhshcd destgn standards. 3. [ntersectio~ of City arterials with/reeway ramps sl~ll ~ excluded/~om th~s CJ~c~etion Jm~ovements slm~d ~ Implemehted pr~o~ to andci~ted deter. io~atlon o[ LOS ~low established standards. ' ' Implementation measures delineated include: Should the GMOC determine that the Threghold Standard is not being satls~ed, then the City council shall, within &0 days o! the GMOC's report, schedule ang hold a public hearing ~[or the purpose o! &dopt[ng a moratorium on the zcceptance !. new tentative matp applications, based on all o~ the ~oilowins criteria: 1. That the moratorium Is limited to a~ area wherein a causal rel·tlonshlp to the problem has been establtshed~ and, 2. That the moratorium provides & mlti~[atlon measure to · spad~ically identi[ied impact. Should & mor&todum be e~bli~cd, the time s~l[ ~ ~ed to ex~diflomly ~e~e S~[C m/~&a~on me,urea ~ a~pdon w~ch ~e intended to brln8 t~ ~ndld~ into ~nform~ce. The C~ty o[ Chula VI$~ ~s a~pted a Trans~rtadon phasIn8 Plan (TPP) to ~tablish &n orderly Fo&ression of street [m~ovements to corres~nd with the development o! the Eastern Terr[taries o! which this proiect is a part. Street Improvements to malntaln an acceptable level o! service on the airCulation syStem have been identified as necessary to serve the total development o! the Eastern Territories as opposed to any individuaJ development. Th~ timing ot each improvement Is fled :o a s~d~[c amount o[ develoDnent ~um~r o[ dwelling un[ss or Sr~s seres oJ [nd~tr[~ or ~mrnerdal lan~ ~) as oppo~d to the development o~ ~y ~r~c~at ~rcel o~ land. Since the geographic order ~nd intensities o~ dev~o~ent ~e not cer~n~ the TPP Is reviewed and revised annu~ly'to rellect C~rent l~d develo~ent pro~s~s and c~n~ng cond~:io~ in the community. The review process ~ns In 3an~ty of each year and culminates In a nod~d public he,in8 ~ppro~mately Rpril o[ each ye~, at w~ch time the City Co~ci~ may ~n~der ~y modi~ications to the TPP req~rements. As part o~ the E~t~n Territories, R~cho del Roy SPA ~1[ is subject to the ~ast Chu[a Vls~ Transit. talon Phadn8 Plan ~d to ~1 c~rent or ~uture updates o~ the over~l drc~ation irn ~ovem ents. . .- IMPACTS Trip generation for pro~e~ trips except for retirement communi~ are based on ~e San Diego ~soclation of Governments (SANDAG) trip generation rates. Retirement ~mmuni~ trip rates are Ci~ of San Diego rates and recommended for use by the Ci~ of Chula Vista. Trip generation rates are as follows. Residential Single Family 10 ADT/DU Townhouses 8 ADT/DU Retirement 4.5 ADT/DU Junior High School 40 ADT/Acre ~ip generation for ~e proposed project is shown by phase in Table 1. As shown Table 1, the proposed project is estimated to generate 11,405 ADT. Project trip distribution was estimated by separating out SPA 3 assigned ADT from that generated by other sources. This was done by computing the ADT difference for the cumulative future condition without and with SPA 3 as estimated by separate ECTPP model runs. Figure 6 shows the percentage of project trips by direction as distributed by the model. Table 1 Project Trip Generation A.M. P.M. ADT Phase Land Use In Out In Out 1 530 Retirement D.U.'s 38 153 167 72 2385 2 245 S.F.D.U.'s 39 157 172 74 2450 3 240Townhouse D.U.'s 30 121 133 57 1920 365 S.F.D.U.'s 59 235 257 110 3650 25 Acres Jr. High School 97 257 247 130 1000 TOTALS 263 923 976 443 11405 Bankston/Pine Associates, Inc. -'~ 14 Using the trip distribution shown in Figure 6, project trips were assigned to the road system. These trips were then added to cumulative traffic volumes on the appropriate road segment. Average Daily Traffic based on ECVTPP model run output for the cumulative future without SPA 3 and with SPA 3 is shown in Figures 7a and 7b, respectively. SPA 3 only ADT is shown in parentheses in Figure 7b. The 1989 ADT shown on Figure 5 for East "H"Street between 1-805 and Ridgeback Road was counted by City staff during the week of February 6, 1989. These counts were taken at selected locations including East "H" Street and on Telegraph Canyon Road. It is apparent from these counts that approximately 4,000 ADT (Average Daily Traffic) has shifted from Telegraph Canyon Road to East "H" Street. This shift in traffic is believed to be due to the recent opening of the widened East "H" Street and the fact that congestion exists now on Telegraph Canyon Road. The congestion on Telegraph Canyon Road is a temporary condition which will be relieved when the current improvements are completed in 1990. At that ti,m.e,,,the 4,000 ADT is expected to shift back to Telegraph Canyon Road from East H Street. Accordingly, Figures 7a and 7b reflect this temporary shift from Telegraph Canyon Road to East "H" Street and back again. Bankston/Pine Assoc[ales, Inc. Bankston/P[ne Associates, Inc. ,'vfo~n$ and alter~on Pe~l~ l-lo~ LOS aJ'~e, lyses wer~ m~de ~or e~s~n&, cumula~ve, e~s~ng , c~aUve + PhMe I o~ SPA llI, e~s~n8 + c~ve Phase ] ~ Ph~e 2 o~ SP~ ~II~ and e~s~ng + cure,at[ye + Ph~a I + Ph~e 2 + PhMe 3 at SPA ltl ~ndl~o~. E~n8 con~o~ ~e b~ed on c~rent tr~ic wlt~n the roa~ay ~adll~es now in Nace. E~s~ng + cum~a~ive + Phase ~h~ 2 + ~h~ 3 o~ SPA III --~ys~s ~sume Proie~ ~d C~a~ve b~l~o~ ~on8 wlt~ r~d~y Ta~e ~-7 s~ws r~ts ~r~ t~se ~yses by LOS b~sed on ~/C) criteria. ~OS levis r~ge on a ~n~nuum ~rom LOS "A" t~ou~ ~, with L~ "A" re,Icing op~lm~ ~n~o~ wi~h ml~m~ delays and L~ ~,, ~ot~ brea~wn In trd~Ic movement. LOS res~s ~ed on ~ysls o~ Intnrse~lo~ In~c~e the overall level o~ service a~ w~ch an inte~e~lon opera,es. Sl~d lnt~ec~on resets ~e b~d u~n vol~ r~v~ lnte~e~ian ~dty raU~. U~l~d ln~ersec~ ~ysis r~ o~ra~on~ levels by movement. A r~ge o~ level~ by movemen~ Is shown in Ta~e ~7 ~hen ~ lnterse~on Is ~Y~d ~ As Ta~e ,-7 s~ws, ~1 intersec~o~ relevant to the ~ojec~ wUl operate a~ LOS .C" or ~er In the AM ~d PM ~a~ hours with compl~tlon o~ proJe~ with the ex, priori o~ the ~u~ H S~ree~P~ del Rey in~e~ec~on. The .. Strm~/Pas~ del Rey Interse~lon o~rates at LOS "D" (~ith a Volt,Cavity ra~o o~ ~/C) 0.~)In ~e P~ ~ak ~ur at comNe~on o~ project. d~y ra~os ~ ~sc~d e~ller in ~s ~ction ~e ~ed to determine LOS A~ In Cl~y o~ Ch~a Vlsi. According to the Cl~y o~ Ch~a Yista's T~eshold L~ '~O~ Is ~ accepta~e L~ ~or up to two ho~s a day. The third ~ghes~ ~ur ~ot ex~d a V/C ra~o ~ 0.~9 w~c~ is t~ uppgr UmIt ~or LOS "C". The t~rd ~est ~ for t~s Intersection wu ~termined to ~ at a LOS "C". Ther~ore, ~1 o~ the in~ersec~o~ s~wn on Ta~m ~-7 m~et ~s t~e~hold. in su~rnary, wlth the mitigations recommended below alon~: with improvements already under ~tructlon oF in place, alt [acillt[es will o~cate a[ an acceptable level o~ service in a~rdance with City o[ Ch~a Vista Policy Thres~ld Stan~rds. MIT[GATION/M~ORING As Identified in the Bantron-Pine study, certain mitigations ate needed to accommodate ~oJect tr~.[ic.' Recommendations ate made to mitigate study ~ea roadways to acceptable levels o! service. In accordance wlth the development sc~d~e shown in Table~, the Iollowing ~te s~dJlc ~ojec~ related mi~satlon is seeded, , ~ ~xls~n[ + C~ative Mitigation Me~ure~ o - Sisn~i~ Telesra~ Canyon Road and Pasco Lad~ra. E~dn~, C~adve + Phase I o~ SPA III Ml~safion o O~n up t~ south le8 ol E~t H Street/East Business Psrk Road [ntemec~on where Ph~ I tr~][c is ~sumed to enter and e~t. E.~s~n~. C~at;ve · Phase 1 o[ SPA [II Mi~tatlon o Comtruct Pasco Ranchero ~tween H Street and Telegra~ Canyon Road. oExtend 3 Street to ~ovide a' throu~ tw~l~ne road ~:ween Pasco del Rey ~d PM~ Pla~ stop slsn ~ntroIs ~n P~seo La~ra at E~t 5 Street, East 3 Street at Pmo R~chero, ~d~ PMeo Ranchero at T~esraph C~yon Road. ~he lnterse~ton ot Tele~aph C~yon Roa~P~s~ Ran~ero o~rat~ at L~ E [or le[t t~ns out o[ PMeo Rancheroi however, Iow tr~ic ~1~ on the m[n~ street ~ pot meet s[gn~ warrants~ ~sfln~ + C~aflve + P~ 1~ 2~ and 3 of SPA I11 Mitigation ~e~ur~s o SI~I~ Telegra~ C~yon Road and Pasco Ranchero. MlfiSafion me.wes noted a~ve relate to t~se roadway facilities ~e~ed ~SPA U[ develo~n~t. It Is assumed that ~i Jntern~ to t~ ~oje~ wo~d ~ de~ed accor~n8 to the d~iJicafions in t~ ~oje~ ~s~lption. T~ develo~r will ~ re.Ired to implement the a~ve mentioned m[fiS&fion me~u~es. Mitig~tion measures beyond the nearby project envDons result~n$ ~rom either the project or cumulative projects traffic Is being accounted [or in the on-going E~st i' Chul~ V~sta Trans~rtation Phasing P~n ~CVTPP). The ECVTPP ~s ~ng managed by the City o~ ChuJa V~ta. The ECVTPP ~ea will be re~na[yzed on an ann~[ basis to s~y ahead o~ development and to Ins~e t~t a comprehensive annul review is made to m~nt~n acceptable ~eveis o: servicc on ~1 ~ccted lntersec~ons and roadways. The City En~neer ~ lnJormed the R~cho D~ Rey ParmersNp t~t the SPA Iii EIR s~uid in,cate that SPA Ill, as In ~1 other develo~ents~ is subject to ~y current or Jut~e u~ates of the Clty-wlde Trans~rtation Phasing Plan. -~TI'ACHMENT NO. 2' Cinti Associates Land Planning September 26, 1990 Mr. Craig Fukuyama McMillin Communities, Inc. 2727 Hoover Avenue National City, CA 92050 Subject: Comments on RDR SPA III Draft EIR Dear Craig: I have reviewed the Draft EIR being circulated for the SPA III project and offer the following comments/suggestions with page references for your consideration (any changes made in the body of the text should also be carried forward to the summaries): S-1 Par. 2, last sentence: "The closure of East J Street...,, This language infers that an existing street is being closed to traffic. In fact, the proposal is to eliminate a propos- ed l'ink in the planned circulation system. This is an important distinction. S-4 Cultural Resources. As detailed below, the mitigation program required for SPAs II and III is complete and pub- lished. S-5 Public Services. The components of project which alleviate existing adverse infrastructure/service conditions should be documented. Especially the elimination of two sewer pu~p stations. S-ii Biology. The comparison of these alternatives to the proposed project does not appear to address the off-site mitigation program component of the project mitigation plan. 1133 Columbia St.. Suite 201. San Diego, CA. 92101. (619) 239.1815 · FAX '(619)239.4737 McMillin Communities, Inc. September 26, 1990 Page 2 Paqe The EIR should evaluate the comparative merits of preserva- tion of relatively small areas within a development project (Alt. Designs 1 & 2) versus the preservation of larger areas which are components of a large scale habitat conservation program. S-12 Land Use/General Plan/Zoning. The discussion of the Design Alternatives suggests that no impacts to land use compati- bility would occur even through a substantial reduction in development acreage is involved. The proposed project yields a total of 1,380 du with an average density of 6.6 du/ac. Alt. Design 1, at 1,380 du on 130 net acres, would have an average density of 11 du/ac and Alt. Design 2 would be 8.3 du/ac on 166 net acres. The development of Area D under Alternative 1 is extremely problematic. The loss of this 24 acre area would reduce the Alternative Design 1 area to approximately 106 acres which would yield an average density of 13 du/ac. These density increases would definitely change the charac- ter of the community away from the single family detached neighborhood of the proposed project to one with a signifi- cantly larger single family attached/multi-family com- ponents. Such a character change could easily create significant land use conflicts and disrupt the established single family detached neighborhood pattern on the surround- ing properties. Such increased density projects would not as readily fit in the community context for the project. Both alternatives would require General/Specific Plan Amendments for increased density, among other reasons. S-18 Off-Site Alternatives. It should be noted that some or all of the off-site alternatives fail to meet some of the ~als of the project (i.e., the "project" is more than simply building houses) which must be achieved on the project site and/or within the City limits: 1) implementing the City's General Plan; 2) implementing the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan; 3) alleviating the current shortage of park and recreation facilities in the project area; 4) completing infrastructure links such as East J Street and Paseo Ranchero; and, 5) providing a junior high school site which is a current need of the school district. These issues affect both current and future residents of the project area. The school site is addressed in the alternatives discussion, but the other issues which are equally important should also be included under each appropriate topic. McMillin Communities, Inc. September 26, 1990 Page 3 Paqe Further, to the degree that each alternative site is not an "in-fill" location, potentially significant growth induce- ment impacts are associated with the extension of services to new areas. The EIR should identify such environmental impacts. 1-2 Par. 1. The SPA III Plan and tentative map are not required to receive Planning Commission "approval". The Commission recommends to the Council on these matters and the City Council is the only "approval" required. 2-4 Par. 1. The paragraph appears to be a series almost random sentences. Chapter I of the SPA Plan contains background information which could be utilized to clarify this informa- tion. 2.3 Par 1. Parcel CF-i, a community facilities site, should be mentioned in the project description. Provision of a such site for church, daycare, or public/quasi-public use is an important component of the neighborhood concept. 2.3 Par. 2. The issues involved with the Specific Plan Amendment and General Plan Amendment should be explained. The EIR should convey to the reader the necessity to change adopted plans (i.e., the area of conflict and what adopted policy/map/element must be changed or is proposed to be changed). Such information is provided in the SPA III Plan in Chapter I, Chapter II (density transfer), and Chapter III (East J Street). Also, same comment as above on "closure" of East J Street. 2-5 Figure 2-3. This is not the proposed General Development Plan which is Exhibit 2 in the proposed SPA III Plan a~d is dated 7/23/90. In addition, the statistics in Table 2-1 are not correct. Exhibit 2 in the SPA III Plan includes the current statistics. 2-6 The description of the location of the l0 acre park is actually the location of parcel CF-1. An accurate descrip- tion of the park location should be provided~ 3-1 3.0 Par. 1. The project is 404.6 acres in size, not 408.4. The project site not located in the Eastern Territories Planning Area. It is within the Sweetwater Planning Area. McMillin Communities, Inc. September 26, 1990 Page 4 Paae Par. 4. The Rancho del Rey Business Park is not 184 acres in size and the proposal to include an auto park in this area has been formally abandoned for some time. The Rancho del Rey SPA I General Development Plan indicates that the Employment Park is 102.4 acres (gross). 3-2 The EIR language infers that the EastLake project is in close proximity to the east of the project site. In fact this project is located 2 miles east of the site and has little, if any, influence on the project setting. 4-11 4.3 Landform Alteration/Aesthetics. This section does not discuss the provision of an open space buffer along East "H" Street which is a significant issue of consistency with the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan. 4-14 par. 2, last line. Fill volumes are estimated to be 2.0 to 2.5 million cubic yards. 4-15 Figure 4-2. This is not the proposed Grading Plan, as it shows East "J" Street extended to Buena Vista Way. The proposed Grading Plan is included as Exhibit 14, dated 7/23~90, in the SPA III Plan. 4-38 First "o". Only one sewer lateral is proposed to cross open space and it is not located in an area identified as con- taining rare plant populations or bird habitat. If there are other specific impacts associated with its location, they should be detailed. See also mitigation measures. 4-45 Mitigation/Monitoring. The mitigation program for SPAs II and III has been completed and accepted by the City. The report, entitled Data Recovery and Sampling Strategy Evalua- tion at SDi-9893, was prepared by RECON and published August 1, 1990. The discussion of a mitigation/monitoring program is irrelevant at this point. The EIR should document the analysis and conclusions of the work which has been complet- ed. 4-51 First "o". The City's Growth Management Oversight Committee is not authorized to hold hearings; any Growth Management hearings are held by the City Council based on input from the GMOC (see page 4-53 of the EIR). 4-63 4.8 Land Use/General Plan/Zoning. Because the project involves both General Plan and Specific Plan amendments, a McMillin Communities, Inc. September 26, 1990 Page 5 PaGe complete discussion of these issues should be provided in this section. However, these issues are mentioned in passing, if at all. It must be assumed that the existing plans had some leVel of logic and were adopted based on a balancing of environmental impacts and public policy bene- fits which would be potentially disturbed by amendments. The EIR should present sufficient information so that the reader can understand why the amendments are proposed and which environmental impacts are avoided or minimized through the amendments. 4-64 Figure 4-11. Given the overwhelming importance of the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan as compared to the General Plan Land Use Map, in the evaluation of land use and adopted plan consistency, this discussion should emphasize the provisions of the Specific Plan. A greater level of detail regarding the Specific Plan would allow the reader to have a better understanding of the adopted planned uses for the project site and the areas of consistency/inconsistency between the proposed SPA Plan and the adopted Specific Plan. 4-65 Par. 1. The density transfers among the development parcels within SPA III are also the result of logical planning and an effort to avoid adverse land use/intensity conflicts with existing development. The EIR should provide a discussion of these aspects of the density transfer issue (see Chapter II of the SPA III Plan text). Par. 3. The area south of the project site is Otay Ranch which is not zoned PC nor within the City of Chula Vista (see Otay Ranch off-site alternative). Sunbow is to the west and south. 4-67 The parcel statistics and descriptions provided on this and the following page are not consistent with those presented in the SPA III Plan, specifically on the Site Utilization Plan, Exhibit 5, dated 7/23/90. Examples: the SPA Plan indicates 1,380 units on 208.8 acres at an average density of 6.7 du/ac; parcel R-2 contains 151 units; parcel R-6 contains 232 units; there is no parcel R-Sa in this pro- posal; 0S-2 is 53.7 acres in size. Parcels OS-i, 0S-2 and OS-6 comprise the southern leg of Rice Canyon which drains primarily to the west. While each "neighborhood,, in SPA I and II was partially surrounded by open space, this is not true in SPA III (e.g., R-4 & R-5). This discussion should include parcel CF-1 which is currently not mentioned. McMillin Communities, Inc. September 26, 1990 Page 6 Paqe The selection of lot sizes and residential character in various locations was carefully evaluated in preparing the SPA III plan to insure maximum compatibility at all edges. This is a very important environmental issue for an in-fill project and deserves discussion in the EIR. This issue of consistency/ compatibility of the proposed project with the existing adjacent uses becomes very important when comparing it to the Alternative Designs which cannot readily blend with the existing community because of their higher average densities. 4-77 Parks, Recreation and Open Space. city staff has indicated that one aspect of the need to provide more park acreage than that required by the adopted Specific Plan is the local shortage of facilities. This issue is not discussed in the EIR. This is another issue which becomes important in the evaluation of alternatives. Provision of park area in some other location, while consistent with a 3 ac./1000 popula- tion standard, will do nothing to alleviate the existing adverse situation in this area which the proposed project will directly address. The fact that this additional park acreage necessitates a specific plan amendment probably should be mentioned in this section. The need for addition- al parkland, both for existing and project residents, is a readily understandable as a reason for the proposed amend- ment. The fact that the 2.0 park was a part of a balanced park system for the specific plan area as a whole and the subse- quent credit determinations for SPA I which led to the "shortfall" would also be appropriate. This would help~the reader understand why the City has determined that a net deficiency of 2.3 acres is not a significant impact (p. 4- 78). 4-84 Par. 3. Planning for the middle school within SPA III would be the responsibility of the Sweetwater Union High School District. The discussion should note that the district is relying on this site to accommodate a new facility to serve existing as well as future needs. The district does not have an alternative site available in the short term to meet these needs. 4-84 Impacts. The EIR should identify the adverse existing conditions which will be improved (benefits) as well as the McMillin Communities, Inc. September 26, 1990 Page 7 Paqe negative potential impacts of the project. As noted above, the project will have clearly positive impacts to sewer service and schools by providing needed new facilities. 4-87 School. It should be noted that the seniors housing pro- ject, which is a significant fraction of the 1,380 total units would generate no school age children, if it is fully implemented. The EIR should note that the analysis present- ed here is a worst case scenario and assumes no seniors housing component. The seniors housing would be subject to the Mello-Roos tax however, potentially creating a financial benefit to the school districts (additional revenue without additional children to serve). 5-1 Compliance with Threshold Policy. The text in this section seems to confuse threshold compliance with project impacts. It is quite possible to have an impact while maintaining threshold complianc~. The traffic threshold requires maintenance of specified intersection LOS; the threshold compliance discussion should make reference to LOS not ADT. The police threshold requires maintenance of specified response times not staffing levels. Changes in equipment or efficiency could easily change staff levels required to achieve the necessary performance. Same with fire protec- tion. 6-1 Alternatives. The second paragraph in this section states that consideration of alternative sites is not necessary. Section 6.4 is a consideration of alternative sites. This inconsistency should be resolved. 6-2 No Project - Existing Specific Plan. Given that the fea- tures of the proposed project which require Specific Plan and General Plan Amendments avoid some potential adverse environmental impacts, this alternative which does not include these features would have some additional adverse impacts when compared with the proposed project. These issues should be discussed in this section. 6-3 Alternative Designs. As noted earlier, both-of these alternatives have potentially significant land use/intensity compatibility impacts associated with them. Each alterna- tive substantially reduces the amount of land devoted to residential development. So to maintain a project yield of 1,380 units, significantly higher average densities are required. These densities change the character of develop- McMillin Communities, Inc. September 26, 1990 Page 8 Page ment by increasing the amount of attached and multi-family units which are inconsistent with surrounding projects as well as Specific Plan designations. Potential incompatibil- ity impacts associated with each of these alternatives should be clearly identified. The biological analysis for each of these alternatives should compare and evaluate the conservation of on-site areas, which will be impacted by adjacent development (as discussed in the biology analysis of the proposed project), to the off-site mitigation proposed by the project. The off-site mitigation component does not appear to enter into these discussions, yet it is a critical'factor to be consi- dered. It should also be noted that some disturbance in the areas taken out of development will occur in order to extend roads and infrastructure. 6-24 Otay Ranch Alternative. Since there is no adopted plan for Otay Ranch, the reader should be informed as to which development plan is being compared to the SPA III develop- ment concept. Because the site is not within the City, the planning analysis should describe fully the required steps for project development (in the City or County?), annexation to service agencies, GPA, zone change, etc. This alterna- tive would also impact the current City/County Task Force Planning Program for the Otay Ranch as a whole. Extension of infrastructure to this area would have growth inducing impacts and additional expense, and development of this site would do nothing to solve the infrastructure and facilities problems existing in the area of the proposed project site. The EIR should include these facts in its discussion of this site alternative. Many of these same impacts/shortcomings are associated with the other alternative sites. McMillin Communities, Inc. September 26, 1990 Page 9 This concludes our comments. If you have any questions regarding them, please give me a call. Sincerely, CINTI & ASSOCIATES Jay Kniep Associate ATI'ACHMENT NO. 3 REC60N Regional Environmental Consultants September 24, 1990 Mr. Craig Fukuyama McMillin Development 2727 Hoover Avenue National City, CA 92050 Reference: Comments on the SPA 3 EIR (RECON Number R- 1559E) Dear Mr. Fukuyama: I have reviewed the biology section of the SPA 3 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and fred it to be subsau~tially factual and accurate. In reviewing the mitigation measures, I do have a concern regarding the sixth itemized measure concerning the mitigation of California gnatcatcher habitat (page 4-39). The language which requites the acquisition and conservation of either (1) off-site property of specific minimum size and resident gnatcatcber population density, or (2) the on-site Specialty Homing area, eliminates the candidacy of potential conservation sites which might have higher conservation value to California gnatcatcher while not meeting the requirements of the measure's language. Resolution of th~.s concern might be accomplished by adding a new item to ~e measure stating: d. Or acquire and preserve an off-site area of coastal sage scrub habitat acknowledged by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the City of Chula Vista to equal or exceed the conservation goals of the opdons listed above. This would allow the acquisition of propo~des in satisfaction of this mitigation measure which might be recognized critical links in natural open space design, which do not meet the specific area or density requirements of the fa'st three options, while providing f~ continued U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service involvemenL Please call if you have questions. Cameron Patterson ~ Director, Biological Services CCP:st 1276 Morena Boulevard · San Diego, CA 92110-3815 · (619) 275-3732 · FAX (619) 275-3619 5099 East Grant Road. Suite 301A · Tucson, A~. 85712 ,, (602) 325-9977 3050 Chicago Avenue ,, Riverside, CA 92507 ,, (714) 784-9460 , ,, ,, , ATTACHMENT NO. 4 File: 671.40 VIA FAX September 25, 1990 Craig Fukuyama McMillin Communities 2727 Hoover Avenue National City, CA 92050 SUBJECT: Review Comments to the Draft EIR dated August 1990 for Rancho Del Rey Dear Craig, Following are our comments to the draft EIR listed by Page Number: PAGE NO. COMMENTS 4-9 The last sentence of the second paragraph of this page should be deleted and the following added: "Other smaller existing storm drains include a 24-inch pipe in Buena Vista Way at East "J" Street; a 24-inch pipe in Paseo Ladera at Paseo Entrada; and a 24-inch pipe in Forester Glenn Drive at East "J', Street. 4-14 Second Paragraph. This paragraph discusses maximum cut and fill slopes and volume of earthwork for the project. The maximum cut slope will be 25 feet located in the vicinity of the community facility east of Paseo Ladera and the maximum fill slope will be 70 feet located in the vicinity of the specialty housing area south of East "H" Street~. The total cut volume and fill volumes for the project are estimated at 4.0 million cubic yards each including 1.6 million cubic yards for the specialty housing area. 4-14 Last paragraph, second to last sentence should be revised to read: "Many of the large manufactured slopes would be visible to motorist transiting along East "H" Street, Telegraph Canyon Road, and Paseo del Rey. Craig Fukuyama September 25, 1990 Page 2 4-35 Fourth paragraph. The first sentence should be revised to read: "The proposed access road (Paseo Ranchero) that connects East "H" Street and Telegraph Canyon Road through SPA III project site would cross the south leg of Rice Canyon, a major drainage channel on the site.,, 4-35 Sixth paragraph. The second sentence should be revised to read: "The City of Chula Vista requires that each major storm drain outlet be accessible by a road." 4-82 The discussion in the third paragraph should be continued as follows: "In 1990 the City of Chula Vista entered into an agreement with Eastlake Development Company allowing them to temporarily divert pumped sewage flows to the Telegraph Canyon Road trunk sewer until the necessary gravity systems are developed. The diversions could affect the capacity of the Telegraph Canyon Road sewer, in which case, the agreement also provides for Eastlake Development to increase the capacity of the affected sewers when required.,, 6-2 First paragraph. The fourth sentence should be revised to read: "In addition, beneficial affects associated with the project, including completion of important circulation element streets, provisions of housing tax revenues and construction of a junior high school site would not be achieved.,, 6-6 Second paragraph. This section of the EIR discusses Alternative Number 1 Site Development. Area D is an area now designated open space laying along Telegraph Canyon Road west of Paseo Rancho. This paragraph discusses development potential for the Area D site, however, it fails to recognize that the site abuts Telegraph Canyon Road and a major drainage channel which occupy most of the flat portions of the site. The remainder of the site is steep hillside slopes abutting the existing residential property. The site has no development potential beyond open space designation. 6-6 Insert the following sentence after the fourth sentence in the sixth paragraph: "Elimination Craig Fukuyama September 25, 1990 Page 3 of development in Area E would reduce the amount of canyon placed fill requiring a significant amount of soil export in order to develope Area B." 6-16 Second paragraph. This paragraph should also include discussion on the gravity sewer to be built through Area A even if the area is not developed. Also, see comments to the biology section discussion of Alternative 1 on Page 6- 8. Following are some general comments to the EIR: 1. The overall tone of the EIR would suggest that either one of Alternatives Number 1 or 2 would be preferred over the proposed project. In addition, the EIR fails to adequately portray the importance of the public facilities built with SPA III that are required irregardless of the proposed development here. Those facilities include the completion of East "H" Street and Paseo Ranchero and the elimination of existing pump stations and force mains which were built in anticipation of completion of an ultimate gravity sewer network with the SPA III plan. Elimination of any of these facilities would be critical to the ultimate development of the community and the impact of their not being constructed should also be analyzed. 2. Enclosed with this letter is a revised version of the mitigation and monitoring program marked to reflect the time frame of mitigation as discussed in the EIR. The above constitutes our comments to the EIR. ~ Very truly yours, Project Manager WRD/cw Enclosures c: Keith Keeter Thom Fuller Gary Cinti R,.MN'CHO DEL REY SPA III MFFIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAM (Continued) Mitigat Re~Don-sibl¢ t'or R~ponaiblc for Date of Comptctc,I ~ ~ ~ V riff i n m {etlon nd Vet Park~, Recreation and Or>eh $oace Provide a detailed concept TM AppLicant Chula V'tara Depa.rt- plan for proposed paxk- meat of Parks and Rexeeafio~ and Paxks and Recreation Com- mission Design 4:1 slopes or less for TM park. Applicant Chela V'~a Depart- mcnt of Parks and Enter in an agreement with TM Appticant Chul~ V'~a Depart. the SweetWater Union ~ School Distxict and the City meat of P~ks and of C. hula VLsta to i~sm-¢ pub- Recreation lic access to the recreational amenitiea of the proposed junior high school whic~ wo~d i=clud¢ soccer fields, ba~let"tball court..% alld tenni{ Provide funding for the dif- ~ ^pplica~t Chula Vista Depaxt- ference in cost between facili- ties built to school standards ment of Parks and and facilities built to City Re~reatlon Design and construc~ ree~..a. Applicant Chula V't.s~ Dcpan- tional facilities to City of Chula VLsta standards and in ,~"?..~ ment of Parks and constdtarion with City s~aff. Recreation Design park so that it would TM Applicant Chula Vi.sta Depart- not be isolated with only backs of buildings facing onto ment of Parks and the park. Recreation Design p~k to provide ad,-. TM Appficant Chtda V'ma Depart- quate visibility fi.om Ea~ $ Street. ment of Parks ~d Re~-eatlon Provide acre. ss to the school TM p~rking lot for overflow park- Applicant Ch, I- V'uta Depa~- mg from park. ment of P~rks and Recreation RANCHO DEL REY SPA III ,",lITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAM (CondaueA) Mitigation Reapo~iblc for Rmpoasiblc for Da(c of Complete,Dat, Task Time Fri~m~ T~k Ver/fication (~Qmpletion (~u[tural Resources [Continued} Prepare report~ detailing the TM Applicant/Cultural C_.hula Wc.qa Depart- investigations of both sit~ Re.xottrceCo~uhant meat of and submit to the City of Chula V',~ta, SDSU Clearing- hou.~, and The Museum of Man. Transt~ortat{on Sj~aliTa Telegraph Canyon ~h,[~Pha.~ I Applicant Chula V'uta Depart- Road and Ps. see Ladera. merit of Open south leg of F..,ut H ~ ~ Applicant Chula Vista Depart- Strce. t/Ea.~ Buaine.~ Park .~.., ~'~:~:~- ~ men/of Road intersection where Pha.~ I tra/'fic is a~umed to enter and ex/t. Con*tn:ct Pa~eo Ranchero :l~ Applicant Chula Vhta Dcpatt- be~weeo H Street and Tele- {::e,~ Q~.~c..c..~_ mere of graph Canyoo Road. ' ' F.~ead $ Street to provide a ,~ha.~ 2 Applicant Chula V'~q.a Depart- through two-lane road be- Wt'~. meat pl~,.n;.~ tw~a Pasco dd Rey Pa.~o Raachero. Plac~ stop sig~ coutrol,~ on ~ Pha,~ 2 Applicant Chula V'~ta Depart- Pasco Ladera at F~,a J o{ Street, F'~! J Street at Raac~ero, and Pa.~o Ranc~- ero at Telegraph Caayou Road. $l~nli?,., Telegraph Canyon ~ Pha.~ 3 Applicant Chula V'ma Depart- and Pa.~e.o Ranchero. ~'t~ meat Complaince with ECVTPp fo~ ~ Applicant Chub V'uta Depart- curt'eat and futvxe updates to maintain acceptable leveh of ~ ~-C- ~"/'~ meat TraJF~ Engineer servic~ on all affected h, ter. sections and roadway s~g- meat&. .t - RANCHO DEL REY SPA Ill MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAM (Continued) Mitigation Responsible for Responsible for Date of Complete, Dar{ Task Time Frame T~k Verification Comnletion and V~rig,:.t Air Quality (Continued) Implement mitigation men- TM Applicant Chute VL~a Depa.rt- surc~ to reduce potential for meat of air pollution 'hot spots' at i.ntersections. Adhere to recommendation TM Chute Vista Depart- Chm~. Vista Depart- made by thc 1982 SIP regard- meat of planning meal Of ;ng local participation in ah' emi.~ion reduo, iou measures and the forthcoming San Diego Ah' Quality Plan. Monitor ~ading to reduc~ Grading Permit Applicant/Biologicul Chula Vista Depart- impacta to coastal sage scrub Consultant mcat ol' plannin~ habitat. Hand dear fire buffers that Grading Permit Applicant C~ula Vioa_ Depart- ca.oath into open spaco meat Of plannln~ Rcv~getatc open spa,'- areal ~ Applicant/Biological Chula VL~r.a Depart- and arena impacted by newer ~__.~._.~ Coaaultant meal of laterala with coastal .~age aa-ab s~i~ nati~ to the site. Insure that biolosisl ham beau .~ AppEcant CIaula VLsla Depart- r~.tairuad tO devi~ rc~getazic~ mcat of program and that a five-year rcvegctatioa program hal be~a deaigned that ia ac.~p- table to ~ staff. Position s~w~r laterals to ~. r .- :'_ Applicant/Biological ChulagrmaDepart- Caus~ mlnim~ll impactl to c~. p Coasultallt meal Of plaflnin~ biological Locate staging area~ for con- (~---r--:; -~- " Applicant/Biological Ch, I- V'tata EMpatt- ~J~CtiO[~ [0 mifl[m~TJ~ impacts Consultant meat of to atnaitiv~ biological reaour- ~ J~ Stake s~wer installation cot- ~ Applicant/Biological Chula Viata Depatt- ridors prior to dnsign tine. Adjust corridors if ~t''~ Consultant mcat of planni~ renluealed by monitor, lag bio- RANCHO DEL REY SPA III MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGP,~M (Continucd) Mitigatio~ · Responsible for Responsible for Date of Complete, Da~ Task ~ ~ V riff i n m I i n n V riff Geolgff¥ and Soils (Cgntinued) Insure that temporary slopes ~LD..