HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1991/07/24 AGENDA
City Planning Commission
Chula Vista, California
Wednesday, July 24, 1991 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of July 10, 1991
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Planning
Commission on any subject matter within the Commission's
jurisdiction but not an item on today's agenda. Each speaker's
presentation may not exceed five minutes.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: LFD-91-04: Appeal from Zoning Administrator approval
of a Large Family Day Care home at 505 Chantel Court -
Joseph A. Canchola
2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-91-02: Consideration of an amendment to the Municipal
Code to allow automated drive-thru car washes in C-N
Neighborhood Commercial zones subject to approval of a
conditional use permit - Fred Fiedler and Associates
3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-91-24: Conditional Use Permit to redevelop service
station and add mini-market and car wash at 1498 Melrose
Avenue - Texaco Refining and Marketing, Inc.
4a. PUBLIC HEARING: GPA-90-01: Proposal to amend the Land Use Element of the
City General Plan by the redesignation of approximately
3.65 acres of land, located at the southeast corner of
East 'H' Street and Otay Lakes Road, from "Low-Medium
Density Residential (3-6 du/ac)" and "Special Study" to
"Retail Commercial" - Kelton Title Corporation
(continued from July 10, 1991)
4b. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-90-B: Consideration to rezone approximately 3.65
acres located at the southeast corner of East 'H' Street
and Otay Lakes Road from "R-I" to "C-C-P" - Kelton Title
Corporation (continued from July 10, 1991)
AGENDA -2- July 24, 1991
Sa. Consideration of Final EIR-89-08 Midbayfront LCP Resubmittal No. 8
Amendment
b. Consideration of Mitigation Monitoring Program EIR-89-08, Local
Coastal PRogram Alternative 8
c. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Local Coastal Program Alternative 8
d. Consideration of CEQA Findings, EIR-89-08, Local Coastal Program
Alternative 8
e. Consideration of Statement of Overriding Considerations EIR-89-08,
Local Coastal Program Alternative 8
6. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-91-29: Request to construct
a car wash within the future Rio Sweetwater Plaza
commercial center at the southwest corner of 30th Street
and Edgemere Avenue - Rio Sweetwater Plaza Investors, Ltd.
7. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance ZAV-91-20: Request to retain the existing 6-foot
high, 13-foot wide projecting rooftop sign on the Camera
Bug store at 381 'E' Street - James L. Papadakis
OTHER BUSINESS: Request to file an appeal after the expiration of the
appeal period on LFD-91-04 - Peter Hayes
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
COMMISSION COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT AT p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of August 14, 1991
at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of July 24, 1991 Page 1
1. PUBLIC HEARING: LFD-91-04: Appeal from Zonin9 Administrator approval of
a Large Famis Da~ Care home at 505 Chantel Court -
Joseph A. Canchola
A. BACKGROUND
This appeal of LFD-91-04 has been withdrawn (please see attached letter). It
is appropriate, therefore, to file this item.
A request of the Commission by another individual to consider a separate, late
appeal of this same permit is discussed under Other Business.
B. RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a motion to file this appeal of LFD-91-04.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of July 24, 1991 Page 1
2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-91-02: Consideration of an amendment to the Municipal
Code to allow automated drive-thru car washes in C-N
Neighborhood Commercial zones subject to approval of a
conditional use permit - Fred Fiedler and Associates
3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-91-24: Conditional Use Permit to redevelop service
station and add mini-market and car wash at 1498 Melrose
Avenue - Texaco Refining and Marketing, Inc.
A. BACKGROUND
Staff has requested and the applicant has agreed to a continuance of these
items to the meeting of August 28, 1991, in order to resolve several issues
related to the project design.
B. RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a motion to continue PCA-91-02 and PCC-91-24 to the Planning Commission
meeting of August 28, 1991.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of July 24, 1991 Page I
4A. PUBLIC HEARING: GPA-90-01, Proposal to amend the Land Use Element of
the City General Plan by the redesiqnation of
approximately 3.65 acres of land, located at thp
southeast corner of East H Street and Otay Lakes
Road, from "Low-Medium Density Residential (3-6
du/ac)" and "Special Study" to "Retail Commercial"
Kelton Title Corporation (continued)
A. BACKGROUND
Current Requests
The subject General Plan Amendment request for "Retail Commercial" is
part of a joint application involving a companion request for rezoning of
the subject site from "R-l" to "C-C-P". Approval of the General Plan
Amendment is prerequisite to consideration of the rezoning under
PCZ-90-B. The intent of these requests is to allow the applicant to
submit plans for development of a retail convenience center on the site.
An Initial Study, IS-90-13, of possible significant environmental impacts
from the applicant's proposal has been conducted, and the Environmental
Review Coordinator has concluded that there would be no significant
environmental effects in conjunction with mitigatory measures required by
the Traffic Study conducted in conjunction with IS-90-13. Pursuant to
the Traffic Study~s assessment of alternative land uses, and staff's
recommendation for denial of the applicant's request and approval of a
General Plan Amendment to "Professional and Administrative Commercial",
an alternate Negative Declaration, titled IS-90-13 Negative Declaration
Alternate, was prepared. Should staff's recommendation be followed, the
Environmental Review Coordinator has recommended that the Negative
Declaration Alternate for IS-90-13 be adopted.
History
Original applications to amend the General Plan from "Medium Density
Residential" to "Retail Commercial", and rezone the subject site from
"R-1 to "C-C-P", were filed in June 1986 by the same project applicant,
Kelton Title Corporation.
