Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1991/05/22 AGENDA City Planning Commission Chula Vista, California Wednesday, May 22, 1991 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INTRODUCTORY REMARKS APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Meeting of April 24, 1991 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Planning Commission on any subject matter within the Commission's jurisdication but not an item on today's agenda. Each speaker's presentation may not exceed five minutes. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Chula Vista LCP Resubmittal No. 8 Amendment: EIR-89-08 2. PUBLIC HEARING: a) Recertification of EIR-89-10, Rancho del Rey SPA III b) Consideration of Water Conservation Plan for Rancho del Rey SPAs II and III; c) Consideration of Air Quality Improvement Plan for Rancho del Rey SPAs II and III; d) PCS-90-02: Request to subdivide 404.9 acres known as Rancho del Rey Sectional Planning Area III, Chula Vista Tract No. 90-02 located between East "H" Street and Telegraph Canyon Road, immediately south of Rancho del Rey SPA I, Rancho del Rey Partnership; e) Consideration of Rancho del Rey Sectional Planning Area III Design Guidelines; f) Consideration of Amended Mitigation Monitoring Program for EIR-89-10, Rancho del Rey SPA III; g) Consideration of Amended CEQA Findings for EIR-89-10, Rancho del Rey SPA III. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-91-05: Consideration of an appeal from a decision of the Zoning Administrator relating to a condition of approval requiring dedication of right-of-way along Third Avenue and "L" Street for the property at the northwest corner of that intersection. DIRECTOR'S REPORT COMMISSION COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT AT p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of June 12, 1991 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM FOR MEETING OF MAY 22, 1991 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Chula Vista LCP Resubmittal No. 8 Amendment: EIR-89-08 A. BACKGROUND The Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on Midbayfront LCP Resubmittal No. 8 Amendment was prepared following the public review period for the original Draft EIR. The Planning Commission heard public testimony on the original Draft EIR at a hearing on September 26, 1990. During that public hearing, a new alternative was presented by the applicant for evaluation. That alternative is analyzed in this Recirculated Draft EIR as Alternative 8. In addition, a substantial amount of new technical data was submitted by the applicant following the public review period on the original Draft EIR. That new technical data is also analyzed in the Recirculated Draft EIR. Due to the inclusion of substantial new information, the City, as lead agency under CEQA, determined that the DEIR should be recirculated to provide an opportunity for public comment on the new analysis. In addition to incorporating this new information, the project team has also expanded and refined the impact definitions to clearly distinguish between those significant impacts that may be mitigable at a later stage of planning and California Environmental Quality Act (CEOA) compliance and those impacts that may only be mitigated through a major redesign of the project or selection of another alternative. In preparing the August 1990 Draft EIR, the category "Significant and Not Mitigable" was used to categorize a broad range of impacts -- including those that were not considered to be mitigable except through project redesign, as well as those considered to be significant and not mitigated at the present time, based upon the information provided by the applicant at the plan-level of CEQA compliance. In various instances, impacts classified in the DEIR as "Significant, Unmitigable" at the plan level, may be mitigable once more detailed studies and planning are completed by the applicant and the City. Consequently, in order to clearly distinguish between these two major impact categories, the project team refined the impact definitions and re-evaluated all environmental impacts of the proposed project and alternatives based upon the following criteria and definitions: "Significant and Not Mitigable" - This category pertains only to those significant impacts that would not be mitigated below a level of significance at any stage of project planning and environmental compliance. Consequently, this impact category pertains to those effects that can only be avoided through project redesign or selection of another alternative. -1- "Significant and Not Mitigated at the Plan-Level of CEQA Compliance" - This category of impacts applies to those environmental effects that are not presently mitigated by identifiable measures or the applicant's commitments. These impacts may or may not be mitigated at later stages of planning and environmental compliance. In most instances, additional baseline studies or project details arc needed prior to determining whether mitigation would be feasible or not. "Significant, Mitigable" - Impacts that exceeded the threshold of significance are categorized as "Significant, Mitigable" in those instances where mitigation measures are readily available or where the applicant has already provided sufficient information and mitigation commitments. In this instance, additional studies and/or design information are not necessary to establish appropriate measures and their effectiveness in reducing impacts below the significant threshold. nAdverse, Not Significant" - Impacts considered to be adverse, but below a level of significance are listed under this impact level. "No or Limited Impact" - Impacts that are considered to be very minor or undiscernible are classified in this category. "Beneficial Impacts" - Impacts that will have a beneficial effect on the City of Chula Vista, its residents, and/or its environmental resources are so noted under this category. The proposed Local Coastal Program Resubmittal No. 8 area consists of approximately 790 acres and is located in the western portion of the City of Chula Vista. Exhibit A shows the location of the LCP Resubmittal area. The proposed LCP Resubmittal area encompasses the same area as the existing certified LCP. The LCP Resubmittal text revised the existing certified LCP in two main ways: 1) by designating the area within the recently established National Wildlife Refuge as open space; and 2) by concentrating most of the remaining text changes to the Midbayfront subarea. Proposed changes within the Midbayfront subarea include modifications to the arrangement of land uses, building height controls, and development intensity. The purpose of the EIR is to provide an accurate and concise informational document which analyzes the environmental consequences of approval and adoption of the proposed LCP Resubmittal. Any changes to the LCP would require corresponding changes to the City's General Plan, Zoning Code, and Bayfront Redevelopment Plan. This EIR, therefore, also addresses changes to these plans. The Recirculated DEIR also examines alternatives to the project, growth inducing impacts, cumulative impacts, and other environmental summaries required by CEQA. -2- The environmental analysis included in the DEIR addresses the following issues: geology/ soils/groundwater, hydrology/water quality, visual aesthetics/community character, conversion of agricultural lands, air quality, noise, biology, archaeology/history/paleontology, and land use/general plan elements/zoning, community social factors, community tax structure, parks/recreation/and open space, utility service, and transportation/access. The environmental consultant that prepared this Recirculated Draft EIR is Keller Environmental Associates, Inc. of San Diego, California. This DEIR was subject to a 45-day review period through the State Clearinghouse which concluded May 20, 1991. The comments received through the State Clearinghouse will be distributed to the Planning Commissioners at the public hearing. The comments received to date by staff are attached as Exhibit B. B. RECOMMENDATION Conduct the public hearing on the Draft EIR-89-08, close the hearing and give Keller Environmental Associates and staff any desired direction for the preparation of the Final EIR. C. ANALYSIS 1. Geolo~/Soils/Groundwater Development of the proposed project and alternatives would result in the following four potentially significant impacts. The impacts are described in the right colunm and level of each impact is identified in the left column. Impact Level Impact Description Significant Mitigable 1. Ground settlement due to consolidation of the compressible estuarine/fluvial (bay) deposits and the artificial fill soils on site; Significant Mitigable 2. Grading impacts for onsite and offsite water and sewer pipelines; Significant, not mitigated at 3. Seismic hazards, including ground shaking, surface plan level displacement, liquefaction, tsunamis, and earthquake-induced flooding; and Significant, not mitigated at 4. Potential foundation design and construction plan level difficulties associated with the construction of foundations and subterranean parking structures at or near the groundwater table. -3- 2. Hydrology/Water Ouality Five potentially significant hydrology/water quality impacts were cited as a result of development of the project and the alternatives. These include: Impact Level Impact Description a. and b. Significant, 1. Flooding of: a) low-lying areas from tidal highs, Mitigable compounded by run-up from wind-driven waves c. Significant, not (coastal flood hazards); b) flooding from the mitigated at plan level Sweetwater River; c) flooding associated with exceeding the capacity of proposed storm drain facilities on site; Significant, not mitigated at 2. Erosion from inland or coastal flooding; plan level Significant, not mitigated at 3. Siltation and chemical contamination degradation of plan level water quality from surface runoff-pesticides, fertilizers, oil, grease, etc.; Significant, mitigable 4. Inconsistency with City of Chula Vista stfindards, specifically related to the design storm flow, and gravity pipe requirements; and Significant, mitigable 5. Issues regarding quantity and quality of water for both the lO-acre public lagoon and the semi-public residential lagoon in the northern portion of the site. 3. Visual Aesthetics/Community Character Significant visual and aesthetic impacts would occur from development of the proposed project and three reduced density alternatives (Alternatives 3, 4 and 5). No significant aesthetic/visual impacts would occur from development allowed under the existing LCP. The significant impacts and the level of significance of each impact are summarized below. Impact Level Impact Description Significant, not mitigable 1. Creation of a visually dominant urban landscape from the Nature Interpretive Center, where aesthetic enjoyment of the natural environment is a significant part of the visitor experience, would be permanently lost. -4- Significant, not mitigable 2. Obstruction of existing scenic bay views from public use areas and establishments along Bay Boulevard. Significant, not mitigable 3. Creation of a visually dominant urban landscape from areas within the City of Chula Vista and from 1-5, that would be incompatible with the waterfront image community identity of Chula Vista. 4. Conversion of Agricultural Lands The loss of approximately 45 to 65 acres of potential agricultural land to urban uses is not considered significant at the plan level. The loss of agricultural land due to the proposed LCP Resubmittal represents an incremental contribution to a regionally significant loss of agricultural land to development. 5. Air Ouali _ty Potentially significant air quality impacts would occur from development of the proposed cogeneration plant. An incremental contribution to regional air quality problems would also occur from vehicular sources. In addition, cumulative impacts would occur from vehicular emissions added' to the cogeneration plant emissions. Mitigation measures must be implemented to reduce these impacts to a level below significant, including compliance with the Air Pollution Control District's requirements for cogeneration emissions, dust control (during construction), construction traffic monitoring, and implementation of Transportation Control Measures coordinated through a transportation management agency. Further, once the proposed parking garages have been designed, an additional air quality analysis must be conducted to assess potential air quality impacts to the garage users. 6. Noise Potentially significant noise impacts could occur from construction activities, and land use incompatibility. Specifically the location of the child care center close to the noise from I-5 and the cogeneration facility raise noise concerns. These impacts can be mitigated to a level below significant by limiting construction activities to certain times, limiting construction access routes, establishing a noise performance standard for the cogeneration facility, and by requiring a noise barrier along the eastern end of the child care facility. -5- 7. Biology Numerous impacts are cited to biological resources including wildlife resources, threatened and endangered species, and marine resources. Twenty- six mitigation measures are detailed for biological impacts in the DEIR. These mitigation measures would help to minimize the impacts of the project on biological resources, but one significant unmitigable impact would remain. There are not foreseeable mitigation measures available to compensate for the loss of raptor foraging habitat associated with the alternation of land uses in the Midbayfront. Thus, this impact is considered significant and unmitigable. The project description, environmental safeguards and the mitigation measures detailed in the Recirculated Draft EIR provide adequate assurance, at a plan level, that impacts associated with alterations of predator, competitor, and prey regimes, endangered species concerns, and vector control issue may be mitigated at the project level by the development and implementation of precise plans which address these concerns. Currently, there is not enough project-level detail available to adequately evaluate significance on these issues. A biological resources management plan will be developed in a completed form during the project level environmental review process. So, the impacts identified above remain significant and not .mitigated at the plan level. 8. Archaeolo~/History The impacts to archaeological and historical resources were found to be less than significant. 9. Paleontology_ Significant impacts to paleontological resources could occur during project grading. The standard on-site monitoring requirements are included in the Recirculated Draft EIR as mitigation for these impacts. 10. Land Use/General Plan Elements/Zoning The significant land use impacts associated with the proposed project and the level of significance of each impact are summarized below. -6- Impact Level Impact Description Significant, not mitigable 1. Incompatibility of the intense nature of the development with the land uses of the surrounding Chnla Vista area; Significant, not mitigable 2. Incompatibility of the intense nature of development with the adjacent unique open space uses of the Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge and Nature Interpretive Center; Significant, mitigable 3. The potential incompatibility of the residences located above and nearby the commercial retail and commercial visitor uses in the central core area. Such potential impacts include noise from traffic and people, traffic congestion, night-lighting and competition for parking spaces, all of these largely occurring on weekends and evenings when most people are home; and Significant, not mitigated at 4. Inconsistency with the existing certified LCP and the the plan level General Plan (2010). The only mitigation measure possible to reduce the impacts from land use intensity incompatibility (number 1 above) and incompatibility with the adjacent NWR (number 2 above) to below a level of significance would be to redesign the proposed project and the reduced density alternatives. Otherwise, these impacts would remain significant. Mitigation for impact number 3 above would involve building design techniques such as maximum insulation in exterior and interior walls, floor separation design, and window treatment. Mitigation for number 4 above would also necessitate either project redesign, or approval of this Resubmittal, and approval of a General Plan Amendment; other~vise, this land use impact would also remain significant. 11. Community Social Factors A significant increase in housing and a resulting population increase would occur on the project site over what was planned for the site, and a substantial increase in employment opportunities would occur. Both the increase in housing and employment opportunities are considered beneficial impacts. -7- 12. Communi _ty Tax Structure No significant adverse impacts would occur in the area of community tax structure. A positive impact to the City's Redevelopment Agency would occur under all of the alternatives. 13. Parks, Recreation, and Open Space The EIR cites the following inadequacies in the proposed project in the area of parks, recreation, and open space. The phasing plan includes one park and a majority of public area parking in Phase V, or in years 2009 to 2011; Potentially insufficient amount of parking for park users; Inadequate information regarding public access from on-site parking areas to parks, and from areas across 1-5 to the east to the parks.; Shade impacts to parks and public areas. Mitigation is possible to reduce the first three impacts to below a level of significance. These measures are: Revise the Phasing Plan to include the parks and adequate public park parking (as approved by the City) within Phase I. Creation of additional public parking spaces per City requirements to be determined at the project level; and Provision of access plan both on-site and off-site to the east, and approval of plan by City Planning and Community Development Departments and Coastal Commission. The fourth impact can only be reduced by project redesign, thus, it remains significant and unmitigable. Additionally, an adverse and cumulatively significant impact is expected to occur from anticipated high regional demand placed on the bayfront parks resnlting in limited amounts of park land for anticipated high use. To reduce this impact to a level below significant, the park areas west of Marina Parkway should not be broken up with development, but, rather, should be continuous along the bayfront. The amount of park land provided by Alternatives 2, 4, 5, and 7 ranges from approximately 20 to 35 percent greater than what the project proposes. Provision of a similar amount of park land as proposed by alternatives with a similar design (continuous) would reduce the cumulative impact to below a level of significance. This provision has not occurred, thus, this incremental impact remains significant, although it could be easily mitigated at a future project level phase by redesign. 14. Utili_ty Service In the area of schools, the inclusion of the project into the Mello-Roos districts would provide for the collection of funds to finance items such as buses, relocatable classrooms, permanent classrooms, and property on which those facilities could be located. Annual costs for student transportation including bus maintenance and drivers' salaries are not, however, eligible for Mello-Roos funding. These costs need to be funded by either a cash contribution from the applicant or a long-term binding agreement with the applicant to finance annual school transportation costs. Also, new school sites are being required by the Districts, including one secondary school site, and two and one-half elementary school sites. At this time, no school site is proposed; however, this is a measure which could be achieved at the project level of CEQA compliance. 15. Transportation/Access Development of the proposed project would result in significant impacts to street and intersection capacities at streets in the project vicinity. The Year 2000 condition was analyzed with the traffic generated by the Proposed Project added to the No-Project condition. This analysis revealed that under this condition, like the No-Project condition, all study area intersections will operate at LOS C or better during the a.m. peak hour with the exception of Broadway/"H" Street which will operate at LOS D and I-5 northbound ramps at "E" Street which will operate at LOS F. During the p.m. peak hour, with the proposed project generated traffic added to the network, the following intersections will operate at unacceptable levels of service (LOS D or worse o Arterial Intersections, LOS E or worse - Freeway Ramp Intersections). 1-5 Southbound Ramp/"E" Street (LOS F, ICU 1.02) 1-5 Northbound Ramp/"E" Street (LOS F, ICU 1.38) Woodlawn Avenue/"E" Street (LOS D, ICU 0.84) Broadway/"E" Street (LOS F, ICU 1.05) Broadway/"F" Street (LOS E, ICU 0.91) Broadway/"H" Street (LOS E, ICU 0.98) Measures have been suggested and analyzed that would result in the following levels of service. 1-5 Southbound Ramp/"E" Street (LOS D, ICU 0.88) I-5 Northbound Ramp/"E" Street (LOS D, ICU 0.80) Woodlawn Avenue/"E" Street (LOS C, ICU 0.78) -9- Broadway/"E" Street (LOS C, ICU 0.79) Broadway/"F" Street (LOS D, ICU 0.88) Broadway/"H" Street (LOS C, ICU 0.75) The feasibility of several of the measures, restriping of the "E" Street overcrossing, and widening Bay Boulevard to provide three northbound lanes has not as yet, been demonstrated. The feasibility of these measures must, however, be confirmed by the City Traffic Engineer and CalTrans prior to accepting the measures as appropriate mitigation at the project level. Thus, many of the traffic impacts associated with the proposed project remain significant and not mitigated at the plan level. Finally, the gate down time of the San Diego Trolley would worsen the "E" Street impacts; it is estimated that this down time could account for an overall reduction of intersection capacity at the "E" Street/I-5 northbound ramp signalized intersection. D. ALTERNATIVES CEQA requires description of a range of "reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project," and to evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. The discussion of alternatives "shall focus on alternatives capable of eliminating any significant adverse environmental effects or reducing them to a level of insignificance, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of project alternatives, or would be more costly." The alternatives analysis in the Recirculated DEIR includes nine alternatives, five of which were development plans which were analyzed at the same level of detail as the proposed project. The alternatives are listed below; numbers 2 through 5, and 8, are those that are analyzed in the same level of detail as the proposed project. (1) No Project (2) Development Under Existing Certified LCP (3) Reduced Density 1 (26 percent intensity decrease from developer's proposal) (4) Reduced Density lA (26 percent intensity decrease from developer's proposal) (5) Reduced Density 2 (47 percent intensity decrease from developer's proposal) (6) Possible Locational Alternatives (7) Reduced Density/Modified Design Alternative (47 percent intensity decrease from developer's proposal) (8) Applicant's Revised Development Plan (9) Alternative Developed in Response to Public Comments -10- Locational Alternatives Eight locational alternatives were analyzed in the DEIR. The alternative site locations are included in response to the recent Goleta case, in which the Court ruled that EIRs must evaluate alternative locations for a project, in addition to project alternatives on the same site. Alternative sites are examined in the EIR not as a viable option to the proposed project, but rather to assess whether environmental impacts from the same or a similar project might be reduced or eliminated at a different site than the proposed location. The Midbayfront development plan would create reduced impacts in a different location, possibly in such areas as shown by possible locational alternatives 2 and 6. It was also concluded that the elements of the development plan that resulted in the significant, unmitigable impacts were the high density, building bulk, and building heights. Thus, Alternatives 7 and 9, additional on-site alternatives, were designed by the City's environmental and planning consultants in an effort to reduce project impacts. Further, during the public review period for the original Draft EIR, the applicant presented an additional alternative. The impacts of that alternative, referred to as Alternative 8, as well as the impacts associated with Alternatives 7 and 9, reduced density and summarized below. Alternative 7 Alternative 7 was developed by reviewing the potentially significant impacts of the proposed project, and designing a development which maintained the land uses proposed by the project while avoiding or significantly reducing the cited impacts. The design reduced the overall intensity to a level allowed by the existing LCP (this alternative assumes a maximum of approximately 2.5 million square feet of building). The design also reduced the heights of buildings throughout the project area. Under Alternative 7, the significant unmitigated impacts in the areas of geology/soils/ groundwater and hydrology/water quality would remain due to lack of specific mitigation measures at the plan level. It is, however, likely that these impacts could be mitigated to below significant at the project level. With the mitigation measures outlined in the Recirculated Draft EIR, impacts in the areas of visual aesthetics/community character, land use/general plan elements/zoning, and parks/recreation/and open space could be mitigated to a less than significant level. Five impacts to biological resources would remain significant and not mitigated at the plan level under Alternative 7. The incremental loss of raptor foraging areas would be significant and unmitigable under Alternative 7. In addition, traffic impacts were also assessed as significant and not mitigated at the plan level because of the uncertainty regarding the feasibility of the mitigation measures. Finally, the issues of school transportation costs and school sites would remain unresolved, and therefore, significant under Alternative 7. -11- In summary, although significant unmitigable impacts would result from implementation of Alternative 7, the number of unmitigable impacts would be substantially reduced from the number identified for the proposed project. Alternatives 7 and 9 have fewer significant adverse environmental impacts than any of the other alternatives analyzed except the No Project alternative. Alternative 9 Alternative 9 was developed in response to comments received on the original Draft EIR. The impacts associated with Alternative 9 would be very similar to the impacts identified for Alternative 7. Alternative 8 Alternative 8 was developed by the applicant during the public review process on the original Draft EIR. Alternative 8 is very similar to the proposed project in concept and land use. However, Alternative 8 reduces the overall density of development and building heights in comparison to the proposed project. Alternative 8 also eliminates development south of the public lagoon and increases park acreage. The total proposed development for Alternative 8 is approximately 3.9 million square feet (s.f.) of building space, in comparison to 4.2 million s.f. for the proposed project. The existing approved LCP currently allows 1.9 to 2.5 million s.f. of building spac~ in the Midbayfront. Thus, the proposed Alternative 8 building space is approximately 1.4 million s.f. greater than the current maximum allowable density in the Midbayfront area. Additionally, the height of many of the buildings exceeds the height allowed by this certified LCP. Alternative 8 proposed high-rise hotels (172 to 229 feet high), mid-rise hotels (up to 69 feet high), mid-rise and high-rise apartments (106 to 176 feet high), low-rise apartments, a 3.3 acre semi-public lagoon to serve apartment dwellers and restaurant users north of"E" Street, retail shops, restaurants, offices, a co-generation facility and a conference center, as well as athletic facilities including a tennis complex, swimming facility, and an ice rink. Under Alternative 8, the significant unmitigated impacts in the areas of geology/soils/groundwater and hydrology water quality would remain due to lack of specific mitigation measures at the plan level. It is, however, likely that these impacts could be mitigated to below significant at the project level. Impacts in the areas of visual aesthetics/ community character, land use/general plan elements/zoning, and parks/recreation/open space would be significant and unmitigable under Alternative 8. Five impacts to biological resources would remain significant and not mitigated at the plan level under Alternative 8. The incremental loss of raptor foraging areas would also be significant and unmitigable under Alternative 8. In addition, traffic impacts were also assessed as significant and not mitigated at the plan level because of the uncertainty -12- regarding the feasibility of mitigation measures. Finally, the issues of school transportation costs and school sites would remain unresolved, and therefore, significant under Alternative 8. In summary, the number and type of unmitigable impacts that would result from implementation of Alternative 8 are the same as unmitigable impacts that would result from implementation of the proposed project. [C:\WP5 i\PUTNAM\EI R89-09.TXT] -13- L C · ' '.' SUBAREA 1 :3~,~ ..... . CHULA Vl~fA NATURE INTERP RETIyE' CENTER SWEETWATER I~ATIONAL W~ ~ PJF. P1JGE :. u~,~ CHU ~ ...... SUBARF. A~2 ~'... ~--.. RESUBMrlWAL NO. 8 .