~. Applic.aat/Gcotech. Chula V'u~ Depart- meet the minimum require- ~,~ ? -/cai Consultant meat of meats of appEcable Health a~d Safety Codes. Insure that outer portion of ~.'~,.: Applicant/Geotech. Chula VLsta Depart- f'dl slopes ate composed of 67 ~ical Consultant meat of compacted granual soil Bring site to f'mal subgrade ~" Applicaat/Geotech. Ch'la W'~ra elevations with structural fill ~.' ~ aical Consultant meat of Engineexing compacted in layers. Monitor for pre.seac, e of ~ ~ ,I~ Applieant/Geotec. h. Ch, l= VLsla Depart- groundwater. Mc. al Consultant mere of l~n~,,e~ring Remove alluvial/colluvial '-t:iM-~ ,~ Applicaat/Geotech. Chain VLsta Depatt- del~dt.s in the canyons ad- nical Consultant meat of jacket to the proposed .toes of fill slopes. Underc:R portion of tramMoa settlemeat~ a mlnimual of "~"~ Applicaat/Geotech. ChulaVLstaDep~rt. thre~ f~t and replac.~ by low Meal Consultant meat of expa.s~v~ granuai soils. Grade sit,- to allow sou -T}..·. .~? Applicant/Geolec. h. CllulaVistaDcpart. · ,~rh;~ [ht~ f~t of grade to possem an expan,~ion Meal Consultant meazt of index of le,~ than 50. -' Include the de,sign and con. '~"'¢~. ~ Appllcant/Geolech. Chula V'k~.~ Depart- re'action r~.om,,,¢adations o~ the £mal grading and founds- ~ical Consultant meat of t/on plans. Review £mal grading plar~.~ Grading Permit Applicant/Geotech. Chula V'm Dep~- nlcal Consultant meat of ~ Monitor on-site grading to ,~'--~ Applicaat/Geotech. Chula co~r~rm soil conditions a~ C~'f~ antidpate& ulcal Consultant mcat of Provide te~ting and observa- Bul/ding Permit Applicaat/Geotecb. Chula V'~a tioa report to verify that Mc. al Consultant meat of Engineering design and construction reco- mmendations axe complete.,d according to grading plan& R.~NCHO DEL REY SPA III MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAM (Continued) Mit~gatioa Respo~ible for Reapoaaible for Date of Completa, Dat, Ta~k Tim~ Fr~m~ Task Vc~tJon Comnlction and B{olo~ D~ ~d ~plemeat mo~- ~m~ Map ~p~t/Biol~ Ch~ ~ De~- to~ pr~ to dete~e ~t meat of the effe~ of ~e SPA III development oa ~e ~p~a- ~on of C~or~a ~at- ~t~er~ D~ ~d ~rate ~m~ Map Appfi~t/Biol~ ~ Wmta Dept. proj~-~de re--on p~ ~m~t meat of · at ~dud~ a ~p[~t pro~ for =~ md a ~ve ~ malnte~ ~d mo~t~ ~ pl~ A~e md pr~e ~ ~ ~ ~p~t/Biol~ ~ V~ta De.- of ~t~ ~ge ~ub habitat ~t~t meat of planning to r~u2 ~pa~ to ~e Val;fo~ ~at~t~er a~rd- ~ to ~a~6o~ ~tab~hed ~ ~e SPA I~ E~. E~te ~6ga~on ~te for ~ A~t/Biol~ Ch~a V~ta De~- ~ ~ ~o~ ~t~t~. ~mtlltnnt me~ of Approve ~t~t&er mi~- ~ ~ W~ Dep~- ~ W~a De~- 6on ~e. me~ of plannln~ meat of US~, CDFG 6on ~e h ~th;~, adja~nt to ~t~t meat of PIn.n;.~ ~ - or ~ by ~ appr~ p~te ~ ~dor to a l~ger ~ or t~ ~t of pat~ of habi~t ~ ~e c~eafly ~ pubfic o~e~p or d~t~ o~a apa~ or r~bly ~ to rem~ ~ a aa~ state. ~e ~bitat ~d ~ ~ 1,~ a~ ~ ~d ad~ly ~e~ ~ ~t~t meat of · e ~bitat of the ho~g ~. De~ote off-site a~itioa/ Gradin~ Permit Appfi~t Ch~ V~ta De~. mit~oa site to ~e r~u- meat of Plannln~ sible pubfic agent. RANCHO DEL REY SPA III MITIGATION AaNq~ MONITORING PROGRAM (Continued) Mitigatio~ R~spormible for Respon.$ible for Date of Complete,Da T~k Time Framg T~k Vcfifi~tign Comolctlon and Biol~ (Continued) R~rd a co~e~fion e~- Gradi.~ Pe~t App~t ~ ~a Dep~- meat ~ ~ ~en~ of a~ , prop~tej~onov~r~e ~ ~,~ meat of Pl~n-i-t ~te d~ not ~f~r p~or to ~pl~e~ ~e~ar ~- ~ App~t ~ ~ ~p~. ~on pr~. A~e ~d pr~e 0.4 Grad~n~ Pe~it App~t ~W=~ De~- 1~ ~t ~ a~ptable to ~e mcat of pl~nnin~ Ci~ of Ch~ V~ta ~d ~e US~S. Pre~e ~d ~pl~e~ ~ Gra~g Pe~I App~t/Biol~ ~ ~a De~- ~1 r~torafioa p[~ ff miff- ~Mt~t me~ of ~fioa ~te req~ r~tora* flora P~ ~d;~g ~ ~R SPA Grad;n~ Pe~t App~t Ch~ W~ ~- ~ ~m~ ~l ~ prior to me~ of a~mpl;~h;ng ~e off-~te Fen~ off ~ ~1 ~- G~d;~ Pe~ Appfi~t ~ W~ ~. fion ~te ~ a sk-f~ ~. m~ of plsnn;a~ lin~ fcn~ imm~tely U~ S~e a U~. ~y ~ ~ .~D App~t/Biol~ ~ W~ ~. Nafion~d~ ~ic ~ ~t~t m~ of ~te ~e off-gt~ a~- Gra~ Pe~t Appfi~t ~ W~ ~- fion/~ti~:fio~ ~ ~i m~ of pl~nnin~ ~e tO ~e approp~t~ pubic ~cn~. ~o~ pr~. ~t mc~ o( fioa ~eemcnt ~ s~t~ Co~t~t m~t of P~ ~der So.ion l~-l~ of thc ~ornia ~sh ~d Gmc ~c, for proud road (P~ R~cro). ATFACHMENTS Attachment No. 1: Bankston/Pine letter dated September 20, 1990 Attachment No. 2: Cinti and Associates letter dated September 26, 1990 Attachment No. 3: RECON letter dated September 24, 1990 Attachment No. 4: Project Design Consultants letter dated September 25, 1990 Attachment No. 5: McDonald, Hecht and Solberg letter dated September 21, 1990 Attachment No. 6: GEOCON letter dated September 21, 1990 Associates, Inc. ATI'ACHMENT NO. 1 Bankston/Pine 2030 Addison Street, Suite 310 Berkeley, California 94704 (415) 843-9748 September 20, 1990 Mr. Craig Fukuyama McMillin Development 2727 Hoover Avenue National City, CA 92050 Subject: Review of Rancho Del Rey-SPA III DEIR Traffic Study Dear Mr. Fukuyama, At your request, we have reviewed the SPA III DEIR dated August, 1990. This DEIR represents a revision of the SPA III DEIR completed on April,1990. Bankston/Pine Associates prepared the base traffic analysis for both the earlier DEIR and the August, 1990 version. The Traffic Analysis for the earlier DEIR was prepared in the classic traffic impact analysis format. At the request of City staff, the traffic analysis for the most recent DEIR was prepared using the then existing ECVTPP to estimate existing plus cumulative and existing plus cumulative plus project (SPA III) traffic forecasts. This work was completed in July, 1990. Meanwhile, the City's consultant, Willdan Associates, was in the process of completing a revision of the ECVTPP which was made public August, 1990. The difference in the August, 1990 ECVTPP and the previous one is that the land use and cordon trip making for all traffic analysis zones outside of the area was updated from a 1986/1987 base to a 1995 base. This was done to provide a data base outside of East Chula Vista which is more consistent with the future projected by the model, ie., a cumulative future for the ECVTPP area which includes all Approved Projects or projects with Tenative Maps. In addition, the section of East H Street between 1-805 and Hidden Vista Drive was upgraded from 6 to 8 lanes. The effect of changing the base data outside the ECVTPP area from 1986/1987 to 1995 and increasing the capacity ( 6 to 8 lanes) of East H Street, was to attract~ more residential trips outside the ECVTPP area which in turn increased projected ADT on major streets near the boundaries of the area. That is, the projected traffic on East H Street and Telegraph Canyon Road east of 1-805 increased to 78,000 and 57,000 ADT respectively with Approved Projects plus SPA III. The previous equivilent projected traffic was 69,200 ADT on East H Street and 55,800 ADT on Telegraph Canyon Road. The August, 1990 ECVTPP analyzed a future with Approved Projects without and with RDR SPA Ill. The future with RDR SPA III revealed a potential problem at the intersections of East H Street/Hidden Vista Drive and Telegraph Canyon Road/Crest Drive. This is information not available at the time of preparation of the July, 1990 SPA III Traffic Analysis. However, we have already began to restudy mitigation measures for these two intersections and expect to have that Transportation Planning and Traffic Engineering Consultants Page Two Mr. Fukuyama September 20, 1990 work completed prior to the certification of the FEIR. Our review of the August, 1990 DEIR indicates that the conclusions about Intersection LOS (Table 4-7) and the section on Mitigation/Monitoring has been revised to be consistent with the July, 1990 Traffic Analysis. In addition, the July, 1990 Traffic Analysis is included in the DEIR Appendix. However much of the text of the August, DEIR reflects the earlier text based on the earlier Traffic analysis. Since the findings and recommended mitigations are included in the August DEIR the attached comments by us could be incorporated in the FDEIR at the appropriate time. The attached represents our recommended editing of the transportation section of the August, 1990 DEIR to make it entirely consistent with the current traffic Analysis. Given that, we intend to work expeditiously on potential mitigations to the two problem intersections noted above. Finally, I will be in attendence at the October 10, 1990 Planning Commission Public Hearing on the SPA Ill DEIR to answer questions as appropriate. Sincerely, BANKSTON/PINE ASSOCIATES, INC., Kenneth M Bankston, P.E. Principal Attachments j~ 16:48 MCMILL~I? OFFICES -~ EXISTING CONDITIONS Impacts ~o ~r~tlc ~a~ed wl~h t~ R~c~ D~ Rey ~oject have ~ e~mlned In ~v~ pre~o~ stu~. An ~yds o{ the ERDR S~dIlc Plan w~ ~Ne~ed by Ur~ $ys~s A~da~, Inc. (USA), In l}iI. AnD{her ~a~s w~ ~mNe~ed ~ by ~A In O~ob~ 198~ ~d revl~d In M~ 1987 w~ch ev~:ed ~ha imam u~=J=d with develop=n: oi SPA I.~In 1989, B=n~:o~P~e As~at~, Inc. · .' ~ ~e~ed J tt~llc ev~on lor SPA~I, A revi~d :railc ev~on w~ ~e~reg in 3~y 19~ in r~e to t~ City ot Ch~='s V~ Tr~ilc De~en~. SPA ~I ~ 1~ El R~ D~ Rey S~dllc Pl~ is located In the o~ l-s0~ ~g ~h ot E~t H Stree~ ~ded roui~y by E~: H Street on the n~th. T~e~,C~n Road to t~ so~h ~ Buena Vls~ ~g to t~ e~t,, ~e project is planned for a total of 1,380 residential units plus a junior high school on 25-acres of the site. Phasing in of proposed land use is as follows: Phase ~. 530 multi-family (retirement) ~wellin9 units. P~ase 2. 245 single family dwelling units P~ase 3. 365 single family ~welling units. 240 towa~ouse dwelling units. I junior high school on 25 acres. Figure 3 shows the location of SPA3 phases 1, 2, and 3 as they relate to development phasing in SPA's 1 and 2. ~e SPA 3 Project will have prima~ access via East 'H" Street, Paseo Ladera, Paseo RAnchero, and Eas~ 'J' Street with seconda~ access via Paseo Del Rey and Telegraph Canyon Road. (See Figure 4.) East "H" Street be~een 1-805 and Otay Lakes Road is a 6-lane divided roadway ~nning east/west. Otay L~kes Road between East "H" Street and Bonita Road is 4 lanes and runs generally north/south. Telegraph Canyon Road between 1-805 and Paseo Ladera is a 4 lane divided east/west roadway. It is 2 lanes between Paseo Ladera and Otay Lakes Road. This roadway link is now being widened to 6 lanes. 1-805 is an 8 lane north/south freeway in the Project vicinity with interchanges at Telegraph Canyon Road, East "H" Street, and Bonita Road; and a separation structure at 'J" Street. 'fy) Bankstor;/Pine Associates, Inc. 3 Bankston/Pine Associates, Inc. 4 ~ 11 '~a 1~:a9 ~C~II ~ OFFICES P.3 Traffic signals exist at the following intersections: Telegraph Canyon Road at the 1-805 'Northbound And Southbound Ramp terminals, Crest Drive, Paseo Del Rey, and at Medical Center Drive. East "H" Street/1-805 Northbound Off-ramp. East "H" Street/Hidden Vista Road. East "H" Street/Otay Lakes Road. East "H" Street/Paseo Del Rey. East "H" Street/Buena Vista Way. Bonita Road and 1-805 Northbound and Southbound Ramp terminals. Bonita Road/Otay Lakes Road. Otay Lakes Road/Ridgeback Road. S. outhwestern College Driveway and Shopping Center Entrance. 1-805 Southbound On-ramp. Paseo Ranchero. 0tay Laks R. oad/Avenida Del Rey t Ro~ the [: ~gure 5 shows existing (1989) average 24 hour weekday traffic levels (AD'I). Bankston/Pine Associates, Inc. 8 Several usumpflona were Included In the ~na~ysis ct poten~i~ lmpa~s proud ~ojec~ on th~ ~ra~r~a~on s~tem o~ Ch~ V~a. ~de~n~ ~d ~s~p~o~ ~or t~e ~Is In~ude the ~oHowln~ 1. An interim roadway within th~ St~t~ ~oute 125 oorfidor in ~sta will not be completed within the time frame of this analysis by phase. Phases 1,2, and 3 are shown in Figure 3. ~. Tra~c requirements related to Ci~ policy on intersection Level of e~ice are obse~ed and maintained for this analysis. That is, all intersections are mitigated to operate at Policy ~reshold Standards set by the Ci~ of Chula ~sta. Ph~e I. ~30 m~-i~y ~e~rement) dw~llnt ~its. P~ ~. ~ ~n~e ~Uy dw~En[ ~. 2~0 town~ dw~En8 ~. T~ T~o~ld P~cy re~e~n~ tr~flc ~e~ to ~ovide ~d m~nt~n ~ I~e and ~lld.nl s~ree~ sys~.m ~lt~n ~ City by es~ls~nt s~n~ds ~or ~1 ~d ln~em.c~om. Thee s~d~ ~ re~oduced ~Iow: o M~nt~n level ot s.~lce ~) "C~ or ~ter a~ al in~ers.~o~ d~y-wlde~ wllh ~he excsp~on t~ LOS "D" m~y ~c~ al st~ali~d in~e~ec~ons ~o. a ~od not to e~d I to~ of tvo ~s ~r day. H these t~ld levels ~ln~ ~O ev~e a morl~orl~ on Bankston/Pine Associates, Inc. 9 o Intersections west of I-~0~ may continue to Operate. at their current (19S7) [.OS, buc shall not worsen. o No intcrsection ${~ll o~r~c at LOS "F" as mc~s~rcd for lh~ ~vor~e weekday {~ak {~our. Notes to Standards am d{mcus~d in :he thres~ld standards include: 1- LOS ~eM~ements shall ~ %or the average weekday ~ak ~ur, excludin8 ~a~nai and s~ ~tcumstan~e var'at~ons. 2. The measurement o% LOS sl~ll ~ by the ICU (intersection CaVity Utili~tion) calculatlgn uti{i~n8 the Clt~{ published design standards. 3. intersect{o~ of Cty arterials with freeway ramps sl~ll ~ excluded from this q. Circ~a~ion im~ovcments sl~d ~ implemented prior ~o an~ici~ted deter. lora~ion of ~OS ~{ow ~s~abHsh~d s~andards. · ' lmpie:nentat;ion measures delineated Include: Should the GMOC de%ermlne that the Threshold Standard is not beln8 satZs.~Jed, then the City council aha{l, within 40 days of the GMOC's re.cz, schedule and' hold a public he~ing ior the purpose o~ adopt~n{ a moratorium on the acceptance ol new tentative map applications, based on a J{ o{[ the iolio~vin& crl teria; 1. Tha~ the moratorium is limited to an a~ea where_in a causal relationship to the {x'obiem has been established{ and, 2. That :he moratorium provides & mitigation measure to a speciflca{ly identiiied impact. Should a moratorium be e~tabii~ed, the time shall be USed to expeditiously propose .~peci[~c mitlsation me.urea fo~ adoption which ~'e intended to brln8 the condition The City of Chula Vista ham adopted a Transportation phasin8 Plan (TPP) to establish an orderly pro&ression of street improvements to correspond with the development of t~.e Eastern Terrltor[es of which this proiect is a p~rt. Street improvements to m~[ntaln an &cceptab[e level o~ service on the ~rCulaQon s~tem have ~en identified as necessary to serve the to~l development o~ the Eastern Terdtorles ~s opp~ed to any individ~ development. Th~ t~mlng o~ each improvement Is ~ed :o a s~[c amount o~ develo~nent ~um~r o~ dwe[[[ng or ~r~s ~cres o~ [nd~tr[~ or ~mmer~a[ l~nd ~) as oppo~d to the development o( ~y ~r~c~ar ~rcel o~ land. Since the geographic order ~nd Intensities dev~o~ent ~e not cert~n~ the TPP Is reviewed and revised annu~ly'to re~lect c~rent ~d ~evelo~ent pro~s~s and c~n~ng condldo~ in the community. The review process ~ns in Jan~ty o~ each year and cul~nlnates In a no~d public he~ing appro~mately April of each ye~, at w~ch time the City Council may ~n~der ~y modi~icaQo~ to the TPP req~rements. As part o~ the Territories, R~cho del Rey SPA Ill is subject to the ~as: Chu~a Vls~ Transit- ration Ph&~n8 Plan ~d to ~1 c~tent or ~uture updates o~ the over~l ~rc~at]on ~m~ovements. · .' IMPACTS Trip generation for pro~ect trips except for retirement communi~ ~re b~se~ on ~e S~n Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) trip generation r~tes. Retirement ~mmuni~ trip r~tes ~re Gi~ of S~n Diego r~tes ~n~ recom~en~e~ for use by the Gi~ of Ghul~ V~st~. Trip genera:ion r~tes ~re ~s follows: Residential Single F~mily ~0 ADT/DU Townhouses 8 ADT/DU Retirement 4.5 ADT/DU 3unior High School 40 ADT/Acre Trip generation for the propose~ project is shown by phase in T~ble ~. As shown in T~ble 1, the proposed pro, eot is estim~te~ to generate 11,40~ ADT. Project trip distribution was estimated by separating out SPA 3 assigned ADT from that generated by other sources. This was done by computing the ADT difference for the cumulative future condition without and with SPA 3 as estimated by separate ECTPP model runs Figure 6 shows the percentage of project trips by direction as distributed by the model. Bankston/Pine Associates, Inc. ].4 Table 1 Project Trip Generation A.M. P.M. ADT Phase Land Use In Out In Out 1 530 Retirement D.U.'s 38 153 167 72 2385 2 245 S.F.D.U.'s 39 157 172 74 2450 3 240Townhouse D.U.'s 30 121 133 57 1920 365 S.F.D.U.'s ' 59 235 257 110 3650 25 Acres Jr. High School 97 257 247 130 1000 TOTALS 263 923 976 443 11405 13 Using the trip distribution shown in Figure 6, project trips were assigned to the road system. These trips were then added to cumulative traffic volumes on the appropriate road segment. Average Daily Traffic based on ECVTPP model run output for the cumulative future without SPA 3 and with SPA 3 is shown in Figures 7a and 7b, respectively. SPA 3 only ADT is shown in parentheses in Figure 7b. The 1989 ADT shown on Figure 5 for East "H"Street between 1-805 and Ridgeback Road was counted by City staff during the week of February 6, 1989. These counts were taken at selected locations including East "H" Street and on Telegraph Canyon Road. It is apparent from these counts that approximately 4,000 ADT (Average Daily Traffic) has shifted from Telegraph Canyon Road to East "H" Street. This shift in traffic is believed to be due to the recent opening of the widened East "H" Street and the fact that congestion exists now on Telegraph Canyon Road. The congestion on Telegraph Canyon Road is a temporary condition which will be relieved when the current improvements are completed in 1990. At that time, the 4,000 ADT is expected to shift back to Tele rah Can on Road from East "H" Street. Accordingly, F!,,g,u, res 7a and 7b reflect tgl~i~PtempoY~ry shift from Telegraph Canyon Road to East H Street and back again. Bankston/Pine Associ,~tes, Inc. Bankston/Pine Associates, Inc. cu~nuIa~ve, e~s~n8 + c~a~ve + PhMe I o~ SPA III, e~s~ng Phase I · Ph~e 2 o~ SPA III, and e~s~ng + cum~atlve. Ph~e I + PhMe 2 + Ph~e 3 o~ SPA IZl ~ndl~o~. ~ng con~Uo~ ~e b~ed on c~ren: tr~i¢ vol~nes when the toasty t~H~es now Ph~ 2 + Ph~ 3 o~ SPA III ~yses ~sume Pro~e~ b~l~o~ gong with r~dw~y Table ~-7 shows resuhs from these analyses by LOS based on volume/cap·dry (V/C) criteria. LOS leveJs tense on a continuum from LOS "^" through oF" with LOS "A" re~lee~Jng opIlma~ conc~t/on~ with minimal delays and LOS "~", tot,I breakdown In tra~flc movement. LOS resuZts based on analysis of ~ts~a/I~ed Intersections In,nc·to the overall level of service at which an inter~ectlon operates. SIsna/lzed Inter~ection results ate ba~ed upon volumes re, at/ye to Intersection cap·dry ra~os. UrttJgnallzed Intersect/on analysis requite produce operattonal levels by movement. ^ range o! leveJ~ by movement is shown in Table ~-7 when an intersect/on is aa*lyzed ,s taq~;~naJlzed/, As Table ~-7 shows, all intersect/or~ relevant to the project w~/l operate a: LOS .C. or better In the AM and PM peak hours with completlon o2 project with the exception of the ]~ut H Street/Paseo del Re)- intersection. The FMt M .. Street/Pasco del Roy Intersection operates at LOS "D" (whh a Vo~ume/Caparlty~ ratio o~ (V/C) 0.8~) in the PM peak hour at completion of project. Volume/Cape. clty ratios a.~ d~scta~ed eatller In thh section a~e u~ed to determine LOS A-E in the City o~ Chula Vista. Accord~n8 to the City of Chu~a ¥1sta's Threshold Standatd~ LOS "D" is aa acceptable LOS for up to two hour~ a day. The third h~ghest hour ~annet exceed · ¥/C rat/o o~ 0.?~ which ~s the upper I~mZt ~or LOS "C". The third h~shelt how for thil Intersection wa~ determined to be at a LOS "C". Therefore, all o! the intersectiorm shown on Table ~-7 meet thZ$ threshold. [n s,.nmary, with the m[tlgatior~ reco[nmended below along with improvements already under construction or in place, all facilities iv[II operate n: an acceptable level of service in aCCordance ~v[th City o! ChuJa Vista Policy Threshold Standards. MITICATION/MON [TOI~IN G As Identified in the BanEston-PIne study, certain mitigations ate needed to accommodate ~oJect tra~flc. Recommendations ate m~de to mit]sate stud), area roadways to acceptable levels o[ service. In accordance wl~h t~ derailment sc~d~e shown in Table~ the Iol[owing ~te s~df[c ~ojec: related mitigation is needed. , ~ Exlsfln~ + C~ative Mitigation Me~urFs o - SJgngl~ Telegca~ Canyon Road and Pasco Ladera. ~fln~. C~adve + Phase I o~ SPA III Mitigation o O~n up t~ south leg o[ E~t H Street/East Business Patk Road [ntemecfion wh~e Ph~ I ttEJ[c Il Msumed to enter and ~,~fin~. C~at]ve + Phase 1 o[ SPA III Migration o Comtruct Pasco Ranchero ~tween H Street ~nd Telegra~ Canyon Road. oExtend 3 Street to ~ovl~e a th~ou~ tw~lane road ~tween Pasco del Ray ~d P~ o P~ s~p slsn ~ntrols on Pasco La~ra at E~t 5 Street, East 5 Street at P~o R~chero~ ~d: PMeo R~cheto at T~e&r~ph C~yon Road. ~he lntetae~lon o~ Tele~aph C~yon Roa~P~s~ Ranchero o~rat~ at L~ E [or [elt t~ns out o~ PMeo Rancherol ~wever~ low ~l~ on the mln~ street ~ pot meet sign~ E~sfln~. C~aflve. p~ 1~ 2~ and 3 o[ SPA II[ Mitigation o SI~I~ Telegra~ C~yon Road and Pasco Ranchero. Mitigation me~es noted a~ve relate to t~se ro~dw6y JaciJifles ~e~ed ~SPA Ill develoFn~t. It is assumed tha~ NI struts Intern~ to t~ ~oje~ wo~d ~ de~ed accor~n8 to the d~siJicafionl FovI~d in t~ ~oje~ ~s~lptlon. T~ develo~r will ~ re.ired to implement the a~ve mentioned mi~safion me~es. ' ATI'ACHMENT NO. 2 Cinti & Associates Land Planning September 26, 1990 Mr. Craig Fukuyama McMillin Communities, Inc. 2727 Hoover Avenue National City, CA 92050 Subject: Comments on RDR SPA III Draft EIR Dear Craig: I have reviewed the Draft EIR being circulated for the SPA III project and offer the following comments/suggestions with page references for your consideration (any changes made in the body of the text should also be carried forward to the summaries): S-1 Par. 2, last sentence: "The closure of East J Street.. ,, This language infers that an existing street is being c~osed to traffic. In fact, the proposal is to eliminate a propos- ed link in the planned circulation system. This is an important distinction. S-4 Cultural Resources. As detailed below, the mitigation program required for SPAs II and III is complete and pub- lished. S-5 Public Services. The components of project which alleviate existing adverse infrastructure/service conditions should be documented. Especially the elimination of two sewer pu~p stations. S-ii Biology. The comparison of these alternatives to the proposed project does not appear to address the off-site mitigation program component of the project mitigation plan. 1133 Columbia St.. Suite 201. San Diego, CA. 92101. (619) 239.1815 · FAX · (619)239.4737 Mitigation measures beyond the nearby project environs resulting .~rom either the project or cumulative projects traffic is being accounted for ~n the on-going East {' Chula Vis:~ Transportation Phasing Plan (ECVTPP). The ECVTPP is ~Ing managed by the City o~ Chul~ V~t~. The ECVTPP ~ea will be r~ana[yzed on an annul basis to s~y ahead o~ development ~nd to ]ns~e t~t a comprehensive ann~1 review Is made to m~nt~n acceptable 1eve~s o~ service on ~1 ~[ected Intersec~ons and roadways. The City En~neer ~ informed the R~cho D~ Rey Partners~p :~t the SPA ~l~ E[R s~u[d indicate that SPA ~[, ~s In ~1 other develo~cnts~ is subject to ~y curren: or ~ut~e u~a~es o~ the City-wide Trans~rtation Phasing Plan. McMillin Communities, Inc. September 26, 1990 Page 3 Paqe Further, to the degree that each alternative site is not an "in-fill" location, potentially significant growth induce- ment impacts are associated with the extension of services to new areas. The EIR should identify such environmental impacts. 1-2 Par. 1. The SPA III Plan and tentative map are not required to receive Planning Commission "approval,,. The Commission recommends to the Council on these matters and the City Council is the only "approval" required. 2-4 Par. 1. The paragraph appears to be a series almost random sentences. Chapter I of the SPA Plan contains background information which could be utilized to clarify this informa- tion. 2.3 Par 1. Parcel CF-l, a community facilities site, should be mentioned in the project description. Provision of a such site for church, daycare, or public/quasi-public use is an important component of the neighborhood concept. 2.3 Par. 2. The issues involved with the Specific Plan Amendment and General Plan Amendment should be explained. The EIR should convey to the reader the necessity to change adopted plans (i.e., the area of conflict and what adopted policy/map/element must be changed or is proposed to be changed). Such information is provided in the SPA III Plan in Chapter I, Chapter II (density transfer), and Chapter III (East J Street). Also, same comment as above on "closure" of East J Street. 2-5 Figure 2-3. This is not the proposed General Development Plan which is Exhibit 2 in the proposed SPA III Plan a~d is dated 7/23/90. In addition, the statistics in Table 2-1 are not correct. Exhibit 2 in the SPA III Plan includes the current statistics. 2-6 The description of the location of the 10 acre park is actually the location of parcel CF-1. An accurate descrip- tion of the park location should be provided. 3-1 3.0 Par. 1. The project is 404.6 acres in size, not 408.4. The project site not located in the Eastern Territories Planning Area. It is within the Sweetwater Planning Area. McMillin Communities, Inc. September 26, 1990 Page 2 page The EIR should evaluate the comparative merits of preserva- tion of relatively small areas within a development project (Alt. Designs 1 & 2) versus the preservation of larger areas which are components of a large scale habitat conservation program. S-12 Land Use/General Plan/Zoning. The discussion of the Design Alternatives suggests that no impacts to land use compati- bility would occur even through a substantial reduction in development acreage is involved. The proposed project yields a total of 1,380 du with an average density of 6.6 du/ac. Alt. Design 1, at 1,380 du on 130 net acres, would have an average density of 11 du/ac and Alt. Design 2 would be 8.3 du/ac on 166 net acres. The development of Area D under Alternative 1 is extremely problematic. The loss of this 24 acre area would reduce the Alternative Design 1 area to approximately 106 acres which would yield an average density of 13 du/ac. These density increases would definitely change the charac- ter of the community away from the single family detached neighborhood of the proposed project to one with a signifi- cantly larger single family attached/multi-family com- ponents. Such a character change could easily create significant land use conflicts and disrupt the established single family detached neighborhood pattern on the surround- ing properties. Such increased density projects would not as readily fit in the community context for the project. Both alternatives would require General/Specific Plan Amendments for increased density, among other reasons. S-18 Off-Site Alternatives. It should be noted that some or all of the off-site alternatives fail to meet some of the ~0als of the project (i.e., the "project" is more than simply building houses) which must be achieved on the project site and/or within the City limits: 1) implementing the City's General Plan; 2) implementing the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan; 3) alleviating the current shortage of park and recreation facilities in the project area; 4) completing infrastructure links such as East J Street and Paseo Ranchero; and, 5) providing a junior high school site which is a current need of the school district. These issues affect both current and future residents of the project area. The school site is addressed in the alternatives discussion, but the other issues which are equally important should also be included under each appropriate topic. McMillin Communities, Inc. September 26, 1990 Page 4 Page Par. 4. The Rancho del Rey Business Park is not 184 acres in size and the proposal to include an auto park in this area has been formally abandoned for some time. The Rancho del Rey SPA I General Development Plan indicates that the Employment Park is 102.4 acres (gross). 3-2 The EIR language infers that the EastLake project is in close proximity to the east of the project site. In fact this project is located 2 miles east of the site and has little, if any, influence on the project setting. 4-11 4.3 Landform Alteration/Aesthetics. This section does not discuss the provision of an open space buffer along East "H" Street which is a significant issue of consistency with the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan. 4-14 par. 2, last line. Fill volumes are estimated to be 2.0 to 2.5 million cubic yards. 4-15 Figure 4-2. This is not the proposed Grading Plan, as it shows East "J" Street extended to Buena Vista Way. The proposed Grading Plan is included as Exhibit 14, dated 7/23~90, in the SPA III Plan. 4-38 First "o". Only one sewer lateral is proposed to cross open space and it is not located in an area identified as con- taining rare plant populations or bird habitat. If there are other specific impacts associated with its location, they should be detailed. See also mitigation measures. 4-45 Mitigation/Monitoring. The mitigation program for SPAs II and III has been completed and accepted by the City. The report, entitled Data Recovery and Sampling Strategy Ev~iua- tion at SDi-9893, was prepared by RECON and published August 1, 1990. The discussion of a mitigation/monitoring program is irrelevant at this point. The EIR should document the analysis and conclusions of the work which has been complet- ed. 4-51 First "o". The City's Growth Management Oversight Committee is not authorized to hold hearings; any Growth Management hearings are held by the City Council based on input from the GMOC (see page 4-53 of the EIR). 4-63 4.8 Land Use/General Plan/Zoning. Because the project involves both General Plan and Specific Plan amendments, a McMillin Communities, Inc. September 26, 1990 Page 5 Page complete discussion of these issues should be provided in this section. However, these issues are mentioned in passing, if at all. It must be assumed that the existing plans had some leVel of logic and were adopted based on a balancing of environmental impacts and public policy bene- fits which would be potentially disturbed by amendments. The EIR should present sufficient information so that the reader can understand why the amendments are proposed and which environmental impacts are avoided or minimized through the amendments. 4-64 Figure 4-11. Given the overwhelming importance of the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan as compared to the General Plan Land Use Map, in the evaluation of land use and adopted plan consistency, this discussion should emphasize the provisions of the Specific Plan. A greater level of detail regarding the Specific Plan would allow the reader to have a better understanding of the adopted planned uses for the project site and the areas of ' ° · consistency/Inconsistency between the proposed SPA Plan and the adopted Specific Plan. 4-65 Par. 1. The density transfers among the development parcels within SPA III are also the result of logical planning and an effort to avoid adverse land use/intensity conflicts with existing development. The EIR should provide a discussion of these aspects of the density transfer issue (see Chapter II of the SPA III Plan text). Par. 3. The area south of the project site is Otay Ranch which is not zoned PC nor within the City of Chula Vista (see Otay Ranch off-site alternative). Sunbow is to the west and south. 4-67 The parcel statistics and descriptions provided on this and the following page are not consistent with those presented in the SPA III Plan, specifically on the Site Utilization Plan, Exhibit 5, dated 7/23/90. Examples: the SPA Plan indicates 1,380 units on 208.8 acres at an average density of 6.7 du/ac; parcel R-2 contains 151 units; parcel R-6 contains 232 units; there is no parcel R-Sa in this pro- posal; OS-2 is 53.7 acres in size. Parcels OS-I, 05-2 and OS-6 comprise the southern leg of Rice Canyon which drains primarily to the west. While each "neighborhood,, in SPA I and II was partially surrounded by open space, this is not true in SPA III (e.g., R-4 & R-5). This discussion should include parcel CF-1 which is currently not mentioned. McMillin Communities, Inc. September 26, 1990 Page 6 Paqe The selection of lot sizes and residential character in various locations was carefully evaluated in preparing the SPA III plan to insure maximum compatibility at all edges. This is a very important environmental issue for an in-fill project and deserves discussion in the EIR. This issue of consistency/ compatibility of the proposed project with the existing adjacent uses becomes very important when comparing it to the Alternative Designs which cannot readily blend with the existing community because of their higher average densities. 4-77 Parks, Recreation and Open Space. City staff has indicated that one aspect of the need to provide more park acreage than that required by the adopted Specific Plan is the local shortage of facilities. This issue is not discussed in the EIR. This is another issue which becomes important in the evaluation of alternatives. Provision of park area in some other location, while consistent with a 3 ac./1000 popula- tion standard, will do nothing to alleviate the existing adverse situation in this area which the proposed project will directly address. The fact that this additional park acreage necessitates a specific plan amendment probably should be mentioned in this section. The need for addition- al parkland, both for existing and project residents, is a readily understandable as a reason for the proposed amend- ment. The fact that the 2.0 park was a part of a balanced park system for the specific plan area as a whole and the subse- quent credit determinations for SPA I which led to the "shortfall" would also be appropriate. This would help the reader understand why the City has determined that a n~ deficiency of 2.3 acres is not a significant impact (p. 4- 78). 4-84 Par. 3. Planning for the middle school within SPA III would be the responsibility of the Sweetwater Union High School District. The discussion should note that the district is relying on this site to accommodate a new facility to serve existing as well as future needs. The district does not have an alternative site available in the short term to meet these needs. 4-84 Impacts. The EIR should identify the adverse existing conditions which will be improved (benefits) as well as the McMillin Communities, Inc. September 26, 1990 Page 7 ~age negative potential impacts of the project. As noted above, the project will have clearly positive impacts to sewer service and schools by providing needed new facilities. 4-87 School. It should be noted that the seniors housing pro- ject, which is a significant fraction of the 1,380 total units would generate no school age children, if it is fully implemented. The EIR should note that the analysis present- ed here is a worst case scenario and assumes no seniors housing component. The seniors housing would be subject to the Mello-Roos tax however, potentially creating a financial benefit to the school districts (additional revenue without additional children to serve). 5-1 Compliance with Threshold Policy. The text in this section seems to confuse threshold compliance with project impacts. It is quite possible to have an impact while maintaining threshold compliance. The traffic threshold requires maintenance of specified intersection LOS; the threshold compliance discussion should make reference to LOS not ADT. The police threshold requires maintenance of specified response times not staffing levels. Changes in equipment or efficiency could easily change staff levels required to achieve the necessary performance. Same with fire protec- tion. 6-1 Alternatives. The second paragraph in this section states that consideration of alternative sites is not necessary. Section 6.4 is a consideration of alternative sites. This inconsistency should be resolved. 6-2 No Project - Existing Specific Plan. Given that the fea- tures of the proposed project which require Specific Plan and General Plan Amendments avoid some potential adverse environmental impacts, this alternative which does not include these features would have some additional adverse impacts when compared with the proposed project. These issues should be discussed in this section. 6-3 Alternative Designs. As noted earlier, both.of these alternatives have potentially significant land use/intensity compatibility impacts associated with them. Each alterna- tive substantially reduces the amount of land devoted to residential development. So to maintain a project yield of 1,380 units, significantly higher average densities are required. These densities change the character of develop- McMillin Communities, Inc. September 26, 1990 Page 8 Page ment by increasing the amount of attached and multi-family units which are inconsistent with surrounding projects as well as Specific Plan designations. Potential incompatibil- ity impacts associated with each of these alternatives should be clearly identified. The biological analysis for each of these alternatives should compare and evaluate the conservation of on-site areas, which will be impacted by adjacent development (as discussed in the biology analysis of the proposed project), to the off-site mitigation proposed by the project. The off-site mitigation component does not appear to enter into these discussions, yet it is a critical~ factor to be consi- dered. It should also be noted that some disturbance in the areas taken out of development will occur in order to extend roads and infrastructure. 