At a public hearing held December 17, 1986, the Planning Commission
adopted the Draft Negative Declaration issued under then IS-87-1, and
considered the General Plan Amendment request on GPA-86-6. The Planning
Department's recommendation was to deny the request, and after
considerable discussion, motions to both deny and approve the proposed
general plan amendment failed by 3 to 3 votes. Therefore, the Planning
Commission did not consider the related rezoning proposal.
On February 3, 1987, the City Council considered the applicant's appeal
of the Planning Commission's action, and by a 4 to 1 vote referred the
matters back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration. There was a
desire that, given expressed problems with both the existing conditions
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of July 24, 199! Page 2
and the proposed retail commercial center, a broader recommendation of
appropriate uses be addressed when the item was brought back. Council
action included instruction that noticing of adjacent property owners be
expanded to 600 feet, and that the rezoning be considered concurrently.
A reconsideration hearing before the Planning Commission was scheduled
for May 27, 1987. On May 22, 1987, the Planning Department received a
letter and petitions from College Estates resident Mr. John Blasko
containing the signatures of 174 area homeowners/voters, and 11
signatures from Bonita Vista High School PTA Board members in opposition
to the General Plan Amendment and rezoning requests. On May 27, 1987,
the Planning Department received a written communication from the
applicant's planning consultant, Mr. Paul Manganelli, indicating the
applicant's withdrawal of their requests for General Plan Amendment and
rezoning. At that evening's hearing, the Planning Commission unanimously
accepted the application withdrawals.
At the July 11, 1989, City Council public hearing on the General Plan
Update, the matter of determining an appropriate land use for the subject
site arose, and the Council unanimously moved to have the site placed in
a "Special Study Area" in order that a more comprehensive evaluation of
appropriate alternative land uses to the existing residential designation
occur. On August 14, 1989, Kelton Title Corporation submitted their
current general plan amendment and rezone applications for consideration.
B. RECOMMENDATIONS
That the City Planning Commission recommend that the City Council:
1. Based on the findings and recommendations of the Environmental
Review Coordinator, adopt IS-90-13 Negative Declaration Alternate.
2. Deny the applicant's request for a General Plan Amendment to "Retail
Commercial", and rezoning to "C-C-P".
3. Approve the Planning Department's alternative amendment to
"Professional and Administrative Commercial".
It should be noted that approval of the applicant's request will require
adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Monitoring Program
prepared under IS-90-13.
C. BASIC INFORMATION
1. Subject Property
The property is a vacant 3.65 acre parcel comprised of two
relatively level pads separated by a steep slope, and stepping up
from west to east.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of July 24, 1991 Page 3
2. Existinq General Plan Desiqnations Iplease see Exhibit A)
North: Public-Quasi Public
South: Low-Medium Density Residential
East: Low-Medium Density Residential
West: Public-Quasi Public
3. Adjacent Zoning and Land Use Iplease see Exhibit BI
North: R-1 Bonita Vista High School
South: R-1 Church
East: R-1 Church
West: R-1 Southwestern College
D. DISCUSSION
While redefinition of the residential density ranges during the General
Plan Update caused the site's residential land use designation to change
from "Medium Density" to "Low-Medium Density", the current proposal is
essentially the same as that filed in June 1986 under GPA-86-6. This is
true of the request for redesignation to "Retail Commercial" as well as
the proposed site plan evaluated by the current Traffic Study in terms of
number and location of buildings, uses, and total square footage.
Previous evaluation and discussion regarding this proposal centered
around the lack of discernable community or neighborhood need for
additional retail commercial within the Southwestern College Estates
area. This was evidenced in part by the fact that in comparison to well
documented land use planning standards, existing commercial areas
including the 21-acre Bonita Commercial Area, 30-acre Terra Nova Plaza,
18.0 acre Telegraph Plaza, and the applicant's 5.29 acre College Plaza
adequately met needs, and actually represented over-allocation or
overzoning of commercial land. Additionally, at that time the
applicant's existing College Plaza center, located just 1,400 feet south
of the subject site, was not fully developed and in a state of decline,
and the now existing 10.5 acre Bonita Point Plaza at the northwest
quadrant of East H Street and Otay Lakes Road was yet to be built. The
latter two conditions prompted staff and the Planning Commission to
concur that revitalization and development of the two centers,
respectively, should be prerequisite to serious consideration of
establishing new retail districts in the Southwestern College area.
Since that time, both the above mentioned revitalization and development
have occurred. In addition, several other factors have changed
conditions affecting the site including significant policy changes
associated with adoption of the General Plan Update in July 1989, and
extensive residential growth associated with the Terra Nova, Bonita Long
Canyon, Rancho Del Rey, and EastLake communities. The opening of East H
Street to EastLake greatly increased traffic volumes passing the site,
and as indicated by the Traffic Study, near term growth from approved
development through 1995 will further increase volumes (mainly on Otay
Lakes Road) and necessitate additional roadway and intersection
improvements. Traffic is projected to reach the 33,000 ADT level on Otay
Lakes Road south of East H Street.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of July 24, 1991 Page 4
In conjunction with the General Plan Update's designation of substantial
additional urban development area in the Eastern Territories, Section 7.2
of the Land Use Element established seven "Community Activity Centers"
intended to provide a variety of community support facilities and
services (please see Exhibit C). The subject site lies within the
"Southwestern College" activity center, which includes the area in the
vicinity of the intersection of East H Street and Otay Lakes Road.
Based substantially on their strategic geographic locations in relation
to residential populations, and adjacency to major circulation arteries,
the General Plan states, "Community Activity Centers are subcenters of
the general plan area that provide a variety of community support
facilities and services. They are not exclusively community retail
centers and may include higher density residential, employment,
education, health care, recreation and other public and private
services."