--: ~ BOU~ARY '. :~ :':'~.' ... ..': ;'~'. '~ ./.~ ::.~-/.':.-.'.-.:~;' -.. -.... L C P RESUBMITTAL 'AREA II t IIIIIIIItllll,tilll III ~ll III I lt~lllll III IIII III ,1 IIIII1,111 I,IIII, [[11] [,~1 I~11]1 IIIIIIIt~1I F;~e 2-H EXHIBIT B COMMENTS RECEIVED BY STAFF Sweetwater Union High School District 2 9 April 24, 1991 Mr. Cris Salamone City of Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91911 Dear Mr. Salamone: Re: Rec~rculated D.E.I.R. M~dbayfront LCP No. 8 Amendment I appreciate the opportunity to respond and comment on the Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Midbayfront proposal. I was pleased to see that the district's previous comments were incorporated into the report. If the project's impacts to secondary schools are to be fully mitigated, then the measures described in Appendix items I and J (the district's response to the original report) needs to be implemented. The district is understanding of the agencies desire to see this project act as a catalyst for an enhanced tourist/commercial base in the city. To that end, the city may not wish to site a senior high school within the project area. If that is the case, then existing offsite facilities will require upgrading if they are to accommodate new students. The applicant has been made aware of this alternative solution and has agreed to its concept. If the city concurs with this approach, then specific rights- of-way adjacent to an existing school will have to be vacated so that additional classrooms may be constructed. The costs associated with the vacation and subsequent acquisition should be born by the developer not the district. Land acquisition costs are not a component of the district's Mello Roes Community Facilities District No. 5. Enclosed please find the November 6, 1990, letter to the planning department which outlines this alternative approach to mitigate the Midbayfront's anticipated impacts. Please feel free to call me if you have any concerns regarding this issue. Thomas Silva Director of Planning TS/sf cc: Robert Leiter Sweetwater Union High School District November 6, 1990 Ms. Mary Anne Miller Plannlnq Oepartment City of Chula Vista 276 Kourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92115 Dear Ms. Miller: Re: Proposed Chula Vista Midbavfront Plan Applicant: William J. Barkett, Merjan On October 18, 1990, Mr. William Barkett met with Mr. Andrew Campbell and me to discuss the District's August 23, 1990, letter to your department. As you may recall, that correspondence commented on the Midbayfront DraFt Environmental Impact Report and delineated impacts to the District which were not identified in the document. The result of the October meeting can be summarized as follows: · ~r. Barkett agreed to the creation of a Mello-~oos Community Facilties District to address all impacts the proposed project has on secondary schools. · The District agreed to accept Mello-Roos special tax revenue in lieu of developer impact fees. · Mr. Barkett agreed to mitigate the need for a school site (as identified in Mr. Campbell's May 31, 1990, letter to the City) by securing the necessary land and expanding an extstinq school facility east of Interstate 5. Mary Anne, the required land acquisition and expansion of an existing district facility to accommodate this project's students is a critical issue to the District. The project is located in the Chula Vista Junior and Chula Vista Nigh Schools attendance boundaries; therefore, the enhancement of one or both facilities is appropriate. Obviously, City support will be needed. After the District's identification of an appropriate strategy for facility expansion, existinq land will have to be vacated, relocation benefits provided, and the property rezoned to accommodate a school use. I'm certain environmental analysis is also required. The costs For these activities should be borne by the developer because they relate directly to the project. Ms. Mary Anne Miller November 5, 1990 Page 2 ! am requesting that the City not approve the Dro~ect unless the first and third issues regardino the creation of a community facil~ties district and land acquisition are conditions of approval. Also, to insure that the funding mechanism is in place, the community facilities district should be established prior to the aPProval of the project's final maD. ! have enclosed a copy of an October 26, 1990, letter I sent to Mr. Barkett for your reference. If you have any comments or Questions regarding this issue, please do not hesitate to call me at 691-5553. Director of Planning TS/sf cc: Kate Shurson William Barkett Sweetwater Union High Sc ',ool District October 26, 199D Mr. William J. Barkett President, MerJan 864 Prospect Street La Jolla, CA g2037 Dear Mr. Barkett: This letter is sent as a follow up to our recent meeting regarding your Midbayfront Project proposal and our response to the Draft Environmental Impact Report. During this meeting you mentioned that your company proposed to the City an alternative land use plan which contains 1400 dwelling units, 180D hotel rooms, approximately 640,000 square feet of office space, and 150,000 square feet of commercial retail space. Given these numbers, the impact to schools is as follows: LA~USE ES~MA1EDYIELD REqUIRED F~CILIllES Resident 406 students 13.5 classrooms *Commercial/Office 574 students 19.0 classrooms *Source: 1990 SourcePoint lo mitigate the anticipated impact, you had agreed to the formation of a Mel~o-Roos Community Facilities District, and the district had agreed not to levy school developer fees upon the formation of the Mello-Roos district. A significant unresolved issue is the location of where to house these additional students. As you know, we had originally requested that the City designate a school site within the project. We understand the difficulty you will have in providing enough area while still keeping the project economically feasible. Therefore, to mitigate the housing issue we would need a cooperataive effort from the City, Merjan, and the district in the procurement of additional land to expand an existing facility east of Interstate 5. It is important that you understand that the district cannot sign-off on you~ project until the Mello-Roos Community Facilities District is in place and the additional land issue is resolved. I have been informed by the City that although your company is willing to participate in a Mello-Roos district, Rohr Enterprises has strongly objected to any such participation. My question to you is, do you have authority to speak for Rohr? I look forward to working with you and your company for the earliest resolution of these issues. Director of Planning ?i RONM ENTAL HEALTH CeA LITION ,~ Third Avenue ® San Diego, C~li£ornia 9gl01 · (619) g85-0281 FICER$ Sue Woods~ Prosl~enl ' SD, Community College D~sfrlct g~ Laura Fallla, MSW Chll0 Protective Service~ City of Chda Vista Planning Com~sslon MlchoelShames e/O Robin ~tnam VIce President Ut ty Consume~ Action N~tw~rk 276 Faugh Avenue Anne-Marie Feenburg, Ph.D. Chda Vistg CA 92010 Smcret~ry N~tlono~ University Tony Pefllna, MA Treasurer ~NVIRONM~NT~ IMPA~ ~PORT (~IR) FOR TH~ $.D Commun;tY Col~ege D~triot ~a.~ OF ~m~c~o~*' CHU~ ~A BA~FROHT PROJE~ International Association De~ Rob~, of iron Wor~ers Jim Bell Eeol~lcol Life systems Institute ~e redr~ate~ EIR is more complete than the earlier o~e and we ~.~ro~* c. s,u~to~,,h.~. ~e glad to s,e that mot, complete tfformati0n w~ provid~ from UOSD SchOOl of MeOlc[n~ the develo~r. Escondl~O Neighbors Ag?nit C~emlcol Tox~ns Scoff Choffteld ~01 KGB FM More Cummings 1. ~1 ~ssible ~D feasible mitigations ~e not listed u~der Notho~ Cu~/~gs FOV~dotio~ Fe~ible Miti~atlonMe~¢ureg. Ru~h Duemle~ $1er~ Glu~ ~dwardmo,hamMPH 2. Not all proje~s under consideration for ~e bay were Nova~ Heolm ~e~ea~c~ Cent~ considered in the ~mu]atlve impa~s section. ~ufh Helieiz, MD, MPH , RlohardJuorez 3. ~e dls~ssion of pesticides is ~ac~rate and lac~ critical Metropo;Itan Area AdvIsq~ C?mml~ee dermis. Sharon Kalemklarlan Lyn Lacye , Lacye & Associates Dan McKIman, Ph.D. UCSDSchoo~ofMedlctno ~I~ATIONS MEASURES OF THE FO~OWING Sylvlo Mlcik, MD North COun,y Health Semites ~ay Pow~, While some of these measures would require major changes to the Boa ~opp6 ~ * ' ' UCSD..'$OSU Per La V~da P? ect proje~ they ~e ch~ges that could s~fflc~tly reduce the negative Rlchor~ Who~on USD Env onmenfal L~w C~tn~c. impacts to the environment c~aused by the current prelect plan. These changes also promhte the Concept of .~ustainable-yleld uses of the area. HvdroloUV/Water aualitv ' ' Include a Water reclamation Plant In the Pxoject An alternative water source for Ihe lagoons which should be explored is that of reclaimed water. A water reclamation plant could be Incorporated In to the project plan to lessen Impacts to water demand and the water reclaimed from this plant may be used of the lagoons. Water Consolation To offs,ct the iflcrcasc in water usage from thc project we would recommend a policy such as is used in Morl'o Bay, CA. As a prerequisite to con, structing .an..y new home, a builder mUSt first save more' water 'than the new home will use. Budders ha.ye rite option of paying to replace it specifie.d length of the city's leak~, water mares or retrofitting existing homes with water saving devices. A requirement like this one would insure, up front, that the new project would 'pay its own way' water-wise. Toxic contamln~at discharges Tl~cre still Is no 0revision for toxic vollution prevention and collection from stormwater discharges other than o11. There Is stdl inadequate assurance that toxics wtll not be leaked Into the mitrshes and bay. Containment traps, filters, and other mechanism SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED for toxics (other than oli) should be Included. The first flush of a rain should be of particular concern. All parking lots, yards, and streets should be equipped with miniature catchment bastns or some other alternative to catch/cleanse the first flush of a rain. The sentence stricken from page 3-81 which reads "Since thc potential for contaminant discharges cannot be estimated at this time, 1his Impact Is considered to b~ significant and unmitigablc* should be reinstated because the long term and cumulative Impacts of contaminant discharge can be expected to have negative impacts. It should bc remembered that even Itllowable low levels of contaminants multiplied by ~any projects adds ua to a siitnificant cause of pollution to the Bay, Currently the bisy .ts a listed 'water q~iality ImPaired segment. Adddonal pollutant loading will make the current situatiOn worse. llousehold and Industrial Toxics Use Reduction An aggressive plan of household toxic use reduction and industrial toxics use elimination be pursued for this project. The project plan should ,also Include a permanent collection center for household hazardous waste. 2 Enhanced Wetlands Areas It may be that the concept of sterile, clay-lined lagoons, in this time of drought and loss of wetland habitats, are not appropriate. They should be replaced with natural open space parks or productive'wetlands which would serve be an environmental enhancement such as is proposed In alternative 9. For alternative water sources please see above. Integraled Pest Management To mitigate the negative effects from pesticide pollution to ihe area, an Integrated Pest Management program based on non-toxic chemicals and bcnefidal Insects should be used by the project proponents and Included In the mitigations. Construction Dewatering Shou!d the appeal of NPDES 90-31 be successful, how the construction dewaterJflg will be discharged should be addressed. Air quality ' ' Instead of a lo-generation plant, which promotes non-renewable cner~ production, an active solar plant should be developed, Solar energy could redug the energy requirements of the project and greatly reduce the resulting air pollution from the project. Solar Energy ]'he project should a!s0 'be designed to take advantage of passive solar energy opporltlnitles. Promote mass transit, cleaner fuels, walk, and bike trails To mitigate the significant negative environmental effects of additional cars and air pollution on the bay, the project could be designed without autos and with an emphasis on mass transit, bikes, and pedestrian means of travel. Promotion of mass transit, biking and hiking paths, replacing the street Marina Parkway with a bike/hike trail are all options that should be considered as possible mitigation. These would do much to reduce air pollution and the negative environmental effects of thls project. To promote cleaner burning fuels In cars, the parking garages should have reserved, close-up parking for those cars which burn hydrogen/natural gas/alternative fuels. Any vehicles used In project maintenance should be cleaner fuel burning as well. SOlid Waste A state of the art recycling, compostlng, and reuse fa.ci.'lity should~be ln~rpora, ted into the project plan to mitigate the effects of increased sohd waste, tempos;rog et orgamc and yard and landscaping waste could significantly reduce trash to landfill. Ban on single use contalners To reduce litter, no plastic or styrofoam single use containers should b~ sold within the 3 project site. This would significantly reduce solid waste and reduce the hazard that these materials pose to marine life. 2. NOT ALL PROJECTS UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR DEVELOPMENT ARE CONSIDERED IN TIIE SECTION ON CUMULATIVE EFFECTS Missing from the list of proposed or planned developments and their cumulative effects On the bay are: National City Maflna- proposed in concept for Sweetwatet channel adjacent to Pepper Park Anchorage. A-? Crown Cove Anchorage 3.-8 Sweetwater Fleet Landing Dock Float Facility Embarcadero Floating Dock O Street Floating Cock (Above were taken from a San Diego Unified Port District 3.genda Sheet. Item #20, August 1, Other: Cumulative effects of increased PAIi pollution in south bay sediments Effects of Copper spill at the 24th Street Marine Terminal and probable cleanup activities surrounding this hazardous waste site Effects of elevated levels of metals and PCBs near the Rohr outfalls and possible cleanup of bay sediments near Rohr outfalh Effects of ~ontaminated sediments near the shipyards Effects of major inland developments on the demands on the bay. 3, REPRESENTATION OF PESTICIDES IN THE EIR We hav,e a major concern with how chemtcal pesticides are characterized in the EIR. Page 3-82 of the EIR states "The fertilizers and pesticides used today are generally safer in terms of their consequences to untargeted species." is unsubstantiated. If the chemicals under consideration are organopbosphates or carbonates as opposed to the older organochlottnes, this statement may be true. HOWEVER, we will not know until the required environmental fate studies are completed. Further, what we are discovering with the environmental fate data available on the organophosphates, is that many of these newer substances are acutely toxic to wildlife, especially bees, birds, and fish, There are also the synergistic effects of these chemicals mining in the water ways which 4 can make them very toxic in combination with each othe~' and with water, Any discussion of use of chemical pesticides relied on in thc EIR should name the exact products to be used. We can then examine Ihe data gaps in the fate sludles to see if these chemicals should be used. Wc would caution thc project proponents that it is illegal to say that any chemical is EPA 'approved'. (page'3-82, letter d.) "Development and implementation of a project-level landscape chemical management which would require d. use of short-lived EPA approved chemicals for use near wetland areas" is an illegal statement. Please sec the finding in the attachment to this Ictter. The 1986 Oeneral Office of Accounting report to the Congress slates "...it 18 unlawful for pesticide labels and distributors' promotional material to state Ihat p~iicides are EPA-approved, because the statement implies that EPA recommends or endorses the product." 'l'hc EIR could be amended to say that the pesticides i~sed should be I~PA I'¢gistercd but that this do~s not imply any assurance of safety for organisms or the environment. To demonstrate how much we don't know about these pesticides and their effects, a reading of any of registration guides for a pesticide will illuminate the data gaps for an EPA registered p~sticlde. Thank you for this opportunity to comment on this EIR. Sincerely, Laura ttanter, Coordinalor Clean B:~y Campaign City Planning Commission 1 Agenda Item for Meeting of May 22, 1991 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-90-02: Subdivision and Attached Documents. MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission Chair and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Bob Leiter, Director of Planning SUBJECT: Rancho del Rey SPA III Tentative Map The public hearing for the consideration of PCS-90-02, the Rancho del Rey SPA III tentative map, Chula Vista Tract No. 90-02, and associated design guidelines, air quality and water conservation plans, was continued from the hearing of May 8, 1991 to allow staff the opportunity to meet with the applicant to respond to suggested changes to conditions given to staff and the Planning Commission by the applicant on the date of the hearing. Since that time, staff has met with the applicant add other departments resulting in changes to the following conditions~ Condition 3 has been modified to require all lands demonstrating compliance with the Community Purpose Facility for Rancho del Rey be located within the SPA boundaries of SPAs I, II or III. Conditions 5, 6, 65, 66 and 77 were summarized in one condition, re-numbered 63, stating the developer shall enter into an agreement to comply with the Growth Management Ordinance in effect at the time of building permit issuance, said compliance to include but not be limited to the East chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan, and the adopted Air Quality Improvement and Water Conservation Plans. A new condition 74 has been added allowing the developer to file a master final map allowing the sale of super block lots corresponding to units and phasing show on the tentative map. Condition 13 (renumbered 12) has been amended to reflect the construction of a combined sidewalk/recreational pathway, not two separate pathways. Condition 18 (renumbered 17) has been amended to reflect compliance with the design guideline standards for Rancho del Rey SPA III. City Planning Commission 2 Agenda Item for Meeting of May 22, 1991 Condition 56 (renumbered 54) has been amended to reference the approval of the City Fire Marshal. Conditions 59 and 75 have been modified (new condition number 5) to require the developer to provide improvements for a park-n-ride facility at the intersection of East "H" Street and Paseo Ranchero prior to first final map approval. A condition requiring the developer to enter into an agreement to provide funding for any necessary relocation of the park-n- ride facility remains as condition number 57. Condition 61 (renumbered 59) has been modified to require a schedule showing compliance with the low and moderate income housing requirement. DISCUSSION 1. Environmental A. Recertify the Final EIR-89-10 The City Attorney determined that the "tentative subdivision map" for the above cited project is considered a "project" under the California Environmental Quality Act and as such, environmental ~eview is required. As the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report EIR-$9-10 for Rancho del Rey SPA III was certified by the Planning Commission at its meeting on November 14, 1990, and was certified by Council on January 15, 1991, and as the tentative map and SPA Plan for RDR III are basically considered identical, the City Attorney has determined that the recertification of EIR-89-10 should occur prior to the tentative subdivision map being adopted. For your information, the executive summary of EIR-89-10 which you reviewed and certified in December 1990 is attached (Attachment 1). If you would like another copy of EIR-89-10 to review prior to your meeting, please contact Barbara Reid at 691-5097. B. Amended CEQA Findings for EIR-89-10 Subsequent to Council's adoption of the CEQA findings for EIR-89-10 on Rancho del Rey SPA III, and in accordance with Council's conditional approval of the RDR SPA III Plan, the applicant submitted and the City reviewed studies of ways to reduce net water usage of the proposed project and suggested methods to improve air quality within the project. Both studies were circulated at the Planning Commission meeting of May 8, 1991. As a result of these studies and upon their adoption, net water usage from the proposed project has been reduced to a zero net increase (with the implementation of required amendments), and City Planning Commission 3 Agenda Item for Meeting of May 22, 1991 Methods to improve Air Qu~!ity have been recommended. The proposed amended,~EQA Findingsare attached (Attachment 2). Air Quality was previously considered a significant impact at a cumulative level and is still significant at the cumulative level. Water use was previously considered insignificant at a project level and at a cumulative level. Water is still considered an insignificant impact at both a proje¢= and a cumulative level. C. Amended Mitigation Monitoring Program A mitigation monitoring program for EIR-89-10, Rancho del Rey SPA III, was adopted by the City Planning Commission on November 14, 1990 and by the City Council on January 15, 1991. Amendments have been made to the monitoring program (Attachment 3) as a result of Council's direction on January 15, 1991, that the use of water in the project be reduced to a zero net increase and that work be performed to determine whether the air quality section of the EIR could further be improved. Water use has been reduced to a zero net increase provided that the Water Conservation Plan is amended and tentative subdivision map conditions are met. Additional measures have been added to further mitigate negative impacts to air quality. In order to assure that these items are in fact implemented, the mitigation monitoring program has been amended accordingly. 2. Community Purpose Facility The recently adopted Community Purpose Facility Ordinance requires the provision of community purpose facility acreage to be located entirely within the Sectional Planning Area boundary. The developer is required to demonstrate compliance with said ordinance. Compliance will require modifications to the SPA plans and possible rezoning to include parcels either currently or previously owned by the Rancho del Rey Partnership. The subject lands include a 3.7 net acre site at the southeast corner of East "H" Street and Paseo Ranchero currently being negotiated for a church site, and a portion of the 6.1 acre Lutheran Church site at the northwest corner of Buena Vista Way and East "H" Street. 3. water Conservation Plan The applicant provided the Water Conservation Plan that was included in your agenda packets for the May 8th hearing. This plan discussed water conservation measures to be implemented with the project but did not address the issue of zero net increase which the Planning Department has concluded is the direction of the City Council at this time. The Planning Department, in meeting with the Parks and Recreation Department, has identified several off-site conservation measures to be implemented with the project to result City Planning Commission 4 Agenda Item for Meeting of May 22, 1991 in a zero net increase. It is recommended the Water Conservation Plan be amended to include these measures. Amendment No. 1 modifies Table 1-2 of the Plan in regards to offsite measures. Amendment No. 2 modifies pages 31 and 32 of the Plan. Both amendments are included as Attachment 4 to this report. The tentative map is conditioned to comply with the Air Quality Improvement Plan and Water Conservation Plan as amended. 4. ~uDer Block MaD The purpose of filing a master final map creating super block lots is to allow the sale of the units and phases shown on the tentative map. These individual phases are then required to have individual final maps approved. The timing of improvements are keyed to the filing of the individual final maps. The super block lots are a financing tool for development purposes. 5. Park-N-Ride Facility An outcome of the Air Quality Improvement Plan was the suggestion for a park-n-ride facility to help limit individual car trips and encourage car pooling and bus ridership. The Transit Coordinator has identified the need for a facility near the intersection of East "H" Street and Paseo Ranchero. The location of such a facii~ity would accommodate population generated by the Rancho del Rey development. The developer is being required to provide the improvements for said facility. If the facility were required to be relocated at a future date due to the construction of the library site at Paseo Ranchero and East "H" Street, the developer is required to agree to participate in funding said relocation in proportion equal to the users generated by Rancho del Rey. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Re-certify that the Final EIR-89-10 for Rancho del Rey SPA III has been prepared in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the environmental review procedure of the City of Chula Vista; 2. Adopt a resolution recommending approval of the Water Conservation Plan for Rancho del Rey SPAs II and III with the following amendments: Amendment No. 1 - Table 1-2 on page 3; Amendment No. 2 - Pages 31 and 32 (Amendments are contained in Attachment 4 to this report). 3. Adopt a resolution recommending approval of the Air Quality Improvement Plan for Rancho del Rey SPAs II and III; 4. Adopt a resolution recommending approval of the Design Guidelines prepared for Rancho del Rey SPA III; City Planning Commission 5 Agenda Item for Meeting of May 22, 1991 5. Based on the findings and conditions in the attached draft Planning Commission Resolution, adopt a motion recommending approval of the tentative subdivision map for Rancho del Rey SPA III; 6. Adopt a resolution recommending the adoption of the amended CEQA Findings for EIR-89-10, Rancho del Rey SPA III; and 7. Adopt a resolution recommending the adoption of the amended Mitigation Monitoring Program for EIR-$9-10, Rancho del Rey SPA III. Resolution PCM-90-6-(a) RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULAVISTA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN FOR RANCHO DEL REY SECTIONAL PLANNING AREAS (SPA) II AND III WHEREAS, a duly verified Water Conservation Plan was filed with the Planning Department of the City of Chula Vista on January 8, 1991 by Rancho del Rey Partnership, and WHEREAS, said Plan reviewed the proposed w~ter usage of the project and conservation measures to mitigate the water use impacts associated with the development, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on associated tentative subdivision map (PCS-90-02) and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners within 300 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least ten days prior to the hearing, and WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 7:00 p.m., May 8. 