6-24 Otay Ranch Alternative. Since there is no adopted plan for Otay Ranch, the reader should be informed as to which development plan is being compared to the SPA III develop- ment concept. Because the site is not within the City, the planning analysis should ~escribe fully the required steps for project development (in the City or County?), annexation to service agencies, GPA, zone change, etc. This alterna- tive would also impact the current City/County Task Force Planning Program for the Otay Ranch as a whole. Extension of infrastructure to this area would have growth inducing impacts and additional expense, and development of this site would do nothing to solve the infrastructure and facilities problems existing in the area of the proposed project site. The EIR should include these facts in its discussion of this site alternative. Many of these same impacts/shortcomings are associated with the other alternative sites. McMillin Communities, Inc. September 26, 1990 Page 9 This concludes our comments. If you have any questions regarding them, please give me a call. Sincerely, CINTI & ASSOCIATES Jay Kniep Associate ATrACHMENT NO. 3 RECI2JN Regional Environmental Consultants September 24, 1990 Ma'. Craig Fukuyama McMillin Development 2727 Hoover Avenue National City, CA 92050 Reference: Comments on the SPA 3 EIR 0tECON Number R- 1559E) Dear Mr. Fukuyama: I have reviewed the biology section of the SPA 3 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and fred it to be ~?s.tan.'.t~y. factual and accurme. In reviewing the mitigation measures, I do have me stxth ~tem~zed measure concerning the rmugatton of California gnatcatcher habitat (page 4-39). a concern regarding The language which requires the acquisition and conservation of either (1) off-site property of specific minimum size and resident gnatcatcber population density, or (2) the on-site Specialty Homing area, eliminates the candidacy of potential conservation sites which might have higher conservation value to California gnatcatcber while not meeting the requirements of the measure's language. Resolution of this concern might be accomplished by adding a new item "d" to the measure stating: d. Or acquire and preserve an off-site area of coastal sage scrub habitat acknowledged by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the City of Chala Vista to equal or exceed the conservation goals of the options listed above. This would allow the acquisition of properties in satisfaction of this mitigation measure which might be recognized critical links in natural open space design, which do not meet the specific area or density requirements of the first three options, while providing for continued U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service involvement. Please call if you have questions. erel~ Cameron Patterson ~' Director, Biological Services CCP:st 1276 Morena Boulevard ,, San Diego, CA 92110-3815 · (619) 275-3732 · FAX (619) 275-3619 5099 East Grant Road, Su~*e 301A * Tucson, AZ 85712 * (602) 325-9977 3050 Chicago Avenue · Riverside, CA 92507 · (714) 784-9460 , . ,, ,, ,,., ATTACHMENT NO. 4 File: 671.40 VIA FAX September 25, 1990 Craig Fukuyama McMillin Communities 2727 Hoover Avenue National City, CA 92050 SUBJECT: Review Comments to the Draft EIR dated August 1990 for Rancho Del Rey Dear Craig, Following are our comments to the draft EIR listed by Page Number: PAGE NO. COMMENTS 4-9 The last sentence of the second paragraph of this page should be deleted and the following added: "Other smaller existing storm drains include a 24-inch pipe in Buena Vista Way at East "J" Street; a 24-inch pipe in Paseo Ladera at Paseo Entrada; and a 24-inch pipe in Forester Glenn Drive at East "J,, Street. 4-14 Second Paragraph. This paragraph discusses maximum cut and fill slopes and volume of earthwork for the project. The maximum cut slope will be 25 feet located in the vicinity of the community facility east of Paseo Ladera and the maximum fill slope will be 70 feet located in the vicinity of the specialty housing area south of East "H" Street~ The total cut volume and fill volumes for the project are estimated at 4.0 million cubic yards each including 1.6 million cubic yards for the specialty housing area. 4-14 Last paragraph, second to last sentence should be revised to read: "Many of the large manufactured slopes would be visible to motorist transiting along East "H" Street, Telegraph Canyon Road, and Paseo del Rey. Craig Fukuyama September 25, 1990 Page 2 4-35 Fourth paragraph. The first sentence should be revised to read: "The proposed access road (Paseo Ranchero) that Connects East "H" Street and Telegraph Canyon Road through SPA III project site would cross the south leg of Rice Canyon, a major drainage channel on the site.,, 4-35 Sixth paragraph. The second sentence should be revised to read: "The City of Chula Vista requires that each major storm drain outlet be accessible by a road.,, 4-82 The discussion in the third paragraph should be continued as follows: "In 1990 the City of Chula Vista entered into an agreement with Eastlake Development Company allowing them to temporarily divert pumped sewage flows to the Telegraph Canyon Road trunk sewer until the necessary gravity systems are developed. The diversions could affect the capacity of the Telegraph Canyon Road sewer, in which case, the agreement also provides for Eastlake Development to increase the capacity of the affected sewers when required.,, 6-2 First paragraph. The fourth sentence should be revised to read: "In addition, beneficial affects associated with the project, including completion of important circulation element streets, provisions of housing tax revenues and construction of a junior high school site would not be achieved.,, 6-6 Second paragraph. This section of the EIR discusses Alternative Number 1 Site Development. Area D is an area now designated open space laying along Telegraph Canyon Road west of Paseo Rancho. This paragraph discusses development potential for the Area D site, however, it fails to recognize that the site abuts Telegraph Canyon Road and a major drainage channel which occupy most of the flat portions of the site. The remainder of the site is steep hillside slopes abutting the existing residential property. The site has no development potential beyond open space designation. 6-6 Insert the following sentence after the fourth sentence in the sixth paragraph: "Elimination Craig Fukuyama September 25, 1990 Page 3 of development in Area E would reduce the amount of canyon placed fill requiring a significant amount of soil export in order to develope Area B." 6-16 Second paragraph. This paragraph should also include discussion on the gravity sewer to be built through Area A even if the area is not developed. Also, see comments to the biology section discussion of Alternative 1 on Page 6- 8. Following are some general comments to the EIR: 1. The overall tone of the EIR would suggest that either one of Alternatives Number 1 or 2 would be preferred over the proposed project. In addition, the EIR fails to adequately portray the importance of the public facilities built with SPA III that are required irregardless of the proposed development here. Those facilities include the completion of East "H" Street and Paseo Ranchero and the elimination of existing pump stations and force mains which were built in anticipation of completion of an ultimate gravity sewer network with the SPA III plan. 'Elimination of any of these facilities would be critical to the ultimate development of the community and the impact of their not being constructed should also be analyzed. 2. Enclosed with this letter is a revised version of the mitigation and monitoring program marked to reflect the time frame of mitigation as discussed in the EIR. The above constitutes our comments to the EIR. ~ Very truly yours, Wil~ick, P.E. Project Manager WRD/cw Enclosures c: Keith Keeter Thom Fuller Gary Cinti I:L-M'qCHO DEL REY SPA III MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGR.AM (Continued) ~ ~ Date of Complctc, Re~por~ibl¢ for Re-spoa.sibl¢ for Mitlgal Park~ ~ T k V riff i n m lelion nd Vel $~ace Provide' a dctail,-d concept TM pla~ for proposed park. Applic. aat Chu}a V',~ta D~part- merit of Parka ,md Reaeatie~ a~d Pack~ and Rccrca~on Com- De.~gn 4:1 slopes or lc.~.s for TM park. Appllca. m Chula V'~ta Depart- mca~ of' Parks and Rccrcat./on Eater ia aa agreement with TM the Swectwatcr Uaion High AppLic. mat Ch,,l~ V'ma Dcpart- $c.~ool District a. ad the City meat of Parks and of Chula VLsta to i~su~e pub- Recreation ~c aere~ to the r¢ca'eational amc~.ri~ of thc juaior ~ s~oo~r°pe'~ wo~d Laeludc soccer ficld.% ba..~cetba~l courL% a~d tezmi.s Provide ftmdiag for ~e dif- ~ Applicant Chula V'ata Dcpan- f~r~ce in cost betweca facili- .~/,~,, tiea built to w.~ool staada~ meat of Parka and and facilities btdlt to City Recreation Deai~ and coa.~tguct recre, a. Applleam Clmla VL~ta Dcpart- tioaa~ facilities to City of Chula V'uta staada~ds aad ia ,~'?..,, meat of Park~ co~ultatio= with City ~ Recreation De..siga park so that it would TM ao~ be Lsolatcd with o~y Applicant Chula V'w.a Depart- backs of build~g~ facing omo mcat of Parks and thc p~rk. Reercatioa De.~ pm'k to provide adc- TM quate visibifity f~om ~ $ Applicant C'hula V'~ Street. mere: of Parka Recreatioa Provide ac. ce~ to tile achoo! TM pm'king lot for overflow pm'k- Applicant Chula V'ma Depa..,t. ing from park. meal of' Parka and Re~eatioa RANCHO DEL REY SPA MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAM (Continued) ,"*litigation Reapomsible for R~poo.sibl¢ for Date of Complete,Date Task Time Frltm~ Task Verification Comnletion and Vq~rifi~,.c Cultural ResQureg~ (Continued) Prepaxc rel~rti detail;ag the TM Applicant/Cultural Chula V'ma Depart- invesfigatioes of both sites Resourc~Coniultant meat of Plannin3 and submit to the City of Chula VLsta, SDSU Clearing- houae, and Thc Museum of Mall. Traesoortatiqn Sig~ali:,~. Telegraph C'~nyon .'TL.', Phase I Applicant Chula Vista Depart- Road and Pasco Ladcra. m~m of plannin~ Open south leg of ~r~ H ~ Applicant Chula V'tata I~part- Stree-t/~z~a Buainc.~ Pa~k ~t.~. ~--~:~ ~ mcm of Road intersection where Pha.~ I tra/fic is a.~umed to cmer and exit. Co.truer Pasco Ranchero ~ Applicant C~ula V'ata Dcpart- bexween H Street and Tele- Fe,.x ,~.%c.--~ mom of graph Canyon Road. E~tend J Street to provide a ,,~'~Ph~ 2 Applicant Chula V'ista Depatt- th'ough two-lane road lac- Wt'~ mc:u twin Pa.~o del Rey and Pasco Ranchero. Plac~ stop sign controls on ~ Pha~ 2 Applicant Chula Vista Dcpart- Pa$~ Ladera at Ea~ J ~'~t'~ mom of Street, l~ j Strcm at Pa.seo Ranchero, and Pa..~o Ranch° ero at Telegraph Canyon Road. S15~:117,~ Telegraph Canyon ~ Phat~ 3 Applicant Chula VLsta Depart- and Pasco Ranchcro. ~t'~ m~t plannln~ Complainm with ECVTPP for ~ Applicant' Chula Vista Depazt- current and furore updates to meat pt-nnin~lTa maintain acceptable levels of Ps ~,.-I.. ~"/'~ T~ Engineer s~Mc~ on all affeetexl inter- se..etionl and roadway .~g- RANCHO DEL REY SPA HI MFI'IGATION Aa'iD MONITORING PROGi:LAM (Continued) Mitigatio Responsible for Responsible for Date of Complete,D; T~k ~ ~ Vrifi ia ml in n Vrif Record a conservatioa ease- Grad;ag Permit Applicant Chula ',,r,.aa Depart- meat with aaa agency of ap- , propriatejurisdictionoverthe .; ~'/,aX meat of plannln~; off-site mitigation area i/ ownership of the mitigatioa site docs not tramsfcr prior to i.uuance of a grading permit. l~lplemenr g'na¢calctlcr mitiga- TM Applicant Chula Vkra D~part- UGh program. Acquire and pre.serve 0.4 Grading Permit Applicant ChulaV',~ta Dcpart- acrea of vernal ~ lancis that is acceptable to the meat of City of Chula Vista and the USFWS. P:~,",axc and implement ~ Grading Permit Applicant/Biological Chula V'uta Depart- p restoraffoa plan ii' miff- C°n~ultant meal of Plann;.g gauor, site requlrc.s r~tora- tiom Proh~0it gradiag ia RDR SPA Gracl;-g Permit Applicant Cliula V'ma Depart. rtl veraal pool area prior to accompli,~hin~ thc off-site meat of H~n-;ng acqui*;tion Fcace Off vernal pool mittS. Gradin~ Permit Applicant Chul~ V'~.a l~epart- riga site with a ak-foot chain- liult fence immediately upon meaat of acquisition of thc site.. Scc~rc a U~. Army Corps ~ ./~._/~ Appliont/Biological Chula V'uta Depa~- Nafionwidc permit. Consultant meat of Plaxu~ Dedicate thc off-site acq~- Oradin~ Permit ApplicaxR Chula Vi.stl Depart- ffou/mlffgation vernal pool site to the approptiatc public me~ of agcacy. riga program. Co~ultaat meal o{' Secure a Strcambed Altcra- Grading Permit Applicant/Biological Chula V'usta Depart- riga Agreement a.s stated Consultant mcat of andcr Scctioa 160'2-1603 of thc CalLfornla Fish and Game Code, for proposed road (Pa.sco Ranchcro). RANCHO DEL REY SPA III MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAM (Continued) Mitigation R~spomible for Re..spoa.sible for Date of Complete,Date Ta~k Timq~ Framq~ T~sk Ver/fication Comnletion itnd Bioloc~v (Continued] Design and implement moul- Final Map Applicant/Biological Chula Vista Depart- toting program to determine Consultant meat of the effect of the SPA III development oa the popula- r/on of California gnat- catchers. D~sign and incorl~rat¢ Final Map Appllcaat/Biologicul Chula Vista Depart- project-wide rc~,~.ahon plan Consultant mcat of that includ~ a transplant program for cacti and a five ~ mMn(~'nanC~ and moulto- ring plan. Acquire and pre..~rve an area TM Applicant/Biological Chula Vista Depart- of coastal sage scrub habitat Consultant meat of planning to reduc~ impacts to the California gnarcatcher actmrd- hag to conditions ~tabliahed in the SPA III fIR. Evaluate mitigation site for TM Applicant/Biological Chula Vista Depa~- ~ by Calit'ornia ~m'~atcatc.her. Coll~!h'no~ metal of planning Approve gnatcatcher mitiga- TM Chula Vista Depart- (2hula V'ma Depan- tion site. meat of ph~,,,,i,,g, meat of planning USFWS, CDFG ~ th~e ~tcalchcr mitiga- TM Applicant/Biolosieal Chula V'ma Depart- tioll site i~ within, adjacent to Consultant meat of planning ~ - or coanexted by an appro- priate land.scal:~ corridor to a larger area or interconnec- ted .~t of patches of habitat that are currently in public ownership or d~'-'iLmated open spac~ or re. aaouably expected to remain in a nar're'al state. The habitat would b~ 800- 1,000 Prohibit grad;ag activities ~..' Applicant/Biological Chula V'ma Depart- which would adversely affect Consultant meat of plnnnin~ the habitat of the specialty bourns area. Dedicate off-site acquisition/ Gradin~ Permit Applicant Chula Vista Depan- mitigatioa site to the re.spo=- merit of planning sible public agency. P,.ANCHO DEL REY SPA 111 MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAM (Continued) Mitigation Reapor~ible for Reapousible ['or Date of Complete, Date Task Time Frame T~k Verification Completion and Verif~,.i Air Oualitv (Con6nued} Implement mitigation mca- TM Applicant Ciaula Vi.s~a Depart- sur~s to reduce potential for meat of planning air pollution 'hot spots' at intersections. Adhere to rec~mmeadatlon TM Chula Viata Depart- Ciaula Vista Depart- made by the 1982 SIP regard- meat of plannln$ meat of P~annlng ing local participation in air emiasioa reduchon men.saran and the forthcoming San Diego Air Quality Plan. Monitor grading to reduce Grading Permit Applicant/Biological Cb. ula V',~ta Depart- impac~ to coastal sage scrub Consultant meat of planning habitat. Hand cleat [h-e bulters that Grading Permit Applicant Claula V'ma l~part- encroach into open space meat of ar~a& Revegetate open space areas .aM-.. Applicant/Biological Chula V'ma Depart- aad ara impacted by sawer ~ [~ Consultant meat of plan,,i,,g laterals with coastal sage ua~ spoci~ nativ~ to the site. Insure that biologist ha~ been ~ Applicant Chula V'u.~ta Depart. re.~aimatt to ~ l'~"~*~'atlt~! meat of plannln~ program and that a fi,m-year revegetatJoa program has be~a de-~;~ed thai: ia ac~p- table to City staff. Pnsitioa sawer laterals to C ,- ~ 1' ' Applicant/Biological CliulaV'k~taD~part- Catl~ minirntml impacts to C~_p Consultant meat of planning biological reaoutcea. Locate et. aging area.~ for con- 0 ',~_r~,t5 '~ " Applicant/Biological Chula V'~.a l~part- SII'HO.~OI! tO I~inlm~7.~ impacts Consultant meat of Planning to acnsitiv~ biological rnsour- ~' P Stake acw~r installation cor- ~ Applicant/Biological Chula Viata Depart- ridora prior to dt',dgn fimlliza- tion. Adjust corridors ii' ~"~ Consultant mcat of requnsled by momtormg bio- ~i~. RANCHO DEL REY SPA III MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGI:~tM (Continued) Mitigation Task ~' Responsible~ for R~apoo.tibleV riff i lorn Datem I nfl n Complete, Da~n V riff Geology and Soil~ (Continued) Insure that temporary slopes .:D./. Applicant/Gcotech. Chula Vista Depart- meet thc minimum require- ~.--? nacul Consultant merit of Ez~eermg merits of applicable Health ~md Safety Co<lea. Insure that outer portion of ~.'I'M Applicant/Gcotcch. Chula V'ksta Depart- t-RI stopes ate composed of ~.? nar. al Consultant meat of E~eenng compacted granual soll fill Brlag site to final subgrade "-3:M- Applicaal/Geotech- C. hula VL~a Depart- elevations with structural HII ~.' ~ ";cut Consultant ment of Compacted ia layers. Monitor for presence of TT,,i- ~. ? Applicaal/Gcotech- Chula V'g~.a D~part- groundwater. ";cai Consultant meal of Remove alluvial/colluvial --.~M--~,~ Applicaal/Gcotech- Chula VLsta Depart- depoagts ia the canyons ad- ";cai Consultant meal of jaceal to the proposed .toes of Ifil slopes. Und~rcal portion of settlements a mlnin~ Of 'gf=]~ Applicaal/Geotech- Chula V'~V.a flu'ee feet and replace by low -;cai Consultant meal of Engine=i~g Grade site to allow soil~ '-T~..'. -~.? Applicant/Ge~ech- ClulaV'ulaE~.,pan- with;, three feet of fi.i~h -;cai Consultant meet of l~.....ing grade to possess an e.x'p:~-sion ~. index of less than .50. Include the design and con- -T/~-~. ~ Applicant/Geo(ech. Chula Vi.sta Del~.t. stru~ion r~:ommendations on ~e t'mal grading and foanda- -;c~l Consultant meat of uon plans.' Review Final grading plan~ Grading Permit Applicaal/Ge~e. ah- Clula VLsta nacal Consultant ,-em of Mo-;tor on-site grading to '-~d Appl{cant/Geo(ech- Chula V'~ta Depart- Conftrm soll Conditions as ~D -;cai Consultant ment of anticipated. P, rovide t~ting and obs~rva- Building Permit Appllcaal/Geo~ech- Chula Vista Depan- tton report to ver~y that nar. al Consultant meal ofEmgi~eering deaign and constxuctlon re. co= mmendations are completed according to grading RANCHO DEL REY SPA III MITIGATION AND MONrTORING PROGRAM Mitigation Respoeaible for Rc~po.nsibt~ ['or Date o~ Complete, Date Task ~ ~ V riff i n m Geology and Soil,~ Approve and evaluate fill Teatative Map('rM) Appliuant/Geotex. h. ChulaV'~ta Depart- material at leant two days n/cai Con~ultaat prior to fill importation. Evaluate cut and £t[l *lope~ TM Applicant/Geo~ech. Chula V'~ta Depart- for c~a'ormance with sw-dfic- ation~ e~tablished by geotech- dc,al Consultant mcat of Engineering nial report. Aaaly,ia and evaluation of ~ ~ /g4~j~.pplicaat/Geotech- Cl~ula V'tata Depart- appropriate location ofstabil- ~,~,/c,,.,, , t~-~.,..,.7,~ attical Consultant [zation f'dl& meat of Engineering Install subdtains at the ba.~ ~ Appliuaat/Geotech. Chula Vista Depart- of fill~ ia canyons and drawn nical Co~ultant meat of Eng/neeriag or over area~ of potential ~_. :~ seepage. Determ ine Ioc. ation~ during grading. Cunduc~ grading ia accor- T?: Applicaat/Geotedh. ChulaVLqa Depart- ,dance ~ith City of Cl/ula -" v~sta Grading Regulations. ~. ~ nical Co~ultaat meat of Engineering Adhere to uniform builrli,,g .q:~-tf:~l'~ Applicaat/Geo~ech. C. hula Vista Depart. code for construction, nical Cunaultaat meat of l~n~,,eeriag Design foundatiuna, slabs, TM Applicam/Geotech. Chula V'~.a Depan- footiag~ and ret:~i,;,,$ ~ tiom identified by geoteelmi- . . c. al report. R~wiew and approve final grading and foundation pla.. ~ ? ~]~ Applicaat/Geotech. Chula Vista Depart- for the project site. nical Cunsultaat meat of Engineering Place b~atonitic clays u.~ as ~ Applicaat/Geo~ech. (2hula V'~.sta Depart. fill material a minimum of 10 fcet b~low flni~hcd grade and ~' ~ nlcal Comultaat mere: of Engineering 15 feet inside t'fll slopes. Place e. xgan6,~ ~oila correctly.~'M ~ Applicaat/Geotech. Chula 'v~ma Depat~- nical Consultant meat of En~,,eeriag Mow £fll not removed by ,~1~4-~ Appliuaat/Geo~ech. Chula V~a Depart- Plaaaedgradiagoperation, to nical Consultant meat of Eag/aeeriag ftrm natural ground. ATI'ACHMENT. NO. 5 MCDONALD, HECHT ~: SOLIilERG ~o~, c~ocE s~cE,~ September 21, ~990 VIA TELECOPIER/U.S. MAIL Mr. Craig Fukuyama McMillin Communities 2727 Hoover Avenue National City, California 92050 Re: McMillin/Rancho Del Rev/Draft Environmental Impact Report for SPA III Dear Craig, You requested that we review and provide our comments to the above referenced Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for SPA III. You provided for our review the EIR. Subsequent to receipt of the document and our initial review, we discussed this matter with you and Betty Dehoney of P&D Technolo- gies. During our telephone conversations, we indicated a concern that the EIR does not consider the impact that the proposed amendment of the Specific Plan will have previous development entitlements. We suggest that written comment be provided to the City which questions if the change in the level of service standard of the Specific Plan necessitates any reconsideration or further environmental analysis for projects which have already been approved within SPA I and SPA II. Pursuant to our telephone conversation with Ms. Dehoney, she indicated that in her opinion, the EIR is adequate as it relates to the level of service issue and that no further environmental review is necessary. We will be more comfortable with Ms. Dehoney's opinion if the response to the written comments specifically address this issue and that it is adequate to meet the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Our second area of concern relates to specific provisions of the text. Specifically, on Page S-12 (Table S-2) under the "transportation" issue, in the columns designated "alternative design 1" and "alternative design 2", the following sentence occurs: "No full length General Plan of East "J" Street would occur." We are unable to determine the intent or meaning of the above referenced sentence. Mr. Craig Fukuyama September 21, 1990 Page 2 The EIR discusses grading for SPA III in several different locations. Specifically, on Page 4-4 under "impacts" a reference is made to "conventional mass grading techniques involving the cutting of r/dge tops and filling of canyons". We suggest that a comment to the draft EIR be submitted to soften the references throughout the document to the mass grading of the site (See also Page 4-14). We hope this information is of assistance to you in preparing your response to the draft EIR. Should you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely yours, Charles R. Gill McDONALD, HECHT & SOLBERG CRG/mq ATTACHMENT NO} 6 GEOCON Geotec~n~cal Engineers and Engineering Geolo~rsts File No. 04228-03-01 September 21, 1990 McMillln Communities Incorporated 2727 Hoover Avenue National City, California 92050 Attention: Mr. Craig Fukuyama Subject: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) SPA III SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA MODIFICATION TO PAGE 4-5 Gentlemen: In accordance with your request, we have reviewed the geology and soils section of the draft EIR and suggest that the Geologic Hazards section page 4-5 be changed as follows: Geologic Hazards o Based on the findings of the Geocon report (dated March 8, 1989) the branch of the La Naclon Fault present on the site dies out in a series of small folds on adjacent property to the north. In addition, the fault does not displace sediments of the Pleistocene Lindavista Formation. Therefore it is the opinion of the project geologist that the fault does not represent a significant seismic or ground rupture hazard to the development. However, the site could be subjected to moderate-to- severe groundshaking in the event of a major earthquake on more remote faults such as the Coronado Banks, Rose Canyon, or Elsinore Faults. If you have any questions, or if we may be of further service, please contact the undersigned at your convenience. Very truly yours, NCO RPORATED Michael W. Hart CEG 706 MWH:slc 6960 Flanders Drive San Diego. CA 9212%2974 619 558-6900 FAX 6'19 558-6159 " United States Department of the Inte or ~$H AND WI[LDL~ SERVICE FIS}{ AND WILDLIFE ENHANCEMENT SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA FIELD STATION Laguna Niguel Office Federal Building, 24000 Avila Road Laguna Niguel, California 92656 October 1, 1990 Barbara Reid City of Chula Vista 276 FOurth Ave Chula Vista, California 92010 Re: Rancho Del Rey Spa-3, Chula Vista, California Dear Ms. Reid: In May of 1990 the City of Chula Vista (City) requested that the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) review the document titled Preliminary Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Rancho Del Rey Sectional Planning Area (Spa) III Plan, City of Chula Vista, San Diego County, California. At the time of review the Service expressed concerns to the City regarding the impact of the project on biological resources, particularly long term adverse affects to coastal sage scrub habitat, vernal pools and the California gnatcatcher (~~ gali$orni¢~). As you know, the Service has the legal responsibility for the welfare of all migratory birds, anadromous fish and endangered animals and plants occurring in the United States. The pro]ec~ as proposed will result in the direct loss of 256 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub and the degradation of the remaining habitat due to indirect impacts resulting from adjacent disturbances. Coastal sage Scrub is a declining habitat type in San Diego County. It is estimated that Over 70% of the ori lnal r . this habitat in the County has h~ ~ ........ g ~ac Cage of ~-~7 ~u= ~scxng as endangered aro denen~ ~cr~D habitat including the Californi~ · ndlviduals consis~in~ ~ ~ .... -~u-.~caucner. ~orty-slx detected on-site. ~ ~ ~ ~= pa~rs o~ tn~s sensitive bird were The large scale destruction of coastal sage scrub in southern California has had a Corresponding impact on the California gnatcatcher. In 1980, only 1,000 to 1,500 pairs of this species were estimated to occur in southern California, with ]ess than 400 oCCurring in San Diego County. Given the rate of development that has occurred since that estimate was made, in coastal areas a greatly reduced number of California gnatcatchers probably r~main. The California gnatcatcher has been extirpated from Ventura and San Bernardino Counties. Remaining concentrations Ms. Barbara Reid 2 of this species in the United States reside in Orange, Riverside and San Diego Counties. A second sensitive species of concern to the Service is the coastal cactus wren (~amDv]orhynchus ~ sandieqensls). 0nly 230 pairs of this ra~e bird remain in San Diego County. Cactus wren nests were located on-site within cactus thickets. The Service would like to emphasize our increasing concern with the cumulative impacts of development projects on coastal sage scrub habitat. The Service strongly urges the City of Chula ViSta and other local jurisdictional agencies to plan for its preservation, protection of remaining coastal sage scrub habitat of sufficient size and quality can help preserve existing populations of sensitive species. Subsequent site inspections and meetings with the project proponent, McMillin Communities, Inc. and the City of Chula Vista have resulted in the development of additional mitigation measures. These measures are described in the document titled "Additional Mitigation Measures for Rancho Del Rey Spa-3" dated July 17, 1990 (enclosed). The Service believes these mitigation measures represent an appropriate approach to avoiding or mitigating the impact of the subject project on sensitive resources including coastal sage Scrub habitat, vernal pools and the California gnatcatcher. We appreciate the cooperation that the Service has received from the City of Chula Vista and McMillin Communities, Inc. and we commend you for your efforts in the protection of biological resources. If we can be of any further assistance or if you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Nancy Gilbert of this office at (714) 643-4270. Sincerely, Brooks Harper Office Supervisor cc: CDF~, Long Beach, CA CDFG, San Diego, CA (Attn: T. Stewart) McMillin Company, Inc., National City, CA (Attn: C. Fukuyama) County of San Diego, CA (Attn: County Parks, Ann Ras~) Enclosure 1-6-90-TA-508 ADDITIONAL MITIGATION MEASURES PeR RANCHO DEL REY SPA-3 July 17, 1990 Cagfomia Gnateatcher5 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit which would disturb coast~ sage scr?b on the specialty hous/ng area of SPA-3 (Figure 1), the applicant sh'ali acquu~ and preserve an area of coastal sage scrub habitat as described in one of thc following options: 1. Acquire and preserve ~ off-site area of coasts! sage scrub habitat encompassing at least 187 acres which supports at least 17 pairs of California gnatcateher, or" 2. Acquire and preserve an off-site area of coastal sag~ scrub habitat encompassing at least 256 acres which supports 10 pairs of California gBatcatcheL or 3. If an off-site mitigation area cannot be found, shall preserve the 70 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat in the Specialty Housing Area 'on- site in addition to. the 117 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat proposed for open space as described in the Rancho Del Ray SPA-3 EIR: .This _rrfitiga. tion is .to satisfy the take and replacement for ail of SPA-3, not ~ts ~for .,~e .spec,.al. ty. housing area. The proposed mitigation site can be id me exty l~:mts, however, ~st priority shall be given, to the acquisition of areas with the General Plan ar~a, and then to other areas aSan .D.i.ego Coun. ty. The preserva~io? of this site is ~.he res onslbflL ' puon¢ or private enti th · p ty of e:ther ..... ty at xs sausfactory to the City o~ Chula Vi~m tacc~.ptaole..pnvate enuties are - Nature Conservancy, $ierr[, Club; accepta-~le pGUba~liee' ~n.~.n~[shB~auw~df,,r~La.~l~.~,,.~oM~n~ aement, C. al_ifonfi~'a. Dep~arm:ent of Fish and ......... ,.e, ~oun~y o~ ~an Dingo, t;~ty of ChuIa Vista). .I~terim msponsibi~ty for nreservafion o~ ,~- -:-. -. · . . ~ ur;; n~angal:lorl sl~¢ sha,.U rernn~n~ with me project applic, ant, until" Im acceptable public or pri.v.ate The proposed rnJugauon sit. must be acc?~ptabte to the City entity is secured. consu~tauon with the U,S. Fish and Wildlif~e S~rvice CUSFW$)°f Chula ¥~sta, in and tho California terminmg thc a¢ceptaom~ et- the mitigation sxt. will be I criteria for California 8natcamhex, and (2) its loag.term conservation potential, ( ) frs use by Th~ mitigalion site will be evaluated for use by C~iiforr~ ~na~cau2hcr through surveys of the site on a miniraum of D.r~ days at least a week apax'~ I/ no gnatcatchers are heard a~r the f~st visit, tapes of gnatcatchcrs will be used. A mirfimum of one hour should be expended for each 25 acres of habitat surveyed. Surveys will be conducted in the morning between sunrise a.nd 11:00 a.m., or a.f~er 3:00 p.m. Surveys should be conduct, ed when air temperatures between 55 and 95 deD,'ees Fahr~a.heff, and winds are below 15 miles per hour. The mitigation sit~' should b~ within, adjacent to, or connected by ,'m approp- riate landscape corridor to a larger area or intercomlected set of patches' of habitat that a~ cra-runty in public ownership or designated ope. n space or reasonably eXl~:t~:l to r~main in a natural sam. Thc gnatcatohor habitat within this block or intereonn~:t~ set of patches should be between 800 to ~00~. acres in area. TMs mitigation/replacement site can be located outside e t~ty of Chula Visa, if necessary, but must be within San Diego County. ocN. O grading or activities which would adv.ersely affect the habitat on the i_al~, housLn.g .area, other, than the construcuon of sewer improvements (as shoSPw~n n ~gure.;/), me. extensmn of Pasco Ranchero, and the ~ra~ling of th~' ~o;,';~'~--~ ama .,e nor east end ",ljacant to i'.seo anchero i not the 70.. acres of .quality coastal sage scab habitat, shall occur prior to accompiishfng the off-she acquisition. The. p.roj~t, proponen! will .make an irrevocable of£er to dedicate the off-sit~ acquasmon/mm, gauon site to .me City of Chula Vista, C?unty of San Diego, .or other, appropriate open space .holder at the time of. assuance of the /fading permat. If ownership of the s~te does not mmsfer pnor to the issuance of a grading permit, ~ app.ltc..a;nt, shall record a conservation easement with an agency .of appropriate junsdic~on over the off-site mitigation area (186 or 256 acres) prior to issuance of the permit. Prior to issuance of a grading .permit which would disturb the mlr~, mound area indicated on Figure 1, the pm~ec~ pmponant will acquire ~d. preserve 0.4 acres of .vernal pool]associated, lands. The vernal pool aeqtusition area is not requm~d to be m the City of Chula Visa. Th~s mitigation area is equivalent to twice the vernal pool area (0.2 acre) lost as a result of grading on the proposed project _.~ea. The proposed, vernal p.ool mitigation sim must be acceptable to the c.~ty of Chula Vista m consultauon with UgFWS. The criteria for determining the acceptability of the mitigation site will be (1) the pres- ence of vernal pool habitat, and (2) its long-term c ' onservalaon potential. ?SeF~va..cqui~d 'vernal pool .mitigation ama shall be an aroa recognized by the ~ a.s a.n ama, supportmg p?ol habitat and it shall be a vernal pool area that ~ curr~..nuy, m pnvate ownership..and not protected by conservation eas.ements. ~_ne~nu~ga_tm.,n~.a!e ,can .nd,V? .e,'usung vernal pools occun'ing on it. or n ma)- ~ ~u-~a ma~ is rustoncaay ~aown to support vernal ~ools and that could be restored (reconstructed). If. an area requiring rest~rauon is chosen as r. he site, a vernal .pool restoration plan shall, be prepared and implemented that is acceptable to me City of Chula Visa tn consultation with USFWS. The site shall be adjacent to or connect~l by an appropriate landscape corridor to larger ama or interconnected set o£ patches of preserved vernal pool habitat that are currently in designated open space, No grading or activities which would adversely af£ect the habitat in the vernal pool area (Figure l) shall occur prior to accomplishing the off-site acqmsi- tion. Immediately upon acquisition of a suitable vernal pool mitigation area. the acquired sit~ shall be fenced with a six-foot chain-link fence to protect the area. The applicant will be required to secure a conditioned Nationwide permit, to be issued by the U.S.. Army Corps of Engineers (Section 404 o£ the Clean Water Ac:), that contams the conditions outlined in this section concerning vernal pools. This Corps permit shall be applied for and received prior to grad/ng. Sweetwater Union High School District September 13, 1990 Mr. Douglas Reid, Environmental Review Coordinator City of Chula Vista Planning Department P.O. Box 1087 Chula Vista, CA 92012 Dear Mr. Reid: Re: Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Rancho Del Rey Sectional Planning Area (SPA) III Plan I am in receipt of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Rancho del Rey SPA III Plan. The draft document adequately addresses the secondary school issues I had identified in my May 31, 1990, correspondence to the planning department. As you are aware, the issue of student overcrowding has been mitigated by the establishment of a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District. Revenue derived from this funding mechanism will assist in the construction of the new junior high/middle school located in SPA III as well as partially fund the construction of a new high school. The district is currently involved in the selection of an architectural team for the design of the new junior high/middle school. Our growing enrollment requires that the school be operating by the 1995 school year. Obviously, the provisions of the roads, sewer, infrastructure, and a rough graded site will have to be coordinated to make this possible. This office will keep the City and the McMillin Development Company apprised of the district's enrollment status so that the timely planning of that facility may occur. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report prepared for this project. If you have any additional Questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at 691-5553. Cordially, ~ Thomas Silva Director of Planning Ts/sf cc: Craig Fukuyama, McMillin Development Company STATE OF CALIF~NIA--OPPI~H OF THE G~V~OR OFFICE OF PLANNING ANu RESEARCH Oct 04, 1990 BAR~A REID CITY OF CHULA VISTA 2?6 4TH AVENUE CHULA VISTA, CA 92010 SubJectl RANCHO DEL REY SPA III SCH # 90010292 Dear ~R~A~AREIDz The State Clearinghouse has submitted the above named draft Environmental Impaot Report (EIR) to selected state agencies for review. The review period is now closed and the comments from the responding agency(les) is(are) enclosed. On the enclosed Notice of com~letIon form you will note that the Clearinghouse has ch~c~ed the agencies that have commented. Please review the Notice of Completion =o ensur~ that your comment package ia complete. If the comment package is not in order, please notify the State Clearinghouse immediately. Remember to refer =o the project's eight-digit State Clearinghouse n=mber so that we may respond Please note that Section 21104 of the California Public Resources Code required tha=z "a responsible agency or other public agency shall only make substantive comments regarding those activities involved in a project which are within an area of expertise of the agency or which are required to be carried out or approved by the agency.'