As part of the applicant's request, the applicant's planning consultant,
P & D Technologies, compiled a General Plan goal and objective
consistency analysis. In accordance with that analysis, the principal
rationale for the subject request is that the site is inherently best
suited for retail commercial use by the fundamental nature of its
frontages on two major streets, and location within an established
"Activity Center" of the General Plan. Primary justification is drawn
from:
1. Increased retail needs presented by adjacent residential growth.
2. Air quality improvement resulting from reduced vehicular travel
given the site's location in proximity to residential neighborhoods,
and on the "homeward bound" travel route of many area residents.
Also the site's location at the hub of bus, bike, and pedestrian
routes allows for use of alternate transportation promoted by the
General Plan.
3. Traffic and resultant noise setting make the site poorly suited for
residential development, and that potential use of walls for noise
mitigation would render the prominent site visually inferior, and
conflict with goals for the H Street and Otay Lakes Road scenic
corridors.
E. ANALYSIS
While the Planning Department recognizes that retail commercial uses are
permissible within Community Activity Centers, there are several concerns
with respect to this particular site, including the lack of identified
need for additional retail development, and creation of a suitable land
use role for the Southwestern College Activity Center which warrant
specific consideration in determining an appropriate land use
designation. This need for broader evaluation of alternative uses is
evidenced by the City Council's prior establishment of a "Special Study
Area" overlay on the subject property.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of July 24, 1991 Page 5
In response to the City Council's request, the following analysis
provides a comparative assessment of pertinent issues with regard to the
existing land use designation, the applicant's proposal, and several
alternative land uses which are appropriate for consideration on this
property.
EXISTING 'LOW-MEDIUM DENSITY RES. (3-6 du/ac)'/"R-l"
PROS:
1. Development would be homogeneous with the existing single family
fabric of the College Estates area.
2. Would provide for housing development adjacent to schools, services,
and transportation.
CONS:
1. The site's location on the corner of a busy intersection and its
shape, topography, and size would negatively impact and detract from
a single family dwelling environment.
2. Single family development would not be consistent with objectives of
the General Plan to program higher density housing within Community
Activity Centers.
PROPOSED "RETAIL COMIqERCIAL'/"C-C-P"
PROS:
1. Retail commercial development is consistent with General Plan
prescribed uses for Community Activity Centers.
2. The site's location at the corner of East H Street and Otay Lakes
Road makes it suitable for a retail use as it is convenient to
vehicular traffic.
3. The site is served by existing bus routes and designated bicycle and
pedestrian systems, thereby meeting General Plan objectives to
encourage use of alternate transportation.
4. Physical and topographical separation of the site from the adjacent
church and residential uses, and its orientation away from those
uses to the intersection minimize potential negative impacts and
land use friction.
5. Development would be consistent with General Plan goals to improve
and increase the retail base of the City.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of July 24, 1991 Page 6
CONS:
1. There is no discernable need for additional neighborhood/community
retail commercial acreage within the Eastern Territories area. In
recognition of the substantial changes in the area, staff conducted
an analysis of existing and planned retail sites and residential
populations utilizing commercial land allocation and siting criteria
established by the Urban Land Institute and other noted planning
authorities. Applying their 1 ac/lO00 population ratio and 1 to 1.5
mile service radii, residents are adequately served by well planned
and located retail centers (please see Exhibit D}.
2. As stated in the applicant's analysis, the General Plan promotes
well planned and balanced development which includes a broad range
of commercial, varying density residential, employment, and
educational facilities. Consistent with these objectives, the City
has ensured that Eastern Territories master planned developments
provide well sited and adequate retail commercial services
commensurate to future residential growth. This includes the 35
acre retail component of the EastLake I Village Center, 19 acres in
EastLake Greens, 15 acres in EastLake Trails, 10 acres in EastLake
III, 11 acres in Sunbow, and 16 acres proposed in Rancho San Miguel
(please see Exhibit D).
3. While commercial uses are a prescribed component of Community
Activity Centers, approximately 16 acres of retail use {Bonita Point
Plaza and College Plaza) already exist within the Southwestern
College Activity Center. Both of these centers are equally well
located to alternate transportation facilities and pedestrian/open
space linkages. More retail development would only create land use
redundancy, imbalance, and potentially foster economic decline in
existing centers.
4. Given the location of the two existing retail centers, establishment
of a third would lend to formation of a "strip" setting on Otay
Lakes Road. Traffic patterns associated to such a setting, most
notably well used entrances and exits to the center located in close
proximity to the intersection of East H Street and Otay Lakes Road,
would only tend to further exacerbate traffic flow at a notably
taxed intersection.
5. As illustrated by Exhibit D, several existing and proposed retail
centers are already strategically located on principal travel
routes, and will offer a more comprehensive range of goods and
services. The applicant's contention that development of additional
retail at the subject location is a primary factor in reducing
vehicular traffic is conjectural.
6. While it is true the site is highly visible and at a busy
intersection of two designated scenic roadways, the General Plan
dictates that any use at that site will be visually sensitive.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of July 24, 1991 Page 7
Achievement of appropriate scenic quality is not unique to the
applicant's proposal. Site design is not under consideration, and
is essentially irrelevant to the fundamental land use issue at-hand.
"PROFESSIONAL AND AJ~4INISTI).ATIVE COHHERCIAL"/'C-O-P'
PROS:
1. Office com~nercial development is consistent with General Plan
intents for Community Activity Centers, and would preclude the
unnecessary allocation of addition land to retail use, and the
resultant establishment of a retail strip setting on Otay Lakes Road.