1991, and continued to 7:00 p.m., May 22, 1991, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed, and WHEREAS, the Commission found that the Water Conservation Plan is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15262 of the State CEQA Guidelines° NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION finds as follows: 1. The Water Conservation Plan as modified to contain the following amendments is in compliance with the Growth Management Program adopted April 23, 1991: AMENDMENT NO. 1 Table 1-2, page 3: Rancho del Rey SPA II and SPA III Water Conservation Measures On-Site Measures (This section remains the same.) Off-Site Measures ~ The applicant shall establish a water use offset Droaram for Rancho del Rev SPA II and III. This Droaram shall be designed to fully off-set the Droiected water consumption o~ the project, after conservation measures are taken into account (see above on-site measures). ThSs requirement may be met by one or b0tb of the followSDq means: a. The applicant shall participate in snecific water conservation projects such as C.I.M.I.S., new water wells, park and open space irriaation system retrofittina or other such projects in combination with- water conservation off-set fees to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks and Recreation; or Participate in a water conservation Dro~ram by Davin~ a water conservation off-set fee of $5.00 (to be adiusted annuallv) for each ~allon of water used by the DroDect. The applicant shall enter into an a~reement with the C~¥ which establishes a specific mroaram in accordance with the reauirements set forth abo%e. As an al.ternative to the above measures, the City Council may authorize the aDnlicant to participate in any other Citywide or regional water conservation Dro~ram adopted bv the C$~¥ Council, with the overall level of water off-sets to be ~e~% to the sole discretion of the City Council. AMENDMENT NO. 2 Page 31~ continuing onto page 32: D. Offsite Mitigation Measures (First three paragraphs, no changes; beginning with fourth paragraph on page 31) As indicated earlier, the approval of the Rancho del Rey SPA III Plan was conditioned to require a Water Conservation Plan which reduced any impacts to the local water supply to an "insignificant" level, as determined by the City Council. This is the first and, so far, the only project to be so conditioned. At the time the condition was draft=d adopted, it was interpreted to require a zero net increase or complete water consumption off-set, with this reauirement, the applicant shall establish a water use off-set Droaram for Rancho del Rev SPA II and III. This Droaram shall be desianed to fully offset the projected water consumption of the Droiect. after conservation measures are taken into account (see Table 1-2). This reouirement may be met by one or both of the followina means: a. The amDlicant shall participate in sDeci$~c water c0nservat~oD mroiects such as C.I.M.I.S.o new water wells. Dark and open space irri~ation system retrofittin~ or other such mro~ects in combination with water conservation off-set fees to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks and Recreation: or Participate in a water conservation nroqram by payinq a water conservation off-set fee of $5.00 ~to be adjusted annually) for each ~allon of water used by the project. The anDlicant shall enter into an aareement with the C~t¥ which establishes a specific nroaram in accordance with the requirement~ set forth above. As an alternative to the above measures, the City Council may authorize the applicant to participate in any other citywide or reaional water conservation Dro~ram adopted by the City Council, with the overall level of water off-sets to be left to the sole discretion of the City Council. 2. The Water Conservation Plan as modified above is in compliance with Ordinance 2248, the Growth Management Implementation Ordinance adopted April 23, 1991. BE IT FURTHERRESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION recommends that the City Council approve the Water Conservation Plan as modified for Rancho del Rey SPAs II and III. That a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the owners of the property and the City Council. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTAf CALIFORNIA, this 22nd day of May, 1991, by the followin~ vote, to- wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: Shirley Grasser ~orton ATTEST: Nancy Ripley, Secretary Resolution PCM-90-6- (b) RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE AIR QU~TJTTY IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR RANCHO DEL REY SECTIONAL PLANNING A~EAS (SPA) II AND III WHEP~AS, a duly verified Air Quality Improvement Plan was filed with the Planning Department of the City of Chula Vista on January 28, 1991 by Rancho del Rey Partnership, and WHEREAS, said Plan reviewed the impacts to air quality anticipated by the project and measures to mitigate the impacts associated with the development, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on associated tentative subdivision map (PCS-90-02) and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners within 300 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least ten days prior to the hearing, and WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 7:00 p.m., May 8. 1991, and continued to 7:00 p.m., May 22, 1991, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed, and WHEREAS, the Commission found that the Air Quality Improvement Plan is exempt from C~QA pursuant to Section 15262 of the State CEQA Guidelines. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION finds as follows: 1. The Air Quality Improvement Plan as submitted is in compliance with the Growth Management Program adopted April 23, 1991; and 2. The Air Quality Improvement Plan as submitted is in compliance with Ordinance 2248, the Growth Management Implementation Ordinance adopted April 23, 1991. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED T~AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION recommends that the City Council approve the Air Quality Improvement Plan for Rancho del Rey SPAs II and III. That a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the owners of the property and the City Council. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 22nd day of May, 1991, by the following vote, to- wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: Shirley Grasser Horton ATTEST: Nancy Ripley, Secretary Resolution PCM-90-6-(c) RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR RANCHO DEL NEY SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) III WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a Sectional Planning Area Plan including Design Guidelines was filed with the Planning Department of the City of Chula Vista by Rancho del Rey Partnership, and WHEREAS, said Design Guidelines constitute a manual to guide the design of site plans, architecture, and landscape architecture within Sectional Planning Area III (SPA III) of the Rancho del Rey Planned Community, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on said Design Guidelines and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners within 300 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least ten days prior to the hearing, and WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely ?:00 p.m., May 8. 1991, and continued to 7:00 p.m., May 22, 1991, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed, and WHEREAS, the Commission found that the Design Guidelines are not a project under CEQA. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION finds as follows: 1. The Design Guidelines for Rancho del Rey SPA III are in conformance with the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan and the Chula Vista General Plan~ and 2. The Design Guidelines for Rancho del Rey SPA III will promote the orderly development of the involved sectional planning area and ensure a consistentqualit¥ of development in keeping with the fundamental concepts established for the approved SPA. BE IT FURTHERRESOLVEDTHATTHE PLANNING COMMISSION recommends that the City Council approve the Design Guidelines for Rancho del Rey SPA III. That a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the owners of the property andthe City Council. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 22nd day of May, 1991, by the following vote, to- wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: Shirley Grasser Horton ATTEST: Nancy Ripley, Secretary RESOLUTION NO. PCS-90-02 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULAVISTA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR PJ~NCHO DEL REY SECTIONAL PLANNING ~REA (spa) III, CHULA VISTA TRACT 90-02 WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a tentative subdivision map was filed with the Planning Department of the City of Chula Vista on Nove~ber 8, 1989 by Rancho del Rey Partnership, and WHEREAS, said application requested the subdivision of approximately 405 acres into residential lots, open space areas, a school lot, park and community purpose facility lot, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on said tentative subdivision map application and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners within 300 feet of the exterior boundaries of the proper~y at least ten days prior to the hearing, and WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 7:00 p.m., May 8, 1991, and continued to 7:00 p.m., May 22, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed, and WHEREAS, the Commission recertified EIR-89-10, with Statement of Overriding Considerations, and associated Mitigation Monitoring Program for Rancho del Rey SPA III. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION finds as follows: Pursuant to Section 66473.5 of the Subdivision Map Act, the tentative subdivision map for Rancho del Rey Sectional Planning Area (SPA) III, Chula Vista Tract no. 90-02, 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 Element as follows: a. Land Use - The project is consistent with the General Plan, E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan and the SPA III Plan which designates the property PC - Planned Community, with a variety of land uses and residential densities. b. Circulation - Ail of the on-site and off-site public streets .required to serve the subdivision are consistent with the circulation element of Chula Vista General Plan and the circulation proposed within the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan. Those facilities will either be constructed or in-lieu fees paid in accordance with the Rancho del Rey SPA III Public Facilities Financing Plan. c. Housing - A low and moderate housing program with an established goal of 5% iow and 5% moderate will be implemented subject to the approval of the City's Housing Coordinator. Computation of the satisfaction of this condition will include the entire E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Planning Area. d. Conservation and Open Space - The project provides 148.3 acres of open space, 36% of the total 404.9 acres. Grading has been limited on hillsides and grading plan approval will require the revegetation of slopes in natural vegetation. Approval of EIR- 89-10 included the adoption of a mitigation monitoring program outlining the mitigation measures required for project impacts on geology, soils, biology, air, water, cultural resources, land form, transportation and utility sources. e. Parks and Recreation - The project will be responsible for the improvement of the 10 acre net neighborhood park and payment of PAD fees or additional improvements as approved by the Director Parks and Recreation. In addition, a trail system will be implemented through the south leg of Rice Canyon, connecting with other open space areas. f. Seismic Safety - The Rancho del Rey site is crossed by the La Nacion Fault Zone which has one prominent fault, running north to south, with other potential traces. The mitigation monitoring program adopted with EIR-89-10 provides for measures to be taken to mitigate the impacts of development in association with the fault zone. g. Safety - The site will be within the threshold response times for fire and police services. The project will increase the need for additional personnel, however, the City is planning to meet that need with additional revenues provided by this project. h. Public Facilities Element - This project is obligated in the conditions of approval to provide all on-site and off-site facilities necessary to serve this project. In addition to that, there are other regional facilities which this project ( together with SPAs I and II) is contributing to, including a public library site, fire station site, and fire training facility site. The subdivision is als~ contributing to the Otay Water District's improvement requirements to provide terminal water storage for this project as well as other major projects in the eastern territories. h. Noise - The units will be required to meet the standards of the UBC with regard to acceptable interior noise levels. i. Scenic Highway - The project does not affect this element of the General Plan. j. Bicycle Routes - Bicycle paths are provided along Telegraph Canyon Road, East "H" Street and Paseo Ranchero Road as shown in the Circulation Element. k. Public Buildings - No public buildings are planned for the site. The project shall be subject to RCT and DIF fees. 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. The development will provide for a variety of housing types from single family detached homes to attached single family and senior housing. In addition, the addressment to providing a percentage of low and moderate priced housing is in keeping with regional goals. 5. The configuration, orientation and topography of the site partially allows for the optimum siting of lots for passive or natural heating and cooling opportunities. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVEDTHATTHE PLANNING COMMISSION recommends that the City Council approve the tentative subdivision map for Rancho del Rey SPA III, Chula Vista Tract 90-02 subject to the following conditions: General/Preliminary 1. The Public Facilities Financing Plan shall be followed with improvements installed in accordance with said plan or as required to meet threshold standards adopted by the City of Chula Vista. In addition, the sequence in which improvements are constructed shall correspond to any future East Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan adopted by the City. The City Engineer and Planning Director may at their discretion, modify the sequence of improvement construction should conditions change to warrant such a revision. 2. Ail mitigation necessary to avoid significant effects itemized in the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Environmental Impact Report EIR-89-10 as required prior to Final Map approval, are hereby incorporated as conditions of approval. The Director of Planning may modify the sequence of mitigation at his discretion should changes warrant such a revision. 3. The developer shall comply with the Co,unity Purpose Facility Ordinance. The areas proposed to show compliance with said ordinance shall be provided prior to approval of the first final map. Areas of consideration for qualification must be within the areas of SPAs I, II or III. Amendment to the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan and Sectional Plan Areas may be necessary to accomplish compliance. 4. Prior to final map approval for Phase 1, a Precise Plan shall be approved by the City Council detailing the development of the Specialty Housing project. The precise plan shall include but is not limited to: detailing the density of the various portions of the project; identifying theamount of recreational and open space facilities; detailing the financial arrangements available to proposed tenants; identifying the age limits and any income requirements of tenants; and showing the percent of the project for sale or rent. Streets. Riahts-of-Wav and Improvements 5. The developer shall provide a park-n-ride facility at the intersection of East "H" Street and Paseo Ranchero to include 50 parking spaces, 10 bicycle lockers, lighting, trash receptacles and circulation striping to the satisfaction of the City Transit Coordinator. In addition, a transit stop, to include a bench, shelter and trash receptacle, shall be provided on the north side of East "H" Street. A plan of said improvements shall be submitted and approved by the City Transit Coordinator and improvements shall be accomplished prior to approval of the first final map. 6. Prior to any final map approval for Phase 2 or 3 or any unit thereof, the developer shall obtain all necessary right-of-way for the construction of the u~improved off site portion of East "J" Street west of Paseo Ladera, from River Ash Drive to Red Oak Place. 7. The developer shall construct the unimproved off site portion of East "J" Street west of Paseo Ladera, from River Ash Drive · 7. The developer shall construct the unimproved off site portion of East "J" Street west of Paseo Ladera, from River Ash Drive to Red Oak Place, to a Class II Collector Standard, except that the 5 foot sidewalk may be asphalt concrete instead of portland cement concrete. The construction of these improvements shall be guaranteed prior to final map approval for Phases 2 or 3 or any unit thereof. The subdivider may request the formation of a reimbursement district for these off-site improvements in accordance with section 15.50 of the Municipal Code. 8. The developer shall request the vacation of that portion of Paseo Marguerita as necessary to accomplish the design as shown on the tentative map. Said vacation shall be accomplished prior to the approval of the final map for Phase 2, Unit 3. 9. The off site portion of East "J" Street adjacent to Buena Vista Way shall be granted in fee to the City for Open Space, public utilities and other public uses. The grant of this property shall be completed prior to approval of a final map for Phase 3, Unit 3. The developer shall enter into an agreement to not oppose the inclusion of this property in Open Space District # 20 (Zone 7) prior to approval of any final map for Rancho del Rey SPA III. The developer shall be responsible for the costs associated with annexing this property to Open Space District # 20. 10. The developer shall be responsible for the construction of off site improvements at the westerly end of Paseo del Notre in the Casa del Rey subdivision. The construction of these improvements shall be guaranteed prior to approval of the final map for Phase 2, Unit 2. A cash deposit was previously deposited with the City to pay the cost of this work. The amount deposited is available to the developer for construction of these improvements. 11. Prior to final map approval for Phase 1, the developer shall dedicate additional right-of-way along the frontage of the property on East "H" Street to provide a 20 foot parkway (existing curbline to property line). 12. The developer shall be responsible for construction of a sidewalk/recreational pathway along the entire frontage of subject property on East "H" Street from Paseo Ranchero westerly to Paseo del Rey to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, Director of Planning and the Director of Parks and Recreation. The construction of these improvements shall be guaranteed prior to final map approval for Phase 1. 13. The developer shall be responsible for construction of an expanded 8 to 10 foot wide sidewalk/recreational pathway along the western side of Paseo Ranchero, to connect the trail systems in the south leg of Rice Canyon and in the Telegraph Canyon Road open space area. These improvements shall be installed in conjunction with the construction phases of Paseo Ranchero specified in the Public Facilities Financing Plan. 14. The developer shall be responsible for the construction of wider sidewalks at transit stops, subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 15. The final design of Paseo Ranchero shall include eight foot wide landscape easement buffers as required by the Street Design Standards or be adjoined by an open space lot at least eight feet wide with slopes no greater than 5:1, except in the following areas where the final design shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Director, Landscape Architect and City Engineer= a. Adjacent to the lots fronting on Cabo Calabazo, Calle Candelero and Punto Miraleste where a special slope and retaining wall design will be implemented~ b. Along the Junior High School site~ c. Along the existing Ladera Villas and Mission Verde subdivisions where existing conditions shall remain~ and d. Adjacent to the out-parcel owned by the Chula Vista School District. 16. The final design of East "J" Street shall include 5.5 foot wide landscape easement buffers as required by the Street Design Standards or be adjoined by an open space lot at least §.5 feet wide with 5=1 maximum side slopes, except in the following locations where the final design shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Director, Landscape Architect and city Engineer: a. Along the park site~ b. Along the two corner lots at the intersection of East "J" Street and Camino Miel (lots 82 and 97 of Phase 2, Unit 1) and the southeast corner lot of East "J" Street and Cabo Capote (lot 85 of Phase 2, Unit 2)~ c. Adjacent to the out-parcel owned by the Chula Vista School District~ and d. Along the existing Bel Aire Ridge subdivision where existing conditions shall remain. 17. Ail retaining walls which interface with the public street system shall be constructed to match the Ranch Rancho del Rey SPA III Design Guideline standards for exterior walls. 18. The developer shall be responsible for construction of full street improvements for all public and private streets shown on the Tentative Map within the subdivision boundary~ and for the construction of off-site improvements to construct Paseo Ranchero, East "J" Street and Paseo Ladera as shown on the Tentative Map, to the satisfaction of the city Engineer. Said improvements shall include, but not be limited to, asphalt concrete pavement, base, concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk, sewer and water utilities, drainage facilities, street lights, signs, fire hydrants and transitions to existing improvements. Street intersection spacing as shown on the tentative map is hereby approved. 19. Ail the streets shown on the Tentative Map within the subdivision boundary, except private streets, shall be dedicated for public use. Design of said streets shall meet all City standards. 20. A temporary turnaround conforming to City standards shall be provided at the end of streets having a length greater than 150 feet, measured from the center line of the nearest intersecting street to the center of the cul-de-sac, except as approved by the City Engineer. 21. Cul-de-sacs and knuckles shall be designed and built in accordance with City standards unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Lot Configuration 22. Frontage on all lots shall be a minimum of 35 feet at the right-of-way line except as approved by the City Engineer. This condition does not apply to flag lots, as defined in the Municipal Code. 23. Lot lines shall be located at the top of slopes except as approved by the City Engineer. When adjacent to open space lots, property lines shall be located a minimum 2.5 feet from the top of slope. 24. The preparation of final maps and plans for the locations listed below shall be carried out in accordance with the following criteria unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer and Director of Planning: a. Provide a minimum 50 feet from the corner of Paseo Ranchero and East "J" Street to lots 6 and 7, Phase 3, Unit 2, to provide additional buffer and transition area at the corner. b. Provide a pedestrian throughway between lots 130 and 131, Phase 3, Unit 2, from Camino Calabazo to east "J" Street across from the school and park sites. c. Lot 128 of Phase 2, Unit 1, shall be widened to a minimum 50 foot width to accommodate a combined slope and maximum 5 foot retaining wall. This is to avoid a "tunnel" effect created at side lot lines. d. Lots 3 and 5, Phase 2, Unit 3 shall utilize maximum 5 foot high retaining walls, and/or a combination of retaining walls and crib walls. e. Provide a different name for' each of the portions of Palazzo Court located to the east and west of East "J" Street and the portions of Dorado Way located to the east and west of Camino Miel. Street Trees/Open Space 25. The developer shall grant to the City street tree planting and maintenance easements along all public streets as shown on the Tentative Map. The width of said easements shall be as outlined in the City's Street Design Standards Policy. 26. The developer shall be responsible for street trees in accordance with Section 18.28.10 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. The use of cones shall be included where necessary to reduce the impact of root systems disrupting adjacent sidewalks and rights-of-way. 27. All open space lots adjacent to public rights-of-way shall maintain a width so as to provide 10 feet of landscaping treatment behind the back of sidewalk. 28. Maintenance of all facilities and improvements within open space areas covered by home owners associations shall be covered by CC&Rs to be submitted and approved by the Planning Department prior to approval of the associated final map. 29. Prior to the approval of any final map, the developer shall request in writing that maintenance of all facilities and improvements within the open space area associated with such map shall be the responsibility of the Rancho del Rey Open Space Maintenance District. 30. Prior to approval of the first final map, a comprehensive landscape plan shall be submitted for review and approval of the City Landscape Architect and Director of Parks and Recreation. Prior to approval of each final map, comprehensive, detailed landscape and irrigation plans, erosion control plans and detailed water management guidelines for all landscape irrigation shall be submitted in accordance with the Chula Vista Landscape Manual for the associated landscaping in that final map. These detailed landscape and irrigation plans shall be for the review and approval of the City Landscape Architect and Director of Parks and Recreation. The landscaping format within the project shall be to emphasize native, drought tolerant plant material. Exceptions can be made for areas where reclaimed water is exclusively used. The comprehensive landscape plans shall address= a. Slope enhancement and landscape treatment for the slope in Open Space Lot A, Phase 3, Unit 3, beneath the Junior High School lot. The plan shall address and provide for mature size plant material, boulder work and/or buttress work on the slope. b. A naturalized revegetation program for areas of grading in open space lots, which may include temporary irrigation. c. The disturbed "native" areas within Telegraph Canyon Road open space corridor. This area shall include tree groupings or tree groves. These plantings shall be treated as random plantings and shall be identified in at least six areas along the corridor with each location providing plantings of 50 to 100 trees. The exact number of trees and locations are to be approved by the Planning Department and Department of Parks and Recreation. The intent of these grove areas is to provide a consistency with existing grove areas in the open space corridor west of the Rancho del Rey SPA III area. 31. Prior to approval of the first final map, details showing the location and design of the trail system and a sign program shall be submitted to and approved by the Directors of Planning and Parks and Recreation. The trail system in the open space lots shall be a minimum 6 feet wide within an 8 foot horizontal clear space and a 10 foot vertical clear space. The associated sign program shall identify the trail network in the open space areas and connecting along Paseo Ranchero, to the satisfaction of the Directors of Planning and Parks and Recreation. 32. Prior final map approval for Phase 3, Unit 3 and Phase 4, Unit 2 as shown on the Tentative Map, cross sections shall be submitted to and approved by the Director of Planning and City Engineer illustrating the interface wherethe trail is located adjacent to the drainage ditch along Telegraph Canyon Road. The fencing of the drainage channel shall be aesthetically pleasing incorporating the use of plantings, equestrian type fencing and vinyl clad fencing. These cross sections and decorative fencing program may be included with the comprehensive landscape plan. Fence gates shall be provided at locations approved by the City Engineer to allow maintenance of the drainage channel. Parks 33. The developer shall be obligated for 12.5 acres of parkland as described in the approved SPA Plan, including land, and/or fees, and/or additional improvements, in accordance with the Parkland Dedication Ordinance. The actual final acreage will relate to the number of units approved with the final maps. 34. The park located in Phase 3, Unit 4 shall be a minimum 10 net useable acres. Design and development of the park shall be subject to the approval of the City's Director of Parks and Recreation and shall conform with the park master plan to be adopted by the City Council. 35. An adequate buffer and separation of 50 feet shall be provided between the residential lots at the eastern end of Palazzo Court and the existing park facilities, to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks and Recreation. Solution may include but is not limited to relocating an existing tennis court or lot redesign. 36. A minimum20 foot wide access corridor shall be maintained at the end of Paseo Palazzo where the cul-de-sac abuts the existing park. Said area shall be made part of the park. Detail and design of the access shall be submitted to and approved by the Departments of Planning and Parks and Recreation prior to final map approval for Phase 3, Unit 1. Gradin~/Drainaae 37. An erosion and sedimentation control plan shall be prepared as part of the grading plans. 38. Specific methods of handling storm drainage are subject to detailed approval by the city Engineer at the time of submission of improvement and grading plans. Design shall be accomplished on the basis of the requirements of the Subdivision Manual and the Grading Ordinance (No. 1797 as amended). The developer shall submit calculations to demonstrate compliance with all drainage requirements of the Subdivision Manual. 39. Grading proposals shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and Director of Planning for consideration of balanced cut and fill, utilization of appropriate soil types, effective landscaping and revegetation where applicable. Grading shall occur in separate phases unless a single phase operation is approved with the grading plan. 40. A letter of permission for grading shall be obtained from SDG&E prior to any grading within or adjacent to an SDG&E easement or which would affect access thereto. 