. Commenting agencies are al~o requir=d by this section to support their comments with specific documentation. The~e ~o~ents are forwarded for your use in preparing your final EIR. Should you need more in£ormatlon or clarification, we recommend that you contact ~he co~en~ing agency(les). This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft enviro~ental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact Terri Lovelady at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. Sincerely, David C. Nunenkamp Deputy Director, Permit Assistance EncloSures cc~ Resources Agency ~ ~ Tk~ Rdm~ emo. randum To 1. ~don F. Snow, Ph.D. 276 Fou~ Avenue A~iOn= B~b~a Reid Los Angeles. CA 90055 ~b~, DE~R for Rancho Del ReM SPA III, on 405 Ac:es, $CH 90010292 Your' subject document hu been reviewed by our Department of Wa:er Resources staff. Recommendations, u :hey relate to water conservation and flood d~age p~entt~, ~e attached, A~te~ ~iew~g y~r report, we also would llke ~o reco~end ~ha~ you co~i~e~ implemen~ing a comprehensive p=o~ to use ~ecl~m~ wa:er for lr~tga~ion p~osee in order to free ~resh water, supplies for b~efici~ uses re~uir~g ~gh qu~i~y wacer supplies. Fo~. fur=hem in~o~ation, you may wish ~o conca=~ fo~ Pa~lewskl at (213) 620-39~1. ~ you fop the oppo~c~tty to ~eview ~d cO.cng on re.r=. PI~ beC: N~ell *~ou, Room 21~-~ ~ ~. ." V' ~i~:mep (WS~/SCH glR) for Water ¢onsm~vatiq~nd Water R~clamatton TO reduce water demand, implement the water conserver±on measures ~escribed here. ~egutred The followin~ S~a~ laws ~qul~u w~ter-effi¢lent plumbln~ fixtures in O ~ealth,snd_SaFety Oode Section 17721,~ requi~es low-flush toilets and urin~uls in virtually all butldinEs as follows: "Afte~ Januar~ 1, 1983, all new butldlnEa constPucted in this state shall uae water closets ~nd associated flushome~er valves, if any, which are water-conse~vation wate~ closets as defined by Ame~lc~.n National 8t~d~s Institute St~da=d AllZ.19,~, ~d u~tnals ~d ~lushom~p valves, if ~y, that us~ less th~ ~ aver~ o~ 1-1/2 valves are exempt from =he requiremen~s of ~hi9 o Title 20, Cal!~ornia A~tntstra~tve Code Sect~ 1604(f) ~ffictenc~ St~dards} establtshe~ effioiehcy st~damds that give the m~im~ flow rate oF all new showerheads, lavatory faucets, ~d ~ink Faucets, as specified in the st~da~d approved by the Amemic~ National St~dar4s Institute on November 16, 1979, ~d known as Al12.18,XM-1979. o Title 20~ California Administrative Cod~ Sect~,qn 1606(b% California that is not certified by its m~ufacturer to be in complt~ce with the p~ovisions of the re~lations ~stablishtn~ applicable efficiency st~da~ds, o ~itle ~. of ~he Cpliforn~a Admini~trative Cod~ Eoetion 2-~07(b} i~i~omnia ~pr'~.poh~'~r~'ation St~dards for New Bui] dln~s% Prohibits the installation of ffxtu~es unless the manufacturer has ce the ~tifled CEO compli~ce with ~h~ flow rate standards. o Title 2~, California Adm!nlssra[!ve Code Sectlon~ add.ess pipe insular!on r~q~irements, which c~ reduc~ ware:- used hod wm~u~ rcachos oqutpm~nt Or fixtures. These requtr=m~nto app!)' to pipin~ in attics, ~arages, crawl spaces, o~ unheated spaces other thmn b~tween floors or in in,er!or walls. Insulation of ate~ systsms ~s also required. ~ ~"$te~M ~l~f~n~z ~ ~THE RE~URC~ AGrENCY OF CAUFORNLA ~ :Dr. Gordon F. Snow O~e , SeptemBer 26,.1990 Aesistan~ Secretary for Resources Su~Jee, Draft Supplemental Ms. Barbera Reid Environmental Impact city of Chula Vista Report for Rancho 27~ Fourth Avenue D~I Ray ~PA III, Chula VileR, CA 92010 S~# 900~0292 F~om : I~t~C, en~er~n--Offl~e ~theDIr~w The Depez~.ment of Conservation,s Division of Mines and Geology (DM¢) has ~eviewe4 the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impac~ Repoz~ (SEIR) for the Rancho Del Ray S~a III project. The 9roJe=~ si~e is located in ~he easte~ foothills of Chula Vista an4 includes a 206-acre re~idential development for 1,380 single-f~ily residences. We are unable to ~erfo~ an ade~a~e repo~ by GEOCON (1989), and detailed grading plan, were not included In t~e SEIR. However, we offer =he following co~mnts. ~ - We reco~end that a seismic hazards analysis be done to assess the potential for strong ground shaking and surface ~pture at the project site. The Rose Canyon Fault less ~an ? miles from ~e project site, and is considered active (~in~vall. mt al., 1989, and ~derson, 1989). I= has a ~xim~ =r~ible ea~h~akm (MCE) of M 7.1 (moment-magnitude) (Wesnousky, 1986), and may produce a mean peak ground acceleration of 0.36g at ~e project si=~ (=uyner and Boors, 1982). Other faults may impact =he ~ite include the Elsinorm, San Clements, Coronado ~s, San' Jo=into, San ~dr=m~, and ~ Namion Faults which have MCEm uf magnitude T.O, 7.7, k 6, 7.5, 8.0, and 6.5, (~dersun, 1989). T~e Rose Canyon Fault, am w*li as theme foul=s, should be considered when evaluating potential strong gro~d shaking at the project site. Because the project site located on the trace of the ~ Nation Fault, ~e potential for surface. ~pture should al~o be evaluated. Gro~d motion peak gro~ acceleration, ~ura=ion of ~=rong ~haking, and ~ite ~plification. Accor~ing to the 1988 Unifo~ Building Code {UBC), ~ San Di~go area is located in seismic zone 3, which ha~ an effective pmak ~o~d acceleration of 0.3g. Since a mean peak ground acceleration of 0.36g can be e~ected from a MCE event on the Rose C~yon Fault, the UBC desl~ re~irement for mmimm!c zon~ may not be ads,ate for the project. ~ - The Draft SEIR does not clearly show the proposed , proJ~c= grading in ~ufficisnt detail to allow ade~ata review. The Draft SEIR refers to the geotechnica! rsport (GEOCON, 19a9) for da=a on the proJec='~ geologic hazards. This r,po~ should be appendm~ ~o the SEIR ~o allow for rewi~w of th~ gmolo~ic and Dr. Snow/Me. Reid September 26, 1990 Page Two The Draft SEIR states that advmrse geological conditions, such as cut slopes containing clay bads dipping out of slope, exist on the project site and may require remedial measures. Po=entially- adverse geologic conditions. The amounU and type of remediation grading plan. The SEIR should address =he proposed remedial grading in suffician= de=ail ~hat the impacts can be evaluated. Therefors~ the Final SEIR should include t_he grading recommenda- tions so that they can be reviewed. Geologic and seismic data needed for adequate review were not included or appended to the Draft SEIR. The referenced geotechnical report and a complete listing of the r~commendations for mit/ga=lng geologic hazards and soils/grading impacts are contained in Appendix A, which was not provided for our review. The Draft SEIR does not contain a grading plan at a scale that can be reviewed. Thus, the relevant geologic and seismic data which, shOUld be included in the SEIR was not available and, therefore, could not be adequately reviewed. Based on the information provided, we recommend addi=ional evalua=ion of the seismic hazards at the project site, including ground shaking and the potential for surface rupture. Ground motion parameters to be considered should include peek ground acceleration, duration of ~haking and site amplitude, we recommend that all relevant faults, including the Rose Canyon, Elsino're and La Nation Faults, be considered in the seismic hazard evaluations. In addition, any exposure of the La Nation Faultduring grading should be documented by a Certified Engineering Geologist. If you have any questions regarding these co~ent~, please contact Roger Martin, Division of Mines and Geology Environm~ntal Review Project Manager, aU (91&) 3=2-2562. Dennis J. O'Bryan= Environmental Program Coordinator DJo:cG:skk cc= Roger Martin, Divimion of Mines and Geology Catherine Gaggini, Division of Mln~s and Geology ;tndermon, J.G., 1989, Past and Possible Future Eaz~chquakme of Signifloance to the San Diego Region, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1989. Joyner, W.B., and Boore, P.M., (1982), Prediction of Earthquake Response Spectra, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 82-977, 1~ Lindvall, S.C., Rockwell, T.K., and Lindvall, C.E., 1990, Selem£= HaEard of San Diego Revised: New Evidence for Magnitude 6+ Nolocene Eart/~q~akm on the Rose Canyon Fault Zone, Proceedings Of the Fourth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, my 20-24, 1990, Palm Springs, California. Weenouek-y, S.G., 1986, Earthquakes, Quaterna~f Faults, and Seismic Razard in California; Journal of'Geophysical Research, Vol. 91, No. B12, D. 12,587-12,631, Nove~lber I0, 1986. ~ ~ ~ h~, Memorandum A~tention T. ~el,dy ~.z 11-~D-805 6.1-7.8 Seutional .~_lanninu Area III Plan, SCH 900102.9~ S-4) &n~ that the cumulative traffic impacts of the Rancho del Roy $pecl£~c Plan ~ea will contribute to the degradation ex~s~in~ =irc~lation element and would, there£ure, be ~on~i~mrmd significant but mitigable (page 7-1). The SEIR needs to analyze 80S end commit ~o ~c.he lndicate~ miti~ations. Our contact person for Interstate 805 is Jan Linthicum, Manager, Project Studies Branch ,B,,, (619) 688-6952. For traffic information, locally funded projects, and encroachment our initial contact person is Richard Coward, ~r~ect Semites ~ran=h Manager, (~19) MO:m= ~, ~"~,~,;~A~C~0 DEL REY SPA III ~. ~.~, 90010292 ', __~ n, __~ ~e, ~1 ~. ~ ~ , Routes Open ipa¢~ it~a~, (IC~OO~I) City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of October 10, 1990 Page 1 4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-90-15 - Consideration of tentative subdivision map for Evergreen Gardens, Chula Vista Tract 90-15, Conrad Prebys Trust A. BACKGROUND 1. The applicant has submitted a tentative subdivision map known as Evergreen Gardens, Chula Vista Tract 90-15, in order to develop a one-lot condominium project consisting of 45 units on 4.8 acres on the east side of Third Avenue just south of Orange Avenue within the Montgomery Community. 2. The Design Review Committee previously adopted the Negative Declaration issued on IS-90-36 at their meeting of July 16, 1990, which includes the site in question. 3. The project design was approved by the Design Review Committee of July 16, 1990 subject to the following conditions. a. The garage units facing the main access driveway shall be turned to face a motor court and avoid backing up on to the main access drive. b. The southerly driveway shall be reduced in width and designated as exit only. c. Buildings located adjacent to Third Avenue shall feature the necessary construction design to attain 45 dBA interior noise levels. 1) Revised design, incorporating the aforementioned conditions shall be returned to staff for review and approval. (The plans which are enclosed in your packet reflect conditions a and b above. Condition c will be required prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. At the meeting of the Montgomery Planning Committee held on September 19, 1990, the Committee voted unanimously (7-0) to adopt the mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-90-36) with the proviso that the minutes be forwarded to the Planning Commission and Council expressing the grave concern of the Montgomery Planning Committee. (Extract of the minutes covering the discussion on PCS-90-15 is attached.) The Montgomery Planning Committee voted to approve the negative declaration specifically so that they could vote on the project. CEQA states that an advisory body which votes against the adoption of the environmental document cannot vote on the project. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of October 10, 1990 Page 2 Specific concerns raised by the Committee members included the following: (1) lack of confidence that the adoption of Mello Roos Districts would solve the problem of school overcrowding "the people are paying the money but not getting the services;" (2) lack of addressment of certain impacts such as lack of requirements for recycling bins for trash, compost area for grass clippings; (3) lack of consideration of cumulative impacts. Fo~ example, if emergency services were dispatched to this particular project, then other areas would be forced to do without services. Committee members also stated that the inclusion of "Castle Park Junior High School" on both the initial study and negative declaration be corrected and also that the enrollment data for all of the schools be updated from the July 5, 1990 information as the traditional calendar schools had just started, and both Montgomery and Otay are sufficiently impacted to be considering conversion back to K-6 as well as a multi-tract year-around program. Staff have updated both the data sheet of the initial study and negative declaration to reflect information received from both school districts as of October 3, 1990. 5. The Montgomery Planning Committee voted unanimously (7-0) to recommend approval of the subdivision map subject to the conditions contained in the staff report with the proviso that the minutes be forwarded to the Planning Commission and Council expressing the grave concern of the Montgomery Planning Committee. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Based on the Initial Study and comments on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the mitigated Negative Declaration issued on IS-90-36. 2. Based on the findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a motion recommending that the Planning Commission approve tentative subdivision map for Evergreen Gardens, Chula Vista Tract 90-15 subject to the following conditions: a. The developer shall be responsible for the construction of public street improvements along the full length of the subject property on Third Avenue, from the centerline of the street to the property line in conformance with Chula Vista Design Standard No. 2 for a Class I collector street. Said improvements shall include, but not be limited to asphalt concrete pavement and base, concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk, street lights, street trees, fire hydrants, potable water facilities and alley type driveway approach. The developer shall also be responsible for construction of half the median City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of October 10, 1990 Page 3 required for the northbound left turn lane on Third Avenue. The developer may apply for a deferral of the median construction. Transitions to existing improvements north of the subject property shall be provided as required by the City Engineer. b. The developer will be responsible for relocating the existing driveway used by the Mobile Home Park from Third Avenue to Orange Avenue. A new fire hydrant shall be installed next to the future driveway as approved by the City Fire Marshal. c. The developer shall grant a sewer easement to the City for all 8" sanitary sewer lines within the subject property. Said easement shall be granted on the Final Subdivision Map. d. The developer shall obtain notarized letters of permission for all off-site grading work prior to issuance of grading permit for work requiring said off-site grading. e. All streets within the multifamily development shall be private. Detailed horizontal and vertical alignment of the centerline of said streets shall be reflected on the improvement plans for said developments. Design of said streets shall meet the City standards for private streets. f. The developer shall grant easements for all off-site public storm drains and sewer facilities prior to approval of any final map requiring those facilities. Easements shall be a minimum width of six feet greater than pipe size, but in no case, less than 10 feet. g. Prior to the approval of final map for subject subdivision, the subdivider shall obtain all off-site right-of-way necessary for the installation of required improvements. h. The property owner shall notify the City at least 60 days prior to consideration of the Final Map by City if offsite right of way cannot be obtained as required by the Conditions of Approval. (Only offsite right of way easements affected by Section 66462.5 of the Subdivision Map Act are covered by this condition). After said notification, the owner shall: 1) Pay the full cost of acquiring offsite right of way or easements required by the Conditions of Approval of the Tentative Map. 2) Deposit with the City the estimated cost of acquiring said right of way or easements. Said estimate to be approved by the City Engineer. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of October 10, 1990 Page 4 3) Have all easement and/or right of way documents and plats prepared and appraisals complete which are necessary to commence condemnation proceedings. i. An erosion and sedimentation control plan shall be included as part of the grading plans. j. On the condition that City shall promptly notify the subdivider of any claim, action or proceeding and on the further condition that the City fully cooperates in the defense,.the subdivider/applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, and its agents, officers and employees, from any claim, action or proceeding against the City, or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval by the City, including approvals by its Planning Commission, City Council, or any approval by its agents, officers, or employees with regard to this subdivision. k. The developer shall permit all franchised cable television companies equal opportunity to place conduit to and provide cable television service for each lot within the subdivision. However, developer shall restrict access to the conduit to only those franchised cable television company(ies) who are and remain in compliance with all of the terms and conditions of the franchise and which are in further compliance with all other rules, regulations, ordinances and procedures regulating and affecting the operation of cable television companies as same may have been, or may from time to time be, issued by the City of Chula Vista. The developer shall enter into an agreement with the Cable Company to insure that compliance with this condition is met. Said agreement shall be approved by the City Attorney prior to final map approval. 1. The developer shall obtain a letter of permission from SDG&E for any work to be done within the 250 ft. SDG&E easement at the north end of the project. m. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall enter into an agreement for water facility improvements with the the Sweetwater Authority. n. A noise wall shall be constructed along the frontage on Third Avenue. o. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer shall enter into an agreement to annex to a Mello-Roos Community District with Chula Vista School District and Sweetwater School District. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of October 10, 1990 Page 5 p. Pad fees currently estimated at $68,490 shall be paid prior to final map approval. q. RCT fees estimated at $15,100 shall be paid with building permits. r. Applicant must file CC&R~s, these shall include: Prohibition of TV antennae. Although the Montgomery Planning Committee did not officially add any additional conditions to those suggested by staff above, the Committee suggested that: (1) drought resistant plants such as the Fortnight Lily, Sword Fern, Natal Palm and Bougainvillea replace some of the more water demanding plants included in the landscaping concept; and (2) that for visual effect, 24-inch box trees be planted on the Third Avenue corridor instead of 15-inch. The applicant agreed with both of the above listed suggestions C. DISCUSSION The Evergreen Gardens tentative subdivision map proposes 45 units on 4.8 acres. The properties to the north and east are vacant. Single family dwellings abut the property to the south and a mobilehome park and retail commercial use are visible to the west across Third Avenue. The 4.8 acre, rectangular-shaped parcel which is zoned R-3-L (Low density, Multiple Family Residential @ 12+ du) is relatively level and currently vacant. The northerly 80-90 feet of the newly created parcel, contains a SDG&E electrical power easement which is zoned CCP and is intended to be used as open space. The project is a 1 lot, 45 unit parcel consisting of 27 detached townhouse type two-story structures arranged in four-unit clusters linked by a motor court and a series of nine two-story duplex structures aligned along the east property line. There are 23 three-bedroom units and 22 four-bedroom units. The units range in size from 1,447.5 sq. ft. to 1,590 sq. ft. and will each have a two-car garage and a private fenced yard. In addition, 25 standard size (9x19) parking stalls have been provided and strategically located to serve all tenants. The project is served by a 40 foot-wide central access driveway and a secondary access driveway at the south end of the complex. The private drive serving the project features different length driveways in a curvilinear design allowing larger landscaping areas as well as better street scene. An open space area is also featured at the north end of the project which has been linked to the different areas of the residential complex and public sidewalks. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of October 10, 1990 Page 6 As previously stated, this project was approved at the Design Review Committee level. The project was also approved by the Montgomery Planning Committee. The action taken by the Planning Commission will be a recommendation as to whether the individual units can be rented or sold. E. FINDING Pursuant to Section 66473.5 of the Subdivision Map Act, the tentative subdivision map for Evergreen Gardens, Chula Vista Tract 90-15, is found to be in conformance with the various elements of the City's General Plan based on the following: 1. The site is physically suitable for residential development and the proposal conforms to all standards established by the City for such projects. 2. The design of the subdivision will not affect the existing improvements -- streets, sewers, etc. -- which have been designed to avoid any serious problems. 3. The project is in substantial conformance with the Chula Vista General Plan Elements as follows: a. Land Use - The residential type and density is consistent with the adopted Montgomery Specific Plan which serves as the General Plan for the Montgomery Community. b. Circulation Circulation consists of a 40 ft. wide central access driveway and a secondary access driveway at the south end of the complex. These driveways as well as the private drives are consistent with City standards. c. Housing The project will provide two-story townhouse type units as one of the several housing alternatives in the Montgomery community. d. Conservation - As the development of this site as residential is appropriate and will not impact areas designated for conservation, this will not negatively impact the areas set aside for conservation by the Chula Vista General Plan. e. Park and Recreation, Open Space - Payment of PAD fees will be required by the Parks and Recreation Department. The Parks and Recreation Department, who originally requested an open turf area to be provided east of the sand play area, now require only PAD fees. The proximity to SDG&E easement was the reason for the change. f. Seismic Safety - There are no seismic safety concerns on this site, and therefore, the project is in conformance with the Chula Vista Seismic Safety Element. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of October 10, 1990 Page 7 g. Safety - The project will be within existing or proposed response times of all public safety agencies. Compliance with the City's threshold standards will have to be shown prior to approval of Final Maps. h. Noise - With the design-construction of an acoustical wall along the frontage with Third Avenue, the proposed project will be in conformance with noise standards. i. Scenic Highway - The proposed project is not on a scenic highway. j. Bicycle Routes The proposed project is not adjacent to an officially designated bicycle route. k. Public Buildings - The General Plan does not indicate a need for any public buildings at this location. Therefore, the design is consistent with the General Plan. 4. Pursuant to Section 66412.2 of the Subdivision Map Act, the Commission certifies that it has considered the effect of this approval on the housing needs of the region and has balanced those needs against the public service needs of the residents of the City and the available fiscal and environmental resources. 5. To the extent feasible the structures have been sized and sited in a manner to provide for passive or natural heating and cooling opportunities. WPC 8338P 221' THUNE ~';AY (~~ PROJECT ~ AREA c~av~R ST. ANITA ST. ANITA STREE' TREM~ STR C36 MONTGOMERY "' STREET ZENITH <~ STREET MAIN STREET EVERGREEN GARDENS CONDOMINIUMS PLAN ONE- Freestanding & Attached 1st Floor 746.5 2nd Floor 701. 3 BDRM Total 1 ~. ~.7.5 + ~.~.5.5 Gar' PLAN TWO Attached 1st Floor 804. 2nd Florr 820. 4 BDRM Total 1624. + 489. Gar PLAN THREE Freestanding 1st Floor 888.5 2nd Floor 701.5 4 BDRM Total 1590. + ~.~.5.5 Gar EXTRACT FROM THE MINUTES OF THE MONTGOMERY PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING OF ~EPTE~ER 19, 1990 All Committee Members present. 3B PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-90-15 - Consideration of tentative subdivision map for Evergreen Gardens, Chula Vista Tract 90-15, Conrad Prebys Trust Associate Planner Barbara Reid stated that the applicant had submitted a Tentative Subdivision Map to develop a one-lot, 45- unit condominium project on the east side of Third Avenue south of Orange Avenue. The Design Review Committee had adopted the Negative Declaration and approved the project subject to conditions set forth in the staff report. The action to be taken by the Montgomery Planning Committee will be a recommendation as to whether the individual units can be rented or sold. Upon being asked for clarification, Principal Planner Pass explained that the units could be rented under any situation since they are dwellings, the decision of this body is whether the project gets mapped for home ownership or not. He noted that when the project had been before the Committee previously, the Committee had recommended it be designated medium density residential. It was a pipe-line project and stayed out for a long time while the developer considered whether to put the entire project in commercial. Staff has been working with the developer for 3 to 4 years. The present project would be compatible with the mobile home park to the east and basically meets the Committee's guidelines even to the extent of fostering home ownership of the condominiums. He added that the Advance Planning Division fully supported the recommendations of Current Planning. Chairman Wheeland referenced the Negative Declaration, page 4, Item 8, Schools, saying that (1) there is no Castle Park Junior High School as shown; (2) over 1200 students are enrolled at present. Otay K-3 is over capacity, Montgomery 4-6 is rapidly approaching capacity, Castle Park High is obviously overly impacted, yet more children are placed in these schools where neither rooms nor supplies are available. She commented that she had no confidence in the District's Mello Roos stipulation because these children will have to attend other schools in the meantime; people are paying the money but not getting the services. Chairman Wheeland also brought up the subject of water conservation noting that the project would add another 40 households to use water. Principal Planner Pass contended that if there is a water shortage, there is the more reason to infill rather than build on the periphery of the City. It is better that water be curtailed in the Eastern Territory than in the built-up areas with a need for new housing and development. Committee Member Palmer remarked that the date on the Negative Declaration was July 5 indicating that all four traditional- calendar schools had just started. She requested that the enrollment data be updated since both Montgomery and Otay are sufficiently impacted to be considering conversion back to K-6 as well as a multi-track year-around program. Inclusion of such updated information in the Negative Declaration would be appropriate for the Planning Commission's review. Committee Member McFarlin expressed concern about (1) traffic creating a significant problem in the area, (2) the school problem, (3) the fact that there was no park in the area and bringing more people into the area would further impact the need for one, and (4) the proposed increase in sewer cost and the additional impact created by the project. She concluded that she was not against improvement, but this improvement would create serious problems and have a negative impact on the Community. Committee Member Creveling concurred with what had been said about the impact on the schools and lack of a park in the area. He spoke of the impact that the addition of more children adjacent to the predominantly senior mobile home park would have. Mr. Creveling said his greatest concern, however, is that none of the responses in the Negative Declaration address cumulative effect. A letter just received from the City regarding the expansion of the energy generating plant on the Bayfront based its whole argument on the cumulative effect. The cumulative effect of this project should be addressed in the Negative Declaration but it is not. He cited as an illustration that if emergency services were dispatched to this particular project, then other areas would be forced to do without services unless the cumulative effect is addressed. Committee Member Castro inquired if failure to approve the Negative Declaration would cancel the project. Principal Planner Pass explained that it would then proceed as a standard rental project. If the Committee did not approve the Negative Declaration and if the Planning Commission were to concur with the Committee, the entire project would proceed to the Council. Mr. Pass emphasized that the Committee needed to consider whether a moratorium is being enacted on housing, since any housing project proposed would have these same environmental impacts. While the cumulative impact concept is important, the project being considered is a small one which would generate approxi- mately 450 traffic movements per day. Of these, 300 would take place during the six peak hours resulting in 50 traffic movements per peak hour; no other use could create less movement. This being the time and the place, the public hearing was opened. Conrad Prebys, 5847 E1 Cajon Blvd, S.D. 92115, representing Conrad Prebys Trust, stated that they had wanted to offer affordable ownership to first-time buyers. If the project were limited to rentals only, it would be necessary to build more units which would generate more traffic and create greater impacts on water, schools, sewer and the like. Committee Member Palmer suggested that drought-resistant plants such as the Fortnight Lily, Sword Fern, Natal Palm and Bougainvillea replace some of the more water-demanding plants included in the landscaping concept. Mr. Prebys assured the Committee that he would be happy to cooperate in that respect. Committee Member Castro suggested that, for visual effect, 24- inch box trees be planted on the Third Avenue corridor instead of 15-inch. Mr. Prebys agreed. Mr. Castro also suggested that because of the graffiti problem, a split-faced, scored wall be used instead of the masonry type proposed. In response to questions from the Committee, Mr. Prebys said that: (1) Under the SDG&E easement at the extreme north end, there would be a lawn area to serve as a quasi-park. (2) Each condo unit would have two full-size parking places plus visitor parking on the project and that under the CC&Rs, cars would not be permitted to park in the driveways. (3) A new driveway from the mobile home park would be constructed to exit on Orange Avenue. (4) The hi-tension lines over the SDG&E easement would be approximately 125 feet from the foremost northerly units. In reply to Committee Member Castro's question about whether Third Avenue would remain as a "no parking" area, Senior Civil Engineer Ullrich said that Third Avenue was a Class I Collector Street and parking would probably be allowed except near the intersections; the street would have to be a 6-lane Major to prevent parking except through the Safety Commission's action. "No parking" cannot be made a condition for this particular project. Committee Member Creveling said he was critical of the Negative Declaration because he felt extraordinary measures needed to be taken to address certain impacts; such as, security for the project (security gates), recycling bins for trash, a compost area for grass clippings and other actions that would mitigate the cumulative impact of the project on Community services. He would like to see the developers and the Community take personal action rather than burden the City further. In his opinion, not enough parking had been provided. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Committee Member Creveling said he would support the Negative Declaration for this particular project even though there are problems. He would like, however, to send word forward that more consideration of the cumulative impacts indicated in the Negative Declarations is needed. This would enable the developers to plan for mitigating action. lhe Chairman said she had some real problems when she reviewed the Negative Declaration because so much had been omitted and so much information was inaccurate through no fault of staff. Committee Member Castro said that he felt that some of the Committee's concerns such as the response time of emergency service would be adjusted in time. The school situation is the fault of irresponsibility on the part of the School District which is not supplying new construction commensurate with the fees being generated. Committee Member Palmer said she would support the Negative Declaration with reluctance because of the many areas that are grossly negatively impacted. The only saving grace is the opportunity for home ownership instead of rental. Committee Member Roberts said sometimes too many restrictions demand too much of the developers and that development cannot be allowed to come to a standstill because of changes. Home ownership is very important and he would support the project. MSUC (Castro/Roberts) 7-0, that based on the Initial Study and comments on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, to find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the mitigated Negative Declaration issued on IS-90-36 with the proviso that the Minutes be forwarded to the Planning Commission and Council expressinq the qrave concern of the Montqomery Planninq Committee. MSUC (Castro/McFarlin) 7-0, that based on the findings contained in Section "E" of the staff report, to recommend that the Planning Commission approve the tentative subdivision map for Evergreen Gardens, Chula Vista Tract 90-15 subject to the conditions contained in the staff report and with the provis~ that the Minutes be forwarded to the Planninq Commission and Council expressing the grave concern of the Montqomery Planninf Committee. negativ declaration_% PROJECT NAME: Evergreen Gardens PROJECT LOCATION: 1481 Third Avenue, Chula Vista, CA Approximately 300 feet south of Orange Avenue (APN #623-030-02) PROJECT APPLICANT: Conrad T. Prebys 5847 E1 Cajon Blvd. San Diego, CA 92115 CASE NO: IS-90-36 DATE: July 5, 1990 A. Project Set'tinq The 4'.31-acre project site is found on nearly level terrain on the west side of Third Avenue (Figures 1 & 2). On-site elevation is approximately 90 feet Above Mean Sea Level (AMSL). Average natural slope is approximately 1%; maximum natural slope is approximately 3.5% on the southern portion of the site. The project site is located in the Coastal Plains Physiographic Province of San Diego County and is underlain by Quaternary-age sedimentary deposits of the Bay Point Formation. No faults or landslides are known to exist on the project site. The La Nacion Fault Zone is located approximately two miles northeast of the property and the Rose Canyon Fault Zone is located approximately 9 miles northwest of the site. The Elsinore fault is located 43 miles north-northeast of the property. The Huerhuero and Visalia soil series are represented on the project site. The Huerhuero soil series exhibits a loamy texture, runoff is slow to medium and the erosion hazard is slight to moderate. The Visalia soil series exhibits a sandy loam texture, runoff is slow and the erosion hazard is slight. Vegetation occurring on the site is primarily composed of native and introduced weedy species. Recent site grading has limited the vegetation on the site to disturbed species. There are no sensitive or endangered vegetational communities present on the project site. The site is currently vacant, with uses limited to passive open space functions. Existing land uses in the vicinity of the project include mobile home residential development to the east; vacant land to the north and south; and commercial uses to the west. Zoning for the site is RMH-IO (Mobile HOme Residential) and C-36 (Commercial). These are both old County zoning designations. The Chula Vista General Plan designation for the site is medium density residential (6-11 du/ac). ~_~ city of chula vista pl.anning department CI~OF environmental review section CHUIA VISTA ~_~ -2- B.Pro.iect Descript~ .