2. Both permitted and conditional uses under the "C-O-P" zone offer the
broadest flexibility for implementing the multi-serving capacity of
the "Activity Centers" as established by the General Plan .
Allowable uses would provide for health care, professional offices,
and financial services {including the applicant's proposed bank).
Uses which could be permitted upon approval of a conditional use
permit include higher density housing, educational, or public
service and institutional uses including a church, post office, day
care center, or cultural facility.
3. In conjunction with #2 above, the "Professional and Administrative
Commercial" designation would promote land use balance and diversity
within the Southwestern College Activity Center, and avoid imbalance
resulting from the addition of nearly 4 acres of retail development
to the 16± acres already existing. Diversity is highly desirable in
the Southwestern College Center given its noted circulatory
accessibility and central geographic location with the Eastern
Territories area.
4. The site's visibility, and major intersection location accessible by
bus, bike, and pedestrian routes makes it ideal for the broader
range of community serving and employment uses mentioned above, and
would thereby contribute more significantly to vehicular trip
reduction than if designated for solely retail type uses.
5. The site's adjacency to educational uses make it a desirable
location for a cultural, civic, or other educational facility, which
uses would be allowed or conditionally allowed in the Professional
and Administrative Commercial designation. Designation for such a
use would promote intents established by the City's recent adoption
of the "Community Purpose Facilities" ordinance. Availability of
public transportation, the sites central Eastern Territories
location, and high visibility at a well traveled intersection serve
as reinforcements.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of July 24, 1991 Page 8
CONS:
1. The Planning Department does not have information on specific needs
for office use within the area. Recent regional reports suggest a
slow down in absorption rates within the office market.
2. Certain types of office uses could present a regional or
sub-regional character (such as a large corporate office complex)
inappropriate to the local "community" serving capacity of the
Activity Centers intended by the General Plan.
'MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (11-18 du/ac)
PROS:
1. Higher density residential land uses are listed in the General Plan
as a typical land use within Community Activity Centers. Such a use
would logically fit into the largely residential fabric of
surrounding areas. The site's physical, circulatory, and
topographic separation from the adjacent church and single family
neighborhood effectively eliminate major land use frictional
concerns in interfacing with single family neighborhoods.
2. It appears that a medium-high density residential project could be
designed in a manner that would mitigate traffic and noise impacts
on this site. The Planning Department conducted a field survey of
existing higher density residential uses successfully and
sensitively located directly adjacent to major arterials with
traffic volumes in excess of 33,000 ADT. Additionally, successful
noise mitigation can be accomplished in variety of ways other than
setbacks, including the use of double pane glass and other building
design characteristics.
3. In accordance with the current Housing Element, and soon to be
adopted update, a medium-high density project could provide the
opportunity for needed affordable housing units in the Eastern
Territories, and promote objectives for achievement of "balanced
community". Furthermore, the site is exceptionally well located
given its adjacency to schools, services, and major public
transportation routes.
4. Allowable yields up to 18 du/ac, as well as potential density bonus
for affordable housing, would appear to be economically viable.
CONS:
1. Given the site's predominantly civic oriented use context of schools
and church, and predominantly single family fabric of adjacent
neighborhoods, multi-family development could be perceived as
incongruent.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of July 24, 1991 Page 9
2. Site planning and design considerations is response to noise and
aesthetic concerns along designated scenic corridors would increase
development costs and could represent a barrier to achievement of
affordable housing.
F. CONCLUSIONS
In accordance with the previous analysis, and as summarized in the
following points, the Planning Department does not find that the proposed
General Plan Amendment would better serve the area by providing for
discernable unmet needs and the marked improvement of convenience and
vehicular trip reduction, nor would it assist in establishment of an
appropriate role and function for the Southwestern College Community
Activity Center as provided by the General Plan.
1. Appropriately sized and well sited retail centers either exist or
are planned which adequately meet residents needs, and substantially
implement General Plan goals and objectives to provide well planned
self-supportive communities and safe convenient vehicular, bus,
bicycle, and pedestrian access.
2. Addition of approximately 4 acres of retail commercial territory to
the 16± acres already existing would lend toward land use imbalance
and redundancy within the Southwestern College Activity Center, and
thereby preclude the establishment of civic oriented uses essential
to achieving a true multi-serving community focus as prescribed by
the General Plan.
Therefore, it is staff's recommendation that preference be given to a
General Plan Amendment to "Professional and Administrative Commercial",
and a companion rezoning to "C-O-P". These actions provide the greatest
opportunity for establishment of uses which would promote diversity and
balance within the Southwestern College Community Activity Center, and
toward achievement of a truly dynamic focal point as envisioned in the
General Plan Update.
WPC 9416P
SIT
3.65 ACRES
GENERAL PLAN DEIGNATIONS GPA-90-O1 : PCZ~90-B
LOW DENSITY RES. (0-8 du/ac) CHANGE FROM 'LOW/MED RES. DENSITY'
~ LQWIMED DENSITY RE8.(3...6 du~?~ AND 'R-1 ZONING' TO 'RETAIL
~ MED DENSITY-RES. (~-'11 du/ac) COMMERCIAL'
~ MED/HIQH DENSITY RES. (11-18 du/ac) ~
~ ..A.. 'EXHIBIT A
PUBLIC & QUASI PUBLIC 200'
400'
FEET
~ OPEN SPACE CITY' OF~# 4, tfl~TA FI. ANNING DEPT.-'ADVANCE DIV. Sl8/81 C.COVARRUBIAS
MF RETAIl
YAC
SUBJECT S
ZONING & LAND ~EXHIBIT B
CHANGE FROM 'I..OW/MED RES, DENSITY'
AND "R-1 ZONING" TO "'RETAL COMMERCIAL'
400. GPA-90-O
PI ,,~EC OTAY LAKES RD. & E. H ST. ·
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
I~&D ~echnele~e$ Planning
401 w "A" Street Engineering
Sun~e 2500 Transportation
~ San D~ego, CA 92101 Environmental
FAX 6191234.3022 Economics
,~ 619/232-4466 Landscape
Architecture
' ..,. I ? 1991 ^,Employee-OwneO Company
June ll, 1991 :.