41. The developer shall make a reasonable effort to obtain permission to grade the slopes along Buena Vista Way at the former intersection of East "J" Street. If permission to grade said slope is not reasonably attainable as determined by the City Engineer, the regrading of these slopes shall not be required. The provisions oft his condition shall be complied with prior to approval of the final map for Phase 3, Unit 3. 42. Prior to approval of any final map for single family residential use, the developer shall submit a list of proposed lots indicating whether the structure will be located on fill, cut or a transition between two situations. 43. Lots shall be so graded as to drain to the street or an approved drainage system. Drainage shall not be permitted to flow over slopes. Lots 71, 72 and 89 of Phase 2 Unit 1'shall be designed so that there will be no negative grading or drainage impacts to the adjacent off-site properties. 44. Graded access shall be provided to all public storm drain structures including inlet and outlet structures. Paved access shall be provided to drainage structures located in the rear yard of any residential lot or as approved by the City Engineer. 45. The use of boulders in minor drainage basins and energy dissipators in the canyon and open space areas in the manner approved by the City Engineer and Planning Director, is encouraged to allow water to be captured and to allow trees to grow naturally. Sewer 46. The developer shall be responsible for performing sewage flow metering to monitor three segments of main identified in the Rick Engineering report dated September 5, 1990 as sections QR, XlX2 and KL. Metering shall be accomplished at the locations determined by the City Engineer. Metering shall be accomplished prior to the issuance of any building permit for SPA III and be repeated at intervals directed by the City Engineer. Should any of these segments have metered flows which fill more than 80% of the pipe diameter, the applicant shall construct parallel facilities as determined by the City Engineer. The developer shall enter into an agreement with the City prior to first final map approval providing for all items indicated above. 47. An improved access road with a minimumwidth of 12 feet shall be provided to all sanitarysewer manholes. The roadway shall be designed for an H-20 wheel 10ad or other loading as approved by the City Engineer. 48. The developer shall obtain permission from the City to deposit sewage in a foreign basin. The developer shall enter into an agreement with the City relative to the diversion of sewage prior to final map approval for any phase or unit thereof proposing said diversion. 49. The developer shall be responsible for the removal of the existing sewer pump stations (Mission Verde and Candlewood). Prior to approval of any final map entailing said removal, the owner and the City shall enter into an agreement to establish the scope of work andthe amount to be reimbursed by the City to the subdivider for performing said work. The developer may also request the formation of a special sewer service area to provide for the cost of connection of the area currently being served by the Candlewood pump station to the permanent gravity sewer system. Unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer,.the scope of work at both sites shall be limited to the removal and disposal of equipment, grading, landscaping and construction of new sewerlines and manholes required for connection to the proposed Rancho del Rey sewer system. Any upsizing of Rancho del Rey Sewer lines due solely to the flow generated by the Mission Verde and Candlewood areas shall also be included. Rec ' W 50. Prior to approval of the associated final map, the developer shall provide on-site infrastructure to accept and to use reclaimed water when it is available, along Paseo Ranchero from Telegraph Canyon Road to East "H" Street and along East "J" Street from Paseo Ranchero to the park site, per the adopted Public Facilities Financing Plan. 51. Any costs incurred from retrofitting the reclaimed water system, when reclaimed water becomes available, shall be paid by the developer. Monies for this shall be held by the City, through a deposit set up by the developer. The amount shall be determined by the developer, approved by the City and in place prior to approval of each associated final map. Fire 52. Fire hydrants will be required per the Fire Department standards. Hydrant spacing is 500 feet for single family and 300 feet for multi-family dwellings. 53. Maximum hydrant pressure shall not exceed 150 psi. 54. Fire hydrants and roadway access (per City Fire Marshall approval) shall be installed, tested and operational prior to any combustible materials placed on-site. A~reements/Covenants 55. Prior to final map approval for Phase 1, Unit 1, the developer shall enter into an agreement with the City to guarantee the development of the parcel specifically for senior housing. 56. Prior to the approval of the first final map, the developer shall enter into an agreement to provide a right turn lane at the intersection of Paseo del Rey and East "H" Street, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, if the threshold standards for this intersection as expressed in the then current Growth Management Ordinance are exceeded at any time during the development of this project. 57. Prior to approval of the first final map, the developer shall enter into an agreement with the city to participate in funding for any relocation of the Park-N-Ride facility if deemed necessary~ as a result of the construction of the library at the corner of East "H" Street and Paseo Ranchero. The developer's share of the cost of relocation shall be in direct proportion to the percentage of park-n-ride facility users generated by the Rancho del Rey development. 58. Prior to approval of each final map, copies of proposed CC&Rs for the subdivision shall be submitted to and approved by the City Planning Department. 59. Prior to approval of the first final map, the developer shall provide a schedule, subject to the approval of the Planning Director and City Housing Coordinator, for the development of low income housing as defined in the agreement executed between the City and Rancho del Rey Partnership per City Council Resolution No. 15751 dated August 7, 1990. 60. Prior ~ the approva~ of any final map for the subject subdivision or any unit thereof, the developer shall obtain all off-site right-of-way necessary for the installation of required improvements for that unit. The developer shall also provide easements for all on-site and off-site public storm drains, sewers and other public utilities prior to approval of the final map. Easements shall be a minimum width of 6 feet greater than pipe size, but in no case less than 10 feet. 61. The developer shall notify the City at least 60 days prior to consideration of the final map by City if off-site right-of- way cannot be obtained as required by the Conditions of approval. (Only off-site right-of-way or easements affected by Section 66462.5 of the Subdivision Map Act are covered by this condition. After said notification, the developer shall= a. Pay the full cost of acquiring off-site right-of-way or easements required by the Conditions of Approval of the tentative Map. b. Deposit with the City the estimated cost of acquiring said right-of-way or easements. Said estimate to be approved by the City Engineer. c. Have all easements and/or right-of-way documents and plats prepared and appraisals complete which are necessary to commence condemnation proceedings. d. If the developer so requests, the City may use its powers to acquire right-of-way, easements or licenses needed for off-site improvements or work related to the Tentative Map. The developers shall pay all costs, both direct and indirect incurred in said acquisition. The requirements of a, b, and c above shall be accomplished prior to the approval of the Final Map. All off-site requirements which fall under the purview of Section 66462.5 of the State Subdivision Map Act will be waived in accordance with that section of the Act if the City does not comply with the 120 day limitation specified in that section. 62. Prior to approval of each final map, the developer shall enter into an agreement with the City to include the subdivisions in the Mello Roos public facilities district or an acceptable alternative financing program, subject to the approval of both the Chula Vista Elementary and Sweetwater High School Districts. 63. Prior to approval of each final map, the developer shall enter into an agreement with the City wherein he agrees to comply with that version ofthe Growth Management Ordinance in effect at the time a building permit is issued.. Such compliance includes but is not limited to the then current East Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan and the adopted Air Quality Improvement Plan and Water Conservation Plan for Rancho del Rey SPA III. 64. Prior to final map approval for any phase or unit thereof, the developer shall enter into an agreement with the City whereby: a. The developer agrees that the City may withhold building permits for any units in the subject subdivision if any one of the following occurs: 1. Regional development threshold limits set by the then current adopted East Chula Vista · Transportation Phasing Plan have been reached. 2. Traffic volumes, level of service, public utilities and/or services exceed the threshold standards in the then effective Growth Management Ordinance. b. The developer agreesthatthe City may withhold occupancy permits for any of the phases of development identified in thePublic Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP) for Rancho del Rey SPA III if the required public facilities, as identified in the PFFP or as amended by the Annual Monitoring Program have not been completed. 65. Prior to approval of each final map, the developer shall agree to not protest the formation of a district for the maintenance of landscaped medians and parkways along streets within and adjacent to the subject property. 66. Prior to approval of each final map, the developer shall enter into an agreement with the City wherein he holds the City harmless for any liability for erosion, siltation or increased flow of drainage resulting from this project. 67. The developer shall enter into an agreement with the City whereby the developer agrees to participate in the monitoring of existing and future sewage flows in the Telegraph Canyon Trunk Sewer and the financing of the preparation of the Basin Plan and, pursuant to any adopted Basin Plan, agree to participate in the financing of improvements set forth therein, in an equitable manner. Said agreement shall be executed bythe developer prior to final map approval for any phase or unit proposing to discharge sewage into the Telegraph Canyon Trunk Sewer. 68. The developer shall permit all franchised cable television companies ("Cable Company") equal opportunity to place conduit to and provide cable television service for each lot within the subdivision. The developer shall enter into an agreement withal1 participating Cable Companies which shall provide, in part, that upon receiving written notice from the City that said Cable Company is in violation of the terms and conditions of the franchise granted to said Cable Company, or any other terms and conditions regulating said Cable Company in the City of Chula Vista, as same may from time to time be amended, developer shall suspend Cable Company's access to said conduit until City otherwise notifies developer. Said agreement shall be approved by the City Attorney prior to final map approval. Fees/Payments 69. The subject property is within the boundaries of Open Space District #20 (Zone 7), Open Space District #10 (Phase II) and Assessment District #87-1. Prior to final map approval or other grant of approval for any phase or unit thereof, the developer shall pay all costs associated with: a) detachment of subject property from Open Space District #10 (Phase II)~ and b) reapportionment of assessments for Open Space District #20 (Zone 7) and Assessment District %87-1 as a result of subdivision of lands within the project boundary. 70. The developer shall pay: a. Spring Valley Sewer Trunk connection fees ($130/acre) prior to final map approval for any phase or unit thereof contributing flow to the Spring Valley Trunk Sewer. b. Telegraph Canyon drainage fees in accordance with Ordinance 2384. 71. PAD fees shall be waived or modified as provided in the adopted Public Facilities Financing Plan for Rancho del Rey. RCT fees and DIF fees shall be paid in accordance with the applicable regulations. PAD fees shall be guaranteed until such time as the City waives said fees. Miscellaneous 72. The boundary of the subdivision shall be tied to the California System - Zone VI (1983). 73. Prior to final'map approval for any unit, the developer shall submit a copy of said final map in a digital format such as (DXF) graphic file. This Computer Aided Design (CAD) copy of the final map shall be based on accurate coordinate geometry calculations and shall be submitted on 5 1/2 HD floppy disk prior to recordation of the final map. 74. The developer may file a master final map which provides for the sale of super block lots corresponding to the units and phasing or combination of units and phasing thereof, shown on the tentative map. If said super block lots do not show individual lots depicted on the approved tentative map, a subsequent final map shall be filed for any lot which will be further subdivided. The City Engineer may condition approval of such a final map to require necessary plans to provide infrastructure necessary top meet City threshold policies and to conform to the approved Public Facilities Financing Plan. All super block lots created shall have access to a dedicated public street. Bonds in the amounts determined by the City Engineer shall be posted prior to approval of a master final map. Said master final map shall not be considered the first final map as indicated in other conditions of approval unless said map contains single or multiple family lots shown on the tentative map. Code Reauirements 75. The developer shall comply with all relevant Federal[ State and Local regulations, including the Clean Water Act. The developer shall be responsible for providing all required testing and documentation to demonstrate said compliance as required by the City Engineer. 76. The developer shall comply with all applicable sections of the Chula Vista Municipal Code as they exist at the time of issuance of the building permit. Preparation of the final map and all plans shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and the City of Chula Vista Subdivision Map Act and the City of Chula Vista Subdivision Ordinances and Subdivision Manual. That a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the owners of the property and the City Council. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 8th day of May, 1991, by the following vote, to- wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: Shirley Grasser Horton ATTEST: Nancy Ripley, Secretary ATTACHNENT 1 ~X~CUTlV~ SU~4MA~Y This document is a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) which addresses the proposed Rancho del Rey Sectional Planning Area (SPA) III project. This SEIR should be read in conjunction with the previously prepared Final EIR (EIR-$3-2). The project applicant, Rancho del Rey Partnership~ is proposing development of the third phase (SPA III) of the El Rancho del Rey Specific Plan. The first and second phase oi the project, SPA I and SPA II, are currently under construction. The El Rancho del Rey Specific Plan area encompasses approximately 2,#50 acres located east of Interstate $0}, south and west of Otay Lakes Road, and north oi Telegraph Canyon Road in the City of Chula Vista. SPA III consists of a detailed plan for residential development, community facilities, and park and open space uses on approximately #05 acres located southeast of East H Street and north of Telegraph Canyon Road. The SPA III Plan is in conformance with the overall specific plan. Included within the provisions of the El 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 SPA 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 Agreement~ and a Spedfic Plan Amendment for density transfers and park acreage additions. The elimination of the East 3 Street link connecting Paseo Ranchero and Buena Vista will require a Speci£ic Plan and General Plan Amendment. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Rancho del Rey SPA III Plan proposes the construction of 1,380 single-family dwelling units (DU) ranging in density from from 3.g to 10.6 DU/ac on eight residential parcels on approximately 206 acres. Included among the planned dwelling units are .593 DUs of specialty housing on approximately g5 acres for a small retirement community which will be composed of detached and attached housing. In addition, a junior high school site totalling 2#.7 acres, a neighborhood S-l park totalling 10.0 acres, eight open space areas totalling 1#7.6 acres, and major circulation routes totalling 13.7 acres are proposed. The environmental analysis performed for the proposed project includes the following issues: geology/soils, drainage/groundwater/water quality, land- form/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 Geology/Soils Development of the proposed project will involve grading of ridge-tops and filEng of 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 considered active. Most of the required excavations can be made by conventional heavy grading equipment. 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 predicted by the preliminary investigations. Drainage/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. S-2 Landform/Aesthetics Development o£ SPA III would significantly alter landforms on-site and' create manufactured slopes of approximately 50 feet. These 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 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 as well as 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 Vll population projections. Short-term emissions from construction activities would generate dust and diesel emissions resulting in short-term emissions impacts. Emissions from residential activitiy and from the Junior High school site including the use of paint~ industrial strength cleaners, fumigation, barbecues and gasoline powered 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. Biolosy Implementation of Rancho del Rey SPA III as proposed would result in significant impacts to coastal sage scrub (on a iocal and regional basis)~ vernal pools, Cali£ornia 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 oi the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures, significant impacts to biology would not be reduced to below a level of significance. 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. The mitigation program has been completed and approved by the City. All impacts have been reduced to a level below significance. Transportation The proposed project is expected to generate 11,405 ADT. All intersections relevant to the project will operate at LOS C or better in the morning and afternoon peak hours under buildout conditions with the exception of the East H 5treet/Paseo del Rey intersection. This intersection will operate at a LO5 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 o£ significance with implementation of the proposed mitigation. Land Use The Rancho del Rey SPA III Plan as proposed~ is in conformance with the land use policies and plans o£ the City of Chula Vista, the El 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 in 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 El Rancho del Rey Specific Plan. No significant impacts would be associated with the proposed projecB no mitigation or monitoring measures are necessary. Community Tax Structure Implementation of the proposed Rancho del Rey SPA III would result in a net £iscal benefit of approximately $6#~800 annually to the City of ChuJa ¥ista; therefore no adverse impacts would result to the community tax structure. No mitigation or monitoring measures are required. Parks~ Recreation and Open Space As part of the proposed project, a 10.0-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 10.0-acre park have been implemented. Public Services The 1989 Water Allocation Report distributed by OWD limits the number 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 consump- tion. The development of on-site sewage facilities consistent with the 1986 sewer study would provide adequate infrastructure to accommodate project flows. The S-5 City ol Chula Vista has a surplus of contract capacity in the METRO sewage system and no significant impacts are anticiapted. 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 from the development of the proposed projectl however~ the addition of #.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 Chula Vista. The two Mellos Roos Community Facilities Districts, (Sweetwater Union High School District Community Facilities District No. 3 and the 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. $-6 Table ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES SUMMARY Issue Impact Mitigation Monitoring Geology/Soils Potential impact Adherence to Uni- Prior to building from proximity to form Building Code permit issuance, La Nacion Fault would reduce impacts geotechnical recom- zone. to below a level of mendations would be significance, made a condition of the tentative map. Drainage/ Potential impacts to Adherence to NPDES Prior to issuance of Groundwater/ groundwater/water permit regulation the occupancy permit, Water Quality quality from runoff, for stormwater the City would ensure discharge would that the project is in reduce impacts to conformance with below a level of NPDES regulations. significance. Landform/ Significant alteration Grading would con- Prior to or as a con- Aesthetics of on-site landforms, form with standards dition of tentative Significant impacts established in map approval, grading to landform and visual SPA III Plan. plans would be inspec- quality. Implementation of ted by Planning and community design Building departments lines would par- to ensure that grading tially reduce level standards have been of impacts to land- adhered to. form and visual quality. Air Quality Cumulative impacts Adherence to SIP Prior to or as a con- to regional air regarding local dition of approval quality participation in of the tentative map, air emission re- City staff would duction measures, ensure that recom- encourage use of mended mitigation alternate transpor- measures have tation, and accom- been implemented. modate mass transit vehicles in front of retirement community would partially re- duce cumulative impacts. S-7 Table S-I (Continued) ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES SUMMARY Issue Impact Mitigation Monitoring Biology Significant impacts Qualified biologist Prior to or as a con- to coastal sage to monitor en- dition of the grading scrub, California croachment of open permit, tentative and gnatcatchers, cactus till slopes. Re- final map approval, wren and snake vegetation of the City Planning De- cholla, coastal sage scrub partment would ensure native species on that recommended manufactured s mitigation measures slopes. Trans- have been imple- plant program for mented. cactus. Monitoring program for Calif- ornia gnatcatchers. Acquisition of land for a preservation of gnatcatcher and vernal pool habitat. Cultural Significant Implementation of Prior to or as a con- Resources impacts to two extensive recovery dition of tentative resource sites, program would reduce map approval, City impacts to below a staff would ensure level of sig- that recommended nificance, mitigation measures have been implemented. Transportation Potentially signi- Mitigation Annual monitoring ficant impacts o£ measures proposed program as directed the proposed project for buildout include by City Transpor- would be mitigated signalization, re- ration Department. to below a level of configuration to Other site specific significance with provide dual lanes, measures will be implementation of construction of new made conditions ol the proposed miti- road segments, and of Tentative Map and gation, placement of stop Public Facilities signs. Finance Plan. Land Use None None None Community None None None Social Factors Table S-I (Continued) ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES SUMMARY Issue Impact Mitigation Monitoring Community None None None Tax Structure Parks/ Potential impacts due Addition of amenities Prior to or as a con- Recreation/ to net deficiency of in proposed park and dition of approval of Open Space of 2.6 acres of utilization of ad- the tentative map. parkland, jacent junior high City staff would eh- school site would re- sure that conditions duce impacts to parks, for the 10.0-acre park Park would also meet have been imple- conditions estab- merited. lished by the City. Would reduce impacts to below a level of significance. Public Potential impacts The receipt of a Prior to building Services to water, fire pre- service letter permit issuance vention, police and from the OWD would City staff would schools, reduce potential ensure that the impacts to water to project proponent below a level of has received a significance. The water service addition of another availability letter, Fire Inspector would has entered an agree- reduce impacts to merit with the City of fire prevention to Chula Vista to provide below a level of an additional Fire significance. The Inspector and #.6 addition of #.6 police personnel, and police personnel entered into the would reduce impacts Mello Roos for school to police to below facilities. a level of sig- nificance. S-9 Table S-2 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES ISSUE NO PROJECf/EXISTING SPECIFIC PLAN ALTERNATIVE DESIGN I ALTERNATIVE DESIGN 2 Project Description Development would be based upon the existing General Devclop- Dwelling units range from 780-1,380 units with density opportllni- Dwelling units range from 894-1,380 units with density opportuni- ment Plan for Rancho del Rey SPA 111. Includes a maximum ties ranging from 3-11 du's/ac on approximatel)' 160 developable ties ranging from 3-11 du's/ac on approximatley 200 developable potential development of 1,380 du's consisting of single family- acres. Allowable uses within this design include single family areas. Development in Area A would be eliminated, leaving this conventional (2-4 DU/ac), single family and specialty housing (4-6 dwelling-conventional, cottages, townhouses, specialty housing, area in natural open space. Area E, originally proposed as open DU/ac) and townhouses (6-8 DUlac). This alternative also includes open space, schools, and parks. Development in Areas A and E space in tlìe proposed project, would have optional developable a 23.0 acre school site and a 2.0 acre park. A density transfer of 95 would be eliminated, leaving these areas in natural open space. East uses including single family dwelling-conventional, cottages, residential units as proposed in the SPA III plan would not occur. ) Street would not be extended to its full General Plan length and townhouses and specialty. East J Street would not be extended to East J Street would be extended to its full General Plan length with would be designed as a cuI-de-sac street. This alternative wOllld its full General Plan length and would be designed as a cul-de-sac this alternative. reduce impacts to biological and cultural resources, landform aller- street. This alternative would reduce impacts to biological resourc- ation, and park/recreation and open space. es, landform alleration, and parks/recreation and open space. Geology/Soils Impacts to Geology/Soils would be the same as the proposed Potential constraints associated with geologic and soils resources Potential constrainlS associated with geologic and soils resources as project. The site could be suhject to moderate-to-severe ground- would be somewhat reduced with the elimination of grading in identified in the proposed project would be somewhat reduced with shaking in the event of a m:iJor earthquake on the Coronado Banks, Areas A and E. Potentially significant impaclS from ground shaking the elimination of grading in Area A. Adoption of this allernative Rose Canyon, or Elsinore Faults. would be reduced with Area A left in open space. , Potential would reduce potentially significant impacts due to ground shaking surficial erosion and instability would not result in Area A with in Area A. Potential surficial erosion and instability would not incorporation of thi.