- The proposal consists of a 45-unit attached and detached condominium project on a 4.31 acre parcel. Minimal site grading (approx. 2,000 cubic yards) will be necessary to develop the site since the existing topography is relatively level. The project will include 22 three-bedroom units and 23 four bedroom units consisting of approximately 1,390 to 1,550 square feet. C. Compatibility with Zoninq and Planq Current zoning for the project site is RMH-IO (Mobile Home Residential) and C-36 (Commercial). These zones are old County zoning designations in the Montgomery Community. The project would be consistent with the Chula Vista General Plan designation which is Medium Density Residential (6-11 du/ac). D. Compliance with the Threshold/Standards Policy 1. Fire/EMS The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that ?ire and medical units must be able to respond to calls within 7 minutes or less in 95% the cases and within 5 minutes or less in 75% o? the cases. The proposed Evergreen Gardens development is within 1.5 miles o? the nearest fire station. Response times ?or emergency calls would average 3 minutes, which is less than the required 7 minutes necessary to meet Threshold Standards. The project will require the installation of fire hydrants and a minimum 20 ft. wide driveway access for emergency vehicles. This project would meet this Threshold/Standards Policy. 2. Police The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that police units must respond to Priority 1 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 1 calls of 4.5 minutes of less. Police units must respond to Priority 2 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 2 calls of 7 minutes or less. The City of Chula Vista Police Department was contacted and indica%ed that the proposed development would meet this Threshold Standard. 3. Traffic The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that all intersections must operate at a Level of Service (LOS) 'C' or better, with the exception that Level of Service (LOS) 'D' may occur during the peak two hours of the day at signalized intersections. Intersections west of 1-805 are not to operate at a LOS below their 1987 LOS. No intersection may reach LOS 'F' during the average weekday peak hour. Intersections of arterials with freeway ramps are exempted from this policy. Primary acc~ ,-to the proposed project woulo De off of Third Avenue. The proposed project would impact area streets with the addition of approximately 360 average daily trips (ADT). The ADT along this segment of Third Avenue would be expected to increase from the existing 19,310 ADT to 19,670 ADT. Traffic on Orange Avenue would also be expected to increase from the existing 12,880 ADT to 13,240 ADT. The level of service at area intersections and roadways would not be significantly reduced with the proposed project, however, and the threshold standard for traffic will be met. 4. Parks/Recreation The Threshold/Standards Policy for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres/I,000 population. This threshold standard applies only to residential projects. Payment of PAD fees will be required by the Parks and Recreation Department. The Parks and Recreation Department is also requiring that an open turf area be provided to the east of the sand play area on the project site. With compliance to the requirements of the Parks and Recreation Department, this project would meet this Threshold Standard. 5. Drainage The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that storm water flows and volumes shall not exceed City Engineer Standards. [pi Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with the Drainage Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. Drainage from surrounding areas collects in an unimproved natural channel at the south end of the project site. Drainage crosses Third Avenue through a 4' X 8' reinforced concrete box and connects to a concrete-lined channel flowing to the west. With compliance to the City Engineering standards for drainage, the project would meet this Threshold Standard. 6. Sewer The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that sewage flows and volumes shall not exceed City Engineering Standards. [pi Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with Sewer Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. The desired sewer service connection for the project would be provided through a connection with a 12-inch sewer main located beneath Third Avenue. The proposed project would be expected to generate approximately 10,800 gallons per day of liquid wastes. Sewer service for the site is adequate for the designs of the proposed project and would meet the threshold standard, provided the City Engineering Department standards for sewer service are complied with. 7. Water ~'~ -4- ~ The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that adequate storage, treatment, and transmission facilities are constructed concurrently with planned growth and that water quality standards are not jeopardized during growth and construction. The Sweetwater Authority was contacted in regards to water service. They indicated that the project was within their service area and that service could be provided, as long as the existing water system is upsized to meet the Authority~s service standards. · shall be required to submit plans to the Sw:~+~-+ ...... ~he.~ppll~.ant ~,a~ur ~ucnorl~y wi~n a deposit for engineering design. This threshold standard would be met with compliance to the requirements of the Sweetwater Authority. 8. Schools The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that the Chula Vista City School District and Sweetwater Union High School District have the necessary school sites and funds to meet the needs of students in new development areas in a timely manner. The project would increase school enrollment in area schools. The following table shows the projected increases that may be expected from this project: Current Students Generated ~chool A_ttendance Cavacitl From Project Elem. Otay K-3 *~3~a 616 7 ~j~ Montgomery 4-6 ~4-~-I-~ 469 6 Castle Park (~\~.~)~q)gO ~o 1456 ~~ Sr. High Castle Park ~-~~ 1632 ~. TOTAL ~~ Normally the payment of school impact fees are required to off-set the impacts to schools from development. However, school fees are not sufficient to pay for the cost of providing facilities to serve children from this project. Therefore, both the Chula Vista City School District and the Sweetwater Union High School District have requested that the project be annexed into Community Facilit~s District (CFD) No.5. Through the CFD, funds are pooled on an annual basis to provide for the continuing provision of educational facilities. Annexation into the CFD would be in lieu of developer fees and would allow this project to meet this Threshold Standard. E. Identification of Environmental EffecLs An initial study conducted by the City of Chula Vista determined that the proposed project could have one or more significant environmental effects. Subsequent revisions in the project design have implemented specific mitigation measures to reduce these effects' to a level of less than significant. The project, a~ revised, now avoids or mitigates the potentially significant environmental effects previously identified, and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with Section 15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Specific mitigation measures have also been set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring Program which is included as Attachment B. The following impacts have been determined to be potentially significant and are required to be mitigated to a level of less than significant: noise, traffic, and geology/soils. A discussion of each of these potentially significant impacts is provided. 1. Noise Impacts Traffic-generated noise will impact the proposed development along Third Avenue. A noise assessment was prepared for the project (Attachment A) which measured existing traffic generated noise levels of 69 dBA to 63 dBA on the project site. A reading of 69 dBA was measured 30 ft. north of the property line along Third Avenue and a reading of 63 dBA was measured at the northernmost boundary of the site immediately adjacent to the mobilehome park. State Standards require exterior noise levels to be below 60 dBA for residential projects. The design of the proposed project incorporates an acoustical barrier wall along the frontage with 3rd Avenue for noise attenuation. This noise barrier wall has the potential to reduce the measured noise levels to 62 dBA for units located closest to 3rd Avenue. The residential units located further from the street would receive noise attenuation from the wall and from the other residential units constructed in between them and Third Avenue. Noise levels anticipated at these structures could be expected to be reduced to below 60 dBA, thereby complying with the Chula Vista Noise f Jinance for Multi-family residences. Noise mitigation is outlined in Section F of this document and in · Attachment B. 2. Traffic Impacts The proposed project will increase traffic on area streets by approximately 360 trips per day. The existing traffic conditions and potential impacts to area roadways are listed below: ADT Level of Service Before After Before After 3rd Ave. 19,310 19,670 C C Orange Ave. 12,880 13,240 B B Although the project would not have a significant impact on existing circulation, the cumulative impacts of this and other projects in the vicinity could reduce the level of service on area roadways. Mitigation of potentially significant traffic impacts is outlined in Section F of this document. 3. Geology/Soil~ ~mpacts A Geotechnical Investigation was prepared for the project site (Attachment B). While no faults are known to traverse the subject site, groundshaking resulting from movement along one of the major, active fault zones is the most likely geologic hazard to affect the site. The location of the project site in relation to faults important to the area are listed below: Maximum Probable Bedrock Design Fault Zone Distance Earthquake Acceleration Acceleratio, La Nacion 2 miles 6.5 magnitude +0.65 g +0.42 g Rose Canyon 9 miles 6.5 magnitude 0.33 g 0.22 g Coronado 14 miles 7.0 magnitude 0.30 g 0.20 g Banks San Miguel 26 miles 7.0 magnitude 0.17 g 0.12 g San Clemente 37 miles 7.3 magnitude 0.13 g 0.09 g Elsinore 43 miles 7.3 magnitude 0.12 g 0.08 g The project site is underlain by a thin layer of loose topsoil and alluvium or fill deposits which range from 2.5 to 5 feet in depth. This material is considered unsuitable, in its present condition, for the support of settlement-sensitive improvements. Surface deposits are underlain by highly expansive subsoils and will require special design considerations. Further, formational deposits are found to be moderately to highly collapsible upon saturation. Mitigation of potentially significant geology/soils impacts are outlined in Section F of this document. F. Mitioation Necessary to Avoid Siqnificant Effects Specific project mitigation measures and project redesign have been required to reduce potentially significant environmental impacts identified in the initial study for this project to a level of less than significant. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project design and have been made conditions of project approval, as well as requirements of the attached Mitigation Monitoring Program. 1. Traffic Due to the potential for significant traffic impacts with the proposed project, the Engineering Department is requiring traffic mitigation, as follows: a) Curb, gutter and sidewalk and A.C. or concrete pavement and base on both Third Avenue and Orange Avenue; b) Alley type driveway approach at Third Avenue; c) Pedestrian ramp at southeast corner of Third Avenue and Orange Avenue; d) Drainag. ~ystem at southeast corner of ~hird Avenue and Orange Avenue; e) Utility service shall be undergrounded; f) Relocation of some existing street lights; g) Installation of a concrete median on both Third Avenue and Orange Avenue; h) Traffic Signal Fees will be assessed when the building permit for the project is issued; i) Dedication of 17 feet on Third Avenue and 8 feet on Orange Avenue for street improvements will be required. With implementation of these traffic mitigation measures and compliance with the Mitigation Monitoring Program, potentially significant traffic impacts will be reduced to a level of less than significant. 2. Geology The Geotechnical report prepared for the project (Southern California Soils and Testing, Inc. 1990) identified conditions which will require special consideration during construction of the project. These conditions include: a) the presence of expansive soils; and b) collapsible formational deposits on site. However the report states, "In general, no §eotechnical conditions were encountered which would preclude the construction of the proposed development as presently proposed, provided the recommendations presented herein are followed". To improve the stability of the soil materials present at the site, existing materials must be removed to firm natural ground and recompacted. Normally this will require removal and compaction of ~ the first 2-1/2 to 5 feet of material. Expansive soils will also require special consideration and placement. Formational material found within 5 feet from finish grade should be removed and replaced as compacted fill. With implementation of these mitigation measures and those specified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program, potentially significant geology impacts will be reduced to a level of less than significant, f 3. Noise The project shall be designed to reduce potentially significant traffic generated noise levels along Third Avenue and Orange Avenue to a level of less than significant. Mitigation of potentially significant noise impacts on site will be implemented as follows: a) Construction of a 6 foot high noise wall along Third Avenue frontage shall be required. -8- With imple,..~ation of the noise mitigation outlined above, potentially significant noise impacts will be reduced to a level of less than significant. G. Findinqs of Insiqnificant Impact Based on the following findings, it is determined that the project described above will not have a significant environmental impact and no environmental impact report needs to be prepared. 1. The project has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, 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. The project, as redesigned, and with the implementation of mitigation measures outlined herein will not create significant, adverse environmental impacts. No sensitive or endangered flora or fauna will be adversely impacted and there will be no significant impacts to unique cultural resources. 2. The project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. The project will not achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, since long-term environmental goals will be achieved with compliance to the Mitigation Measures and guidelines of the Mitigation Monitoring Program set forth in this document. The Mitigation Monitoring Program required for this project will reduce potentially significant environmental impacts to a level of less than significant. 3: The project has possible effects which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. As used in the subsection, 'cumulatively considerable' means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. The proposed project is not associated with cumulatively consideraJ~le impacts since the Mitigation Measures set forth in Section F and in the Mitigation Monitoring Program reduce potentially significant environmental impacts to a level of less than significant. 4. The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The proposed project is not associated with any substantial, adverse human health impacts, with compliance to the Mitigation Measures outlined herein. No human health impacts were identified in the Initial Study. -9- H. ~onsultation 1. Individuals and Orqanizations City of Chula Vista: Maryann Miller, Environmental Review Coordinator Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer Ken Larsen, Director of Building & Housing Luis Hernandez, Planning Frank Herrera, Planning Carol Gove, Fire Marshal Hal Rosenberg, Traffic Engineer Sweetwater Union High School District: Thomas Silva, Director of Planning Chula Vista City School District: Kate Shurson, Director of Planning Applicant's Agent: Warren R. Coalson, Zucker Systems James Berry, Acoustician Southern California Soils & Testing, Inc. 2. Documents City of Chula Vista: Chula Vista Municipal Code, Title 19 Chula Vista Threshold/ Standards Policy, Growth Management Oversight Committee, 1987 Evergreen Gardens Initial Study Checklist {IS-90-36) Acoustical Report: James C. Berry, Acoustician, February 12, 1990 Geotechnical Investigation: Southern California Soil & Testing, Inc., April 6, 1990 This determination, that the project will not have any significant environmental impact, is based on the attached Initial Study, any comments on the Initial Study and any comments on this Negative Declaration. Further information regarding the environmental review of the project is available from the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR WPC 7702P ~E. vergreen G~arde~, WARNE~ SPRINGS V1STA JULIAN POWAY MESA LA JCLLA SANTEE ALPINE CHULA VISTA Project Location ~"J Zucker Systems Regional Location Map Figure ATTACHMENT A Report No. 9006 February 12 1990 JAMES C. BERRY - ACOUSTICIAN 2401 Trace Road Spring Valley, CA 92078-1928 (619) 660-0064 REPORT ON AN ACOUSTICAL STUDY Evergreen Gardens Third Avenue, south of Orange Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 Prepared for: Conrad Prebys Progress Construction Co. 5847 E1 Cajon Boulevard San Diego, CA 92115 by: James C, Berry Acoustician James C. Berry - Acoustician Report No 9006 (619) 660-0064 · February 12 1990 REPORT ON AN ACOUSTICAL STUDY Evergreen Gardens Third Avenue, south of Orange Avenue City of Chula Vista INTRODUCTION Evergreen Gardens is a proposed 45 dwelling development comprising 27 single family residences and 9 duplexes along the eastern side of Third Avenue just south of Orange Avenue in the City of Chula Vista (reference Thomas Brothers Map No. 71-F2.) Traffic on Third Avenue has been identified as a significant noise source in this area and this issue is addressed in this noise study. EXISTING CONDITIONS The site is presently empty and is rectangular in shape, essentially flat and at grade level with Third Avenue, along which there is a 929ft frontage. It stretches back 226ft from the street to the boundary of an existing mobile home park. To the north, on the corner of Third and Orange, is an open commercial lot and to the south are some existing single family residences and conr~ercial properties. Opposite the site, on the western side of Third Avenue are some more mobile homes. Third Avenue is striped for four lanes with a center double yellow line. There are no center left turn lanes and no parking strips. There is no curb on the eas~ (site) side and the sidewalk consists of a temporary asphalt walkway. The posted speed limit is 35 mph. The site was visited on Thursday, February 8, 1990 to make noise measurements and traffic counts. Noise measurements were made using a 8ruel and Kjaer Precision Sound Integrating Sound Level Meter Type 2230 which meets all U.S. and international standards for Type 1 instruments. The sound level meter was located 3Oft from the property line at ~he setback line of the proposed dwellings, that is 6Oft from the centerline of Third Ave- nue. Readings were taken for 20 minutes and the average noise level measured over this time period was 67 dB(A) Leq. Because of the regularity of the site with regard to the street, only one measurement location was deemed necessary. Although there are traffic signal lights at both Orange Avenue to the north and I, lain Street to the south, which tends to bunch up traffic, the flow was relatively smooth and uninterrupted. The 20 minute measurement can be taken as typical for a whole hour under these conditions. James C. Berry - Acoustician Report No. 9006 (619) 660-0064 Page 2 The relationship between the community noise levels [either Community Noise Equivalent level (CNEL) or the Day-Night Average Level (Ldn)] and a typical weekday, daytime hourly Leq has been shown to be CNEL/Ldn = Leq (hour) + 2 dB(A) Thus the existing community noise level at the measurement location is 67 + 2 : 69 dB(A) CNEL/Ldn Traffic was counted during the 20 minute measurement period. A total of 379 vehicles passed the site, equivalent to a flow of 1,137 vehicles per hour. Using established traffic flow formulae, the daily flow was calculated to be 19,603 Average Daily Trips (ADT). The last count made by the Chula Vista Traffic Engineering Department showed a value of 19,310 ADT, a very close match with this consultant's count. The heavy vehicle mix was found to be 2 percent medium trucks and i percent heavy trucks, typical values for a predominantly residential area. The noise level versus the traffic count can be checked by entering the rele- vant data into the traffic noise prediction model developed by the U.S. Depart- ment of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA RD-77-108.) The results of the calculations are shown in Table 1, The "hard ground" data are relevant to this project and as can be seen, the model matches the measured data within 1 dB(A) which is well within the limits of experimental error. The noise contours developed by the model and shown in Table i can thus be used for this report. It should be noted that traffic noise is not the sole source at this location. Eastbound flights from Lindbergh Field fly high overhead, climbing under power, and aircraft operations from Brown Field and Tijuana, and helicopters from the Naval Auxiliary Landing Field at Imperial Beach can also be heard. It is concluded that the existing noise level at the site varies from 69 dB(A) CNEL/Ldn at the setback line to 63 dB(A) CNEL/Ldn at the rear of the site (She mobile home park boundary.) FUTURE NOISE LEVELS WITHOUT THE PROJECT This part of Chula Vista is well developed and not subject to significant growth. Forecasts of the traffic flow along this section of Third Avenue at buildout show a value of 20,000 ADT according to ~,Ir. Sepehri of the Chula Vista staff. This indicates little or no increase in the future noise levels in the area. James C. Berry - Acoustician (619) 660-0064 Report No. 9006 Page 3 FUTURE NOISE LEVELS WITH THE PROJECT Impact of the Project The project itself will generate extra traffic in the order of 150 ADT which will all exit and enter from Third Avenue. This additional number is insig- nificant compared to the 20,000 ADT expected on Third Avenue in the future. The noise impact on the surrounding area will also be insignificant. Noise sources within the project will be consistent with residential proper- ties and should not pose any unusual noise problems. Noise Impact on the Project Because no significant increase in traffic is expected at buildout, the cur- rent noise levels can be used to assess the noise impact on the project. At the setback line, the noise level is 69 dBIA) CNEL/Ldn. However, at ground level there is a 6ft high stucco wall proposed to stretch along the entire frontage of Third Avenue except at the entrance. The noise levels experienced by a person standing on a typical patio or in the proposed picnic area can be calculated using the barrier portion of the FHWA model. The results of the calculations were as follows: Unattenuated Barrier Attenuated Vehicles Noise Levels Attenuation Noise Levels dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) , Autos 66 7.8 58.2 Medium Trucks 60 7.0 53.0 Heavy Trucks 63 4.4 58.6 Total 69 7 62 The site and street were assumed to be at the same elevation. The observer was assumed to be standing 55ft from the center of Third Avenue, 12ft behind the wall. Noise levels below 65 dB(A) CNEL/Ldn are assumed by most authorities to be compatible with recreational uses. Thus, at ground level behind the wall, noise levels at the patios, picnic and play areas will be compatible with the land use. At the second story level there are no balconies and the houses present a blank wall to the street. Examination of the building plans show that the exterior walls of the closets and bathrooms of the master bedrooms actually face the street. James C. Berry - Acoustician (610) 660-0064 Report No. 9006 Page 4 The second row of houses are shielded by the front row and the third row is further shielded. This third row comprises the 9 duplex units which are classified as multi-family residences under the California Administrative Code and are subject to an acoustical analysis according the Health and Safety Code 17922.6, Title 24, Part 2, Chapters 2 through 35 if their exterior noise levels exceed 60 dB(A) CNEL/Ldn. Although the unshielded noise levels at these duplexes would be in the order of 64 dB(A) CNEL/Ldn, the extensive shielding provided by the front two rows of houses is expected to reduce their noise exposure to below 60 dB(A) CNEL/Ldn, and thus negates their need for a further acoustical analysis. It should be pointed out that the existing mobile homes at the rear of this site will also receive the benefit of this extensive acoustical shielding. SUMMARY Existing noise levels at the site vary between 63 and 69 dB(A) CNEL/Ldn across the buildable portion. This is not expected to rise after buildout. The project will not cause any significant noise impact on the surrounding community. A 6ft high wall along the Third Avenue frontage protects the patios, picnic and play areas at grounds level and there are no balconies at the second story level. The duplexes at the rear of the site are shielded by the two rows of single family residences in front, their noise levels will be below 60 dB(A) CNEL/Ldn and no further analysis should be required under CAC Title 24. Finally, in the opinion of this acoustical consultant, this is a well-designed project with intelligent site planning, location and orientation of the resi- dences a_nd use of noise barriers and shielding to minimize noise problems. James C. Berry Acoustician ATTACHMENT B '~' MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Evergreen Gardens IS-90-36 This Mitigation Monitoring Program is prepared for the proposed Evergreen Gardens project, ~2 order to comply with AB 3180. This legislation requires public agencies ensure that adequate mitigation measures are implemented and monitored on mitigated negative declarations, such as IS-90-36. AB 3180 requires monitoring of potentially significant and/or significant environmental impacts. The mitigation monitoring program for the Evergreen Gardens Project ensures adequate implementation of mitigation for the following potentially significant impacts: Noise Impacts Traffic Impacts Geology/Soils Impacts Due to the nature of the environmental issues identified, the Mitigation Compliance Coordinator (MCC) shall be the Environmental Review Coordinator (ERC) for the City of Chula Vista. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that the conditions of the Mitigation Monitoring Program are met to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator. Noise/Mitigation The proposed project is associated with potentially significant noise impacts on site. Mitigation of Potentially Significant Noise Impacts will be ensured through implementation of the following: 1. Construction of a 6 foot high solid, masonry noise attenuation wall along the Third Avenue perimeter of the project site. The design and architectural treatment of the wall shall be in conformance with the design standards set forth during the Design Review Process. Traffic Impacts Mitigation The proposed project is associated with potentially significant traffic impacts. Mitigation of potentially significant traffic impacts will be ensured through the following mitigation measures: 1. Dedication of 17 feet of right-of-way on Third Avenue and 8 feet of right-of-way on Orange Avenue. 2. Assessment of traffic signal fees prior to issuance of the building permits. 3. Construction of a pedestrian ramp at the southeast corner of Third Avenue and Orange Avenue in accordance with the design standards set forth by the Engineering Department. 4. Provision of an alley-type driveway approach at Third Avenue in accordance with standards set forth by the Engineering Department. 5. Curb, gutter, sidewalk and A.C. or concrete pavement and base on both Third Avenue and Orange Avenue in accordance with standards set forth by the Engineering Department. 6. Installation of a concrete median on both Third Avenue and Orange Avenue. 7. Relocation of existing street lights to be specified by the Engineering Department. Geology/Soils The proposed project is associated with potentially significant geolo~Lv/soils impacts. Mitigation of potentially significant geology/soils impacts will be ensured through the following Mitigation Measures which are set forth in the Geotechnical Investigation: 1. All vegetation, brush and debris derived from clearing operations shall be removed and legally disposed of. All areas disturbed by site grading should be left in a neat and finished appearance, free from unsightly debris. 2. After clearing and benching the natural ground, the areas to be filled shall be scarified to a depth of 6 inches, brought to the proper moisture content, compacted and tested for the specified minimum degree of compaction. All loose soils in excess of 6 inches thick should be removed to firm natural ground which is defined as natural soils which possess an in-situ density of at least 90% of its maximum dry density. 3. When the slope of the natural ground receiving fill exceeds 20% horizontal units to 1 vertical unit), the original ground shall be stepped or benched. Benches shall be cut to a firm competent formational soils. The lower bench shall be at least 10 feet wide or 1-1/2 times the equipment width whichever is greater and shall be sloped back into the hillside at a gradient of not less than two (2) percent. All other benches should be at least 6 feet wide. The horizontal portion of each bench shall be compacted prior to receiving fill as specified herein for compacted natural ground. Ground slopes flatter than 20% shall be benched when considered necessary by the Geotechnical Engineer. 4. Any abandoned buried structures encountered during grading operations must be totally removed. All underground utilities to be abandoned beneath any proposed structure should be removed from within 10 feet of the structure and properly capped off. The resulting depressions from the above described procedures should be backfilled with acceptable soil that is compacted to the requirements of the Geotechnical Engineer. This includes, but is not limited to, septic tanks, fuel tanks, sewer lines or leach lines, storm drains and water lines. Any buried structures or -2- utilities not to be abandoned should be brought to the attention of the Geotechnical Engineer so that he may determine if any special recommendation will be necessary. 5. All water wells which will be abandoned should be backfilled and capped in accordance to the requirements set forth by the Geotechnical Engineer. The top of the cap should be at least 4 feet below finish grade or 3 feet below the bottom of footing whichever is greater. The type of cap will depend on the diameter of the well and should be determined by the Geotechnical Engineer and/or qualified Structural Engineer. 6. Materials to be placed in the fill shall be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer and shall be free of vegetable matter and other deleterious substances. Granular soil shall contain sufficient fine material to fill the voids. The definition and disposition of oversized rocks and expansive or detrimental soils are covered in the geotechnical report or Special Provisions. Expansive soils, soils of poor gradation, or soils with low strength characteristics may be thoroughly mixed with other soils to provide satisfactory fill material, but only with the explicit consent of the Geotechnical Engineer. Any import material shall be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer before being brought to the site. 7. Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill in layers not to exceed 6 inches in compacted thickness. Each layer shall have a uniform moisture content in the range that will allow the compaction effort to be efficiently applied to achieve the specified degree of compaction. Each layer shall be uniformly compacted to the specified minimum degree of compaction with equipment of adequate size to economically compact the layer. Compaction equipment should either be specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability. The minimum degree of compaction to be achieved is specified in either the Special Provisions or the recommendations contained in the preliminary geotechnical investigation report. 8. When the structural fill material includes rocks, no rocks will be allowed to nest and all voids must be carefully filled with soil such that the minimum degree of compaction recommended in the Special Provisions is achieved. The maximum size and spacing of rock permitted in structural fills and in non-structural fills is discussed in the geotechnical report, when applicable. 9. Field observation and compaction tests to estimate the degree of compaction of the fill will be taken by the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative. The location and frequency of the tests shall be at the Geotechnical Engineer's discretion. When the compaction test indicates that a particular layer is at less than the required degree of compaction, the layer shall be reworked to the satisfaction of the Geotechnical Engineer and until the desired relative compaction has been obtained. -3- 10. Fill slopes shall be compacted by means of sheepsfoot rollers or other suitable equipment. Compaction by sheepsfoot rollers shall be at vertical intervals of not greater than four feet. In addition, fill slopes at a ratio of two horizontal to one vertical or flatter, should be trackrolled. Steeper fill slopes shall be over-built and cut-back to finish contours after the slope has been constructed. Slope compaction operations shall result in all fill material six or more inches inward from the finished face of the slope having a relative compaction of at least 90% of maximum dry density or the degree of compaction specified in the Special Provisions section of this specification. The compaction operation on the slopes shall be continued until the Geotechnical Engineer is of the opinion that the slopes will be surficially stable. ll. Density tests in the slopes will be made by the Geotechnical Engineer during construction of the slopes to determine if the required compaction is being achieved. Where failing tests occur or other field problems arise, the Contractor will be notified that day of such conditions by written communication from the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative in the form of a daily field report. 12. If the method of achieving the required slope compaction selected by the Contractor fails to produce the necessary results, the Contractor shall rework or rebuild such slopes until the required degree of compaction is obtained, at no cost to the Owner or Geotechnical Engineer. 13. The Engineering Geologist shall inspect cut slopes excavated in rock or lithified formational material during the grading operations at intervals determined at his discretion. If any conditions not anticipated in the preliminary report such as perched water, seepage, lenticular or confined strata of a potentially adverse nature, unfavorably inclined bedding, joints or fault planes are encountered during grading, these conditions shall be analyzed by the Engineering Geologist and Soil Engineer to determine if mitigating measures are necessary. 14. Unless otherwise specified in the geotechnical report, no cut slopes shall be excavated higher or steeper than that allowed by the ordinances of the controlling governmental agency. 15. Field observation by the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative shall be made during the filling and compacting operations so that he can express his opinion regarding the conformance of the grading with acceptable standards of practice. Neither the presence of the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative or the observation and testing shall not release the Grading Contractor from his duty to compact all fill material to the specified degree of compaction. 16. Fill shall not be placed during unfavorable weather conditions. ~hen work is interrupted by heavy rain, filling operations shall not be resumed until the proper moisture content and density of the fill materials can be achieved. Damaged site conditions resulting from weather or acts of God shall be repaired before acceptance of work. -4- 17. The minimum degree of compaction to be obtained in compacted natural ground, compacted fill, and compacted backfill shall be at least 90 percent. For street and parking lot subgrade, the upper six inches should be compacted to at least 95% relative compaction. 18. Oversized fill material is generally defined herein as rocks or lumps of soil over 6 inches in diameter. Oversize materials should not be placed in fill unless recommendations of placement of such material is provided by the geotechnical engineer. At least 40 percent of the fill soils shall pass through a No. 4 U.S. Standard Sieve. 