10369.00
Mr. Ed Batchelder, Project Planner
City of Chula Vista Planning Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
Re: Otay Lakes Road and East "H" Street
Application for GPA and Rezoning
Dear Ed,
Please find the enclosed planning analysis regarding the project at Otay Lakes Road and East "H"
Street. It is our understanding that the major criteria for the approval of a GPA should be it's
consistency with the plans, policies and intent of the Chula Vista General Plan. The attached
outline directly addresses this consistency with references to the overa!l General Plan policies and
its specific elements.
If you have any questions regarding this report, please call.
Very txuly yours,
Senior Pr~ :ct Manager
GBW:be
¢c: Mark Kelton
OTAY LAKES AND "H" STREET COMMERCIAL CENTER
RELATIONSHIP TO GENERAL PLAN
INTRODUCTION
A General Plan Amendment should embody the intent of the General Plan and should be consistent with
the established goals and objectives outlined. For the purpose of ensuring that the proposed land use of
the Otay Lakes and "H' Street property is in conformance with the General Plan, each goal or statement
enumerated in the General Plan was assessed for its relationship and relevance to the proposed projecL
Each goal and associated discussion is listed in the 'following section~
GENERAL PLAN GOALS/STATEMENTS , DISCUSSION
1.1 LAND USE ELEMENT, Page 1-37
Commun? Activity Centers
Community Activity Centers are subeenters of The preposed land use of the site as commercial
the general plan area that provide a variety of is consistent with the Commuxtity Activity Center
community support facilities and services. They - Southwestern College. This activity center
are not exclusively community retail centers and currently includes a range of land uses including
may include employment, education, health care, retail employment, health care, and recreation.
recreation and other public and private services. A residential land use is pot listed as one of the
typical land uses in a Community Activity
Center.
One of the six Community Activity Centers:
· Southwestern College. The area in the
vicinity of the intersection of East H
Sweet and Otay Lakes Road.
1.2 LAND USE ELEMENT, Page 1-48
Rice Canyon
Rice Canyon is the park, open space and pedes- The site forms the destination neighborhood
trianfoicycle utilization of both the north and retail center for the Rice Canyon pedestrian/-
south branches of Rice Canyon connecting the bicycle trail, thereby allowing safe alternative
Terra Nova Community Activity Center near I- transportation from residential to commercial
805 and East H Street through residential neigh- centers.
borhoods to the Southwestern College Communi-
ty Activity Center in and around the intersection
of Olay Lakes Road and East H Street. This
includes Southwestern College, neighborhood
retail center, medium density housing and high
school°
-1-
Land Use ELement
OTAY LAKES AND "H" STREET COMMERCIAL CENTER
RELATIONSHIP TO GENERAL PLAN
(Continued)
GENERAL PLAN GOALS/STATEMENTS DISCUSSION
1.3 LAND USE ELEMENT, Page 1-61, 62
F~ H Street from 1-805 to Hunte Parkway
'me adjacent land uses encompass a broad range The site is on a prominent comer and as a well
of commercial, varying density residential, designed commercial center will form a land-
employment and educational facilities. The mark consistent with the vision of'the Communi-
views from the scenic roadway to these varied ty Center. Landscaping will be consistent with
land uses is an important asset to the scenic the City requirements for scenic highways.
route. It is also an important consideration to
maintain a consistent quality of development and
landscaping along the entire route.
Otay Lakes Road
The views of these facilities and the treatment of The project will continue to be subject to this
the roadway itself should be consistent with review process at ~he subsequent site plan sub-
maintaining the current scenic quality and maxi- mittal.
mizing the future scenic highway potential of
this route.
1.4 LAND USE, Page 1-64
All developments proposed adjacent to scenic
routes should be subject to .design review to
insure that the design of the development propos-
al will enhance the scenic quality of the high-
way. This review should include:
1. Architectural design of structures
2. Siting of structures
3. Height of structures
4. Landscaping
5. Signs
6. Utilities
-2-
OTAY LAKES AND "H" STREET COMMERCIAL CENTER
RELATIONSHIP TO GENERAL PLAN
(Continued)
GENERAL PLAN GOALS/STATEMENTS DISCUSSION
1.$ CIRCULATION ELEMENT, Page 2-3
The purpose of this circulation element is to The proposed land use is an efficient use of the
c~wate a safe and efficient circulation system existing circulation system duc to its proximity
which will maintain the movement of people and to residential neighborhoods.
goods, both locally and regionally~
1.6 CIRCULATION ELEMENT, Page 2-9
obiecfive 4. Minimize the adverse effects of The change in the land use designation from
traffic vo].umes, speed, noise and safety impacts residential to commercial will meet this objec-
by designing a circulation system that prevents tive. The current zoning places a residential land
non-local through traffic from penetrating resi- use adjacent to two major arterial roads.
dential neighborhoods.
1.7 CIRCULATION ELEMENT, Page 2-13
Obiective 27. Promote the development of well The proposed commercial land use will provide
planned communities which will tend to be self a complementary use to the existing retail.and
supportive and thus reduce the length of the residential neighborhoods thus reducing total
vehicular trip. reduce the dependency on the vehicle miles travelled (VMT).
automobile and encourage the use of other
modes of ~'avel.