~ alternative_ A geo-technical analysis would be result in Area A. Slope failures may occur in Area D if developed. required to determine appropriate mitigation measures. A geotechnical analysis wou!d be required to determine appr(:ixiatc mitigation measures. Drainage/Ground- Potential impacts to Drainage/Groundwater/Water Quality would Land development with this alternative would result in an increase L:md development with this alternative would result in an increase water^Vater Quality be similar to the proposed project. This Water Quality alternative in water impervious surfaces and potential impacts 'to on-site water in the impervious surfaces, and potential impacts to on-site water will create large areas of impervious ground surface with the over- quality and quantity may result. Elimination of development in quality and quantity may result. Elimination of development in all effect of facilitating water runoff during rainy periods. An Area A and E would reduce the amount of urban poHutanlS and Area A would reduce the amount of'urban pollutants and impervi- increase in urban pollutants would result. No significant impacts to impervious surfaces associated. ous surfaces associated. Drainage/Groundwater/Water Quality would occur. Landfonn Impacts to landform alteration/aesthetics would be essentially the Impacts to landform alteration would be reduced Alteration with a Impacts to landform alteration would be reduced with a fewcr Allerationl same as the proposed project, with the exception of additional grad- fewer number of building pads required overall. Elimination of number of building pads required overall. Elimination of develop- Aesthetics ing required for the extension of East J Street with this alternative. development in areas A and E would reduce impacts to visual ment in Area A would reduce impacts to visual quality. Impacts to quality. Impacts to landform aesthetics are considered adverse but landform/aesthetics are considered adverse, bui substantially substantially reduced from the proposed project with this aller- reduced from the proposed project with this alternative. native. * No ProjectINo Development Alternative was not summarized in this table 5-10 ---------- I 'po.q. nbm oq plnom 13o.foJd posodoJd Otll ut 'p~.nbo~ ~1 plno~ lyO.foJd posodoJd oq] u! -poluomoldm[ o.m lo:a.fo.~d posodmd otll Joj possnos!p se p~!jDuop[ sg opnl!ui~gm .mi!mis g jo s~nst~tu uo[lle~.ll!lA[ plno~..,po~lou uo!l~in3Jp lUUO.l~o.l jo lumu~I~ uoDulno.qD oql Jori ql~uoI iinj s!l ol p:~lolo^~p oq lou jo lu~mol~l uo!ll;Inoa!D oql Jod tllgUOl llaJ Sl[ ol podolo,,.op oq lou mil Ol gu[pJoaou ,(UA5 mS!A ~u~n~t ol paris f lsg'3 jo u0]$uolxo IlnJ plno,~ lO~.llS f lsl~ 'l~o.fo.~d po$odoad Oql Ul~tll S.]LOV jo Joqmnu plnom lOOJIg I' l.ge.'~ 'l:yO.foJd Vosodmd *ql uuql s£GV jo .mqtunu ,Otll ti! Ilnso~ plno,~ ;~^.Ilt~tlJ~)l[l~ s.ltl! Jo uo!ldopv 'l:yo.fo.'d posodmd jomoI ,(llU!lUolOd I~ u! llnsoJ plno~, o,,..q~mOllg s!ttl jo uo.qdopv Jo~,xoI Xiiu!luolod u u! llnso~ plno~ o^.lluu~Oll~ $!ql jo uogdopv Otll ol sloudtu! o!jju.rl xeI!m[s u! llnS-'oJ plno,v, :a^!ll~Olll~ $!t1£ UO!lgllodsum.L -poluomoldm! am Do.fred p'osodmd roll u! l~ssnos!p osoql ~l~d pun 'l~3U~ug~s ~Jop~suo3 plnom onOcm*llU *ill p~*p~suo3 ~q plnom UllO~* o~us p~ lm]qu~ ua~ snla~ jo suo~o~ 'ol]s ~lF~[~OlO~q o~ p,~,p~suo* si *~]lU~Ol~ s[~ 'ol[s-uo qm*s sc 'pop,sold uq plno~ Slul~quq J*q3lg3l~u~ ~lmoJ]FD o~U ~¢lgtu ~q plno~x sll~l[quq J3q3lg3l~u~ e[moJ~IUD u,a~s XlblUm]xmddv '¢lqug~]mun pug lumu{u~!s po~op]suo3 ~ ellOq3 o~us pug uodo po~oso~d jo ~unomu ~31m~3 u[ llnS3~ plaom oA]lumol~ s[q~ uodo p3~osmd jo ~unom~ Jolm~8 u] llnS;J plno~ OA[l~tlJOl~ ~q& ']3o[0Jd posodmd oql ol ~]m]s ~ plno~ ~OlO[q ol ~3~mI ~gOlO]fl · Al!Iunb ~.~ lgUO[llaa ol slob'cluq. *^llglnmno u! llnsoJ plno~ pug 'suo!ss!mo J!u Iguo!l.tppu pug $,(l~,'~pl~ol ~u.lls!×3 pug h~otl u0 -llns~.~ plno~ Xl!lunb .qg Fuo!i~m ol sl~udm[ o,x[lclnmna ~'JO^OAxoq 'llns~J plno;~ Al!lenb J.m [euo!§o.~ o! slacdm! *~.qulnmno '~o^o,'aOtl ~!jjuxl posuoJ:3U.l ill. llnSOx plno,v, o^Dgmolpg s!to jo lu~mdolo,xop roLL :st~o~ssnuo pol:yo.fo.~d os'uo~oop plno^x somnlo,x 3UJml posgoJooC[ . :suo!ss!u..,o laa[md osb, a~aap plno,~, somnlo~, oUjml posuoJo*O 'loo[oJd posodmd oq! se oums Otll oq plno~ ,(l!llmb .J~ ol sloedmI ,(]!I~n~ .YfV ~ N©ISTK1 'EtAI~LVN~'Et,L'-iV I NDIS~t(] HAI,LVN~t~tJ."IV NV']d DlrtlDEIdS DNJJ28IX%/iD~tfO~td ON ~I'ISSI (ponu!luo~D) SLqAI£VNIIt~I&"IV AO AHVIA!IAIflS r-S Ol(Ie& ~; N©IS~[O EIAI.LVN~dE[&Tv' I NOIS~KI EIAI£VN~IEt£"IV NV'Id DIzIIDHdS DNI£glXZt~JD~fOx-Jd ON ~IF158I (panu!luo~)) SS1AIJ. VNI}I~I&qv dO A~VIA!INflS E-S alqu& E NDISH(1 B:AI£VN~IH£'IV I NOISB:G BAI£VN~H2YIV NV"Id DIzIIDHdg rONI£SIX~JD3:fOI:fd ON H. FISSI (ponuDuoD) SStAI£VlqX, I21&qv dO A}IVIAIIAIflS g-S alqg.L I Table S-2 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES (Continued) ISSUE NO PROJECT/EXISTING SPECIFIC PLAN ALTERNATIVE DESIGN 1 ALTERNATIVE DESIGN 2 Parks, Recreation Impacts to parks, recreation and open space would be similar to Adoption of the alternative design would potentially decrease tile Adoption of the alternative design would potentially decrease tile and Open Space those of the proposed project. Significant impacts to parks, rccre- number of residents in this area and cause a corresponding decrease number of residents in this area and cause a corresponding decrease ation and open space would result with the proposed two acres of in the demand for recreational facilities. The alternative design in the demand for recreational facilities. The alternative design parkland. Significant impacts would be mitigated to a level below would base acreage of parkland required on a generated po'pulatiou would base acreage of parkland required on a generated population significance with mitigation proposed in conformance with the City using the City Threshold Standards of 3 acres of parkland per 1,000 using the City Threshold Standard of 3 acres of parkland per 1,000 of Chula Vista's parkland dedication ordinance, population. This alternative would potentially result in less park population. This alternative would potentially result in less park space than the proposed project., space than the proposed project. This alternative would also preserve approximately 250 acres of This alternative would also preserve approximately 210 acres of open space or approximately 60 percent of the site, an iucrease of open space or approximately 50 percent of the site, ,an increase of approximately I00 acres over the proposed project. No significant approximately 60 acres over the proposed project. No significant impacts to parks, recreation and open space would result with this impacts to parks, recreation and open space would result with this alternative, alternative. Table S-3 SUMMARY OF OFF-SITE ALTERNATIVES ISSUE OTAY RANCH ALTERNATIVE SITE OTAY MESA ALTERNATIVE SITE EASTLAKE VISTAS AND WOODS Project Description Under this alternative scenario, development of the proposed project Under this alternative scenario, development of the proposed project Under this alternative scenario, development of the proposed site would occur on this site instead of the proposed Otay Ranch site would occur on this site instead of the proposed Otay Mesa project site would occur on this site instead of the proposed project. No conceptual plans have been developed for this alternative project. No conceptual plans have been developed for this alteraa- Eastlake Vistas and Woods project. No conceptual plans have site, but it would consist of similar components found in the proposed tire site, but it would consist of similar components found in the been developed for this alternative site, but it would consist of Rancho del Rey project such as 1,380 single-family dwelling units, proposed Rancho del Rey project such as 1,380 single-family similar components found in the proposed Rancho del Rey including specialty housing, a junior high school site, a neighborhood dwelling units, including specialty housing, a junior high school site, project such as 1,380 single-family dwelling units, including park, open space areas, and major circulation routes, a neighborhood park, open space areas, and major circulation routes, specialty housing, a junior high school site, a neighborhood pat-k, open space areas, and major circulation routes. Geology/Soils Because of the close proximity of the proposed alternative site, Based oa surrounding proposed projects' geotechnical investigations, The absence of known fault traces on the site and the low geologic conditions are roughly the same. Severe grouadshaking may it is anticipated that potential geologic hazards such as ancient seismic history of the Chula Vista area indicate that fault occur on-site in the event of a major earthquake from known active landslides (associated with bentonitic clay layers) and faults cold displacement would not pose a threat to future development. faults in the San Diego area. It is anticipated that strong ground- exist on the project site. Potential landslide localities associated There is a possibility that future earthquake activity in the San shaking could cause landslides to occur on the property, particularly with th(: Otay formation are also anticipated to exist on-site, as well Diego region could produce moderate to severe groundshaking where slopes are steep such as Poggi Canyon, and where alluvium is as expansive soils associated with bentonitic clays. This site would on the project site. This is a hazard existing throughout located. Many of the major soil units present on the westem portion be influenced by several fault systems in the region including the Southern California. In addition, several ancient landslides and of the property contain expansive clays, which could pose potential Rose Canyon Fault Zone, the Coronado Banks Fault Zone, and the possible landslide features have been identified on the site by geotechnical problems for the design and construction of buildings, San Miguel Fault Zone. A northeast-southwest trending fault Leighton and Associates (1979). There is the potential for the roadways, and pavements. Ia addition, the Otay and Sweetwater probably related to the La Nacion is located to the east and should occurrence of liquefiable soils in localized areas of alluvial Formatiqns identified on-site contain beds of expansive clays, such as be considered potentially active. Alluvial materials located in deposits on-site in combination with perched groundwater bentonite, which would likewise present such problems, due to their ravines ,and canyons may be subject to landsliding in associatio~i (luring the rainy season. Potentially significant geology moderale to severe expansive properties. A significant part of the with pvtential earthquakes. Potential impacts to geology are impacts could result with construction of the proposed project area on the western portion of the Otay Rancho property contains considered significant. As a result, a site-specific geotechnical onto this site. A site specific geotechnical study would be formations with these characteristics. In addition, grading during investigation should be conducted to determine geotechnical conducted to determine these impacts if this alternative is development could decrease the stability of existing slopes. An on- constraims and provide mitigation recommendations as necessary, adopted. site specific geotechnical investigation would, however, have lo be conducted to determine specific geologic hazards to the proposed project. Due to lhe potential for groundshaking, landslides, and expansive soils on the alternative site associated with active faults in the San Diego area, potentially significanl impacts to geology could result. S-15 Table SUMMARY OF OFF-SITE ALTERNATIVES (Continued) ISSUE OTAY RANCH ALTERNATIVE SITE OTAY MESA ALTERNATIVE SITE EASTLAKE VISTAS AND WOODS Biology Based on the biological resources mapped in the preliminary dray The on-site biological resources are not known at this time; The alternative site is primarily composed of agricultural uses Ranch program EIR, development of the proposed project on this site however, based on existing topography and the presence of intermit- (ERCE). Impacts to biology would uot lie anticipated to be would result in impacts to agricultural land, maritime succulent scrub, tent streams on the alternative site, it is anticipaled that Diegan significant. Diegan coastal sage scrub, and native grassland (RECON, 1989). No coastal sage scrub and low quality riparian vegetation may exist on- sensitive plants were mapped within the boundaries of this alternative site. Slo~s with a northern exposure may support chaparral. If site. If this alternative site were selected, a thorough biological survey this alternative site were selected, a thorough biological survey would be necessary to determine potential impacts. Based on would be necessary to determine potential impacts. The site may be preliminary biological resource information it is anticipated that subject Io applicable portions of the City of San Diego's Resource adoption of this alternative would result in fewer biological resource Protection Ordinance pertaining to biological issues. impacts. Cultural Resources There are no known cultural resources on this site; therefore, no The on-site cultural resources are not known at this time. If this Cultural resources were discovered on-site during the envi- impacts to cultural resources would occur (Reid, pers. comm., 1990). alternative were selected, a thorough archaeological investigation roumental review conducted for the Eastlake Vistas and Wood Impacts to cultural resources for the proposed project were reduced ~o would be necessary to locate sites and determine potential impacts, project. As a result, potentially significant impacts to cultural below a level of significance, resources could result with placement of the proposed project on this site. If this alternative is selected, a thorough ar- chaeological investigation to locate sites and detennine potential impacts would be necessary. Transportation Development of this area would create traffic volumes greater than Development of this alternative site with tile proposed project would It is estimated that development of residential uses as proposed those planned for the Olay Ranch project and those planned by the create comparable traffic volumes as the proposed General Plan would result in higher generation rates of traffic to that of tile General Plan. As a result, an on-site specific traffic study would have uses. A silc specific traffic study would be conducted to determine Eastlake Vistas and Woods facility. The East Chula Vista to be co~'ducted to determine potential significance of the impacts and potentially significant traffic impacts if this alternative site is Transportation Phasing Plan (ECVTPP) would be used as the required mitigation . The East Chula Vista Transportation Phasing selected, basis for determining traffic impacts. It is anticipated that the Plan would be used as tile basis for determining traffic impacts. It is u'affic volumes generated with Raucho del Rey SPA III on this anticipated that these impacts could be mitigated to below a level of sile would create significant traffic impacts that would require significance, circulation improvements as mitigation measures. Land Use/General This alternative site is located within proposed development areas of Development of this alternative site would be in substautiaI This residential project as proposed would nol be in full Plan/Zoning tile Eastern Territories of Chula Vista. Development of this alterna- confonuancc with the General Plan's proposed residential, park and conformance with land uses prescribed by the Eastlake Planned live site with the proposed project would be p~tially in conformance school uses; however, it is anticipated that placement of residential Community for thc Eastlake Vistas and Woods. As a resulk with the proposed low-medium density (3-6 du/ac) and open space uses on the alternative site would require processing of a Specific a General Plau Amcndmeut would have to be submitted and residential land uses; however, it would be considered a more Plan Amendment. Allhough the surrounding area is for the most given discretionary approval before implementation. Pre- intensive use than bolh the proposed Olay Raucho prqiccl alld general part presently undeveloped, this area is planned for fulure develnp- scribed residcnlial, school and park uses is considered more plan designation. Developmenl of tile proposed pro.jecl on this site menl. A porlion of Ihc site depending on site design may be suhjccl land usc intensive lhaTI Ibc Easlhtkc Vistas and Woods prop- S-16 Table S-3 SUMMARY OF OFF-SITE ALTERNATIVES (Coutinued) ISSUE OTAY RANCH ALTERNATIVE SITE OTAY MESA ALTERNATIVE SITE EASTLAKE VISTAS AND WOODS Drainage/Ground- As in the proposed project, development of the alteruative site would The sile contains unnamed intermitteut streams which drain south to The silo contains the south-flowing Salt Creek which drains a water/Water Quality involve covering of surface soils during grading for building pads ,'md north in tile northern half of the alternative site. Buildout of the major portion of the site. Buildout of the site would result in roads and would create large areas of impervious ground surface with proposed residential project onto this site would result in increased iucreased impervious surface which would increase urban the overall effect of facilitating water runoff during rainy periods, impervious surfaces which would drain into the local draiuage runoff into the creek; as a result, additional urban pollutants Development of the site with urban uses would result in a change in system. In addition, additional urban pollutants associaled with could eventually enter the lower Olay Reservoir and the San the type and amount of contaminants contained in surface runoff, but traffic and project buildout would coutribute to runoff. A hydrologi- Diego Bay with this runoff. It may be feasible to alter the would not result in greater impacts to water qualily than Ihe proposed cal analysis would need to be conducted prior Io development to drainage pattern to divert the runoff aw'ay from Olay Lakes project. Development of the site would not significantly impacl determiue significance of potential impacts and needed infmstruc- into detention facilities, thereby minimizing impacts to the drainage or groundwater/water quality, lure. reservoir. Landform Alter- Development of the proposed project at this ahernative site would Development of the proposed project at this alternative site would Development of the proposed project at this alternative site alien/Aesthetics result in alteration of the existing landform for tile construction of result in alteration of the existing landform for the construction of would result in alteration of the existing landform for the roads and housing pads. It is anticipated that changes to landform roads and housing pads. The alternative site is fairly hilly, but with construction of roads and housing pads. Topography of this would not be as great as landform alteration on the proposed Rancho flat portions which should be considered for tile majority of alternalive area is fairly hilly and may result in significant del Rey site because the existing topography on the Olay Ranch proposed development. Incorporating sensitive design features impacts to landform if sensitive design of clustering is not alternative is relatively level. The impacts would probably be below would probably result in impacts to landform lhat are below a level implemented. Local sections of Telegraph Canyon Road, Olay a level of significance, of siguificance. Because the surrounding land is primarily vacant, Lakes Road and East H Street (Proctor Valley Road) have the change ia visual quality would be dramatic and is considered been designated Scenic Roadways and visual impacts may potentially significant, result if proposed residential uses are not sensitively located. It is expected that increased landform alteration would result in this alternative area because of the more intensive residential land uses than those proposed in this area. Air Qualily Adoption of this alternative would allow development of residences Adoption of this alternative would allow development of rcsideuces, Adoption of this alternative would allow development of Ihat would generate auloinobile trips and result in increased vehicular schools, and parks and would generate aulomobile trips thal would, residences and schools, resulting in a greater number of emissions (long-term air quality impacts). Short-term emissions from in turn, generate emissions. Proposed land uses of the proposed resideutial units to be developed. A grealer level of vehicular construction activities would generate dusl and diesel emissions project onto lhis site are comparable aud, as a resull, it is anlicipated emissions would result. Construction on this alternative site resulting in short-term emissions impacts. Because tile density that tile proposed projecl would nol geuerate siguificanlly greater would result in cumulalive significanl impacts to air'quality. prescribed by tile developmeut of the Rancho del Roy project is higher vehicular emissions than the General Plan proposed land uses. than that projecled in tile General Plan for tile Olay Ranch projecl in Deveiopmeul of tile proposed projecl on this site would resull in ttlis 500-acre portion, il is expected that this alternative silo would be adverse cumulative air qualily impacts to the Sail Diego Air Basin. cxpecled lo generate more vehicle emissions. This would result in significant cumulative air impacls to the San Die? Air Basin. S-17 Table S-3 SUMMARY OF OFF-SITE ALTERNATIVES (Continued) ISSUE OTAY RANCH ALTERNATIVE SITE OTAY MESA ALTERNATIVE SITE EASTLAKE VISTAS AND WOODS Land Use/General would require a General Plan Amendment and clustering of develop- to potentially significant noise impacts from Brown Field to osal, but not dramatically so. As a result, no significant Plan/Zoning (cont.) ment in accordance with proposed General Plan open space areas, residential and park uses (i.e., noise ratings above 60dB). No other impacls to land use would result. Incorporation of this clustering would avoid potentially significant land use impacts are expected. impacts to land use. Community Social Adoption of this alternative would result in the generation of a greater It is anticipated that population, housing, and employment require- With iucorporation of these uses on this site, impacts to Factors number of people than that proposed for this portion of Otay Ranch. ments generated from the proposed project onto this site would population, housing and employment requirements would be However, the greater population, housing, and employment require- result in similar volumes. As a result, no impacts to community greater than those of Eastlake Vistas and Woods but would not merits induced would not be significantly greater and as a result, social factors would result, result in significant impacts to community social factors. would not result in adverse impacts to community social factors. Parks, Recreation and Adoption of this alternative would require the construction of a 12.3- Adoption of this alternative would require the cons~-uction of a Adoption of this alternative would require the construction of Open Space acre park on-site. Under the City of Chula Vista parkland dedication 12.3-acre park on-site. Under the City of Chula Vista parkland a 12.3-acre park on-site. Under the City of Chula Vista ordinance, three acres of parkland per 1,000 people is required. Open dedication ordinance three acres of parkland per 1,000 people is parkland dedication ordinance three acres of parkland per 1,000 space acreages would need to be designated at the project design required. It is anticipated that no impacts to Parks, Recreation and people is required. It is anticipated that no impacts to Parks, stage. It is anticipated that no impacts to Parks, Recreation and Open Open Space would occur provided that sufficient parkland dedication Recreation and Open Space would occur provided that Space would occur provided that sufficient parkland is dedicated. This is provided, sufficient parkland dedication is provided. alternative assumes the retention of Poggi Canyon as a natural, open space corridor. Service and Utilities The alternative site is located in a substantially developed area and The alternative site is located in a substantially developed area and It is anticipated that construction of the residential uses on the would have access to all infrastructure requirements. The additional would have access to all infrastructure requirements. The additional alternative site would result in increased demands for water, population generated by the project would place a greater demand on population generated by the project would place a similar demand sewer, fire, school and police services. It is anticipated that no all utilities and services than with land uses proposed for Otay Ranch; on all utilities and services as land uses proposed by the General significant impacts to water would result if construction of however, the increase would not be substantially greater to create Plan for this area. An increase in police staff would be required as proposed facilities coincides with the anticipated growth. It is significant impacts. An increase in police staff would be required as well as tax monies provided to the school disaicts for implementa- anticipated that the proposed project would result in significant well as tax monies provided to the school districts for implementation tion of this long-range development plan to avoid potential impacts sewage impacts due to lack of existing capacity. Construction of this long-range development plan to avoid potential impacts to to police and schools, of additional sewage facilities and provision of treatment police and schools, capacity would mitigate project-specific impacts to below a level of significance. At buildout of the project site, additional police slaff may be required to serve the population generated by the proposed project. Cumulative impacts to schools may resull and can be mitigated by provision and/or funding of appmpriale facilities. S-18 ATTACHMENT 2 AMENDED RANCHO DEL REY SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) HI PLAN (EIR-89-10) CANDIDATE CEQA FINDINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 21081 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND SECTION 15091 OF TITLE 14 OF THE CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 1. BACKGROUND It is the policy of the State of California and the City of Chula Vista that the City shall not · approve a project if it would result in a significant environmental impact if it is feasible to avoid or substantially lessen the effect. Only when there are specific economic, social, or technical reasons, which make it infeasible to mitigate an impact, can a project with significant impacts be approved. Therefore, when an EIR identifying one or more potentially significant environmental impacts has been completed, one of the following findings must be made: 1. Changes or alternatives which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the final EIR have been required in or incorporated into the project, or 2. Such changes or alternatives are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency, or 3. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. The following findings are made relative to the conclusions of the final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Rancho Del Rey Sectional Planning Area (SPA) III Plan (EIR-89- 10) based on the EIR text, and all documents, maps, and illustrations included in the public record. -1- 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project involves a SPA Plan and tentativ.e map for approximately 405 acres. The plan for the SPA III area is consistent with the Specific Plan although minor land use changes have been made during the detailed planning process. The Rancho del Rey Spa III Plan proposes the construction of 1,380 single-family dwelling units (DU) from 3.8 to 10.6 DU/acre on eight residential parcels comprised of approximately 206 acres. Included among the planned dwelling units are 583 DUs of specialty housing on approximately 85 acres for a small retirement community which will be composed of detached and attached housing. In addition, the project proposes to provide a junior high school site totalling about 25 acres, a neighborhood park estimated at 10 acres, a community facility consisting of approximately two acres, eight open space areas totalling about 148 acres, and major circulation routes totalling about 14 acres. Included with the provision 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 SPA 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 Agreement, and a Specific Plan Amendment for density transfers and park acreage additions. The elimination of the East J Street link connecting Paseo Ranchero and Buena Vista will require a Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment. The proposed project would be developed in three phases. The f'~rst phase would involve development of the proposed retirement community. The second phase would involve the development of the area west of Paseo Ranchero. The third and final phase would involve the development of the area on the east of Paseo Ranchero which would include the junior high school site and the neighborhood park. -2- 3. INSIGNIFICANT IMPACTS The final EIR for the Rancho del Rey SPA III Plan concluded that the project would not have significant adverse impacts in the following areas (numbers refer to the section of the EIR where the issue is discussed): 1. Drainage/Groundwater/Water Quality (4.2) 2. Land Use/General Plan/Zoning (4.8) 3. Community Social Factors (4.9) 4. Community Tax Structure (4.10) 5. Parks, Recreation and Open Space (4.11) 6. Services and Utilities (4.12) Sewer Utilities Police Protection Fire Protection Schools 4. IMPACTS FOUND TO BE MITIGABLE TO INSIGNIFICANT LEVELS 1. GEOLOGY/SOILS (4.1) Development of the proposed project would involve mass grading for installation of utility facilities and creation of streets and building pads. Detailed grading and earthwork mitigation measures for project impacts associated with geologic units: seismicity, earthwork, slope stability, foundation stability, drainage, shrinking and bulking, compaction, expansion, and erosion and seepage, would be implemented prior to and during conslxuction. Findings A. Changes or other measures which mitigate the significant environmental effect have been included in the project or are otherwise being implemented. These measures will be incorporated as conditions of approval for final grading plans, foundation plans, and the tentative map. 1) All fill would consist of approved earth material. The geotechnical consultant would be contracted for evaluation of all fill at least two working days before importation. 