19. Where transitions between cut and fill occur within the proposed building pad, the cut portion should be undercut a minimum of one foot below the base of the proposed footings and recompacted as structural backfill. In certain cases that would be addressed in the geotechnical report, special footing reinforcement or a combination of special footing reinforcement and undercutting may be required. Water Utilities 1. The applicant shall be required to contact Jim Smyth at the Sweetwater Authority to discuss the requirements for provision of water service to the site. The Sweetwater Authority is requiring that plans and a deposit for engineering design be submitted to them. WPC 7759P -5- --c FOR OFFICE USE Case No... /.:. ~, ~_~ INITIAL STUDY -~__~/~-~ o. ,~ Receipt Nol Date Rec'd . City of Chula Vista dNbY ~g¢/. ~. Application Form pA~oC~'eP~ o._ A. BACKGROUND 1. PROJECT TITLE EVEBGREEN GARDIqN$ 2. PROJECT LOCATION {Street address or description) 1481 Third Avenue, Parcel ~2 Assessors Book, Page & Parce~ No. 623-030-0~ 3. BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION 45 Attached and detache~ condomiums homes 4. Name of Applicant CONRAD T. PREBYS Address 5847 E1 Cajon Boulevard Phone 286-0733 City San Diego State CA Zip 92115 B. Name of Preparer/Agent Kathryn W. Fulhortst, Lic # 2562 Address 3604 Fourth Avenue: R,,qy~ 3 Phone (619) 296-9868 City San Diego State CA Zip 92103 Relation to App]icant Landscape Architect 6. Indicate all permits or approvals and enclosures or documents required by the Environmental Review Coordinator. a. Permits or approvals required: General Plan Revision ~ Design Review Committee Public Project Rezoning/Prezoning Tentative Subd. Map --Annexation Precise Plan Grading Permit Design Review Board Specific Plan Tentative Parcel Map -- Redevelopment Agency __Cond. Use Permit Site Plan & Arch. Review ~ Variance --Other < b. Enclosures or documents (as required by the Environmental Review Coordinator). Location Map Arch. Elevations __Eng. Geology Report Grading Plan Landscape Plans Hydrological Study Site Plan Photos of Site & Biological Study Parcel Map Setting Archaeological Survey Precise Plan Tentative Subd. Map -- Noise Assessment Specific Plan Improvement Plans Traffic Impact Report Other Agency Permit or Soils Report Other Approvals Required - - 2 - B. PROPOSED PROJECT ]. Land Area: sq. footage 209,954 sq ftor acreage 4.81 acres. If land area to be dedicated, state acreage and purpose. 2. Complete this section if project is ~esidential. a. Type development: Single family Two family Multi family Townhouse Condominium X b. Number of structures and heights 27 structures and 9 attached structures 35 structures c. Number of Units: 1 bedroom 2 bedrooms 3 bedrooms 22 4 bedrooms 23 Total units d. Gross density (DU/total acres) i / 4913 / 211,812 sq. ft. e. Net density (DU/total acres minus any dedication) 1/4666 / 209,954 sq.J f. Estimated project population 200 g. Estimated sale or rental price range 1390 - 1550 sq. ft. h. Square footage of floor area(s) 200 i. Percent of lot coverage by buildings or structures 26% J. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided 90 + 25 guest k. Percent of site in road and paved surface 24% 3." Complete this section if project is c_ommercial or industrial. a. Type(s) of land use Not applicable b. Floor area Height of structure(s) c. Type of construction used in the structure d. Describe major access points to the structures and the r~ orientation to adjoining properties and streets e. Number of on-site parking spaces provided f. Estimated number of employees per shift Number of shifts Total g. Estimated number of customers (per day) and basis of estimate - 3 - h. Estimated range of service area and basis of estimate i. Type/extent of operations not in enclosed buildings j. Hours of operation k. Type of exterior lighting 4. If project is other than residential, commercial or industrial complete this section. -- a. Type of project Not appl±cable b. Type of facilities provided c. Square feet of enclosed structures d. Height of structure(s) - maximum e. Ultimate occupancy load of project f. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided g. Square feet of road and paved surfaces C. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS 1. If the project could result in the direct emission of any air pollutants, /hydrocarbons, sulfur, dust, etc.) identify them. None 2. Is any type of grading or excavation of the property anticipated Minimal, (If yes, complete the following:) Flat Lot -' - a. Excluding trenches to be backfilled, how many cubic yards of ~ earth will be excavated? 2,000 cu. yds. h. How many cubic yards of fill will be placed? 2,000 cu. yds. c. How much area (sq. ft. or acres) will be graded? Lot has been graded awa m--~nor d. ~What will be the - Maximum depth 0f cut 1~ ' grading of entire lot Average depth of cut _l' Maximum depth of fill 1~ ' Average depth of fill 1' - 4 - 3. Describe all energy consuming devices which are part of the proposed project and the type of energy used (air conditioning, electrical appliance, heating equipment, etc.) Heatin and cooling for~ 4. Indicate the amount of natural open space that is part of the project (sq. ft. or acres) 103,500 sq. ft 2.38 acres 5. If the project wi]] result in any employment opportunities describe the nature and type of these jobs. 6. construction 'ob~ Wi]] highly flammable or potentially explosive materials or substances be used or Stored within the project site? No 7. How many estimated automobile trips, per day, will be generated by the project~ 100 8. Describe (if any) off-site improvements necessary to implement the project, and their points of access or Connection to the project site. Improvements include but not limited to the following: ne~l Streets; street widening; extension of gas, electric, and sewer lines; cut and fill slopes; and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. -- 1212' street dedication and improvement on 3rd. D. DESCRIPTIOn; OF ENVIRONNENTAL SETTING 1. G~eology See City of C.V. Has a geology study been conducted on the property? geological records /If yes, please attach) Has a Soils Report on the project site been made? Currently in-progress (If yes, please attach) 2. Hydrology Are any of the following features present on or adjacent to the site? (See b.bel©w) (if yes, please explain in detail.) a. Is there any surface evidence of a shallow ground ~ater table? b. Are there any watercourses or drainage improvements on or adjacent to the Site? _. Adjacent storm drain Orange Avenue - 5 - c. Does runoff from the project site drain directly into or toward a domestic water supply, lake, reservoir or bay? No d. Could drainage from the site cause erosion or siltation to adjacent areas? e. Describe all drainage facilities to be provided and their location. _ On site storm drain network into 3. Noise existing storm drain system a. Will there be any noise generated from the proposed project site or from points of access which may impact the surrounding or adjacent land uses? 4. ~iology a. Is the project site in a natural or partially natural state? -, Site i~ cleared and graded b. Indicate type, Size and quantity of trees on the site and which (if any) will be removed by the project. N ne to be removed 5. Past Use of the Land a. Are there any known historical resources located on or near the project site? b. Have there been any hazardous materials disposed of or stored on or near the project site? 6. Current Land Use ~ a. Describe all structures and land uses currently existino on the project site. ~tttros ~}resentlv e>:l st - 6 - b. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on adjacent property. North South Residential SPR East .. Residential Park West Third Avenu~ 7. Social - a. Are there any residents on site? {If so, how many?) No b. Are there any current employment opportunities on site? (If so, how many and what type?) NO Please provide any other information which could expedite the evaluation oF ~he proposed project. - 7 - E. CERTIFICATION -- Ortner/owner 'in ~sc~dw/~ Consultant or Agent* or HEREBY AFFIRM, that to the best of my belief, the statements and information herein contained.are in all respects true and Correct and that all known information concerning the project and its setting have been included in Parts B, C and D of this application for an Initial Study of possible environmental impact and any enclosures for attachments thereto. *If acting for a corporation, include capacity and Company name. Case No. ~ 90-~ CITY DATA F. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1 Current Zoning on site: North South East f~v~ West D~es the project conform to the current zoning? 2. General Plan land use Qesignation on site: ~2jjJ~-L-t~///~j~uStt~ North %b(~E ~,~ ~O- · L' ~-~ --.e~.~rf/~.m~ South ~ , ' ' ' ' ~ ~ West .1~'~ ~ ,' ' -, ' ' Is the project compatible with the General Plan Land Use Diagram? ~ Is the project area designated for conservation or open space or adjacent to an area so designated? ~o Is the project located adjacent to any scenic routes? ~ -(If yes, describe the design techniques being used to protect or enhance the scenic quality of Chula Vista.) How many acres of developed parkland are within the Park Service District of this project as shown in the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan? ~/ What is the current park acreage requirements in the Park Service District? ~ How many acres of parkland are necessary to serve the proposed project? (~AC/IO00 pop.) Does the project site provide access to or have the potential to provide access to any mineral resource? {If so, describe in detail.) -9- 3. _School s If the proposed project is residential, please complete the following: Current Current Students Generated School Attendance Capacity From Project Elementary ~d~j.¢~m.¥e(, ~ ~c~ (,iq, 4. Aesthetics *~~ Does the project contain features which could be construed to be at a variance from nearby features due to bulk, form, texture or color~ so, please describe.) ~~~'~ ~ ~ya ~- -- .. (If 5. Energy Consumption Provide the estimated consumption by the proposed project of the following sources: Electricity {per year) ~o~,/~ ~ . Natural Gas {per year) Water (per day) Z/.~ ~m ~ d~ /~. 6. Remarks: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~:~Z I d ~' /' u~rector of Planning or~enta_~ -10- Case No. ~_~-~)o--~ G. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 1. Drainage a. Is the project site within a flood plain? b. Will the project be subject to any existing flooding hazaFds? c. Will the project create any flooding hazards? d.What is the location and description of existing on-site drainage facilities? ~j~ e. Are they adequate to serve the project? . f. What is the location and description of existing off-site drainage facilities~ ~ ~* g. Are they adequate to serve the project? 2. Transportation a. What roads provide primary access to the project? -1-~;r'J ' b. What is the estimated number of one-way auto trips to be generated by the project {per day)? ~,o c. What is the ADT and estimated level of service before and after project completion? ~ C~ ~ ~ Before After ~ro~,~- ,. ~o 15z4o L.O.S. 7Cu ~.: C-- q"'~_ d. Are the primary access roads adequate to 'serve the project? If not, explain briefly. e. Will it be necessary that additional dedication, widening and/or improvement be made to existing streets? ~a If so, specify the general nature of the ~essary actions. -11 Case No. 3. Geology a. Is the project site subject to: Known or suspected fault hazards? - Landslide or slippage? J b. Is an engineering geolo~ report necessary to evaluate the 4, Soils a. Are there any anticipated adverse soil conditions on the project site? b. If yes, what are_ these adverse soil conditions? 5. Land Form a. What is the average natural slope of the site? b. What is the maximum natural slope of the site? ~.~ 6. Noise Are there any traffic-related noise levels impacting the site that are s~gnificant enough to justify that a noise analysis be required of the applicant? -12- Case No. 7. ~ir Quality - If there is any direct or indirect automobile usage associated with this project, complete the following: . Total Vehicle Trips Emission Grams of __{per day) Factor Pollution CO ~o X 118.3 : Hydrocarbons ~o X 18.3 = NOx (NO2) 3&o X 20.0 = Particulates )~ X 1.5 Sulfur = ~- X .78 = Z 8. Waste Generation How much solid and liquid (sewage) waste will be generated by the proposed project per day? Solid JOl~ ~/~/~ Liquid k 0,~oo What is the location and size of existing sewer lines on or adjacent to the site~ j Are they adequate to serve the proposed project? .9. Public Facilities/Resources Impact If the project could exceed the threshold of having any possible significant impact on the environment, please identify the public facilities/resources and/or hazards and describe the adverse impact. {Include any potential to attain and/or exceed the capacity of any public street, sewer, culvert, etc. serving the project area.) Remarks/necessary mitigation measures City - . -13(a)- Case No. /~c-..o~._2~ H-1. PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT 1. Are existing neighborhood and community parks near the project adequate to serve the population increase resulting from this project? Neighborhood Community parks / cx~^~.~.~,. ~, ~ ' ~ ·~ - 2. If not, are parkland dedications or other mitigation proposed as part of the project adequate to serve the population increase? Neighborhood Community parks__h 3. Does this project exceed the Parks and Recreation Thresholds established by City Council policies? Parks and Recreation Director or Representative Date - 13 - Case No. H. FIRE DEPARTNENT 1. What is the distance to the nearest fire station and what is the Fire Department's, estimated reaction time? '/ · 2. Will the Fire Department be able to provide an adequate level of fire protection for the proposed facility without an increase in equipment or personnel?_~ 3. Remarks' ~?~~ ~y~~ . ~ )~ire Marshal Date CHULA VISTA FIRE DEPARTMENL~ BUREAU OP FIRE PREVENTION PLAN CORRECTION SHEET Address }q~/ Type Constr. Occupancy No. Stories~Bldg. Area The following list does not necessarily include all errors and omissions. PROVIDE AND SHOW ON PLAN: FPB-29 February 5, 199C File # ZG-197 TO: Ken Lee, Principal Planner VIA: Clifford L. Swanson, Deputy Director of pqb,~c Works/City Engineer FROM: Willi~. Ullrich, ~nior Civil En~i .... Harol o · . ~  _~enberg, City Traffic Engineer SUBJECT: Design Review Application for 1481 Third Av~nu2 Southeast Corner of Third Avenue and Orange The P~blic Works Department has reviewed the subject Iroposal. We do not propose the inclusion of engineering conditions of approval for the design review. However, we request that you provide the applicant with the following information. These items will be required under the authority of al ~ City of Chula Vista Municipal Code i~-connection with the ~-.~!~ permit: 1. Sewer~ and traffic signal fees will be assessed ~nen tha building permit is issued. 2. A construction permit will be required for work Per~ed in the street right-of-way. 3. Public improvements including, but not be limited tu: a. Curb, gutter and sidewalk and A.C. or ~c pavement and base on both Third Avenue an~. Avenue. b. Alley type driveway approach at Third Avenue c. Pedestrian ramp at southeast corner of Thirc and Orange Avenue. d. Drainage system at southeast corner of Third and Orange Avenue. 4. A grading permit will be required, if the ex~:'. ,,:, contained in the Grading Ordinance No. 1797 are no 5. Utility service shall be undergrounded. Ken Lee -2- February 5, 1990 6. Rel°catiDn of some existing street necessary., lights will be 7. Installation of concrete mediaiu on both Third Avenue and Orange Avenue will be required. 8. Preparation of traffic signal plan for any work involving traffic ~ignal will be required. 9. Seventeen feDt of street dedication on Third Avenue will be required, final distance of property line must b~ 47 feet fro~ centerline. 10. Eight feet of street dedication on Orange. Avenue will be required.'3 Final distance of property line must be 50 feet from~centerline. (RJkFORMS\DRA#s · DOC) -13(a)- Case No. /~-A'~-- _s~ H-1. PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT 1. Are existing neighborhood and community parks near the project adequate to serve the population increase resulting from this project? Neighborhood % /'. Y~ ~..,7 L~'~ c~/(~ c'~'¢~ /?/~.. Community parks ~:~:~,. ,,.. ~ ~ _ 2. ~f not, are parkland dedications or other ait~gat~on proposed as part of the pro~ect adequate to serve the population increase~ Neighborhood Community ar- I ~ ~ , ~ ~ -~ '~ 3. Does this project exceed the Parks and Recreation Thresholds established by City Council policies? Parks and Recreation Director or Representative Date Sweetwater Union High School' District January 30. 1990 Mr. Douglas D. Reid Environmental Review Coordinator City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista. CA 92010 Dear Mr. Reid: RE: IS-90-36 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 45 ATTACHED AND DETACHED CONDOMINIUMS PROJECT LOCATION: 1481 THIRD AVENUE The proposed 45 residential dwelling unit project will have an impact on the Sweetwater Union High School District. The project appears to be located in the Castle Park High and Middle School attendance areas. The high school is presently operating at approximately 105% capacity and the middle school is operating at 754 capacity. Because the middle school is only a two year cluster, this project will impact the high school. To mitigate this impact, the district requires that this project be considered for possible annexation to an existing Community Facilities District. The status of this project will be a significant factor in determining whether or not school fees will be required. Should you have anv questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. Cordially. Thomas Silva Director of Planning TS:ml cc: Kate Shurson Chula Vista City Schools CHUI,A I STA CITY SCHOOI ISTRICT 84 EAST"J' STREET · CHULAVISTA, CALIFORNIA 92010 · 619 425-9600 EACH CHILD IS AN INDIVIDUAL OF GREAT WORTH BOARD OF EDUCTION PATRICK A. JU~ JUDY~HULENBERG F~NKA. TARANTINO February 2, 1990 ~N ~.VUGR,N..~.D. FEB 5 1990 Mr. Doug Reid Environmental Review Coordinator City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, Ca 92010 RE: Case No. IS-90-36 Applicant: Conrad T. Prebys Location: 1481 Third Avenue Project: 45 Attached and Detached Condominiums Dear Mr. Reid: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Initial Study for the above-referenced project. The proposed 45 unit condominium project is located in the Otay/Montgomery School attendance area. Otay Elementary School serves grades Kindergarten through third, with Montgomery Elementary School serving grades four through six. Both facilities are operating at or near capacity as are other schools in this area, and children may be required to attend schools in other locations in the District. School assignments may also be based on individual student needs, special programs, or the District's integration goals. Developer fees currently allowed pursuant to State law are not adequate to provide needed interim facilities to serve children from this project. The District recommends annexation to Community Facilities District (CFD) No. 5. This is a ~ "generic" CFD, formed to allow projects not large enough to require a separate District to annex and pool assessments to finance facilities needed throughout the District to serve growth. Such annexation would be in lieu of developer fees. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, Kate Shurson Director of Planning KS:dp cc: Conrad Prebys Tom Silva S~" EETWATER AUTHOP~;~y ~ 505 GARRETT AVENUE · POSt OFFICE BOX 2328 CHULA VISTA CALIFORNIA 92012.2328 February 8, 1990 w^~D^ Mr. Douglas Reid Environmental Review Coordinator City of Chula Vista Planning Department P.O. Box 1087 Chuia Vista, CA 92012 Subject: CA' IS-90-36 SV~FILE: CITY OF C.V.- GENERAL Dear Mr. Reid: This is in response to your Notice of Initial Study for the above subject case. Based on preliminary discussion with the Chula Vista Fire Department regarding fire flows, the Authority's existing water system will require upsizing to meet their requirements. The extent of the water system improvement is not known at this time. The developer will need to submit plans of the proposed development to the Authority, along with a deposit for engineering design. We can then determine the method of service and extent of system improvements. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Jim Smyth at 420-1413. Very truly yours, SWEETWATER AUTHORITY Richard A. Reynolds Chief Engineer RAR:JLS:In n/letters/scripps ,~t Pubh¢ ' CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ~~[S STATEMENT~F DISCLOSURE OF CERTA~ O~ERSHI INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATION~-= I~,~o~.~L REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ' ' P THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING [COM?ISS~O,~ AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES. 0~ THE PART OF. The foilewing information must be disclosed: .~-~ the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application. _ CONRAD T. PREBYS ~47 E1 Cajon Blvd. Sa~ Die~o, CA 92115 ~ List the names of ail persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. -. if any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list t~e names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. 3. if any 'person identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit organization or a 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. ~ave you had more than $250 'worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards, CommisSions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes No × ~f yes, please indicate person(s) · ~ i~ .~efined as: "Any individual, firm co · · · I~.a~a, c,ub, fraterna~ orqaniza~inn ..... ,~. partnership, Joint vent~ and any other countS _F£ --,.~u,Nurac~on, estate, trust, rece'i(~r~?? ~,~,. . . y, c~cy ara county, city ......... 'T~[, ~yna]cate, · ' . ng as a unit. .,.O_~E. ~ach additional pages as -~ ..... ~ ul d~pilC2n~ -- City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of October 10, 1990 Page 1 5. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-89-27; Appeal from a decision of the Zoninq Administrator to approve a Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of a 75-unit low-income housinq project for seniors at 628/638 Third Avenue A. BACKGROUND This item is an appeal from the City Zoning Administratorfs decision approving the Salvation Army~s request to construct a 75-unit, low-income housing project for seniors on 1.1 acres located at 628/638 Third Avenue in the C-O Administrative and Professional Office Zone. The code provides that housing developments for low and moderate income seniors are allowed in the C-O zone upon the approval of a conditional use permit. This project previously received approval from both the Chula Vista Planning Commission and the City Council. In addition the project was approved by the Commission on Aging, as well as the Chula Vista Design Review Committee. The Conditional Use Permit, as granted by the City Council in March, 1989, was valid for a period of one year. The committee was not able to vest the permit during that period and the permit expired. Thus, in order to proceed with the project, it was necessary for the applicant to refile a conditional use permit application for consideration of the project. The Environmental Review Coordinator previously conducted an Initial Study, IS-88-77, of the potential impacts associated with the implementation of the project. Based on the attached initial study and the comments thereon, if any, the coordinator concluded there would be no significant environmental impacts, and recommended adoption of the Negative Declaration issued on IS-88-77, which was adopted by the Planning Commission. The conditions upon which this adoption was predicted have not changed, but the membership of the commission has. Therefore, it is recommended that this commission consider and readopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-88-77. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Based on the Initial Study and comments on the Limited Study and Negative Declaration, find that project PCC-88-27, will have no significant environmental impacts and readopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-88-77. 2. Adopt a motion to uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator, and thereby deny the appeal. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of October 10, 1990 Page 2 C. DISCUSSION The appellant has appealed approval of the project in question by citing the number of units, amount of packing, amount of open space, and height. These concerns cited by the appellant were considered by the Planning Commission and the City Council during their previous deliberations on the project. They are addressed in detail in the following discussion and analysis sections of this report. These factors were also considered by the Zoning Administrator prior to his approval of the subject project. Proposed use The Salvation Army was selected by the Department of Housing and Urban Development to receive funding to construct 75 units of Section 8 rental housing for very low income seniors (those with incomes which do not exceed 50% of the regional median income). The project would serve this resident group for the full 40-year term of the HUD mortgage. The Section 8 program provides subsidies so that residents pay no more than 30% of their income for rent. The project consists of 75 units within a single, L-shaped, four-story structure. There are 18 studio and 56 one-bedroom senior rental units, and one two-bedroom manager's unit. The building also contains a 1,500 sq. ft. recreation room which opens onto a 3,000 sq. ft. landscape/patio area on the south side of the structure. Parking for 39 cars is provided to the south and west of the building with a single access drive from Third Avenue along the southerly property line. Interior corridors will provide access to the units, which contain 415 sq. ft. for studios and 520 sq. ft. for one-bedroom; the sole two-bedroom unit contains 1,040 sq. ft. Each unit also has a private balcony--75 sq. ft. for studios and 95 sq. ft. for one-bedroom. The total combined private and common open space is estimated to be 16,000 sq. ft., or 213 sq. ft. per unit. The Municipal Code allows R-3 residential uses in the C-O zone, subject to the R-3 land use standards and upon the approval of a conditional use permit. The site in question is zoned C-O-Administrative and Professional Office. The Municipal Code also allows for exceptions from the standard zoning regulations based on projects limited to for low and moderate income seniors. This proposal involves the following exceptions from the applicable R-3 standards: an increase in density from 36 to 75 units; decrease in off-street parking from 113 to 39 spaces; a decrease in open space from 30,000 to approximately 16,000 sq. ft., with 5 ft. wide rather than 6 ft. wide balconies; and an increase in maximum number of stories from 3.5 to 4.0 (although the proposed building height of 44 ft. is under the 45 ft maximum allowed by Code). City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of October 10, 1990 Page 3 D. ANALYSIS The ability to grant exceptions from the normal R-3 zoning standards for senior housing developments is in recognition that the residents of such projects often have dwelling characteristics which differ from other groups, such as the need for less living space and parking accommodations, and the generation of less traffic, noise and urban activity. The City has an adopted senior housing policy which requires such projects to be maintained for the exclusive use of low and moderate income seniors (60 years of age or older) for at least 25 years. In this case, the units will be reserved for very low income seniors for at least 40 years. The issue of increased density involves questions of structural mass and bulk, traffic and parking, and the general levels of noise and urban activity generated by an increased concentration of people. Senior projects generally consist of smaller units with fewer persons per household, and seniors generally own fewer vehicles, generate less traffic, and create less noise and activity than younger households of equal size. Ideally, a senior density bonus project would create no more visual or activity impacts than a standard density project, Section 19.58.390 of the Municipal Code addresses the City's ability to modify senior housing standards (see attached). Under the basic R-3 standards, the property could accommodate 36 units, whereas the request is for 75 units -- an increase of 39 units or plus 108%. In recent years, five projects have been approved by the City with density bonuses ranging from 28% to 93%. Generally, staff has favored the projects that exceed the underlying density by no more than 50%. The reason for this is that the typical senior unit contains one-bedroom and approximately 550 sq. ft. of floor area, while the standard rental unit contains two-bedrooms and approximately 800 sq. ft. of floor area -- a difference in floor area of approximately 50%. The result being that the structural mass for a 50% density bonus project will approximate that for a standard project. In the present case, the structural bulk is approximately twice as great as would be expected with a typical R-3 development on this size lot--36 units at a typical 800 sq. ft. per unit would total 28,800 sq. ft. whereas the structure in question totals 55,084 sq. ft. This particular site, however, is within a commercial office rather than R-3 zone. A commercial development concept with two commercial floors above surface parking would conform with the C-O zone and would allow this site to accommodate a building of approximately 40,000 sq. ft., with a footprint of 20,000 sq. ft. and an overall height up to 45 ft. This would present a greater mass and bulk than the subject project, which has a footprint of 14,000 sq. ft. and an overall height of 44 ft. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of October 10, 1990 Page 4 An additional consideration is that the building has been configured and placed on the lot so that the greatest mass is oriented to the north and south, whereas the narrowest portion of the building and the only surface without window openings is oriented to the most sensitive interface area--the single family homes to the rear. The setback at this location has also been established at 58 feet in order to further ameliorate the visual impact on adjoining residents. The R-3 standards would require the 75 units to be served by 113 off-street parking spaces, based on a ratio of 1.5 spaces for each studio or one-bedroom unit, and two spaces for the manager's unit. The proposal is to provide 39 spaces, or 0.52 spaces per unit. The parking issue has probably been the most difficult to resolve with prior senior projects. The City has approved ratios varying from 0.45 per unit to 0.83 per unit. At one time many jurisdictions believed that 1/2 space per unit was adequate. This was later increased to 3/4 space per unit, and now many communities are using a 1:1 ratio for one-bedroom senior units. Generally, we are now looking at ratios which would approximate 0.75-1.0 spaces for each studio or one-bedroom unit, and 1.5 spaces for each two-bedroom unit, at least in the case of privately-initiated projects which serve low and moderate income seniors. This federally-subsidized proposal is distinctive from the typical privately-initiated project in that all of the residents will be very low income (50% or less of the regional median) rather than low (50%-80%) or moderate (80%-120%) income residents. The very low income typically own fewer vehicles, and a review of other federally-subsidized very low income senior projects in the area, including the Town Centre Manor on "F" Street across from the Civic Center, confirm that a ratio of one-half space per unit is adequate to serve both residents and guests. Using this ratio, the project would require a total of 39 parking spaces --2 spaces for the manager's unit, plus 37 spaces for the senior units--and a condition of approval to this effect has been incorporated into the conditional use permit. In addition, the City Council placed a condition of approval on the project requiring that upon initial opening of the complex, if the parking requirements of the occupants exceeds availability, the Salvation Army will provide additional parking. The proposal also includes a reduction in the total required open space from 400 sq. ft. to approximately 210 sq. ft. per unit. In most previous cases the City has approved a reduction in the overall ratio provided that adequate private open space is available for each unit. In this instance, each studio unit has a 75 sq. ft. balcony, and each one-bedroom unit has a 95 sq. ft. balcony. The narrow balconies were considered by the Design Review Committee and considered acceptable based upon the overall increase in total square footage of balcony area and the number of residents using each unit. These figures are consistent with the R-3 standards for private open space. The project will also include a 1,500 sq. ft. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of October 10, 1990 Page 5 recreation room, and an adjacent patio and landscaped area totaling 3,000 additional sq. ft. (It should be noted that the Salvation Army is contributing approximately $500,000 to provide extra features and amenities, including balconies, which federal funding does not provide for.) The final requested exception is an increase in the maximum number of stories from 3.5 to 4 stories. Since the allowable height limit is 45 ft., and the project is designed at a height of 44 ft., the increase in number of stories becomes in this case an issue more related to usability or density rather than mass and bulk. The issue of density has already been discussed above. With regard to the issue of the project location in relation to the availability of public services and facilities, this site is almost ideally situated. A full-service grocery store is located approximately 600 feet to the south at the northwest corner of Third and "J", and medical facilities and services surround the site. Third Avenue is a major bus route, and the Salvation Army building is only one lot removed from the site to the south. Memorial Park and Norman Park are located approximately three blocks to the north. As a result of these factors, the project was approved subject to the conditions noted and based on the following findings. E. FINDINGS 1. That the proposed use at the location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the community. The project will provide 75 units of affordable rental housing for very low income seniors within the community, and at a location which provides ready access to a wide range of public services and facilities. 2. That such use 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 bulk and mass of the structure are not inconsistent with what could be developed on the site under the existing C-O zone. The building has been placed on the lot in a manner which minimizes the impact on the adjacent residential uses to the west. The project will be required to provide 39 parking spaces which is believed to be adequate to serve a very low income senior development. 3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the code for such use. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of October 10, 1990 Page 6 The use will be required to comply with all applicable codes, conditions, and requirements prior to the issuance of a building permit. 4. That the granting of this conditional use permit will not adversely affect the general plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government agency. The proposal complies with General Plan policy with regard to density bonuses for senior citizen projects. WPC 8329P City of Chula Vista Date Received ~'-~,75x~ Planning Department Fee Paid z'~ ~, ~ Receipt No. ~5~ ~_~ Appeal ~o~m Case No: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.