Objective 28. Develop patleros of land use
which will allow the elimination of certain trips
and the reduction of overall trip lengths, particu-
larly the home to work trip.
1.8 CIRCULATION ELEMENT, Page 2-14
Bicycle Plan
Obieedve !. Link major residential areas with The site is on two existing bike mutes and pro-
principal trip destinations such as schools, parks, rides the proposed linkage.
community centers and shopping centers.
-3-
OTAY LAKES AND ~'H" STREET COMMERCIAL CENTER
RELATIONSHIP TO GENERAL PLAN
(.Continued)
GENERAL PLAN GOALS/STATEMENTS DISCUSSION
1.9 CIRCULATION ELEMENT, Page 2-25, ·
2-18
The general plan includes the following mutes The site is fronted by two six-lane prime arterials
classified as six-lane prime arterials: which by definition have a projected ADT of
50,000. The proposed ~ommercial la~d use is
· East H Street from Interstate 80~ to Otay compatible with these very busy streets. A
Lakes Road. residential land use is not compatible.
· Otay Lakes Road from Bonita Road
south to Orange Avenue in Eastern
Territories.
Roadway Capacity Standards
Approx.
Facility Type # of Lanes LOS C ADT
Six-Lane Prime 6 50,000
Arterial
1.10 CIRCULATION ELEMENT, Page 2-41
The proposed public lransit system includes a The site is served by two existing local bus
network of local bus routes oriented to each of routes and users are provided wia alternative
the community activity centers...Community modes of mutsponation from their homes to this
activity centem serviced by the local bus network proposed commercial site.
include Southwestern College.
1.11 CIRCULATION ELEMENT, Page 2.41
The Open Space and Trail Network will be A pedestrian connection between the existing
designed to provide direct access to the major residential neighborhood and the pwposed
stops of the local bus network,...thus integrating commercial site will provide a non-vchicular
the non-vehicular mode of transportation system connection (along with the existing bike routes).
such as pedestrians and bicyclists, with the mass
Wan.sit and vehicular modes of trans~rtation.
OTAY LAKES AND "H" STREET COMMERCIAL CENTER
RELATIONSHIP TO GENERAL PLAN
(Continued)
GENERAL PLAN GOALS/STATEMENTS DISCUSSION
1.12 HOUSING ELEMENT, Page 4-3
Housin~ Policy
The mixture of residential neighborhoods with The site is not contiguous to any existing or
incompatible industrial or commer~:ial uses shall proposed residential neighborhoods and is sepa-
be prevented. This mixture tends to result in rated from these neighborhoods by both a church
residential decline and blight and the consequen- site and a street.
tial reduction of the quality of life, and the value
of real pmpe~y (pg. 4-3).
1.13 SAFETY ELEMENT, Page 8-0
Hazard Management
The man-created hazards are fire hazards, noise The City of Chula Vista requires an A.Q.I.P.
hazards and air quality degradation. (Air Quality Improvement Plan) for most pro-
jects. This proposed land use will reduce vehicle
trips by locating a retail land use within a rea-
sonable proximity to residential neighborhoods as
well as along existing bus routes, bike trails and
pedestrian trails.
1.14 INTRODUCTION, Page v
State Requirements and Policies
To maintain, improve, and enhance the quality or This project will introduce .more retail in pwxim-
air, water, and land according to state and ha- ity to existing and future residential neighbor-
lional standards and local needs. '(Adapted from hoods, thereby reducing the distance and rte-
Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), quency of trips. A rexloction in V.M.T. (Vehicle
Miles Travelled) improves air quality.
-5-
OTAY LAKES AND "H" STREET COMMERCIAL CENTER
RELATIONSHIP TO GENERAL PLAN
(Continued)
OENERAL PLAN GOALS/STATEMENTS DISCUSSION
1AS I]'qTRODUCTION, Page 0-3
(
The Vision
The new residential communities in the eastern Based on current standards time setback expected
ama will set back from new major'attetial roads, to be required for residential land use al this
thus reducing the noise and safety impact, location would reduce the usable site area to
only approximately 1.8 acres. This small a site
is not feasible to develop with medium to medi-
um high density residential. The proposed
commercial development would not be subject to
the noise setbacks in this goal.
1.16 NOISE ELEMENT, Page 9-7
Noise Policy
To develop a City noise program which recog-
nizes the tight of every citizen to live in an
environment in which noise is not detrimental to
his or her life, health, and enjoyment of property.
1.17 NOISE ELEMENT, Page 9-8
Implementation Plan
Consider the effects of noise, especially transpor- The proposed commercial land use is compatible
ration in its land use decisions to ensure noise with the noise levels on the site. Neither the
compatibility, existing residential zoning nor a higher density
residential land use is compatible with the trans-
portation noise at this intersection of two major
roads.
-6-
OTAY LAKES AND EAST "H" STREET COMMERCIAL CENTER
MAJOR ISSUES SUMMARY
· Land Use - The site is no_At contiguous to any residential land use nor is it across from any
residential land use. It is adjacent to an institutional use and across the street from retail use
and public institutions.
· Regional Needs - The site is designated as a Community Activity Center in the General Plan
which is intended to include a mixture of retail, employment and community serving uses.
· Visibility - The site is a very prominent intersection. A commercial development can be
designed to produce a high quality appearance using both architecture and landscaping. By
eom~)arison, a residential development would likely require a major soundwall which would
· put a blank face to the street.