2) The height, slope ratio, and compaction of all cut-and-fill slopes would conform to specifications identified by the geotechnical consultant, as appropriate. Fill slopes not conforming to the assumptions stated in the geotechnical recommen- dations would be individually studied prior completion of grading. Cut slopes would be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant during grading. Grading would be done in accordance with Chula Vista Grading Ordinance Number 1797 as amended by ordinances 1877 and 2128. 3) Stabilization fills would be used in areas deemed appropriate by the geotechnical consultant. The types and specifications of stabilization fills would be determined during excavation by the geotechnical consultant. 4) Subdralns would be installed at the base of fills placed in canyons and draws or over areas of actual or potential seepage. Specific locations would be determined by the geotechnical consultant during excavation. 5) To reduce impacts from ground shaking during a major earthquake, the project proponent would adhere to the Uniform Building Code and the Recommended Lateral Force Requirements of the Su-uctural Engineer's Association of California. -4- 6) Foundations, slabs, footings, and retaining walls would be designed in accordance with specifications identified by the geotechnical consultant, based on the type of soils encountered and pertinent structural considerations. 7) Final grading plans and foundation plans for the project site would be reviewed and approved by the geotechnical consultant and the City prior to construction. 8) Highly expansive soils used as fill or settlement sensitive improvements, loose topsoil/colluvium, landslide debris, alluvial deposits, end-dump fills and undocumented fills not removed by planned grading operations would be removed to firm natural ground. The exposed natural ground would be scarified and properly compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction prior to placing additional fill and/or structures. 9) The outer portion of fill slopes would be composed of compacted granular soil fill to reduce the potential for soil erosion. 10) The site would be brought to final subgrade elevations with structural fill compacted layers. Lifts of fill would be no thicker than will allow for adequate bonding and compaction. Variable lift thicknesses would not exceed 6 to 8 inches. 11) Periodic on-site observations would be made by the soil engineer or engineering geologist during grading and/or construction to monitor for the presence of groundwater. Grading operations on the site would be scheduled to place oversize rock and expansive soils in the deeper canyon fills and to utilize granular materials having a low expansive potential to cap building pads and fill slopes. 12) A detailed grading and drainage plan would be prepared in accordance with the City of Chula Vista Municipal Code, Subdivision Manual, applicable ordinances, policies, and adopted standards. The plan would be reviewed and approved before a permit is issued by the Engineering Division prior to start of any grading work and/or installation of any drainage structure. B. All significant effects that can be feasibly avoided will be eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the final EIR and incorporated into the project as set forth above. 2. AIR QUALITY (4.4) Development of the proposed project under the proposed Specific Plan would result in significant cumulative regional impacts to air quality. The proposed project is expected to generate approximately 11,405 ADT. Findings A. Changes or other measures which mitigate this sighificant environmental effect have been included in the project or are otherwise being implemented as follows. These measures will be incorporated as conditions of approval for the tentative map. 1) The developer shall provide a park-n-fide facility at the intersection of East H Street and Pasco Ranchero to include 50 parking spaces, 10 bicycle lockers, lighting, trash receptacles and circulation striping to the satisfaction of the City Transit Coordinator. In addition, a transit stop, to include a bench, shelter and trash receptacle, shall be provided on the north side of East H Street. A plan of said improvements shall be submitted and approved by the City Transit Coordinator and improvements shall be accomplished prior to approval of the first final map. 2) The developer shall be responsible for the consu-uction of wider sidewalks at transit stops, subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 3) The developer shall provide a pedestrian throughway between lots 130 and 131, Phase 3, Unit 2, from Camino Calabazo to East J Street across from the school and park sites. 4) A minimum 20 foot wide access corridor shall be maintained at the end of Pasco Palazzo where the cul-de-sac abuts the existing park. Said area shall be made part of the park. Detail and design of the access shall be submitted to and approved by the Departments of Planning and Parks and Recreation prior to final map approval for Phase 3, Unit 1. 5) Prior to approval of the first final map, the developer shall enter into an agreement with the City to participate in funding for any relocation of the park-n-ride facility deemed necessary as a result of the construction of the library at the corner of east H Street and Pasco Ranchero. The developer's share of the cost of reloc.afion shall be in direct proportion to the percentage of park-n-ride facility users generated by the Rancho del Rey development. 6) Prior to approval of each final map, the developer shall enter into an agreement with the City wherein he agrees to comply with that version of the Growth Management Ordinance in effect at the time a building permit is issued. Such compliance includes but is not limited to the then current East Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan and the adopted Air Quality Improvement Plan and Water Conservation Plan for Rancho del Rey SPA III. B. All significant effects that can be feasibly avoided will be eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the final EIR and incorporated into the project as set forth above. 3. CULTURAL RESOURCES (4.6) Development of the project under the proposed Specific Plan would require extensive grading of the project area and would impact the identified cultural resources. Findings A. The two archaeological sites SDi-960/961 and Sdi-9893, located on the SPA III property area have been identified as significant cultural resources. Site SDi-960/961 contains evidence which can address the question of the presence of early man in San Diego. Site SDi-9893 consists of surface and subsurface lithic scatter with the potential to yield important information regarding resource exploitation patterns in southern San Diego County. B. The following mitigation program has been completed and significant effects have been mitigated. The program included: SDi-960/961 1) The examination of existing surface collections. 2) A detailed grid-controlled surface collection of any artifacts remaining on the surface site. Broken cobbles were also collected to evaluate whether or not they are of human manufacture. 3) Surface disturbance was be recorded. Mapping and photographic documentation were completed. 4) Mima mounds were investigated to see whether the artifacts or broken bones were incorporated into the mounds, were found on the surface under the mounds, or were absent from the mounds. 5) The site was examined by a qualified geomorphologist to analyze the mima mounds, their site setting, age, and stratigraphic integrity. 6) All material collected was washed, cataloged, and analyzed. 7) A report was prepared detailing the investigation and was submitted to the City of Chula Vista, San Diego State University Clearinghouse, and the Museum of Marl. SDi-9893 1) The site was analyzed through the excavation of 25 lxl-meter test units. These units were analyzed to determine how much of the site would be excavated. A total of 150 meters of backhoe trenches were excavated to search for potential hearth features. 2) A report was prepared detailing the investigation and was submitted to the City of Chula Vista, San Diego State University Clearinghouse, and the Museum of Man. C. The mitigation program has been completed and approved by the City. All significant effects that can feasibly be avoided have been eliminated by virtue of completion of the mitigation program as set forth above. 4. TRANSPORTATION (3.7) Development of the proposed traffic under the proposed Specific Plan would result in impacts on the roadway network in the vicinity of the project. The proposed project is expected to generate approximately 11,405 ADT. Findings A. Changes or other measures which mitigate this significant environmental effect have been included in the project or are otherwise being implemented as follows. These measures will be incorporated as conditions of approval for the final map of each phase of project development. 1) Signalize intersection of Telegraph Canyon Road and Paseo Ladera (Phase I). 2) Open up the south leg at the intersection of East H Street/East Business Park Road where Phase 1 traffic is assumed to enter and exit (Phase 2). 3) Construct Paseo Ranchero between H Street and Telegraph Canyon Road (Phase 2). 4) Extend J Street to provide a through two-lane road between Paseo del Rey and Paseo Ranchero (Phase 2). -8- 5) Place stop sign controls on Paseo Ladera at East J Sn-eet, East J Street at Paseo Ranchero, and Paseo Ranchero at Telegraph Canyon Road (Phase 2). (The intersection of Telegraph Canyon Road/Paseo Ranchero operates at LOS E for left turns out of Paseo Ranchero; however, low traffic volumes on the minor street do not meet signal warrants.) 6) Signalize the intersection of Telegraph Canyon Road and Paseo Ranchero. 7) East H Street/Hidden Vista Drive There are a number of mitigation measures to bring the level of service at this intersection to an acceptable LOS C. a) Widen East H Street to four travel lanes in each direction; b) Widen East H Street to four travel lanes in each direction and signalize the Home Depot driveway; or c) Widen north approach to provide three left turn lanes. When SR-125 is in place, it is possible that none of the above noted mitigation measures for this intersection would be necessary. Yearly monitoring at the intersection would provide guidance as to when and what type of mitigation measures are best. B. All significant effects that can be feasibly avoided will be eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the final EIR and incorporated into the project as set forth above. 5. SERVICE AND UTILITIES - WATER (4.12) Development of the proposed project under the proposed Specific Plan would result in an increased demand for potable water. Development of the residential component of the project would result in a demand for 420,000 gallons per day and 100,000 gallons per day school/park/landscape areas of the development. Findings A. Changes or other measures which would mitigate the significant environmental effect have been included in the project or are otherwise being implemented. These measures will be incorporated as conditions of approval for the tentative map for the project. -9- 1) The applicant shall establish a water use offset program for Rancho del Rey SPA II and III. This program shall be designed to fully offset the projected water consumption of the project, after conservation measures are taken into account (see Table 1-I). This requirement/nay be met by one or both of the following means: a.) The applicant shall participate in specific water conservation projects such as C.I.M.I.S., new water wells, park and open space irrigation system retrofitting or other such projects in combination with water conservation offset fees to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks and Recreation; or b.) Participate in a water conservation program by paying a water conservation offset fee of $5.00 (to be adjusted annually) for each gallon of water used by the project. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City which establishes a specific program in accordance with the requirements set forth above. As an alternative to the above measures, the City Council may authorize the applicant to participate in any other Citywide or regional water conservation program adopted by the City Council with the overall level of water offsets to be left to the sole discretion of the City Council. 2) Prior to approval of the associated final map, the developer shall provide onsite infrastructure to accept and to use reclaimed water when it is available, along Paseo Ranchero from Telegraph Canyon Road to East H Street and along East J Street from Paseo Ranchero to the park site, per the adopted Public Facilities Financing Plan. 3) Any costs incurred from retrofitting the reclaimed water system, when reclaimed water becomes available, shall be paid by the developer. Monies for this shall be held by the City, through a deposit set up by the developer. The amount shall be determined by the developer, approved by the City and in place prior to approval of each associated final map. B. All significant effects that can be feasibly avoided will be eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the final EIR and incorporated into the project as set forth above. -10- 5. IMPACTS FOUND INFEASIBLE TO MITIGATE TO AN INSIGNIFICANT LEVEL 1. LANDFORM ALTERATION/AESTHETICS (4.3) Development of the project under the proposed Specific Plan would require substantial landform alteration. The site would be modified from a vacant area of canyons and ridges to a planned residential community. While the SPA II Plan is consistent with the adopted specific plan in terms of landform and visual character, the project would result in significant landform/aesthetic impacts including manufactured slopes up to 50-feet. Findings A. Changes or other measures which mitigate this significant environmental effect have been incorporated in the project or are otherwise being implemented, in that: 1) The project would adhere to the community design guidelines of the ERDR Specific Plan. These guidelines include: buildings of a low-profile with a variety of sizes, shapes, colors, and materials. 2) The final grading plan would be in conformance with general grading standards and slope bank standards set forth by the City's Engineering Department and the SPA III Plan. 3) An overall landscape plan providing a comprehensive framework for individual landscape plans would be prepared. Planting would conform to the applicable City of Chula Vista standards for landscape planting. 4) As a condition of the tentative map, the City Engineering Department would approve the grading plan to determine that it is in conformance with the ERDR and SPA III plans and the City's design guidelines. The final grading plan would be reviewed by the City Planning Department prior to issuance of a grading permit to verify that the design standards have been incorporated into the grading plans. 5) Prior to issuance of the grading permit, a final landscape plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect would be submitted to and approved by the City Planning Department. The landscape plan would show appropriate landscaping of all slope areas and public rights-of-way. Landscaping within each phase would be installed prior to occupancy of the first building with the corresponding phase and 100 percent coverage would be achieved for groundcover within nine months of planting. -11- 6) A temporary landscape and erosion control plan which would be approved by the City Planning Department would be prepared by a licensed landscape architect prior to issuance of a rough grading permit. The plan would provide for temporary landscaping on all disturbed areas not proposed to be landscaped in accordance with the approved final landscape plans. B. Potential mitigation measures or project alternatives which would eliminate or substantially lessen the environmental effects and were not incorporated into the project were found infeasible, based on economic, social, and other considerations as set forth in the final EIR and listed below. 1) Development of the project in an economically feasible manner would require significant landform alteration because of the hilly nature of the subject property. To reduce the landform and visual impacts would preclude development of the proposed project according to the goals in the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan and the City of Chula Vista General Plan. 2) Development of the site in a way which would substantially reduce the landform alteration/aesthetic impacts would preclude the use of the site to meet current and project needs for housing, employment, and recreational opportunities. 3) Development of the site in a way which would substantially reduce the landform alteration/aesthetic impacts would preclude the use of the site to meet current and project needs for housing for senior citizens. 4) The reduction of landform alteration and visual impacts on the project site would preclude the project applicant from achieving the goals of developing the project. C. All significant landform alteration/aesthetic environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of project changes and mitigation measures identified in the final EIR and incorporated in the project as set forth above. There remain some significant landform alteration/aesthetic impacts. D. The remaining unavoidable significant effects have been reduced to an acceptable level when balanced against facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. 2. BIOLOGY (4.5) A prior investigation of the biological resoumes on the Rancho del Rey SPA III site prepay'ed in conjunction with the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan EIR identified significant unmitigable impacts to biological resources related to development to the -12- proposed project. On the basis of those findings, a subsequent biological report (RECON, 1989) was prepared and reviewed for adequacy by ERCE (1989). In response to the review, RECON performed a field survey and updated the original report (February 1990). The SPA IH Plan incorporated measures designed to reduce identified impacts which include preservation of approximately 40 percent of the Diegan coastal sage scrub habitat occupied by the California gnatcatcher. Findings A. Changes or other measures which mitigate this significant environmental effect have been included in the project or are otherwise being implemented, in that: I) Natural open space is consolidated in the Rice Canyon. 2) The SPA III Plan will preserve approximately 40 percent of the Diegan coastal sage scrub occupied by the California gnatcatcher. 3) A landscape plan to restore natural habitat in disturbed areas is being developed. 4) A revegetation plan to replant cacti in the Diegan coastal sage scrub to recreate habitat for the cactus wren. 5) Acquisition of land with Diegan coastal sage scrub occupied by California gnatcatchers. 6) Acquisition of 0.4 acres of land with vernal pools. B. Potential mitigation measures or project alternative which would eliminate or substantially lessen the environmental effects and were not incorporated into the project were found infeasible, based on economic, social, and other considerations as set forth in the final EIR and listed below. 1) Development of the proposed project in a economically feasible manner would involve some loss of biological habitat. The preservation of all, or even a substantial portion, of the biological resources on the project site would not allow development to occur according to the goals expressed in the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan or the City of Chula Vista General Plan. 2) Development of the site in a way which should provide substantially more open space could result in inefficient infrastructural design and would not respond to the current and forecasted housing market needs. -13- 3) The preservation of the biological resources on the project site would preclude the use of the site to meet current and project needs for housing, employment, and recreational opportunities. 4) The preservation of the biological resoumes on the project site would preclude the project applicant from achieving the goals of developing the project. 5) The preservation of the biological resources on the project site would preclude the City of Chula Vista from benefiting from the projected increase in net revenues which would accrue to the City from the development of the Rancho del Rey SPA III project. C. All significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided have been eliminated by virtue of project changes and mitigation measures identified in the f'mal EIR and incorporated into the project as set forth above. There remain some significant biological impacts. D. The remaining unavoidable significant effects have been reduced to an acceptable level when balanced against facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. -14- ATTACHMENT 3 AMENDED MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM CITY OF CHULA VISTA RANCHO DEL REY SPA I~ PROGRAM DESCRIPTION AND GENERAL GUIDELINES This mitigation monitoring program is based on the mitigation and monitoring program prepared for the City of Chula Vista for the Rancho del Rey SPA III Environmental Impact Report 0SIR) and certified by the City Council in ~lanuary 1991. This comprehensive monitoring program is presented in two parts, the first of which addresses mitigation measures to be monitored by the City of Chula Vista and the second of which addresses monitoring to be provided by the City's environmental consultant. The program will serve a dual purpose of verifying implementation of the mitigation measures for the proposed project and of generating information on the effectiveness of the mitigation measures to guide future mitigation programs. The program includes specific monitoring activities, a reporting system, and criteria for evaluating the success of the mitigation measures. The monitoring program for Rancho del Rey SPA III addresses impacts for the following issues: o Geology and Soils o Drainage/Groundwater/Water Quality o Landform Alteration/Aesthetics o Air Quality o Biology o Cultural Resources o Transportation o Parks, Recreation, and Open Space o Services and Utilities A monitoring team has been assembled. Management of the team is the responsibility of the City of Chula Vista. Monitoring activities will be accomplished by City staff and by environmental consultants to the City. PROGRAM PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES Prior to any construction activities, meetings should take place between all the parties involved to initiate the monitoring program and to establish the responsibility and authority of the participants. It is important that an effective reporting system be established prior to any monitoring efforts. It is necessary that all the parties involved have a clear understanding of the mitigation monitoring measures as adopted and that these mitigation measures be distributed to the participants of the monitoring effort. Those who would have a complete list of all the mitigation measures adopted by the City would include appropriate City staff, the City's environmental consultant, the project applicant, the applicant's consultants, and the construction crew supervisor. The City will distribute to each monitor a specific list of mitigation measures that pertain to their monitoring tasks and the appropriate time frame that these mitigation measures are anticip?ted to be implemented. The following text includes a summary of the project impacts. The next section of the text focuses on the monitoring responsibilities of the City of Chula Vista staff, followed by a section describing the program for which the City's environmental consultant is responsible. The mitigation and monitoring program included in the Environmental Impact Report is included as Attachment A of this document. MONITORING BY CITY STAFF Please note that the following section derives from the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Rancho del Rey SPA III project. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Mitigation Measures 1. All fill would consist of approved earth material. The geotechnical consultant would be contacted for evaluation of imported fill at least two working days prior to importation. 2. The height, slope ratio, and compaction of all cut-and-fill slopes would conform to specifications identified by the geotechnical consultant, as appropriate. Fill slopes not conforming to the assumptions stated in the geotechnical recommendations would be individually studied prior to completion of grading. Cut slopes would be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant during grading. Grading would be done in accordance with Chula Vista Grading Ordinance number 1797 as amended by ordinances 1877 and 2128. 3. Stabilization fills should be utilized in areas deemed appropriate by the geotechnical consultant. The types and specifications of stabilization fills would be determined during excavation by the geotechnical consultant. 2 4. Subdrains would be installed at the base of fills placed in canyons and draws or over areas of actual or potential seepage. Speeific locations would be determined in the field during grading, with installation being reviewed by the geological consultant prior to placement of fill. 5. To reduce impacts from groundshaking during a major earthquake, the project proponent would adhere to the Uniform Building Code and the Recommended Lateral Force Requirements of the Structural Engineer's Association of California. 6. Foundations, slabs, footings, and retaining walls would be designed in accordance with specifications identified by the geotechnical consultant, based on the type of soils encountered and pertinent structural considerations. 7. Final grading plans and foundations plans for the project site would be reviewed and approved by the geotechnical consultant and the City prior to construction. 8. Highly expansive soils used as fill would be placed a minimum of 3 feet below finish grade and 15 feet inside of fill slopes. Bentonite, if used as fill, would be placed a minimum of 10 feet below finish grade and 15 feet inside of fill slopes. 9. In areas that receive fill or settlement sensitive improvements, loose topsoil/colluvium, landslide debris, alluvial deposits, end-dump fills, and undocumented fills not removed by planned grading operations would be removed to firm natural ground. The exposed natural ground would be scarified and properly compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction prior to placing additional fill and/or structures. 10. The outer portion of fill slopes would be composed of compacted granular soil fill to reduce the potential surficial erosion. 11. The site would be brought to final subgrade elevations with structural fill compacted in layers. Lifts of fill would be no thicker than will allow for adequate bonding and compaction. Variable lift thicknesses would not exceed 6 to 8 inches. 12. Periodic on-site observations would be made by the soil engineer or engineering geologist during grading and/or construction to monitor for the presence of groundwater. Grading operations on the site would be scheduled to place oversize rock and expansive soils in the deeper canyon fills and to utilize granular materials having a low expansion potential to cap building pads and fill slopes. Monitoring Agency The City of Chula Vista Engineering Department would be responsible for verifying implementa- ion of the mitigation measures associated with the potential geology and soils impacts. DRAINAGE/GROUNDWATER/WATER QUALITY Mitigation Measures 1. Adherence to regulations regarding stormwater discharge set forth in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Monitoring Agency The City of Chula Vista Engineering Department would be responsible for verifying implementa- tion of the mitigation measures associated with the potential groundwater/water quality impacts. LANDFORM ALTERATION/AESTHETICS Mitigation Measures 1. Implementation of the community design guidelines detailed in the SPA III plan. 2. Preparation of an overall landscape scheme (refer to p. 4-18 of the EIR) providing a comprehensive framework for individual landscape plans. Planting would conform to the applicable City of Chula Vista standards for landscape planting. If a rough grading permit is requested, an erosion control plan would also be necessary (see p. 4-19 of the EIR). The plan would provide for installation of temporary landscaping on all disturbed areas not proposed to be landscaped in accordance with approved final landscape plans. This plan must be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. Monitoring Agency The City of Chula Vista Planning Department and Engineering Department would be responsible for verifying the implementation of the mitigation measures associated with the landform alteration/aesthetic impacts. AIR QUALITY Mitigation Measures 1. Adherence to recommendations made by the 1982 SIP and the forthcoming San Diego Air Quality Plan regarding local participation in air emission reduction measures. 