~ Appeal from the decision of: ~ Zoning ~ Planning ~ Design Review Administrator Commission Committee Appellant: James HalcoZm Phone 619 / 425-?080 Address: 625 ~hird Ave. Chula Vista, Ca. 92010 Request for: Variance (Example: zone change, variance, design review, etc.) Please state wherein you believe there was an error in the decision of ~ZA ~PC ~DRC for the property located at: 628/638 ~hi~ Ave. Salvation Arm~ Number of units Amount of parking= Amount of Open Space Height e of Appellant fDade Do Not Write In This Space To: Planning Department Date Appeal Filed: Case No: Date of decision: Receipt No: The above matter has been scheduled for public hearing before the: Planning Commission City Council on Planning Commissi'on Secretary City Clerk (This form to be filed in triplicate.) PL-60 Rev. 12/83 " 19~58.390 Senior 'housing development. Pursuant to Section 19.54.020, housing develOpments for seniors, as defined in Section 19.04.201, may be allowed in any zone except the R-l, R-2, C.V; C-T and industrial zones. Because the residents of such development have dwellir)g chdracteristics ~ehich differ from those of families and younger pe~'sor~s, it is not appropriate to ,pply all of the non,al zoning standards thereto. Accordingly, pursuant to t~e processing of a conditional use permit for suc~ developments, as requirec ~y Section 19.54.020 P, the planning con,mission and city council may make exceptions to the density, off-street parking, mi~imum unit size, open space, and such other requirements as may be appropriate. The planning commission and city council may also adjust required setbacks, building height, and yard areas as appropriate to provide an adequate living environment bot~ within the developm-nt and on nearby properties. Any exceptions and adjustments shall be subject to the condition that the development will be available for occupancy by seniors only. (Ord. 1878 ~ 3, 1~79. EXCERPT FROM COMMISSION ON AGING MINUTES - Meeting of 2-8-89 b. Salvation ArmS - Silvercrest ResidencP Vernon Swenson and Margo Reid of the Salvation Army presented an overview of the proposed Silvercrest Residence project. This project is planned for 628 - 638 Third Avenue, will consist of 75 units and will be for low income seniors under a HUD 202 program with Section 8 vouchers. Applicants for this project must have an income lower than $12,800 for a single or 14,600 for a couple. Residents will be required to pay 30% of their income for rent. The ratio of parking per unit was discussed and the Commissioners felt that all things considered, the planned parking is adequate. In response to the Commission's questions regarding the method of tenant selection, Ms. Reid stated that applications would be accepted until a specified date and a public drawing will be held to select the tenants. She stated, however, that they would be following the HUD guidelines as to preferences given to: 1) persons currently living in substandard housing, and 2) those currently paying over 50% of their income for rent. There is no preference given to local residents, although Ms. Reid stated that experience has been that a majority of applicants for this type of project will be local residents. The Salvation Army plans to provide an additional $500,000 to finance additional amenities not allowed by HUD such as balconies, additional elevators, etc. EXCERPT FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - February 8, 1989 1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-89-27 REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A 78-UNIT LOW-INCOME HOUSING PROJECT FOR SENIORS AT 628/638 THIRD AVENUE - SALVATION ARMY Associate Planner Griffin stated that the project site located on the west side of Third Avenue south of "I" Street totals over an acre, is zoned C-O (Commercial Office) as are the areas to the north, south and east, and backs up to an R-1 single-family area on the west. The project involves 75 units contained in an L-shaped four-story structure with 34 parking spaces to the wes% and south of the building and access off Third Avenue. The unit mix consists of 18 studio units, 56 one-bedroom units and a two-bedroom manager's unit. The building contains a 1500 square foot common recreation room and an adjacent area with patio and landscaping. Mr. Griffin displayed slides of three of the elevations and noted that the rear elevation (which faces the single-family residential area) has no window openings or balconies thus minimizing privacy intrusion. Mr. Griffin remarked that the project is sponsored by the Salvation Army as a Federally subsidized Section 8 rental housing development for very low-income seniors. It is processed by a conditional use permit under the City's senior density housing program which allows deviations from the R-3 standards. The exceptions being requested are an increase in density from 36 to 75 units, a decrease in parking from 113 to 34 spaces, a decrease in open space from 30,000 to 16,000 square feet, narrower balconies than normally required and an increase in the number of stories from 3-1/2 to 4 - although the height of the project (44 feet) will remain under the maximum allowed by the zone. He remarked that senior projects have characteristics which differ from standard multiple-family projects thereby supporting significant departures from the zoning standards. In this project, the increase in density and decrease in parking are probably the most significant that have been processed under the senior density provisions and are greater than would be allowed in a privately initiated proposal. Supporting factors include the fact that the property is not in the R-3 but the C-O zone whose standards allow a building of such mass and bulk. The placement of the building on the lot minimizes its impact on the single-family area since the narrowest portion is to the rear and it is set back approximately 60 feet from the property line this reducing the visual impact of the building. Mr. Griffin said that two letters had been received from the homeowners on Landis Avenue objecting to the building height and the potential for excessive on-street parking. Mr. Griffin outlined the characteristics of the very low-income senior group which include (1) limited income of $12,800 for a single person or $14,600 for two; 12) minimum age of 62 with an average age span into the 70's, and (3) average occupancy of 1.1 to 1.2 persons per household. The Salvation Army's intent to provide vans for group transportation plus the major public transportation available on Third Avenue and the proximity of medical facilities and stores will minimize the need for parking. Based on research into similar projects, staff suggests a parking ratio of 1/2 space per unit would be comfortable. With regard to the decrease in the total amount of open space, the Salvation Army is providing private balconies for every unit. These are actually above that allowed by the Federal budget. Since the project does not need to provide recreational areas for children and the occupancy per unit is so low, the on-site open spaces provided equate closely to those of a standard project. Staff recommends approval of the project subject to the conditions noted. In discussing the parking issue with the Commission, Mr. Griffin indicated that 39 parking spaces had been recommended. This can be achieved by a combination of compact cars and utilization of the area to the south of the building. Principal Planner Lee commented that shifting the building slightly to the north would provide additional space. Mr. Griffin added that the consensus of opinion from contact with other jurisdictions and managers of similar facilities is that the .5 ratio was more than adequate. The exception being suburban projects away from transportation and other services in which case, the .5 - .75 ratio would be more appropriate. He referenced Town Centre Manor (under .5 per unit) which has indicated they have no problem. He continued that more definitive guidelines for these facilities would be considered by the Commission at a later date. Commissioner Cannon replied that Congregational Towers suffers from a major parking problem and expressed concern that after 5 years no parking policy had been developed for this type of facility. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Vern Swenson, 20737 Stagg Street, Canoga Park, California, representing the Salvation Army, stated they had been sensitive to the requirements of the Planning Department with regard to the construction of the building and t~at the organization ~ould spend about $1/2 million to fund the balconies, a second elevator, construct wider corridors and provide other amenities. He added that the Salvation Army operates a number of these facilities very successfully. Margo Reid, 1560 W. Colorado Blvd, Pasadena, with Falkenberg/Gilliam & Associates representing the Salvation Army, indicated her willingness to answer any questions. Ralph Flewelling, 766 Colorado Blvd, Los Angeles, the architect, stated that at one time a 5-story building with 57 parking spaces had been proposed. The present configuration had been developed with 29 parking spaces. The provision of an additional five spaces by shifting the building slightly to the east is being considered by the Planning Department. Moving the building to the north would entail problems with the Fire Department's stipulation of 24 feet at the hammerhead at the west corner of the building. This would also result in parking on the south side of the building facing into the units. HUD prefers parking around the periphery. If the building were shifted to the east, the parking would be on the west side and would not face into the units. In answer to questions from the Commission, Mr. Flewelling said the additional five spaces would come from the landscaped area adjacent to the recreation room. He pointed out that based on the 45 projects his firm has designed during the past 20 years, the amount of parking needed for seniors is less than for regular projects. When regular public transportation is available, occupants tend to dispose of their cars when the insurance comes due. He expressed a preference to retain the green space originally provided with the option of utilizing it for parking if the need arose in the future. He stated that the "worst case" situation was that of Luther Towers constructed + 20 years ago which had zero parking spaces because use of the adjacent church parking area was anticipated. For the most part, the parking ratio is about 1:3. In reply to Commissioner Carson, he said the one-bedroom apartment would rent for 30 percent of the occupant's income. Barbara Ballard indicated that her son, Ronald Ballard, 516 Chantel Court, Chula Vista would speak for her. Mr. Ballard spoke in opposition to the project citing. (1) the change in zoning from commercial to residential and from low-density to high-density; (2) the effect on property values in the area; (3) the view of the back of the building from their homes; (4) lack of parking on Third Avenue during the day; and (5) reduced access area for emergency vehicles. He also presented a letter of opposition from a neighbor to the Commission. Pat McIntyre, 639 Landis Avenue, Chula Vista, opposed the fact that the ~indows on the sides of the building look into her property; expressed concern about the parking, the density, and the effect on her property's value when she wishes to sell. ~ Irene Goodwin, 331 Mitscher, St., CV, opposed the project because of the density, parking and noise. John Miller, immediate past president for the Salvation Army, noted that additional parking is provided on the grounds of the nearby adjacent Salvation Army facility. Dick Kau, 3440 Bonita, addressed the concern of those residents behind the building saying that its height is 44 feet and the allowable height is 45 feet. No windows are on the west which eliminates glare. An agreement has been reached with the owner of the adjacent building to permit a driveway to run between the two buildings so traffic will not have to exit onto Third Avenue. Ron Ballard returned to the podium to point out that the easement running between the two properties would create more of a noise problem for the residents in the back. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Principal Planner Lee pointed out that the height of the building is in conformance with the C-O zone and that three doors down the office building adjacent to the market is at the same height as this proposed structure. He noted that staff had explored the relationship of the buildings along Third Aven~e with that of the residential homes to the west to make sure there was adequate separation. Moving the building to the east will increase that separation probably to the extent of 70 feet between the rear of the building and the west property line. He added that the rear setback for co~ercial buildings is only 10 feet and, if this project did not go through, an office building of the same height could come through with a more reduced setback in the area. Any overflow parking would not affect the residential area based on the access to that area to the west. Commissioner Tugenberg remarked normally he did not encourage senior facilities in the Downtown Area because of the effect on the business area; however, he looked favorably on this project based on the location, its proximity to the stores, to public transportation, and the fact that it is sponsored and supervised by the Salvation Army. MSUC ITugenberg/Casillas) that based on the Initial Study and comments on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration to find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-88-77. MSC ITugenberg/Grasser) Cannon "no" - based on the findings contained in Section E of the staff report to adopt a motion recommending that Council approve PCC-89-27 subject to conditions 'a' and 'b'. Commissioner Cannon said he was very concerned about the parking issue and did not think it was adequate. He hoped he was wrong; however, based on personal experience, he has found the demand for parking in such facilities exceeds that of the ~0% ratio. Commissioner Tugenberg replied that this facility was designed for persons whose income would be less than 50% of the norm which would preclude them having very many cars. Commissioner Carson said she had shared the same feelings as Commissioner Cannon; however, the overflow provisions provided by the Salvation Army for parking nearby had changed her mi nd. At the request of Commissioner Shipe who has a potential conflict of interest on item 2, item 3 was taken at this time. 5. DRC-~-41: Salvation Arm~ construction of a 75-unit senior citizen project at 628-638 Third Avenue Assistant Planner Hernandez pointed out the location of the parcel which is just over an acre in size located on the west side of Third Avenue between "I'~ and "J" Streets within a C-O Commercial Office district. He explained that the adjacent area to the west is primarily single-family homes with other commercial buildings located to the north, east, and south. The proposed project consists of a 75-unit "L" shaped four-story structure which features a combination of studio and one-bedroom units having a single two-bedroom manager's unit. In addition, there is a 1,500 sq. ft. recreation room which opens onto a 3,000 sq. ft. landscaped patio area to the south with parking originally designed for 29 spaces. He e~plained that after discussion with the City's Housing Coordinator and reviewing other projects of a similar nature, it was decided that ,5 parking spaces per unit was necessary to make this an acceptable design from a staff perspective, Therefore, the applicant has provided alternate site plans that provide additional parking. Staff is in support of Scheme 3 which allows the building to shift closer to Third Avenue and to provide a total of 39 parking spaces while retaining a large portion of the landscaping as originally conceived, lie cited the architecture features a warm colored stucco and a post-modern design with accent treatment and articulation, highlighted with a tower-like element with the one comment from staff that the accent element of the tower should be pulled away from the building to give it more meaning and to break up the building mass. There were further recommendations relating to the arches and balcony area adjacent to the tower, with the explanation that staff endorses the project architecture with the changes that were listed in the report. Mr. Ralph Felling, architect for the project, indicated they would like to move the building forward to gain a walk area as well as landscaping adjacent to the west side of the structure. He pointed out that the balconies had been revised so that only a portion is now open where the lower elements are solid providing additional screening. He noted that condition 'g' is a concern to him since the arch, in his opinion, needs to die into a supporting element. Member Alberdi commented that projection of the tower out approximately 4' would allow it to read more as an element. Member Flach questioned whether the mortar being used in the project would match block on the lower floor. Member Landers noted that she was in favor of pulling the building back from Third Avenue as far as possible to provide for adequate landscaping. MSUC (Flach/Landers) 4-0 to adopt l~egative Declaration IS-88-77. MSUC (Gilman/Landers) 4-0 to approve the project subject to the staff conditions listed with the following revisions: condition 'a' requiring 39 parking spaces was approved as per Scheme 3 with the exception that the landscaping is to be coordinated with the City Landscape Architect; condition 'b' was modified to allow the building to move 11' easterly; condition 'd' was modifieo to reflect approval of the landscaping per Scheme 3; condition ~e' was modified to provide for clarification that the existing and proposed concrete block walls to be treated with stucco is in reference to the zoning wall located on the west property line; condition 'f' was modified allotting fcr the building tower ~lement to be pulled 2' away From the building; condition 'j' was added that the mortar to be used with the sl]lit block s~a!I ~a~c~ t~¢· ~nasonry colors. Iinutes ~ 5 Ilarch 7, 1989 12. PUBLIC HEARING PCC-89-27: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ~ REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A 75-UNIT LOW-INCOME HOUSING PROJECT FOR SENIORS AT 628/638 THIRD AVENUE SALVATION ARMY (Director of Planning) RESOLUT!O,~! APPPOVIt~G CONDITIONAL USE PERItIT PCC-89-27 TO CONSTRUCT A 75-UNIT LOW-INCOME HOUSING PROJECT FOR SENIORS AT 628/638 THIRD AVENUE SALVATION ARMY This ~eing the time and place as advertised, the Hayor declared the public hearing open. Councilman ~oore abstained frnm voting stating that he was a :'~em:~er cf toe i}oard of the Salvation Army and tilerefore uould have ] sc. tenti~,i conflict ,~r ir~orr~c,t. tiinutes ~ ii Ilarch 7, 1989 Mayor Cox noted the recommendation from staff to continue this item to May 2, following a City Council Conference which will be held on April 27 on the Senior Housing Density Bonus policy. ~.~ Director of Planning Krempl e~plained that the request is to construct a 75-unit, low-income housing project for seniors on 1.1 acres located at 628/638 Third Avenue in the C-O Commercial Office zone. The Code provides that housing developments for low and moderate income seniors are allowed in the C-O zone upon the approval of a conditional use permit. The Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an Initial Study, IS-88-77, of potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the project. The Coordinator has concluded that there would be no significant environmental impacts and recomTne nded adoption of the Negative Declaration IS-88-77. ~ issued on On February 8, 1989, the Planning Commission adopted the Hegative Declaration issued on IS-88-77, and voted 6-1 to recommend that Council approve the request in accordance with Resolution PCC-89-27. The Commission on Aging also considered the item on February 8, 1989. The Commission did not have a quorum, but all thPee members present were supportive of the proposal. The Salvation Army was selected by the Department of Housing and Urban Development to receive funding to construct 75 units of Section 8 rental housing for very low income seniors (those with incomes which do not exceed 50% of the regional median income). The project wo-uld serve this resident group for the full 40-year term of the HUD mot%gage. The Section 8 program provides subsidies so that residents pay no more than 30% of their income for rent. The project consists of 75 units within a single, L-shaped, four-story structures. The Municipal Code provides for exceptions from the standard zoning regulations for projects limited to low and moderate income seniors. This proposal involves the following exceptions from the applicable R-3 standards: an increase in density from 36 to 7-5 units; decrease in off-street parking from 113 to 39 spaces; a decrease in open space from 30,000 to approximately 16,000 sq. ft., with 5 ft. wide rather than 6 it. wide balconies; and an increase in maximum number of stories from 3.5 to 4.0 (although the proposed building heiqht of .~4 ft is under the 45 ft maximum allowed by Code. - · Director Kremply further explained that the ability to grant exceptions from the normal R-3 zoning Standards for senior housing developments is in recognition that the residents of such projects often have dwelling characteristics which differ from other groups, such as the nee i for less l'iving space and parking accommodations and the generation of less traffic, noise and urban activity. The City has an adopted Senior housing policy which requires such projects to be maintained for the exclusive use of low and moderato income seniors (60 years of age or older) for at least 25 years. In this case, the units will be reserved for very low income seniors for at le,~st 40 . . inutes 7 March 7, 1989 Under the density bonus, Director Krempl explained that under the basic R-3 standards, the Property in question could accommodate 36 units, whereas the request is for 75 units -- an increase of 39 units or plus 108%. In recent years, five projects have been approved by the City with density bonuses ranging from 28% to 93%. The R-3 standards would require the 75 units to be served by 113 off-street parking spaces, based on a ratio of 1 .5 spaces for each studio or one-bedroom unit and two spaces for the manager's unit. The proposal is to provide 39 spaces or 0.5 spaces per unit. The final requested exception is an increase in the maximum number of Stories from 3.5 to 4 Stories. Since the allowable height limit is 45 ft., and the project is designed at a height of 44 ft., the increase in number of stories becomes in this case an issue more related to usability or density rather than mass and bulk. A recess ~as called at 5:35; the meeting reconvened at 5:40. Mr. Art Stillwell, 1732 Whaley Street, San Diego, representing the Salvation Army stated that they h,a,~,,e been working with HUD for quite a while and the City got an rating. The Salvation Army operates a number of these units in the ~yestern United States. He asked that Council approve the project this evening. t~r. Jori Miller, Past Chairman, stated that the present facility is on 300 ft. of the property which takes only 1/2 of the property. ).ir. Ralph Flewelling, 766 Colorado 8Oulevard, Los Angeles, 90041, Architect for the project stated that the Salvation Army is going over and beyond 'the HU[~ requirements in putting in 1/2 million of their own money for added amenities. Priscilla Gilliam, p. O. Bin 7070, Pasadena, CA 91109, loan consultant for Salvation Army, said she had been working with HUD on the financing. She gave a timetable of when this project first started in September 1987: construction was to have begun on March 31, 1989, but that time element will not be met. HUD has now given the extension to September 1, 1989. She asked that Council approve the project this evening so that they can move ahead with Mr. Dick Kau, 340~ Bonita Road, Chula Vista 92010, Ilember of the Board, concurred with the previous speakers and asked for Council approval . Mr.V. E. Swensen, 900 l;. 9th Street, Los Angeles 90015, representing the Salvation Army, said they are ready now to move ahead with the project. He quoted an article From Senior ~,'orld noting that housing was among tbe top concern of sen~or There is a waiting list of 10,0()0 names for units and the waiting period for these people is from 4-10 years. In ans,~er to Councilwoman IlCCanHliss' question, f s Gilliam stated that the median income would be $13,250 for one person or $15,100 for two people. Thpre will t~e nn c)n-site residpntia] manager. l,linutes ~ N I'!arch 7, l There being not further comments either for or against the hearing was declared closed. ' ~layor Cox acknowledged one letter of opposition to the project and commented that it was unfair to the applicant to continue this to a Council Conference; he urged Council to take action this evening, adding the Salvation Army is willing to add their own money into the project which promises to be a credit to the City of Chula Vista. Councilwoman McCandliss stated she was concerned with the dtle process of a public hearing; she felt it was wrong of staff to recommend a continuance which may have deterred a number of people from appearing this evening to speak on it. She asked that it be continued since it would not interfere with any of the HUD funding sche4ul ed. ~ISC (McCandliss/Cox) that the public hearing be continued for one week and be re-docketed (March 14) (Councilman Moore abstained). flayor Cox stated that the public hearing was reopened and will be continued to the next meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS ~ND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES 19. PUBLIC HEAR IIIG PCC-89-27: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A 75-UNIT LOW-INCOME HOUSING PROJECT FOR SE~IIORS AT 628/638 THIRD AVENUE - SALVATION ARMY IContinued from ?neneitnign)g of March 7 1989) {Director of P1 ' RESOLUTIOI! 14010 APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCC-89-27 TO CONSTRUCT A 75-UNIT LOW-INCOME HOUSING PROJECT FOR SENIORS AT 628/638 THIRD AVENUE SALVATION ARMY This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was re-opened. Councilman I~,oore stated he would abstain because he is a member of the Board of Directors and therefore would have a potential conflict of interest. Councilman Malcolm stated he has been advised to abstain due to the fact that the property across the street from this proposed project on ~.~hich his office is located is owned by his father. Noting that this would constitute a lack of quorum, City Attorney Harron stated that Council has the alternative of waiting for the Mayor's arrival, continuing the matter to another meeting or, have one of the two Councilmen abstaining stay on. He would recommend that Councilman Moore stay on due to the fact that he would have no financial conflict of interest. Councilman Moore agreed to stay on stating he was in the audience at the last meeting and heard all testimonies. At this time Councilman I~alcolm left the dais. Minutes 8 March 14, 1989 Director of Planning Krempl stated the request is to construct a 75-unit, low-income housing project for seniors on 1.1 acres located at 628/638 Third Avenue in the C-O Commercial Office zone. The Code provides that housing developments for low and moderate income seniors are allowed in the C-O zone upon the approval of a conditional use permit. He recommended Council continue this item to May 2, 1989 follow!mg a City Council conference to be held on April 27 1989 ¢ the Senior Housing Density Bonus. ' Hr. Ralph Flewelling, 766 Colorado Blvd., Los Angeles 90041, architect for the project stated he would not repeat the t~stimony given at the last meeting but would be happy to answer any questions. Fre~ Rasmussen, 825 Seventh Avenue, San Diego, representing Salvation Army stated he is representing Art Stillwell who could not make it this evening due to illness. In answer to Councilwoman McCandliss' question concerning overflow parking availability, Mr. Rasmussen stated the Salvation Army feels there is no need for additional parking, Senior Citizen complexes generate less need for additional parking; than other complexes; the average age of the tenants (65-70 years) is a factor; bus lines are always available to the tenants; however, if Council has concerns about it, Salvation Army is willing to look into the matter of additional parking. Jon Miller, member of Board of the Salvation Army, reiterated that the Board would look into the matter of the overflow parking if Council so directs. In response to Councilwoman McCandliss' question concerning giving the opportunity to rent these units to Chula Vista first, Mr. Miller indicated that they could not do this according to the HUD requirements. Councilwoman McCandliss commented that rumors prevail there is a possibility that due to the marketing conditions, the adjacent Lucky Market may close. If that becomes a reality, would the Salvation Army establish a daily grocery service for its tenant~. Mr. Miller said he could not speak on behalf of the Salvation Army, but in the past, they have always transported tenants to grocery stores, doctor appointments and so forth. He also noted that the Salvation Army provides a daily meal at noontime to its tenants. There being no further comments either for or against the hearing was declared closed. ' Minutes 9 March 14, 1989 In answer to Councilman Moore's question, Director of Planning Krempl reported that the Design Review Committee approved the project unanimously with four members present. MSUC (McCandliss/Nader) that the resolution be amended to require that in the event the local grocery store is no longer available, that Salvation Army will provide daily transportation service to the grocery stores for its tenants (Cox out; Malcolm abstained). MSUC (Moore/McCandliss) to add another condition to the resolution; that if upon the initial opening of the complex, the parking requirements are not sufficient for the demands of its tenants, the Salvation Army will reserve sufficient spaces to fulMll all the vehicle spaces. - RESOLUTION AS AMENDED, carried by a 3-0 vote. Cox out; Malcolm abstained. negative declaration PROJECT NAME: Salvation ArTny PROJECT LOCATION: 623/638 Third Avenue PROJECT APPLICANT: The Salvation Army 900 West Ninth Street Los Angeles, CA 90015 CASE NO: IS-88-77 DATE: July 14, 1988 A. Pro~ect SettinK The project site consists of two parcels with a combined area of 1.09 acres. The two contiguous parcels are located on the west side of Third Avenue between "I" and "J" Streets within the C-O (Office Commercial) zone district. The proposed site presently contains two single family dwellings (one on each parcel) and several accessory structures. The subject site is limited to the north and south by professional office buildings, to the west by single family residences and to the east by professional offices across Third Avenue. B. Pro'ect Descrl tion The proposed development plan consists of the construction of a 4-story structure containing 75 senior citizen apartment units and parking facility for 29 vehicles. C. Compatibility with ZonlnK and Plan~ The subject site General Plan designation is professional offices which promotes the establishment of an ~xclusive office commercial district. The current zoninE of this parcel reflects the General Plan designation (C-O, Commercial Offices) and allows residential land uses subject to a conditional use permit. Development of residential project within C-O zone are regulated by the density and development requirements established in the R-3 zone (multi-family residential). The proposed density for this project is 69 dwelling units per acre which is not compatible with the high density residential density designated by the General Plan (13 to 26 dwelling units per acre). However, a provision in the General Plan allows density bonuses for senior citizen projects. The current density limitation of this parcel under a typical multi-family residential development would allow a maximum of 28 units and the project totalled 75 units. This translates to a 167% density bonus. A conditional use permit for the senior citizen project and approval by City Council for the density bonus will be required prior to issuance of construction permits. city of chula vista planning department '~1~0'~' environmental review section CHUI.A ViSI'A -2- D. Compliance With the Threshold Standard Policy 1. Fire/EMS The estimated fire/EMS response time is 3 minutes which is within the acceptable range of threshold standard. 2. Police The Police Department is currently malntainin§ an acceptable level of service based on the threshold standard. 3. Traffic The Engineering Department has reviewed the proposed project and determined that it will not adversely affect the existing levels of service on roads and intersections in the vicinity. 4. Parks/Recreation Threshold standards do not apply to projects located west of interstate freeway 805. 5. Drainage The Engineering Department has concluded that existing dralna§e facilities would accommodate storm water flows and volumes, and that City standards would not be exceeded. 6. Sewer Existing sewer lines have been judged to have adequate capacities for sewage flows and volumes that would be generated by the proposed project. 7. Water The Sweetwater Authority was notified and has not identified any constraints to providin~ an adequate water supply for the project. E. Identification of Environmental Effects In accordance with the Initial Study, the project would not result in any si§nlficant environmental effects. F.Identification of Potentially Environmental Effects 1. Schools No adverse impact [s anticipated to affect local schools once this project is designed to accommodate senior citizens only. city of chula vista planning department environmental review lectlon. CHUL~ -3- 2. ~oise The project would be located adjacent to Third Avenue which is designated in the Chula Vista General Plan as a "collector road." Third Avenue is presently handling an average of 20,520 vehicle trips per day (average 1987) resulting in potentially significant noise levels. An acoustical analysis which identifies potential interior and exterior (patios and balconies) noise levels has been prepared for this project. The analysis indicates that the State mandated maximum interior noise levels will be met with the structural finish materials as proposed. Proof of compliance will be required at the building permit level. In regard to the project amenities exposed to the exterior ambient noise, it is concluded from the report that all patios and balconies facing east and the majority of the ones facing north will not meet the 65 dBA exterior noise levels; therefore, the following mitigation measures will be necessary. 1. Prior to issuance of construction permits, an acoustical analysis shall be prepared by a qualified acoustician delineating the 65dBA contours. 2. Applicant shall submit an adequate design for an acoustical barrier to provide a line of site protection for balconies and patios. If adequate noise protection cannot be provided, the Environmental Review Coordinator will conduct further public review and this Negative Declaration may be found null and void. 3. Fire Protection The proposed development plan.provides emergency vehicle access to the site. In addition to the access, the Fire Marshal has indicated that the structure shall be fully protected by an approved fire sprinkler system' augmented by an approved standpipe system (Class I or III), fire alarm system, smoke detectors, and a knox key box for Fire Department entry. These are standard development requirements. 4. Transportation The project consists of the construction of 75 units, generating an estimated 450 ADT (avera§e daily vehicle trips). The City Traffic Engineer has indicated that the est[mated project traffic added to the existing 20,520 ADT on Third Avenue will not significantly reduce the service elves on the street or other area streets. The existing office commercial zone could allow a commercial building with a potential traffic 5eneration of over 1000 ADTs. Therefore, the proposed use will not add significant or potentially impacting or local or regional levels. __ City of chula vista planning departmen! environmental review section CHUL~ VISTA -4- G. FindinKs of insiKnificant impact Based on the followinE findinEs, it is determined that the project described above will not have a siEniflcant environmental impact and no environmental impact report needs to be prepared. 1. The project has the potential to substantially deE~ade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to d~op below self-sustaininE levels, threaten to el~m{nate a plant or animal connnunity, reduce the number or restrict the ranEe of a rare or endanEered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistoz.y. The project size is within an urbanized area of the City and does not contain ra~e or endanEered plant or animal species and is not known to be a historic or prehistoric site. Therefore, no adverse or deEradin§ effect in the environment will be created as a result of this project. 2. The project has the potential to achieve short-te~m environmental Eoals to the disadvantaEe of lonE-term environmental Eoals. The proposed project is in conformance with the ZoninE Ordinance but differs from the land use desiEnation of the General Plan. However, it is consistent with the General Plan text which encouraEes the development of senior citizen projects to satisfy the elderly housinE needs. 3. The project has possible effects which are individually l{m~ted but cumulatively considerable. As used in the subsection, "cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effect~ of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. The project would be comparable in. scale and desi§n to the existing commercial/office uses on the property and thus would not create adverse cumulative effects on the environment. 