· Noise - The site is severely impacted by the noise generated by the intersection of two prime
arterial roads - Otay Lakes Road and East "H" Street. According to a preliminary noise
study by P&D, to meet the Chula Vista requirements for noise levels in a residential zone,
all residential development would have to be setback 150 feet from the centefline of the
adjacent roads. This would reduce the usable land area to below that reasonable for
residential development.
· Air Quality - Introducing complementary retail uses to this designated Community Activity
Center will allow neighboring residents to shop closer to home. This reduction in V.M.T.
(Vehicle Miles Travelled) will improve the air quality. Also, the location of the site at the
hub of bus routes, bike routes, and pedestrian trails will allow for use of alternative modes
of transportation.
-7-
BOLLEN. % KELTON, INC. TEL No.12155990062 Jul 8,91 ~6:48 No.O08 P.02
gtatemcnt of d~closuro ofcc~a~ ~cr~hip ~t~'r~t~, p~cnts, or ~p~ ~n~dbuttons, o~ a~ mattc~
which w~ rcq~rc dlscrctlona~ action on thc part of
official ~, ~ foBo~g ~o~a~0n must be ~sclosed:
1. ~at ~c ~Os of all pcrsom ~vin
2. If ~ person lden~cd pursuant to (1) above is a ~oration or p~ersMp, ~t ~e n~cs of all
~di~duas o~g more ~an 10~ of ~c sharea in tho co~oragon or o~g ~y p~ncrsMp
~tC~St ~ ~ p n rsMp, ·
3. H a:.~y pe~on l~cn~cd pursunnt to (1) above is noa-profit orga~gon or a tm~l, Hst ih6 names
of any p~rson scrag as dkcctor of thc non-profit orga~tion
t~Ror of ~c
4, Have you had ~ore than $250 ~h of bu~css transacted with any member of fl~c ~ st~,
Boards, Commls~Io~u, Committees and
No xx If y~, ple~e indi~to perzon(s): .......
5. Yle~o Jdont~ each and ove~ person, ~clu~g any agents, zmpl~yeem, ~ns~t~ts 'or ~dep~nd
contractors who ~u have ass~n~d to represent you bofor~ ~o Ci~ ~ i~s muit~r,
_ l.Iede~.~amp and Associates '
P 6 D..Tochnol0.9~es -' -: . .
6. '" ~nve ?u ~d/o~ your o~rs or asahi,
~unciimemoor m the current or pr6~ding elect~on period? Yes ~ No xx If yes, state which
Co~c~omber(a):
tltate, ~ ~v~ ~leat~ thR ~a ~ny ot~er coun~
or any O~er ~up or comb~atlon a~tbtg ~ a unit:
~O~: Atm~ a~01t~onal pag~ as a~a~) Kelton T~r~. '
~ Mark Keltonr, ~,~ce Presiflon~
{A.~mS~S~. Print or ~ nam~ of contractor/applicant~,~: un0~]
July 16, 1991
To: Members of the Planning Commission
From: Barbara Reid, Associate Planner
Subject: IS-90-13, Mitigated Negative Declaration for Otay Lakes Plaza to Change Land
Use Designation From Low Medium Density Residential and Special Study Area
to Central Commercial and Alternate Negative Declaration for Change in General
Plan Designation from Low Medium Density Residential and Special Study Area
to Professional and Administrative Commercial
IS-90-13
The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program attached to this memo
has incorporated several changes to the document you received in your packets for the last
Planning Commission meeting.
The changes and the rationale for these follow:
1. Schools
Page 7 of the Negative Declaration that you received in your agenda package previously
listed schools as potentially significantly impacted as a result of the project. Because of
the fact that this is a proposed commercial as opposed to residential project, it is the
Planning Department's opinion that this project will not produce a potentially significant
impact on schools. The Planning Department finds that with the payment of impact fees,
the impact would be less than significant. The attached Mitigated Negative Declaration
reflects the same.
2. Traffi~
Upon further study of the applicant's traffic study and the letter from the Chula Vista
School District regarding traffic, the Traffic Division has dropped the mitigation
requirements for: (1) modification of the traffic signal at East "H" Street and Otay Lakes
Road, and (2) construction of dual left turn lanes on all legs of the intersection of East
"H" Street and Otay Lakes Road when traffic demands indicate their need.
The Engineering Department's conclusion is that at this time there is insufficient data to
determine the extent of intersection improvements needed prior to SR-125.
Planning Commission -2- July 16, 1991
The Engineering Department is also recommending the construction of a decorative wall
along the high school property line on East "H" Street and installation of landscaping as
approved by the Planning Department as a deterrent to pedestrian traffic crossing East
"H" Street illegally, and a way to influence students to use the newly constructed steps
at the corner.
3. Typographical errors were corrected.
15-90-13 - Negative Declaration Alternate
Staff has prepared a second environmental document IS-90-13 Negative Declaration Alternate
that incorporates changes into in the event that the staff recommendation for a General Plan
Amendment to a Professional and Administrative designation and the corresponding zone change
to C-O-P (allowing Administrative and Professional offices subject to a Precise Plan) is adopted
by the Planning Commission. In the event that the Planning Commission adopts the C-O-P
designation, IS-90-13 Negative Declaration Alternate is the appropriate environmental document
for the City Planning Commission's adoption. This document was noticed on July 18, 1991,
and the commenting period will be over by August 8, 1991. Therefore, the public commenting
period will close prior to the Council meeting on this item and any comments received prior to
that time and subsequent to the Planning Commission's recommendation can to be incorporated
into the final document.