2. The project proponent would facilitate the use of alternative transportation modes by promoting public transit usage and carpooling by project residents through provision of 4 park-and-ride lots and bicycle facilities, including bicycle lanes and secure storage facilities at ail public facilities within the project area. 3. The project proponent would provide mass transit accommoda'tions for convenience of customers (bus shelters) and vehicles (bus turnouts) including a transit stop in front of the retirement community on East H Street. 4. To avoid creation of air pollution "hot spots" at intersections, mitigation measures recommended in the Transportation Section would be implemented to reduce potentially significant impacts to air quality. Monitoring Agency The City of Chula Vista Planning Department would be responsible for verifying the implementation of the mitigation measures associated with the air quality impacts. CULTURAL RESOURCES Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures for cultural resources have been completed; no additional mitigation or monitoring is necessary. TRANSPORTATION Mitigation Measures 1. Existing + Cumulative Mitigation Measures a. Signaiize Telegraph Canyon Road and Pasco Ladera. 2. Existing + Cumulative + Phase 1 of SPA III Mitigation Measures a. Open up the south leg of East H Street/East Business Park Road intersection where Phase 1 traffic is assumed to enter and exit. 3. Existing + Cumulative + Phase 1 + Phase 2 of SPA III Mitigation Measures a. Construct Pasco Ranchero between H Street and Telegraph Canyon Road. b. Extend J Street to provide a through two-lane road between Pasco del Rey and Pasco Ranchero. 5 c. Place stop sign controls on Paseo Ladera at East J Street, East J Street at Pasco Ranchero, and Paseo Ranchero at Telegraph Canyon Road. 4. Existing + Cumulative + Phases 1, 2, and 3 of SPA III Mitigation Measures a. Signalize Telegraph Canyon Road and Pasco Ranchero. 5. East H Street/Hidden Vista Drive There are a number of alternative mitigation measures to bring the level of service at this intersection to an acceptable LOS C. a. Widen East H Street to four travel lanes in each direction; or b. Widen East H Street to four travel lanes in each direction and signalize at the Home Depot driveway; or c. Widen north approach to provide three left turn lanes. 6. Compliance with ECVTPP for current and future updates to maintain acceptable levels of service on all affected intersections and roadway segments. Monitoring Agency The City of Chula Vista Planning Department and the City Traffic Engineer would be responsible for verifying implementation of the mitigation measures associated with transporta- tion impacts. PARKS, RECREATION, AND OPEN SPACE Mitigation Measures 1. The project proponent would provide a detailed concept plan for the park acceptable to City staff and the Parks and Recreation Commission. 2. Slopes within the park would be 4:1 or less. If slopes are greater than this ratio, the project proponent would be required to provide additional parkland. 3. The project proponent would enter unto an agreement with the Sweetwater Union High School District and the City of Chula Vista to insure public access to the proposed junior 6 high school's recreational amenities which would include soccer fields, basketball courts, and tennis courts. 4. The proponent would provide funding for the difference in cost between facilities built to school standards and facilities built to City standards. 5. School recreational facilities available to the public would be constructed to City of Chula Vista standards and designed in consultation with City staff. 6. To insure adequate interface between the adjacent townhomes, the park, and the school, the park would be designed so that it would not be isolated with only backs of buildings facing onto the park. 7. The park would be designed to provide adequate visibility into the park from East J Street. 8. Access to the school parking lot for overflow parking would be provided. Monitoring Agency The City of Chula Vista Planning Department and Parks and Recreation Department would be responsible for verifying implementation of the mitigation measures associated with the park impacts. SERVICES AND UTILITIES Mitigation Measures Water. - 1. The applicant shall establish a water use offset program for Rancho del Rey SPA II and III. This program shall be designed to fully offset the project water consumption of the project, after conservation measures are taken into account. This requirement may be met by one or both of the following means: a. The applicant shall participate in specific water conservation projects such as C.I.M.I.S., new water wells, park and open space irrigation system retrofitting, or such projects in combination with water conservation offset fees to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks and Recreation; or b. Participate in a water conservation program by paying a water conservation offset fee of $5.00 (to be adjusted annually) for each gallon of water used by the project. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City. This agreement shall establish a specific program in accordance with the requirements set forth above. As an alternative to the above measures, the City Council may authorize the applicant to participate in any other Citywide or regional water conservation program adopted by the City Council with the overall level of water offsets to be left to the sole discretion of the City Council. 2. Implementation of piping in parks, playgrounds, and project-related landscaping areas for the use of reclaimed water when available Sewer - 1. Development of on-site sewage facilities consistent with the 1986 sewer study to accommodate project flows. 2. Compliance with City Engineering Standards for sewage facilities. Police - 1. Addition of 4.6 police personnel. Fire - 1. Addition of one Fire Inspector. Schools- 1. Applicant participation in the Mello Roos Community Facilities District is required. Specifically the project is located within two Mello Roos Districts, Sweetwater Union High School District CFD #3 and Chula Vista City Schools CFD #3. Monitoring Agency The City of Chula Vista Planning Department and Engineering Department would be responsible for verifying implementation of the mitigation measures associated with impacts to water, sewer, police protection, fire protection, and schools. MONITORING BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT Monitoring will be performed by both general environmental monitors and environmental specialists. The primary role of the environmental specialists serving as consultants to the City 8 is to provide expertise when environmentally sensitive issues occur and to provide direction for mitigation. In addition to the list of mitigation measures provided, each monitbr will have compliance report forms with each mitigation measure written on top of the form. The monitors will complete the report form and file it with the City following each monitoring activity. The conclusions of these forms will be compiled into an interim and final comprehensive construction report to be submitted to the City of Chula Vista. This report will describe the major accomplishments of the monitoring program, summarize problems encountered in achieving the goals of the program, evaluate solutions developed to overcome problems, and provide a list of future monitoring programs. In addition, each monitor will be required to fill out and submit a log report. The log report is used to record and account for the monitoring activities of the monitor. Weekly/monthly status reports will be generated from th~ daily logs and compliance reports and will include supplemental material (1.e., photographs, memoranda, telephone logs, and letters). P&D will provide monitoring services for biological resources with the exception of the impacts associated with the vernal pools which will be monitored by ERCE. BIOLOGY DIEGAN COASTAL SAGE SCRUB AND CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHERS Mitieation- Monitor grading to reduce impacts to coastal sage scrub habitat. P&D shall define the Diegan coastal sage scrub areas to be retained on the final grading plans prior to any grading activities onsite in areas containing coastal sage scrub. All those areas to be retained shall be flagged by P&D to prevent encroachment. A field map will clearly identify the Diegan sage scrub mitigation activity locations. Monitoring - The construction crew will flag the limits of grading in areas where coastal sage is to be retained. P&D will review the flagging with the construction supervisor. P&D will inspect the Diegan scrub areas prior to grading to ensure the flag markers are visible and that the areas have not been encroached upon. P&D will inspect the area during grading once every 1-2 weeks and after grading is completed to determine whether or not encroachment has occurred. ReDortine - P&D will provide the City with a report when the grading is completed. Mitigation- Rancho del Rey developers will identify a site with coastal sage scrub habitat offsite, and P&D will conduct a survey of the site to evaluate the potential for gnatcatchers to inhabit the site. P&D will conduct a spring through summer survey of the mitigation site to determine whether or not the site is an active 9 breeding area for California gnatcatchers. P&D will verify that the proposed mitigation site is within, adjacent to, or connected by an appropriate open space corridor to a larger area or interconnected set of patches of habitat or designated open space or reasonably expected to remain in a natural state. P&D will also ensure that the California gnatcatcher population densities meet the required density per acre. The developer would dedicate the mitigation site to the City of Chula Vista who, in consultation with the resource agencies, would transfer the care and maintenance of the site to the appropriate agency. Monitorine - The City of Chula Vista Planning Department in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game would approve the mitigation site. ReDortine- P&D will provide the City with a report documenting the findings on the proposed mitigation site. Mitieation - Prohibit grading activities which would adversely affect the Diegan coastal sage scrub habitat of the specialty housing area. Areas to be preserved in native open space would be staked by P&D or a representative of the Rancho del Rey survey team. If within the City of Chula Vista, the City would record a conservation easement with an agency of appropriate jurisdiction over the offsite mitigation area if ownership of the mitigation site does not transfer prior to issuance of a grading permit. Monitorine- P&D would inspect to ensure that no grading activity occurs in the specialty housing area until after the gnatcatcher mitigation site has been approved and acquired. Prior to grading, P&D would inspect flagged areas to ensure that markers are visible and that there is no sign of encroachment. P&D v~ould again inspect after the grading is completed to determine whether or not encroachment has occurred. ReDortine- P&D will provide the City with a report indicating when the grading for the specialty housing may begin and, again, at the conclusion of grading activities. CONSTRUCTION STAGING AND SEWER LATERAL CORRIDORS Mitieatlon- P&D and the construction supervisor will examine the proposed construction staging areas to determine whether or not these areas will impact sensitive biological resources. 10 Monitoring - P&D will inspect all staging areas to determine whether or not encroachment into sensitive biological resource areas has occurred. Periodic inspections will be conducted to ensure that the staging area does not expand into sensitive areas. Re~)ortin,, - A summary of the findings regarding construction staging areas will be included in the annual report throughout the construction period. Mitieation- The construction supervisor will stake proposed sewer corridor and P&D will review the staking for the sewer installation corridors prior to design finalization. These corridors will be adjusted to avoid sensitive biological resources. Sewer laterals will also be positioned to minimize impacts to biological resources. Monitorlne - P&D will inspect the flagged corridor just prior to grading to determine that the corridor is positioned in a manner as to avoid sensitive biological resources. Revortine - P&D will provide the City with a report indicating that the sewer laterals have been implemented according to the specifications of the monitoring biologist. Miti,,ation - P&D would monitor the existing population of California gnatcatchers on the SPA III site to determine the effect of development on the gnatcatcher. The open space areas of SPAs I and II would be included in the study area. Monitoring - P&D would survey the area throughout the mating and nesting period from early spring through late summer. The surveys will be population counts of the California gnatcatcher and will determine approximate territorial boundaries of each pair. The surveys will be specific to the California gnatcatcher, but will be general in approach. No banding, netting, or trapping is proposed. Detailed field notes will be completed and reasonable assumptions will be made as to whether or not the same individuals are present before and after construction. No detailed vegetation analysis, including transects or quadrants, are proposed as part of this task. A general vegetation description will be conducted. Re~)ortin,, - P&D will provide the City of Chula Vista with reports indicating the effects of development on the gnatcatcher population. The report will include the number of birds and their territories. These reports will be included in the annual report for a period of five years after completion of the project to assess the recovery of the California gnatcatcher population. The information gathered in this study will be shared with the resource agencies to help develop a regional set of guidelines for California gnatcatcher mitigation plans. 11 REVEGETATION Miti~,ation - P&D will review McMillan's revegetation program. This revegetation plan will be submitted to the City of Chula Vista Planning Department for final approval. In addition, P&D will review all areas revegetated in open space areas and areas impacted by sewer laterals with coastal sage scrub species native to the site. RDR will design and incorporate a transplant program for snake cholla and San Diego barrel cacti which will be reviewed by P&D. The golden-spined cereus cactus clump will remain in open space. Monitorim, - The revegetation plan will be monitored by P&D for a period of five years to ensure the success of the revegetation project. P&D will conduct field visits quarterly the first year, twice the second year, and once per year for the following three years. Ret~ortlm, - P&D will provide the City with reports documenting the areas which have been revegetated and monitoring the growth of the revegetated areas. These reports will continue for a period of five years after starting the revegetation efforts. ITEMS TO BE PROVIDED BY TIlE APPLICANT P&D will require copies of the following documents which will used in the evaluation of the biological resources mitigation monitoring program: o RDR SPA III master grading plan o RDR SPA III erosion and sedimentation plan o RDR SPA III water management guideline/plan o RDR SPA III landscape and irrigation plan o RDR SPA III plan for access to open space areas for maintenance and fire protection o RDR SPA III map of open space trail system and adjacent landscaping o RDR SPA III tentative maps 12 ATTi%CHMENT 4 AMENDMENT NO. 1 Table 1-2, page 3 Rancho del Rey SPA II and SPA III Water Conservation Measures On-Site Measures (This section remains the same.) Off-Site Measures ef---wat-e~.- The applicant shall establish a water' use offset program for Rancho del Rev SPA II and III. This program shall be designed to fully off-set the projected water consumption of the project, after conservation measures are taken into account (see above on-site measures}. This requirement may be met by one or both of the following means: a__=. The applicant shall participate in specific water conservation p.ro~ects such as C.I.M.I.S.. new water wells, Dark and open ~_pace irri~ation system retrofitting or other such Drogects in combination with water conservation off-set fees to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks and Recreation; or Participate in a water conservation program by paving a water conservation off-set fee of $5.00 (to be adjusted annually} for each ~allon of water used by the project. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City which establishes a specific pro,ram in accordance with the requirements set forth above. As an alternative to the above measures, the City Council may authorize the applicant to participate in any other Citywide or regional water conservation program adopted by the City Council, with the overall level of water off-sets to be left to the sole discretion of the city Council. AMENDMENT NO. 2 Page 31, continuing onto page 32: D. Offsite Mitigation Measures Because of the crisis created by the multi-year drought in California and the extreme short term water rationing/use restrictions adopted to respond to the situation, new attention is being given to formulating new policies which will conserve water and allow for long term growth. As noted in the preceding sections, although the SPA II and SPA III projects implement a variety of water conserving practices, the construction and occupation of these projects will result in an increased demand for water. The drought has demonstrated that water is a finite resource and that current supplies cannot reliably support current demands and continued growth. However, growth is a major component of both the State's, and especially, the local San Diego area economy. In order to accommodate growth, while long term water supplies are evaluated and implemented, new programs to more efficiently use the available water are being proposed. An initial area of focus is the retro-fit of plumbing fixtures and landscape irrigation in existing development. According to statistics compiled by the Construction Industry Federation (CIF), retro-fitting the shower and toilet fixtures in approximately 2.8 older homes would save the amount of interior-use water required by one new home (additional older homes would be required to off-set outdoor water use at the new home). Thus a mitigation program which collected fees to complete such conversions, or directly required equivalent conversions, could allow a limited amount of new development to occur without creating a net increase in water demand. Comparable water savings could also be achieved by retro- fitting irrigation systems of schools, parks, golf courses, etc., where significant conservation of irrigation water could be achieved. This type of water consumption off-set program has been conceptually approved by the San Diego County Water Authority. Additional studies to determine the exact specifications, scope and implementation process are now under way. In order to avoid conflicting regulations and to maximize fairness, such a program would need to implemented on a wide basis, preferably county-wide. The City and local water district would provide input in the establishment of the large scale program and would probably provide local implementation. As indicated earlier, the approval of the Rancho del Rey SPA III Plan was conditioned to require a Water Conservation Plan which reduced any impacts to the local water supply to an "insignificant" level, as determined by the City Council. This is the first and, so far, the only project to be so conditioned. At the time the condition was ~raftc~ adopted, it was interpreted to require a zero net increase or complete water consumption off-set, bcc&u~c n~ ...... ~ .... d I d -~' ~" ~~'" ......... --~----~ by ~- City ~- ....... ~ ...... .............. ' ' ' ' - ...... ply .............. / ..... ...j ...... To com with this requirement, the applicant shall establish a water use off-set proqram for Rancho del Rey SPA II and III. This proqram shall be desiqned to fully offset the pro~ected water consumption of the project, after conservation measures are taken into account (see Table 1-2). This requirement may be met by one or both of the followina means: a. The applicant shall participate in specific water conservation projects such as C.I.M.I.S., new water wells, park and open space irrigation system retrofittinq or other such projects ~n combination with water conservation off-set fees to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks and Recreation; or b. Participate in a water conservation proqram bv payinq a water coDservation off-set fee of $5.00 (to be adjusted annually) for each aallon of water used bv the oro~ect. The applicant shall enter into an aqreement with the City which establishes a specific proqram in accordance with the requirements set forth above. As an alternative to the above measures, the City Council may authorize the applicant to participate in any other citywide or reaional water conservation proqram adopted by the City Council. with the overall level of water off-sets to be left to the sole discretion of the City Council. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of May 22, 1991 Page I 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-91-05, Consideration of an appeal from a decision of the Zoninq Administrator relatinq to a condition of approval requirinq dedication of riqht-of-way alonq Third Avenue and L Street for the property at the northwest corner of that intersection A. BACKGROUND This item is an appeal from a decision of the City Zoning Administrator appealing the condition to provide an irrevocable offer of dedication for street right-of-way at the northeast corner of Third Avenue and [ Street. The Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an Initial Study, IS-91-05, of potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the project. Based on the attached Initial Study and comments thereon, the Coordinator has concluded that there would be no significant environmental impacts, and recommends adoption of the Negative Declaration issued on IS-91-05. 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 Negative Declaration issued on IS-91-05. 2. Adopt a motion to uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator and thereby deny the appeal on PCC-91-05. C. DISCUSSION Service Station Services has appealed engineering condition number 3 contained in the Zoning Administrator's letter approving Conditional Use Permit PCC 91-05 dated March 26, 1991 (see attached letter). Shell Oil Company is proposing to add 95 square feet of building area to the existing service station. In addition, they propose to convert approximately 350 sq. ft. of the existing building to accommodate the sale of pre-packaged food (see Exhibit "A"). The initial study and the adopted Negative Declaration indicate that 48 additional trips per day will be generated by the change of use and the additional office space. Engineering did not consider the change in use nor the additional trips generated by the project significant enough to require widening of the roadway adjacent to the site on both Third Avenue and L Street. However, Engineering did require the applicant to dedicate right-of-way in the form of an irrevocable offer to the City. Such a dedication would allow for the widening of the roadways should a project be proposed by the City. The requirements were reduced to correspond with the scope of the project and to correspond with the traffic impact associated with the proposal. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of May 22, 1991 Page 2 Shell Oil has appealed because they feel that the ".. scope of work proposed is to add only 95 square feet and the use of'pre-packaged food sales to the existing service building of the facility." Engineering, upon receipt of the appeal, evaluated what would be the absolute minimum street dedication necessary to provide adequate area for any future widening which might occur. In a letter to Shell dated April 18, 1991 (attached), Engineering agreed to reduce the dedication requirements to what is considered the minimum necessary to allow for future widening. The dedications were reduced from seven feet on both streets to five feet along L Street and three feet along Third Avenue (see Exhibit "B"). Staff feels that this dedication is appropriate and in line with the scope of the project and the traffic impacts associated with the project. In phone conversation with Brooks W. Herring, he indicated that Shell was concerned with the possibility of having to relocate signs and not be able to meet City requirements. Since the City would have to deal with those issues should a City project go forward, Engineering agreed to provide for the relocation of those signs to Shell's satisfaction. The City agreed to relocate signs for this proposal only. The City required Mobil Oil Company at 902 Third Avenue, which is on the southwest corner of Third and L Street, to dedicate right-of-way in a similar situation. WPC 5592E uAIL~--9--9/DRAWN~I' d~. (~.BY ! T I~b ~]~,~1,. _- ......... $1'T~ PLAAI - ";?-~' '~-.. ~~~ ~1 ~' ;L'- .. ~',~ ~~-'~..- 1. ~.~ ~ . ~ ?.,. ~-,.~-.~-.,~:::.....: .., ,. ~ · . ".~ .... -...w .) . ~. I:.: ~%~ ~-'~- ~ .~ ~' ~'~b~" :: ~~ %..~ _.,... ~~ ~ .v.'~~.~'. J/'. ~~~~~. ~-.-.....~.....~j .. t ,, - ' ., ~ ~ ~. j ~,~ :, DRAWN BY T I T L E ~. ~. ~. ........... .SHELL OIL WAIVE~ April 29, 1991 Clifford L. Swanson City of Chula Vista Department of Public Works 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, California 91910 RE: SHELL SERVICE STATION AT 899 THIRD AVENUE Dear Mr. Swanson: In response to your letter dated April 18, 1991, we have reviewed your revised dedication requirement and have decided to proceed with the appeal of the condition through the Planning Commission. Based on the small scope of work proposed, we feel that the requirements for irrevocable offers to dedicate are unfeasible. Please contact me at (714) 546-1227 should you have any questions regarding this information. Thank you. Sincerely, Angela T. Smith ATS/ja cc: Eric Richter, Shell Oil Company Steve Griffin, City of Chula Vista Planning Department 2122 S. GRAND AVE., SUITE E & F · SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92705 · (714) 546-1227 CHULA VISTA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING DIVISION April 18, 1991 File ~ ZB 236 Shell Oil Company P. O. Box 4848 511 North Brookhurst Street Anaheim, Ca 92803 Attention: Mr. Brooks W. Herring SHELL SERVICE STATION AT 899 THIRD AVENUE In response to your appeal of Condition #3 (PCC 91-05) and other phone conversations between yourself and Bill Ullrich of the City, we have re-evaluated the amount of street dedication which we will require for the subject project. Upon further review, we have determined that in lieu of a seven foot irrevocable offer to dedicate from both "L" Street and Third Avenue we would reduce the smount of dedication as follows: 1. Along "L" Street - A five foot irrevocable offer to dedicate. 2. Along Third Avenue - a three foot irrevocable offer of dedication In addition, the City will agree to provide for any relocation of existing signage to the satisfaction of Shell Oil Company upon construction of street improvements necessitating the additional right-of-way. Th~ City ~grees to .reduce street dedication requirements and existing sign relocation for this proposal only. Should Shell 0il Company propose future redevelopment of the property, the City reserves the right to revise the street dedication requirements and eliminate the cities responsibility for sign relocation. Upon review of these changes, please let us know if you can accept the Engineering Department's condition relative to the street dedication. 276 FOURTH AVE/~HULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91910/(619) 691-5021 Mr. Brooks W. Herring -2- April 18, 1991 If you have further comments or questions, please contact Bill U11rich at 691-5261. CITY F. NGINEER WAU: nm (WAU2 \SHET.TREV o DOC2 ) ::~. 'Ctt.v of C~ule Yili. a ~ .e Received. 'JA)-e~ng Deper~ent rea P~<d. Recelp~ No .~7 _ Appeal Form Ap~e~ ~m ~h~ dec~l~ of: ~ Zontng ~ P~nn~ng ~ Design Rev~e~ Admi n ~ lira to~Commi s s 1 on Comml t%e e Ap~ellan~ Service Stat~en Services .... Phone 7~ A~r~ Z.!.