4. The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beinEs, either directly or indirectly. No substantial adverse effects on human beinEs, either directly or indirectly will occur as a result of the project. city of chula vista planning departmsn! CiTY O~ environmental review lectlon CHUL~ VISTA -5- H. Consultation 1. Individuals and Or~anization~ City of Chula Vista: J. Luis He~nandez, Assistant Planner RoEer Daoust, Senior Civil En§ineer Ken Larsen, Director of Building and Housing Carol Gove, Fire Marshal Hal Rosenberg, Traffic Engineer Applicant The Salvation Army 900 W. Ninth Street Los Angeles, CA 90015 2. Documents The Chula Vista General Plan The Chula Vista Municipal Code This deterlnlnation, that the p~oject will not have any significant environmental impact, is based on the attached Inltial Study, any comments on the Initial Study and any comments on this Negative Decla~ation. Furthe~ information ~egarding the environmental review of the project is available f~om the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA NTAL REV~COORDINATOR EN 6 (Rev. 3/88) WPC 5370P city ot Chula vista planning department CITY O~ environmental review lectlon. (:HULA VISTA FOR OFFICE USE Case No ._. Fee ~/~'~ ~Jm ~ ~;l / INITIAL STUDY Receipt No. Date Rec'd City of Chula Vista Accepted by Application Form Project No. A. BACKGROUND 1. PROJECT TITLE The Salvation Army Chula Vista Silvercrest Residence 2. PROJECT LOCATION (Street address or description) 628/638 Third Avenue, Chula Vista 7 Assessors Book, Page & Parcel No. L~k 57C, ~ar~_ ~C5. Loc , 3. BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION 5 stories Senior Citizen Housing 4. Name of Applicant The Salvation Army Address 900 west Ninth Street Ph0ne(213) 627-5571 City Los Angeles State California Zip 90015 5. Name of Preparer/Agent Flewelling & Moody Architects Address 766 Colorado Boulevard Phone (213) -256-4151 City Los Angeles State California Zip 90041 Relation to Applicant Architect 6. Indicate all permits or approvals and enclosures or documents required by the Environmental Review Coordinator. a. Permits or approvals required: General Plan Revision × Design Review Committee Public Project -- Rezoning/Prezoning -- Tentative Subd. Map Annexation -- Precise Plan Grading Permit Design Review Board -- Specific Plan -- Tentative Parcel Map ' -- Redevelopment Agency Cond. Use Permit Site Plan & Arch. Review X Initial Study Variance Other b. Enclosures or documents (as required by the Environmental Review Coordinator). x Location Map/Survey X Arch. Elevations __ Eng. Geology Report -- Grading Plan Landscape Plans __ Hydrological Study X Site Plan Photos of Site & Biological Study Parcel Map Setting Archaeological Survey Precise Plan Tentative Subd. Map × Noise Assessment -- Specific Plan Improvement Plans -- Traffic Impact Report Other Agency Permit or x Soils Report Other Approvals Required x Floor Plans EN 3 (Rev. 12/82) - 2 - B. PROPOSED PROJECT l. Land Area: sq. footage 47,850 or acreage 1.1 If land area to be dedicated, state acreage and purpose. No 2. Complete this section if project is residential. a. Type development: Single family Two family Multi family X Townhouse Condominium b. Number of structures and heights 1-Structure - 5 stories Approx. 54 feet C. Number of Units: ] bedroom 56 2 bedrooms 1 3~f~cy 18 4 bedrooms 9 Total units' 75 d. Gross density (DU/total acres) 6~ e. Net density (DU/total acres minus any dedication) ~m~ f. Estimated project population 85 g. Estimated sale or rental price range HUD 30% of income/Sec.8 subsidy h. Square footage of floor area(s) 11541.5 x 5 = 57,70~ Sq. Ft. i. Percent of lot coverage by buildings or structures Approx 40% j. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided 57 k. Percent of site in road and paved surface Approx 30% 3. Complete this section if project is commercial or industrial. N/A a. Type(s) of land use b. Floor area Height of'structure(s) c. Type of construction used in the structure d. Describe major access points to the structures and the orientation to adjoining properties and streets e. Number of on-site parking spaces provided f. Estimated number of employees per shift , Number of shifts Total g. Estimated number of customers (per day) and basis of estimate h. Estimated range of service area and basis of estimate i. Type/extent of operations not in enclosed buildings j. Hours of operation k. Type of exterior lighting 4. If project is other than residential, commercial or industrial complete this section. a. Type of project b. Type of facilities provided c. Square feet of enclosed structures d. Height of structure{s) - maximum e. Ultimate occupancy load of project f. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided g. Square feet of road and paved surfaces C. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS 1. If the project could result in the direct emission of any air pollutants, {hydrocarbons, sulfur, dust, etc.) identify them. 2. Is any type of grading or excavation, of the property anticipated No {If yes, complete the following:) a. Excluding trenches to be backfilled, how many cubic yards of earth will be excavated? h. How many cubic yards of fill will be placed? c. How much area {sq. ft. or acres) will be graded? d. t~hat will be the - Maximum depth of cut Average depth of cut Maximum depth of fill Average depth of fill - 4 - 3. Describe all energy consuming devices which are part of the proposed project and the type of energy used (air conditioning, electrical appliance, heating equipment, etc.) Heat Pumps, Electric Cookinq, 4. Indicate the amount of natural open space that is part of the project (sq. ft. or acres) 13,000 Sq.Ft. 5. If the project will result in any employment opportunities describe the nature and type of these jobs. Apartment Manager, Assistant Manager, Maintenance Person 6. Will highly flammable or potentially explosive materials or substances be used or stored within the project site? No 7. How many estimated automobile trips, per day, will be generated by the project? 30 8. Describe (if any) off-site improvements necessary to implement the project, and their points of access or connection to the project site. Improvements include but not limited to the following: .ne~ streets; street widening; extension of gas, electric, and sewer lines; cut and fill slopes; and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Extension of Utilities, Curbs and Gutters D. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING l. Geology Has a geology study been conducted on the property?y~ee attached) (If yes, please attach) Has a Soils Report on the project site been made? Yes (See attached) (If yes, please attach) 2. Hydrology Are any of the following features present on or adjacent to the site? No (If yes, please explain in detail.) a. Is there any surface evidence of a shallow ground water table? No b. Are there any watercourses or drainage improvements on or adjacent to the site? No - 5 - c. Does runoff from the project site drain directly into or toward a domestic water supply, lake, reservoir or bay? d. Could drainage from the site cause erosion or siltation to adjacent areas? No e. Describe all drainage facilities to be provided and their location. Normal roof drainaqe and parkinq lot run off 3. Noise a. Will there be any noise generated from the proposed project site or from points of access which may impact the surrounding or adjacent land uses? No 4. Biology a. Is the project site in a natural or partially natural state? No b. Indicate type, size and quantity of trees on the site and which· (if any) will be removed by the project. 94" ~eDDer, lQ" fruit tree 53" palm 5. Past Use of the Land a. Are there any known historical resources located on or near the project site? No b. Have there been any hazardous materials disposed of or stored on or near the project site? No 6. Current Land Use a. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on the project site. 2 - type v residential homes b. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on adjacent property. North 1 - Story Residential South 2 - Stories Office Building East 2 - Stories Office Building West 2 - Stories Residential 7. Social a. Are there any residents on site? IIf so, how many?) No b. Are there any current employment opportunities on site? (If so, ho~ many and what type?) No Please provide any other information which could expedite the evaluation of the proposed project. See Attachement ~l E. CERTIFICATION or Owner/owner in escrow* I, The .%alvation Army Chula Vista Residences, Inc. Consultant or ~..t~ HEREBY AFFIRM, that to the best of my belief, the statements and information herein contained are in all respects true and correct and that all known information concerning the project and its setting have been included in Parts B, C and D of this application for an Initial Study of possible environmental impact and any enclosures for attachments thereto. *If acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name. PLEASE PROVIDE ANY OTHER INFORMATION WHICH COULD EXPEDITE THE EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT: The proposed project is a HUD Section 202 senior citizen project. The funding was awarded to The Salvation Army for this project on this specific site as the result of a competitive process. The project was selected by HUD because of the strength and stability of The Salvation Army, the demonstrated need for more of this type of housing in Chula Vista, and the quality of the site for this purpose. The project will provide Chula Vista 75 units of new Section 8 senior housing (with 10% of the units for the handicapped). Parking proposed for the project is 57 spaces, or parking for 76% of the apartments. At this ratio, the project would have a substantially higher parking space ratio than either Congregational Tower or Town Centre Manor. Cars Units Ratio Congregational Tower 63 186 34% Town Centre Manor 28 59 47%7 This proposal (spaces) 57 75 76% In addition to the excellent community services available in the neighborhood, it is anticipated that the seniors in the housing facility would take full advantage of the many senior services provided at The Salvation Army Corps and Community Center two lots south of the subject property. These services include: 1. Senior Nutrition Program which provides low cost lunch daily for 150 seniors.' 2. Meals-On-Wheels, which now serves about 40 seniors per day in the community, would be available to seniors in the new facility who were temporarily unable to attend the luncheons. 3. Golden Agers Club currently has about 200 members. This social organization takes trips and enjoys other social activities. 4. Ladies' Home League, which is comprised mostly of older women, sews and has crafts projects for community service. Attachment 1 -1- 5. League of Mercy has about 50 members. They visit 15 different Chula Vista hospitals and nursing homes per week. 6. Exercise program for seniors. 7. Church activities. 8. Library. 9. Recreational activities including bingo and billiards. 10. Language classes. 11. Legal assistance. 12. Podiatrist visits the Center two times per week. 13. Medicare/MediCal assistance. 14. Periodic health screening (urine and blood pressure checks) on a weekly basis. 15. AARP meetings are held at the Center. Attachment 1 --2-- THE SALVATION ARMY AND THE SALVATION ARMY CHULA VISTA RESIDENCES, INC. BOARD OF DIRECTORS* ANDREW S. MILLER, PRESIDENT & DIRECTOR 799 Bloomfield Avenue Verona, New Jersey 07044 WILLARD S. EVANS, VICE PRESIDENT & DIRECTOR 30840 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90274 KENNETH HOOD, VICE PRESIDENT & DIRECTOR 30840 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90274 EVELYN J. HUNTER, SECRETARY & DIRECTOR 30840 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90274 LE ROY PEDERSEN, TREASURER & DIRECTOR 30840 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90274 RONALD G. IRWIN, DIRECTOR 30840 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90274 FRED L. RUTH, DIRECTOR 30840 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90274 *The Board of Directors of The Salvation Army, a California non-profit corporation (Sponsor) and the Board of Directors of The Salvation Army Chula Vista Residences, Inc. (Borrower) are the same persons. They are selected to serve as directors until they are removed or they resign, pursuant to the provisions of Article II, Section 2 of The Salvation Army By-laws and Article II, Sections 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 of The Salvation Army Chula Vista Residences, Inc. By-laws. Therefore, no specific length of term can be shown for the officers and directors. The above list includes all the duly qualified and sitting Officers and Board ~4embers of both the Sponsor and Borrower on the first day of June, 1987. SecretJr~~ ' , ~ Attachment 2 -8- Case No. C I TY DATA F. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1 Current Zoning on site: ~--O North ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ South ~ -- ~ /,/ East ~-----~ r~ ~ x/ West ~ - / ~IHJ~ F~I~y ~y/~ Does the project, conform to the current zoning? ~ ~[~l~ 2. General Plan land use designation on site: ~oF~o~ North ~ South ~ ( East t( West ~ ~ Is the project compatible with the General Plan Land Use Diagram? Is the project area designated for conservation or open space or adjacent to an area so designated? Is the project located adjacent to any scenic routes? (If yes, describe the design techniques being used to protect or enhance the scenic quality of Chula Vista.) x.~/Y~. How many acres of developed parkland are within the Park Service District of this project as shown in the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan? ~ What is the current park acreage requirements in the Park Service District? ~. How many acres of parkland are necessary to serve the proposed project? {2AC/lO00 pop.) ~ Does the project site provide access to or have the potential to provide access to any mineral resource? (If so, describe in detail.) -9- 3. Schools ~x~Z~ If the propose~p~ct is residential, please complete the following: Current Current Students Generated School Attendance Capacity From Project Elementary Jr. Hi gh Sr. Hi gh 4. Aesthetics Does the project contain features which could be construed to be at a variance from nearby features due to bulk, form, texture or color? {If so, please describe.) 5. Energy Consumption Provide the estimated consumption by the proposed project of the following sources: Electricity {per year) ~o~,~0 t~Cv~¼ /~_. Natural Gas (per year) Water {per day) 6. Remarks: Director o~ P~anning or Representative Date " C G. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 1. Drainage a. Is the project site within a flood plain? b. Will the project be subject to any existing flooding hazards? c. Will the project create any flooding hazards? d. What is the location and ~escr~ption pf existin~ on-site drainage facilities? ~o~., ~/~ e. Are they adequate to serve the project? f. What is the location and description of existing off-site drainage facilities~ ~/~ ~ ~ z/~ ~ fl. Are they adequate to serve the project? ~. 2. ~ransportation a. 14hat roads provide primary access to the project? ~ b. What is the estimated number of one-way auto trips to be generated by the projec~ (per day)? .g~O c. What is the ADT and estimated level of service before and after project completion? Before After A.D.T. 2 0~ ~0 d. Are the primary access roads adequate to serve the project? If not, explain briefly. . e. Will it be necessary that additional dedicatioq, widening and/or improvement be made to existing streets? ~L/~ If so, specify the general nature of the necessary actions. -ll Case No. 3. Geology a. Is the project site subject to: Known or suspected fault hazards? /~]0 ~ ~:~-c~//,__~ / Landslide or slippage?. ~, _ J ~f~//'~_/.~ b. Is an engineering geology report necessary to~ f project? evaluate the 4. Soils a. Are there_gny anticipated adverse soil conditions on the project si te? ~ J b. If yes, what are ~hese adverse soil conditions? c. ~s a soils report necessary? ____~--~ ~/~"~;~o/_~ 5. Land Form a. ~,~hat is the average natural slope of the site? ~ b. What is the maximum natural slope of the site?. 6. Noise Are there any traffic-related noise levels impacting the site that are significant enough to justi~t~at a noise analysis be required of the applicant? - 12 - Case No. 7. Air Ouality If there is any direct or indirect automobile usage associated with this project, complete the following: Total Vehicle Trips Emission Grams of (per day) Factor Pollution co x 118.3 Hydrocarbons * X 18.3 : NOx (NO2) ~ X 20.0 = Particulates · X 1.5 : Sulfur ~ X .78 = 8. Waste Generation ~'~ - How much solid and liquid (sewage) waste will be generated by the proposed project per day? What is the location and size of existing sewer lines on or, adjacent . Are they adequate to serve the proposed project? 9. Public Facilities/Resources Impact If the project could exceed the threshold of having any possible significant impact on the environment, please identify the public facilities/resources and/or hazards and describe the adverse impact. {Include any potential to attain and/or exceed the capacity of any public street, sewer, culvert, etc. serving the project area.) Remarks/necessary mitigation measures Cif~y En,g~,neer~or R~presentat~ve"~ O' · 'o a / Case No. FIRE DEPART~IENT . 1. What is th,e distance to the nearest fire station and what is the Fire Depart~m~nt s es.timated reaction time? . 2. Will the Fire Department be able to provide an adequate level o'f fire · protection for the J)ropos, ed facility without an increase.in equipment · or personnel ? ~j~l Dat Project Name Salvation Army-Silvercrest ~ Date 5-~-88 Project Address 628-638 Third Avenue To: Planning DePartment- Luis Hernandez Environmental Review Coordinator John Hardesty, Engineering Engineering, Subdivisions Building and Housing From: Fire Prevention Bureau This department has reviewed the information or plans referred to us by you. Please note the following comments: 1. Project requires the following: A. One public fire hydrant (Required fire £1ow is 4000 B. Fire sprinkler sysFem C. Class I or III standpipe system D. Fire Alarm system E. Corridor and unit smoke detectors. F. Knox key box system for Fire Department entry. FRANK F. KALCHUK, M.D, 5 Februaz' 19~9 'FEEl Pl-~ing Department City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, California 92010 Gentlemen: Re the appended notice - Too high and not enough parking space. Concer~ing height, I'm certain that forty-five feet will be exceeded once the elevator shaft is topped off and television antennae are installed. I doubt that whoever considered available pa~king took the require- ment of visitors into account. I respectfully recommend a no vote on the project in its present Sincerely yours FFK/msk Feb. ~, 1989 City Planning Commission Chula Vista,Ca. I am opposed to the granting of any variance for the construction of the Salvation Army Low income housing project as the parking on third avenue is too congested now and the other new buildings are not that high. I'm also opposed to the change in the required parking spaces. Sincerely Yours Lawrence & Georgia Stotts 659 Landis Ave. Chula Vista,Ca. Mr. and Mrs. Albert J. Spencer 335 Mitscher Street Ghula Vista, CA 92010 February 7~ 1989 City of Chula Vista Planning Department 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 Dear Sirs: SUBJECT: Case No. Pcc-89-27 We strongly object to the granting of a Conditional Use Permit to the Salvation Army to allow the construction of a 75-unit, L-story housing at 628/638 Third Avenue. We do acknowledge that there is a need for additional affordable housin~ for senior citizens. But we feel that this proposal has some serious shortcomings which must be addressed before any approval is granted. 1. The increase in density from 36 to 75 units would create an island of high density in a low density area. 2. The decrease in parking spaces from 113 spaces to 31 spaces is rediculous. We note that on any typical day, that there are about 15 cars parked by Salvation Army workers~ volunteers and officials. In additional there are about 10 spaces reserved for visitors and Salvation Army vehicles used to transport persons around the area. At meal times, a number of persons coming for meals take up a number of additional parking spaces. In summary, the normal day-to-day operation of the Salvation Army facility uses about 30 spaces, leaving no spaces for prospective tenants. We strongly recommend that the current al'lowable density for the area be maintained and that any housing for the area be required to have the normal parking spaces just like any apartment complex. Sincerely, ALBERT ~. SPENCES HILDA C. SPENCES · · CITY OF CHULA VISTA ~" PARTY DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ~ Statement of disclosure of certain ownership interests, payments, or campaign contributions, on all matters which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, ~and all other official bodies. The following information must be disclosed: 1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application, bid, contract, or proposal. If real property is involved, list the names of all persons having any ownership interest. 2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation- or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. N/A 3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit organization or a 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. N/A 4. Have you or any person named in (1) above had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes No ~ If yes, please indicate person(s) 5. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a Councilmember in the current or preceding election period? Yes No ~ If yes, state which Counci]member(s): _. N/A Person is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city and county, city, municipality, district or other political subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit." (NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.) /]gnature of contractor/applicant WPC 0701P A-llO ___James C. Malcolm Mike Green Attorney Print or type name of contractor/applicant October 2, 1990 TO: ~/Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Jl~ Ken Lee, Assistant Director of PLanning Enclosed is a copy of a report from the City Attorney's office requesting review by your Commission. Please offer any comments you may have at your meeting of October 10, 1990. They will be forwarded on to the City Council for their consideration at their meeting of October 16. KL:je Enclosure Date: September 24, 1990 ~ t To: City Manager, Assistant and Deputy City Managers Department Heads Other Staff Liason to Boards and Commissions cc: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers City Clerk From: City Attorney, Bruce M. Boogaard~ Re: Boards and Commission,s Agenda Section The attached report has been prepared in response to a Council referral (No. 2098) to my office to create Ordinance authority that will permit Boards and Commissions to submit matters to the City Council by and through the Agenda process. The report is self explanatory. The section of our typical "A-Ii3" dealing with the recommendation of our Boards and Commissions is left blank in anticipation of receiving the comments on this report of any board, committee, or commission with which you offer staff support, or otherwise may deal. Re uested Action: Please review this report with any and all Boards, Committees, or Commissions for which you, or a member of your department, acts as staff. Please obtain their comments, if any, and direct them to my office. I will include them in the final report. I expect to forward this report, along with their comments, or a summary thereof, to the City Council for their meeting of October 16-- approximately 4 weeks from now. Thanks for your anticipated cooperation. agenda2.wp Boards Right to Submit Agenda Items September 24, 1990 Page 1 Proposed Agenda Statement Item Meeting Date: Item Title: Ordinance - AN ORDINANCE PERMITTING BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES TO PLACE MATTERS ON THE COUNCIL AGENDA. Submitted by: City Attorney Reviewed and approved by: City Clerk (4/5ths Vote: Yes No_~_) Referral No: 2098 On August 21st, the City Council directed staff to modify the existing agenda format to allow for placement of Boards and Commission items on the agenda. The attached ordinance accomplishes that result. Pursuant to said proposed ordinance, the chairperson of a Board, Commission or Committee, ("Board") upon a majority vote of said Board, shall direct the City Clerk to add a report and recommendation of said Board to the Agenda in a separate section, entitled: Boards, Committees and Commissions Reports and Recommendations, and in such other format as the City Clerk, in cooperation with the City Manager, shall determine. Recommendation: Adopt the attached Ordinance amending Section 2.040.090 which will require the Chairperson of any Council-approved Board, Commission or Committee of the City, upon a majority vote of such body, to place matters on the City Council's Agenda. Other changes conforming the Agenda-preparation procedures to our current practice have been made. The proposed Ordinance also encourages written "backup" support for Mayoral Reports and Council Comments, if any exists, to be included in the Agenda Package Material. agenda2.wp Boards Right to Submit Agenda Items September 24, 1990 Page 1 Board and Commission Recommendation: [To Department Heads: Insert Your Boards, Commission or Committee's comments here.] Discussion: Primary Objective of Ordinancm. The attached ordinance achieves the directive of Referral No. 2098, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A, by allowing a Council-approved Board, Commission or Committee to have a matter placed on the City Council's agenda by a majority vote of the members thereof. Secondary Objective No. 1 - Reorqanization of Sectio,~. The proposed ordinance also attempts to re-organize the content of Section 2.04.090 into perhaps more logically separate concepts dealing with the agenda preparation, posting, delivery and accessability.~ However, except for the following, no substantive concepts in this reorganization effort were altered: A. Under the current section, the placement of items on the agenda appears permissive: "Items of business may be placed on the agenda ." The proposed language makes the placement of such matters mandatory. B. In order to conform to our current Agenda practice, two sections were added to permit Mayoral Reports and Council Comments. Secondary Objective No. 2 - Backup for Mayor's Report and Council Comments. In each of the sections relative to Mayoral Reports and Council Comments, the sponsoring councilperson is urged, but not required, to provided written "backup", if any already exists, to agenda2.wp Boards Right to Submit Agenda Items September 24, 1990 Page 2 the City Clerk in time for ~ 'lusion in the delivery of the Agenda Package to the Council, to % Friday preceding the meeting. The sections do not require Councilperson to prepare, as new material, any special report in order to have their reports or comments considered. City 72-Hour Postinq Requirement Remains Unchanged. The 1990-91 State Budget Act amendment to the Brown Act has, this year, eliminated the state 72-hour posting requirement. Our Muncipal Code, at Section 2.04.090 and 2.04.1002 was originally patterned, almost verbatim, after the now-eliminated state 72-hour posting requirement (See Government Code Section 54954.2). Section 2.04.090 and 2.04.100 now operate as the sole basis of authority for the 72-hour posting requirement at our local level, despite the State Budget Act deletion of the same provision in the Brown Act. This Office supports the advance noticing requirement. Therefore, no change is advised or recommended. Furthermore, the existence of this section obviates the need for a policy statement to the effect that we should follow the 72-hour posting requirement regardless of the state deletion. Respectfully submitted, Bruce M. Boogaard, City Attorney agenda2.wp Boards Right to Submit Agenda Items September 24, 1990 Page 3 ~iE~dnotes: 1. Currently, the Section reads as follows: "2.04.090 Agenda-Submission of items-Preparation-Effect. An agenda shall be prepared for each regular meeting containing a brief general description of each item of business to be transacted or discussed, and shall provide an item for members of the public to directly address the Council on items of interest to the public within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Council. Items of business may be placed on the agenda by the direction of a majority of the council, the city manager, the city clerk, or the city attorney. Agenda items, i.e., background and requests for particular actions or reports, shall be delivered to the city clerk not later than ten a.m. on the Thursday preceding the regular meeting. The clerk shall thereafter prepare the agenda under the direction of the city manager. Whenever feasible, each item on the agenda shall contain a staff recommendation and the specific action requested to be taken by the council. The agenda, together with all reports, resolutions and ordinances pertaining thereto, shall be delivered to the councilmembers on the Friday preceding the regular meeting. The agenda shall specify the time and location of the regular meeting, shall be posted at least seventy-two hours before the regular meeting in a location freely accessible to the public, and be made available to the public as soon as practicable. No matters other than those listed on the agenda shall be acted upon by the council, except as provided in Section 2.04.010. A direction by the council to refer a matter not on the posted agenda raised by a member of the Council or of the public, to staff for a report or to place a matter on a future agenda shall not constitute action." 2. Section 2.04.100 reads as follows: "2.04.100 Items not on posted agenda. The city council may take action upon items of business not on the posted agenda upon a determination: A. By a majority vote than an emergency situation, as defined by Government Code Section 54956.5 exists; or agenda2.wp Boards Right to Submit Agenda Items September 24, 1990 Page 4 B. By a two-thirds vote, or, if less than two-thirds of the members are present, a unanimous vote of those members present, that the need to take action arose subsequent to the agenda being posted; or C. The item was posted for a prior meeting of the city council occurring not more than five calendar days prior to the date action is taken, and at the prior meeting the item was continued to the meeting at which action is being taken.,, agenda2.wp Boards Right to Submi~ Agenda Items September 24, 1990 Page 5 CITY OF CHULA VISTA ~ 8/24/90 COUNCIL REFERRAL' ~.IGINATOR: ADMIN REFERRAL NO: 2098 LEAD DEPARTMENT: CITY CLERK BOARD & COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS: Additional section to be added to the Council agenda to provide for recommendations from Boards and Commissions. MANAGER DUE COUNCIL DUE DATE 9/04/90 ORIGINATION DATE 8/21/90 ASST. CITY ATTORNEY REFERRAL DETAIL Beverly, the City Council (Nader) at its 08/21/90 meeting, directed staff to modify the existing agenda format to allow for placement of Boards and Commission items on the agenda. Placement by a Board or Commission of an item on the Council agenda must be the result of a majority vote of the Board and Commission and should be placed by the chairperson of that Board or Commission. Staff, in preparing to do this, should review existing City codes and policies to determine if we have any existing guidelines related to placement of Boards and Commissions recommendations on City Council agendas. DISPOSITION COMPLETION DATE: COMMENTS: DEPT. HEAD SIGNATURE: ADMIN SIGNATURE: ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING SECTION 2.04.090 OF CHAPTER 2.04 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE COUNCIL AGENDA PREPARATION The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does ordain as follows: SECTION I: That Section 2.04.090 of Chapter 2.04 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 2.04.090 Agenda-Submission of items-Preparation -Effect. ~f~/~~/~/~/~f/~/~//~/~ 9~///~h///~///~f///~ff~f~///~f///~h ~f~//~Dh~//~/~//~////~//~f~ ~t///~Mf~ff~f///~f~f~///~///~///~f///~h ~//Z~//~//~//~//~//~//~//~ff f~f~////f~Y~f~///~///b~b~////~f~f~ ~//g~ff~//~/~/~/~b~/bf//~h//f~ ~f~f~//~//f~f//~///~//~//~//ff~ -1- A. Preparation and Delivery of Agenda. An agenda shall be prepared for each regular meeting containing a brief general description each item of business to be transacted or discussed. 1. Delivery to City Clerk. Agenda items, i.e., background and requests for particular actions or reports, shall be delivered to the city clerk not later than ten a.m. on the Thursday preceding the regular meeting. The clerk shall thereafter prepare the agenda under the direction of the city manger. 2. Delivery to Council. The agenda, together with all reports, resolutions and ordinances pertaining thereto, shall be delivered to the councilmembers on the Friday preceding the regular meeting. B. Posting and Public Availability of Agenda. The agenda shall be posted at least seventy-two hours before the regular meeting in a location freely accessible to the public, and be made available to the public as soon as practicable. C. Contents of Agenda. 1. The agenda shall specify the time and location of the regular meeting. I2. Items of business ~shall lbo placed on the agenda a~_the direction of a majority Qf the councilt~y the Chairman of a Council-approved ~) - ~ board, commission and committee, at the ( direction of said body upon a majority vote the members thereof, / the city manager, ~he city clerk, or the city attorney. 3. The agenda shall provide a section for members -- of the public to directly address the Council on items of interest to the public within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Council. -2- 4. The agenda shall provide a section entitled "Mayor's Report" which section shall be reserved for reports of the Mayor to the City, the staff or the public on matters of City business. If there is any written material which is the subject matter of a Mayoral Report, the Mayor or his designee shall make a diligent effort to provide the city clerk with a copy of said written material in sufficient advance time to permit the inclusion of same into the agenda and related material for delivery to the City Council. ~ ~ 5__. The agenda shall provide a section entitled "Council Comments" for councilmembers to directly address the City, staff, or the public on items of interest ("Council Comments") to the councilperson. If there is any written material which is the subject matter of Council comments, the sponsorinq councilperson shall make a diligent effort to provide the city clerk with a copy of said written material in sufficient advance time to permit the inclusion of same into the Agenda and related material for delivery to the Council. D. Agenda Package Material. Whenever feasible, each item on the agenda shall contain a staff recommendation and the specific action requested to be taken by the Council. E. Prohibition of Action; Exceptions. NO matters other than those listed on the agenda shall be acted upon by the Council, except as provided in Section 2.04.100. 1. A direction by the Council to refer a matter not on the posted agenda raised by a member of the Council or of the public, to staff for a report or to place a matter on a future agenda shall not constitute action. SECTION II: This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect on the thirtieth day from and after its adoption. Presented by Approved as to form by Beverly Authelet, City Clerk Bruce M. Boogaard, City Attorney 8064a --3-- CORRECTION SHEEr - PLANNING DEPARrMENI Job Address Name of Applicant _ Date Received ~/y ~q'l/~("~' Date Correction Sent Case File No's. Assessor's Parce,1 Number ,~7~'-- Plan Checker ~ ~_~,~' . 1. Make all corrections on original tracings before resubmitting to the for recheck. Return two sets of corrected plans Building Department and one set of original plans used for plan check. 2. Concurrent with permit approval, submit the following sheets to the Planning Department: 3. A landscaping and irrigation plan is required. (See attachment) 4. Submit landscape maintenance agreement letter. (See attachment) Comments: September 26, 1990 TO: The Honorable Chairman and Members of the Chula Vista Planning Commission FROM: Chris Salomone, Community Developmen Director SUBJECT: Request for extraordinary meetings of the Planning Commission The Community Development Department, at the direction of the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency, is nearing completion of plans for adoption of the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area. Our current adoption schedule is extremely tight, and is based on the need to adopt the project by the end of November. Achieving this goal will result in the Agency receiving tax increment funds in December 1991, a year earlier than if the November deadline is missed. In order to meet the deadline, we are asking that the Planning Commission meet on November 12 at 6 p.m. or 7 p.m. (the exact time will be determined by Planning Department Staff) to officially close the 45-day review period for the Southwest EIR. It will then be necessary for Planning Commission to meet the following evening, on November 13 at 6 p.m., as part of a joint Agency/Council meeting necessary to finalize the EIR and hold a hearing for public comment. We appreciate your understanding of this unusual meeting schedule and request it only for the purpose of receiving funds needed to begin the revitalization process in the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area. Thank you.