~2 S, Gr~p~ Afenu~, ~fnta Ana. California 92f~5 ~:~ample': ~one Ch~n~e, variance, ~e~n revle~-e~C~,~ ~e~e ~%~%e wherel~ ~ be~eve ~her~ w~ ~n error ~n ~he de:~n Cot ~he proper~ }o:m:e~ ~%: 899 ~i~d Avenue ._ __ .. Pleame Sme Attachmd $igna-ture of App-e~Tlent '" To;'. Plannin9 Oepec~en~ DAte Appla~ Ptlldl ....... Case HO[ ...... 'Date o¢ decision: Receipt NO~__ The above matter hal been ~cheUuled for ~ubll¢ he,ring before the: Planning Commlsslon City Council on . .. . Planning ~o~lYml~' Secretary City Clerk (~htJ.'foPm to b~ filld In trlpllca~e,) or A[~oeal of Zonino Administrator Decision The Conditional Use Permit was approved with a condition of approval from the Engineering Department that we feel is unfeasible in light of the scope of work of the project. Specifically, we request that Engineering condition #3, which calls for an Irrevocable Offer To Dedicate street right-of-way in the amount of 7 feet along both Third Avenue and L Street frontages, be removed as a requirement for approval as the scope of work proposed is to add only 95 square feet and the use of pre-packaged food sales to the existing service building of the facility. ClIY OF CHULA VL. I'A PLANNING DEPARTMENT 'r~' March 26, ]991 Service Station Services 2122 S. Grand Avenue, Suite E & F Santa Ana, CA gZ705 Attn; Angela T. Smith Subject: Conditional Use Permit, PCC-gl-05 Food Sales at Shell Service Station, 8gg Third Avenue The Zoning Administrator has considered your request to expand the office area by 95 sq. ft. and convert the interior (approx. 350 sq. ft.) to accommodate the sale of pre-packaged food at the shell service station at 899 Third Avenue in the C-C zone. Based on the Initial Study, IS-91-05, and comments on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, the Zoning Administrator hereby finds that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopts the Negative Declaration issued on IS-gl-05. After reviewing your proposed project, site plan and the existing conditions in the immediate vicinity of the subject property, the Zoning Administrator has been able to make the required findings to grant your request which is hereby approved subject to the following conditions. ]. The exterior of the snack shop shall be finished with brick veneer to match the existing. 2. A sign program for the entire property shall be submitted for review and approval prior to the issuance of building or occupancy permits for the additional floor area and/or snack shop use. 3. This permit shall be subject to any and all new, modified, or deleted conditions imposed after adoption of this resolution to advance a legitimate governmental interest related to health, safety or welfare which City shall impose after advance written notice to the permittee and after the City has given to the permittee their right to be heard with regard therto. However, the City, in exercising this reserved right/ condition, may not impose a substantial expense or deprive Permittee of a substantial revenue source which the Permittee of a substantial revenue source which the Permittee can not, in the normal operation of the use permitted, be expected to economically recover. Failure to comply with any condition of approval shall cause this permit to be reviewed by the City for additional conditions or revocation. ~Servtce Station Services Page 2 March 26, 199] Findings of fact are as follows: 1. 'The. modest snack shop operation will provide a convenience for the customers of the station, without a significant visual or activity impact on the site. 2.. The snack shop operation and accompanying increase in floor area, as .. conditioned, will be consistent with the design and signage on the balance of the property. 3. Compliance with all applicable codes, conditions and requirements will be accomplished prior to the establishment of the use. 4. The proposal is consistent with General Plan policies for commercial uses and development. Following are the comments and requirements submitted by the Engineering Department and Fire Marshal: Enqineerina ]. Sewer, development impact and traffic signal fees will be assessed on the building permit. 2. A handicap ramp in the curb return. 3. An Irrevocable Offer to dedicate street right-of-way (7 feet along frontages of Third Avenue and L Street) to provide for future widening. 4. One street light at the east property line. $. Any new driveways shall be a minimum of 8 feet from any point of curb return. 6. A construction permit will be required for any work performed within the street right-of-way. 1, B-l/B-2 separation required between garage area/utility room and mini-store area as per Uniform Building Code and Table 5-B. 2. Provide information showing type of insulation flame spread rating and smoke development as per Section 1712 Uniform Building Code for new walk-in cooler. 3. Provide fire extinguisher of 2AIOBC size minimum for mini store to be hung on wall. cl'r~ OF CHULA VISTA Service Station Services Page 3 March 25, 1991 You have the right to appeal this decision to the Planning Commission. A completed appeal form along with a fee of $125.00 must be received by this office within ten days of the date of this letter. Forms are available from the Planning Department. In the absence of said appeal the decision of the Zoning Administrator is final. Failure to use this permit within one year from the date of this letter shall cause the permit to become null and void unless a written request for an extension is~d and granted prior to the expiration date. Senior Planner cc: City Clerk WPC 9101P/2655P CITY OF CHULA VISTA negative declaration PROJECT NAME: Shell Oil Company PROJECT LOCATION: 899 Third Avenue at L Street ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 573-490-26 PROJECT APPLICANT: Service Station Services CASE NO: IS-91-05 DATE: February 11, 1991 A. Project Settinq The project site is located on the northeast corner of Third Avenue' and L Street, approximately one mile east of Interstate 5, within central Chula Vista. The. project site is approximately 135 feet by 150 feet or 21,892 square feet in area (0.50 acres). The existing Shell Oil gas station consists of two covered gasoline pump islands and a three-bay automobile service building and cashier area. The project site also has five on-site parking spaces, landscaping planters, a covered trash enclosure, and is separated from adjacent uses by three-foot high fencing. Four concrete driveway aprons provide egress and ingress for the site from L Street and Third Avenue. Three underground ]O,O00-gallon gasoline tanks and a 550-gallon underground waste oil tank also exist on the site. Commercial establishments exist to the north of the site along Third Avenue. A vacant lot exists on the east side of the site along L Street. The San Diego Country Club is located across from the project site along L Street. Another service station is located on the northwest corner of Third Avenue and L Street. B. Pro.iect Descriotion The project applicant is proposing to add 95 square feet of building area to the existing Shell Oil service station and sales building on the site for a total of 1,695 square feet of building area. The additional building area will consist of a new unisex restroom, a new cashier area, a new walk-in cooler, and a remodeled sales area. A landscape planter will be removed. The five existing parking spaces will remain as well as the existing pump islands, and service bays. C. Compatibility with Zoninq and Plans The project site is designated Retail Commercial and is zoned Community Commercial which allows a service station use with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The proposed building addition is compatible with the existing permitted use of the site; however, the service station use is not currently operating with an approved CUP, although the project proponent has recently filed a CUP application with the City Planning Department. The CUP will contain conditions under which the service station must operate. The addition of building area on the site would not conflict with the General Plan or the zoning code. If this proposal~.~\l~i~lt- approved, it will legalize this existing use. city of chula vista planning department CRY OF environmental review section (~HULA VISTA IS-91-05 Page D. Comoliance with the Threshold/Standards Policy 1. Fire/EMS The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that fire and medical units must be able to respond to calls within 7 minutes or less than 85% of the cases and within 5 minutes or less in 75% of the cases. The City of Chula Vista has indicated that this threshold standard will be met, since the nearest fire station is 1-I/3 miles away and would be associated with a 4-1/2 minute response time. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Policy. 2. Police The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that police units must respond to 84% of Priority 1 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 1 calls of 4.5 minutes or less. Police units must respond to 62% of 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 proposed project will comply with this Threshold Policy. 3. Traffic The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that west of 1-805 those signalized intersections which do not meet the maintenance of LOS "C" or better, with the exception of LOS "D" - occurring for a period not to exceed two hours per day, may continue to operate at their current (1987) LOS, but shall not worsen. Access to and from the project site is provided via Third Avenue and "L" Street. Currently, the project site generates approximately 750 automobile trips per day. The level of service on these streets (D and B, respectively) would not be affected by the project which would generate approximately 48 additional trips per day. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a 47 foot right-of-way is required on "L" Street and Third Avenue. 4. Parks/Recreation The Threshold/Standards Policy for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres/I,000 population east of 805. As this project is west of 1-805, it is not required to comply with this policy. 5. Drainage The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that storm water flows and volumes not exceed City Engineer Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with the Drainage Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Policy. IS-91-05 Page 3 6. Sewer The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that sewage flows and volumes shall not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with Sewer Naster Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. The project site is served by existing sewer and water lines under "L" Street and existing solid waste facilities that are sufficient to accommodate the increase In building area proposed. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Policy. 7. Water 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 project is served by existing sewer and water lines under "L" Street. Pollutants such as gasoline and oil residues currently accumulate on the site and are periodically washed into the drainage system when asphalt ts washed and during precipitation. The proposed project would not change this existing situation. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Policy. 8. Schools The above sited project will have an impact on both the Sweetwater and Chula Vista School Districts. Therefore, the applicant must pay impact fees to both districts prior to issuance of a building permit. E. Identification of Environmental Effects An initial study conducted by the City of Chula Vista determined that the proposed project will not have a significant environmental effect, and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. A Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with Section ]5070 of the State CEQA Guidelines. As a soils study has not been undertaken, one will be required before the building permit is issued. The developer is also required to place a silt fence along the eastern boundary of the property. The following impacts have been determined to be less than significant. A discussion of each of these less than significant impacts from the proposed project follows. F. Mitiqation necessary to avoid siqnificant effects The proposed project is not associated with any significant or potentially significant environmental impacts, therefore, no project specific mitigation will be required. IS-91-05 Page 4 G. Findinqs of Insiqnificant Imoact 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 con~nunity, 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. As the project is within a highly urbanized area, this project will not result in any substantial degradation of the quality of the environment or to any sensitive habitats. 2. The project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. The project conforms to the long-term goals of the City and, therefore, will not achieve any short-term goals at the expense of long-term goals. 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 project site is located in an urbanized area. The small addition to the site's building area will not induce growth or add to cumulative impacts. 4. The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. No substantial adverse effects were identified from the project. IS-gl-05 Page H. Consultation 1. Individuals and Orqanizations City of Chula Vista: Roger Daoust, Engineering John Lippitt, Engineering Cliff Swanson, Engineering Hal Rosenberg, Engineering Bob Sennett, Planning Ken Larsen, Director of Building and Housing Carol Gove, Fire Marshal Captain Keith Hawkins, Police Department Shauna Stokes, Parks and Recreation Department Chula Vista City School District: Kate Shurson SweetwaterUnion High School District: Tom Silva Applicant's Agent: Angela T. Smith 2. Documents The Chula Vista General Plan, 1990 The Chula Vista Municipal Code Hazardous Materials Management Plan 3. Initial Study This environmental determination is based on the attached Initial Study as well as any comments on the Initial Study and the Mitigated 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 EN 6 (Rev. 12/90) WPC 8921P FOR OFF~¢E USE Date Rac'd ?-/~-~ ¢tty of Chula Vtlta Accepted by ~/ , Application Fo~ Pro~ect No.: ~_ ~/ A. BACKGRpUND 1. PRO~£CT TITLE SHELL OI~ COMPS.NY 2, PROJ£CT LOCATION (Street address or description)' 899 3RD AVE..,AT "L" ST. Assessors Book. Page & Parcel No, _ 573-490-~6 3, BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPT%0N WE PROPOSE TO ADD 95 SQ. FT. Tg, THE ,, EXISTING SER. V3CE BUILDING AND ADD ~ USE O~ ~£-PACKAGED F~on ~W~ . TO,EXISTING GASOLINE SALES/AUTO C~E ~, 4. N~me of Applicant .~SERVIC~ STATION S.ERVICES Address ~ 2~22 S. GR~N~ AVE. Phone ~71~) 5~6-z227 Ctty _.~ANTA ANA State ~ Zip ~270~ 5. Name of Prepare~/Agent ANGELA T. S~ITH . ., Add. esS 2~22 p. GRAND AVE, Phone . (714) ~46-1227 City SANTA ANA Stat~__ CA' Z~p _ 92705 Relation to Applicant ,, SAME . . · 6. Indicate al~ permits or approvals and enclosures or documents requi~ed by the Environmenta~ Revlew'Coordtnato~, a, Permits or approvals required: General Plan Revision Design Review Committee Public pro~ect --Rezonfng/Prezontng ~, Tentative Subd, Map ---Annexation Precise Plan -' Grading Permit Design Review Board Specific Plan Tentative Parcel Hap Redevelopment Agency ~ Cond, Use Pem~t $~te Plan & ~rch, Review"" Variance Other b. ;nclosures or documents (as ~equtred by the Environmental Review Coordinator), Locatton Hap Arch. Elevations Eng. Geology Report .. Grading Plan '"' Landscape Plans Hydrological Study "S~te Plan ~Photos of Site & Btologlcal Study ~Parcel Map ~$etttng ''1A~chaeologtcal Survey ~ Precise Plan Tentative Subd. Map Noise Assessment Specific Plan ~ Improvenmnt Plans Traffic Impact Report ...... Other Agency Permit or Soils Report Othe~ Approvals Requtred ' Z~ ~and e~e to be dedlcate~ stere acreage ~nd purpose, Complete this section tf project ts ~.sidenttal, a. Type development: $tngle famt]y_ _ - Two family b. Number of structures and heights '--- c. Number of Units: 1 bedroom_ 2 bedrooms 3 bedrooms __ 4 bedrooms ,, Total units d. Gross density (DU/totel acres) -- "" e. Net density (DU/total acres minus any dedication)_" ' - f. £sttmeted pro3ect population _, g, Estimated sale or rental price range h. Squa~ footage of floor area(s) 1. Percent of lot coverage by buildings or structures .. J. NurSer of on-site parking spaces to be provided k, Percent of site in road and paved surface Complete this section if pro~ect is Fomme~ci~l or ~ndustrtsl. a, Type(s) o¢ land use. S~VZCg.~?AT;O~ - b, Floor a.ea _ ]69~ SQ. ~.~ Height of structure(s).~6'-6" ~,x. c. Type of construction used In the structure ~ ~ _ALL ST~UCTL~RgS ~ST TO R?.,HA~. " d. Describe major access points to the structures and the "' orlentatton to adjoining Properties and streets __ e. Number of on-site parktng spaces provided ~7~ s?Ac~s f. Estimated number of employees per shift ~ ........ , Number of shifts ~ Total 9 Estimated nurser of customers (per day) and basis of estlmate - 3 - h. ~stlmted renge of servtc~ area snd basl$ of est~mta SEE PLOT PLAN FOR EXISTING SERVICE AREAS t. T~pe/extent of operat~on~ not ~n enclosed bu~d~ng$ FU~.LING,OF AUTOMOBILES AT PUMP ISLANDS J. Houre of operat~o~ 24 HOURS k. Type of exterior l~ghtlng LOW~LEVEL AREA LIGHTS - SEE PLO.? ~LAN FOR LOCATION. 4. %f project ~s pther than residential, ¢~mmerc{al or complete this ~pe Of proJe¢~ 95 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO EXISTING BUILDING b, T~pe of facilities p~ov~ded. GASOL~NE..S~.LES/AUTO CARE .... ¢. Square feet of enclosed structures 1695 SO. ~T. d. Ne{ght ~ structure(s) - maximum .. %6f-6" e. U~t~mate o¢¢upanc~ ~oad of pro~ect N/A .... f. Number of ¢n-$~ta perklng spece$ t~ be provt~e~-_ FIYE SPACES §. Squere feet Of toed and paved surfaces P~y~D SURFACE = 19,207 SQ. FT. C. ~EO~ £CT 1, If the pro~ect could result in the direct emtssfon of any pollutants. (hydrocarbons, sulfur, dust, etc.) tdent~fy them. . ~ACILITY WILL CONTINUE TO OPERATE AS A SERVICE STATION WITH GASOLINE SALESt ......... 2. [s any type Of gredtng or excavation of the property antic{pared NO (If yes, complete the fo~owtng:) a. £xclud{ng t~enche~ to be beckf~lled, how many cubic yards of earth w~l~ be excavated? .. b. How many cubic yards of ft~l wf~l be placed? .. ¢. How much area (sq. ft. or acres) w~ be ~raded? d. ~hat wll] be the - Maxfmum depth of cut Average depth of cut Maximum depth of Average depth of fl11 3. Descrlbe e11 ener~ consumfng de¥tces ~hfch ere pert of the propose~ pro~ect and the type of energy used (att condttlonlng, electrical appliance, heattng equfl~nt, etc. ) E×IS?ING YACILI~ USES 4, ]ndlcat~ the emunt of natural open space thet ls pert of t~ne project (iq, ft, or lores) 5, %f the pro~ect w~11 tetult tn a~ e=plo~nt opportunities descrfbe t~e nature and ~pe of the~e Jobs. ~[o~ O~mR~ZT[~S ~[[~ ~OT _ CHAN~E AS A RESUL~ OF ~IS PRQ~CT. substances be used or stood wl~ln the pro~ect 7. flow ma~ es~lm~ed aut~oblle trtps, per day, ~fll be generated by the pro~ect? ~o~ 8, Desc~;be (tf a~) o~f-s~e tmp~ove~nts necessary to tmple~nt the p~o~ect, and ~he~r potnts of access or connection to ~he pro~ect s~e. ]~p~ovemen~s tnclude bu~ not l~m~ted to ~he foll~tng: ne~ streets; street ~tdenlng; extension of. gas, e~ec~c, and ~tnes; cut and tilt slopes; and pedestrian and blcycle facilities. D. ,DESCRIPT~O~.,OF ENViRO~M[NTAL Has a geolo~ stu~ been conducted on the property? NO (~f zes, please attach) Has a So~ls Report on the project slte been made? NO (~f yes. please attach) .. Are a~ of ~e follow~ng features present on or adjacent to the s~te~ .~o (]f yes, please explatn ~n detat1.) a. ]s there a~ surface evidence of a sha]lo~ ground water tablet NO b. Are there an~ watercourses oe dtatnage ~mp~oveMnts on e~ecent to the s~te? NO JUL-i~.-'.~U I~]_l i~':u-.; li,:ulT, OF CHdLA ~3/i. TA TEL NO:FA:4 .. -$- c. Does runoff from the project site drain directly lnto or toward a domestlc water suppl~, lake, reservoir or b~'? NO d, Could drainage from the site cause erosion or siltation to adjacent areas? NO e, Descrtbe ell dratnage facilities to be provtded and their location. DRAINAGE OF FACILITY EXISTS TO REMAIN. 3. ,Holse a, Will there be a~y noise generated from the proposed p~o~ect site or from points of access which cay Impact the aurroundtng or adjacent land uses? NO 4, Biology a. Is the project site In a natural or partia11~ natural state? NO b. Zndtcate type~ size and quantity of trees on the site and which (if any) will be removed b~ the project. ~O. LANDSC^?g HODIFZCATZONS ARE ?RO~OS~,. " ~. Pest Use of the Land a. Are.there any known htstorlcal resources located on or near the pro3ect site? ~o b. Have there been any hazardous materials disposed of or stored on or near the project site? NO 6. ~urre.nt ~and Use a. Describe al~ structures and land uses currently extstlng on the project site. FACILITY EXZS?S AS A SERVZCE STATION ~I~ _~^SOLZNE SALE~/~U~ CARE USES. TNgRE IS A $~gvz~g' ~O~ZNG - A~D T~O ZSLAND COYgRS ~XZ~NG O~ ~ ~'Z'~. " ' b. Describe all structures and lend uses currently ex~$t~ng on adjacent ~roper~y, North PAINT S~RE ~ ~A~E ,., Sou~ p~ ............ 7. Social a. A~i there a~ residents o~ s~? (~ so. how mn~?) NO b. Aec ~ere a~ cue~nt e~plo~n: opportunities an s~? [Zf ho~ ma~ an~ what ~pe?), NO ...... please provtde a~ other tnfoema:ton ~ch cpp.!.d, e~pdt~ the evaluation of - ? - E. CERTIFZCATION Owner/o.ner ~n-escrow- AGENT FOR SHELL OIL COMPANY_ or ' '~o'nsultant or Agen'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 tnFo~matton 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. DATE: 7/~3/90 *If acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name. -8- Case No. /.~~~/-49~ CITY DATA F. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1. Current Zoning on site: North South East West Does the project conform to the current zoning? 2. General Plan ~and useff designation on site: North F~j~· South AL 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? ~yC~Z - ~9~/?LT/~xT~ z4X~ZLIT~..L.I 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 paxk 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.) 3. Schools If the proposed project is residential, please complete the following: Current Current Students Generated School Attendance Capacity From Project Elementary 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.) /'7~ 5. Energy Consumption Provide the estimated consumption by the proposed project of the following sources: Electricity (per year) Natural Gas (per year) ' Water (per day) //~SJJf~J /~ , 6. Remarks: D~recto~ Planning or Representativ, e Date -lO- Case No. ~-~1-o~'' G. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 1. Drainage a. Is the project site within a flood plain? 't~S. ~_o~_ /~. G b. Will the project be subject to any existing flooding hazards? ~£3 c. Will the project create any flooding hazards? ~Jc~ d. What is the location and description of existing on-site drainage facilities? ~, ~ ~u~ ~& o~ e. Are ~hey adequate to serve the project? ~ f. What is the location and description of existing off-sit~,L,~~ drainage facilities? ~L~'tG' ~ ~() ~C .~ g. Are they adequate to 'serve the project? ~ 2. Transportation a. ~at roads provide primary access to the project? ~" ~g~E~ 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."~."~T : ~'1%t.o )'7 ~Gl) L.O.S. ~"S~ : ~ ~ 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? ~ ~ If so, specify the general nature of the necessary actions. 4]t -ll 3. Geology a. Is the project ~ite subject to: Known or suspected fa'ult hazards? Liquefaction? Landslide or slippage? b.' Is an engineering geology report, necessary to evaluate project? 4. Soils 'a.' Are'there ans anti'cipated adverse $o~1 conditions on the project b. If yes, what are these adverse soil Conditions? c. Is a soils repor~ necessary?' 5. Land Form a. What is the average natural slope of t.he site? b. What is the maximum natural slope of the site? ~- 6. Noise Are there any traffic-related noise levels impacti'ng the. site that are significant enough to justify that a noise analysis be required of the applicant? 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 c o ,~ x ] 18. 3 = Hydrocarbons X 18.3 = Nox (NO2) ~lt~ X 20.0 .: Particulates · X 1.5 Sulfur " X ' .78' : ' 8. Waste Generation HOw much solid and liquid {sewage) waste wili be generated by the proposed project per day? · What is the location and si~of ~xistinasewer 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 significan~ 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 - 13 - Case No. H. FIRE DEPARTMENT 1. What is the distance to the nearest fire station and what is the Fire DepartmeDt's estimated reaction time? /~ ~,72/c~~ 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 P~ z-'~'J!k% ~- ~ r_; ~- ~z.~7O ~_~3t9_y7_c~-_~ ~,) ,~/-/'~-~ )-. -13(a)- Case No. 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 ~JJA Community parks 2. If not, are parkland dedications or other mitigation proposed as part of the project adequate to serve the population increase? Neighborhood /%) / ~ I -/,' Community parks 3. Does this project exceed the Parks and Recreation Thresholds established by City Council~ policies? Parks and Recreation Director or Date Representative CHULA ': ISTA CITY SCHOOL )ISTRICT 84 EAST J" S~~U~T.t~./~. ~F~_ ~R~_~:~:. 619 425-9600 BOARD OF E~CATION il~ JOSEPHD. CUMMINGS,~.D. July 26, 1990 t ii SHARON GILES ~TRICK A. JUDD JUDY ~HUL~BERG F~NK A. TAR~TINO Mr. Lee McEuchern ~AU~' '~ 1990 BUPEBI~EN~ Planning Department ~HNF. VUGR~.Ph.D. City Of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 RE:IS-g1-05 / FA-4gl / DP-774 Location: 899 Third Avenue Applicant: Service Station Services / Shell Oil Company Agent: Angola T. Smith Project: To add g5 sq. ft. to existing service station Dear Mr. McEuchern: This is to advise you that the Shell Oil Station project is located within the Chula Vista Elementary School District which serves children from Kindergarten through Grade 6. The Board of Education has established attendance area boundaries and transportation services. Rice Elementary is the closest existing facility to the above referenced project. However, schools in the Chula Vista Elementary School District are overcrowded and the District has added 25 relocatable classrooms over the past three years to assist in accommodating growth. Students are also being bused outside their attendance area boundaries to help alleviate this situation, and to help achieve ethnic balance. Please be advised that a developer fee will be imposed on the additional space being constructed at the current rate of $ .12 per square foot of commercial/industrial development to assist in providing elementary facilities. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Sincerely, Kate Shurson Director of Planning KS:dp cc: Angela 1. Smith Sweetwater Union High School District ADMINISTRATION CIrNTER 1130 FIFTH AVENUE CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 93011 (619) 691-5553 July 30. 1990 City Of Chula Vista Planntnff Department 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista. CA 92012 ATTENTION: DOUGLAS REID FILE NO: IS-91-05 PROJECT APPLICANT: SERVICE STATION SERVICES PROJECT LOCATION: 899 THIRD AVENUE AT 'L" STREET PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ADDING 95 SQUARE FEET TO THE EXISTING SERVICE STATION BUILDING FOR THE SALE OF PRE-PACKAGED FOOD SALES The above project will have an impact on the Sweetwater Union High School District. Payment of school fees will be required pursuant to Government Code No. 65995 Developer Fees), prior to Issuance of building permit. Cordially, Thomas Silva Director of Planning TS/mi CHULA VISTA FIRE DEPARTMENT BUREAU OF FIRE PREVENTION PLAN CORRECTION SHEET Address ~)~ ~ '~/~//~ ~¢l/lY-Plan File ~o.~[-O_~-Checker~,~/x2tf/CDate~-.F~--~O Type Constr.?---~ OccupancyJ/~-~ No. Stories / Bldg. Area The roll.lng list does not necessarily include all errors and omissions. PROVIDE AND SHOW ON PL~: FPB-29 be dlsclc..-d: 1, L(st the names of all persons havtnga f~nanc~al ~nterest ~n the appl~catfon, contract, or proposal. .qHI~LT, DIL COMPA~ . S~V~CE STATION S~V%~S 511 N. BReaST, AN~. CA 92803 2122 S. GR~ A~.~ SA~A ANA~ ~A 92705 Zf ~el p~ope~ ~s Involved, 11st the na~s of all persons havlng I~ ownership tn:e~st. _S~LL OZL 2. Zf a~ person 4dentt~ted pursuant to (1) above ts a corporation or partnershlp, 11st ~e names of all Individuals o~tng more ~an 10~ of the shares ~n the corporation' or ~ntng a~ partnership tnte~st ~n the par~ershtp. ~R~TZO~ ~OT AVAZ~G~ 3. Zf i~ person identified pursuant to (1) above ts a non-profit organization trust, 11st ~e names of a~ person servtng as d~rector of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneftctar~ or trustor of the trust. 4. Have ~ou or any person named tn (1) above had more than Sg50 worth of bus,ness transacted v~th a~ me,bec of C~t~ staff, Boards, Co~tsstons, Co~tttees and Counct1 wtthan the p~st ~elve ~n~s? Yes No .x~x ]f ~es, please tnd~cate person(s). S. ~ave ~ou and/or ~our offtcers or agents, tn the aggregate, contrtbu:ed more :hah $1,000 to a Councllme~er tn the cur~nt or precedfng elect~on perlod? Yes ~ No. xxx Z~ ~es, state which Councllmember(s): Person ~s deffned as: "Any tndfvYdual, ffr~, copartnershYp, ]o~nt venture, association, soc-~T club, fraternal organfzatton, corporstYon, esSa:e, trust, receiver, syndfcate, thts and any other count~, c~ty and county, cfty, mun~c~palYty, d~strtct or other pol~tfcal subdYvls~on, or any other group or combination act~.ng as a (NOTE:. Attach addttfonal pages as n~c~tq~ry.) ~PC 0701P A-~10 Prln:~ t~pe nam~ of contractor/appllcan't