BR:nr/c~43)
mitigated negative declaration
PROJECT NAME: Otay Lakes Plaza
PROJECT LOCATION: Southeast corner of East H Street and Otay Lakes Road
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 642-020-17
PROJECT APPLICANT: Kelton Title Corporation
CASE NO: IS-90-13 : DAT:: May 24, 1991
A. Project Setttnq
The project site is a vacant triangular-shcped lot comprised of 4.32 gross
acres located on the southeast corner of East H Street and Otay Lakes
Road. East H Street borders the property on the north and Otay Lakes Road
borders the property on the west. The site is situated within an area
which is largely developed. Surrounding land uses include Bonita Vista
High School to the north, a church parking, lot and fire station to the
south, a church to the east, and a vacant lot surrounded by the parking
lots of Southwestern Junior College across Otay Lakes Road to the west.
The northwest corner of the intersection of East H Street and Otay Lakes
Road is fully developed with Bonita Point Plaza. The plaza consists of a
supermarket, drug store, full service gas station, banks, fast-food
restaurants, and other community-serving retail shops.
The site has beeQ disturbed by previous grading. On-site grading has
created two level pads, one tiered at a higher elevation than the other.
Slope gradients of the pads are generally level, with slopes ranging
between 1% and 5%. Construction debris is found scattered throughout the
property, and there is no existing vegetation on the site other than
evasive grasses and weeds.
B. project Description:'
The proposed project is a' rezone and General Plan Amendment for a retail
commercial plaza consisting of five buildings totaling approximately
33,461 square feet. The five buildings will include a bank/office
building, a fast-food restaurant, a family-style restaurant, an automated
teller machine kiosk, and a multi-user commercial building. All of the
buildings are one story in height with the exception of the bank/office
building which is two stories tall. The buildings will cover 21% of the
existing lot. Landscaping and parking will cover 34% and 45% of the site,
respectively. The project will serve an estimated 1,800 people per day
from the immediate community including passing (drop-in) traffic· Access
to the project is provided at four points with two driveways on H Street
and two driveways on Otay Lakes Road. The project provides 206 on-site
parking spaces, including 8 handicap spaces, 46 spaces for compact
vehicles, and 152 standard stalls.
city of ¢hul~ vista p~nning department CTIY OF
e~vlronmental t~vlew me¢t~n. (~HUL,~
-2-
C. Compatibility with Zonino and Plans
The current zoning on-site is R-] (single family residential). The
project as proposed does not conform with existing zoning. The proposed
rezone would change the zoning from R-1 to C-C-P (Central Commercial
subject to a Precise Plan), which would permit the proposed use.
The existing General Plan Designation for the site is Low-Kedium Density
Residential (3-6 dwelling units per acre (du/ac)) with a Special Study
overlay. The proposed project is not consistent with thi designation.
The proposed General Plan Amendment would change the land u.:e designation
to Retail C~n~nercial, which would permit the proposed use.
The Special Study overlay established by the Chula Vista City Council in
July 198g, requires the evaluation of alternative land uses for the site.
Alternative uses have been evaluated by the Traffic Study prepared in
conjunction with this Negative Declaration, and will be addressed by the
Planning Department analysis and staff report to be prepared in
conjunction with the above mentioned General Plan Am3ndment and Rezoning
proposals.
D. Cqmpliance 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 throughout the City within 7 minutes
or less in 85% of the cases (measured annually) 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 approximately 1/4 mile away and would be associated with a
less than 2 minute response time. The proposed project will comply
with this Threshold Policy.
The estimated ~istance to the nearest Fire Station location is 1/4
mile, with a corresponding response time of less than two minutes.
The City of Chula Vista currently contracts ambulance service with
Hartson Medical Services, which could provide a response time of less
than 10 minutes. However, all City Fireman are registered Emergency
Medical Technicians (EMT's) who would provide any necessary medical
assistance at the project site within their two minute response
time. Therefore, the proposed project complies with this Threshold
Standard Policy.
2. Police
The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that police units must
respond to 84% of Priority I 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 62.10% of Priority 2
-3-
calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time
to all Priority Z calls of 7 minutes or less. The Police Department
has not indicated that they would be unable to serve this project.
Therefore, the proposed project will comply with this Thresi)old
Policy.
3. Traffic
The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that all intersections ',ust
operate at a Lewl of Service (LOS) "C" or better, with the excer:ion
that Level 'of S(~vice (LOS) "D" may occur during the peak two hours
of the day at signalized intersections. No intersection may reach
LOS "F' during the average weekday peak hour. Intersections of
arterials with freeway ramps are exempted from this policy.
The City Traffic Engineer has reviewed the traffic study ~repared by
an outside consultant and has indicated that with the mitigation
measures set forth in the study and this document the proposed
project will comply with the Thresholds/Standards Policy for
Traffic/Circulation.
4. Parks/Recreation
The Threshold/Standards Policy for Parks and Recreation provides a
population ratio of 3 acres of neighborhood and community parkland
with appropriate facilities per 1,000 residents east of 1-805. This
threshold applies only to residential projects. Since the proposed
project is a retail commercial use, the Thresholds/Standards Policy
for Parks/Recreation is not applicable.
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 Engineering Department has reviewed the proposed project and has
indicated that existing off-site drainage facilities would adequately
serve the project. There are no existing on-site drainage
facilities. The project site is not situated within a flood plain
and would not be subject to any existing flooding hazards. The
project would therefore comply with this Threshold/Standards Policy.
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 Master
Plan{s) and City Engineering Standards.
-4-
The City Engineering Department has reviewed the proposal with
respect to sewage capacity and has indicated that there is an
existing sewer line withi,1 the immediate vicinity of the project.
City Engineering has indicated that the location and size of the
existing sewer line is adequate to serve the project. Drainage
improvements to connect to the existing' sewer line would be
required. With compliance to the requirements and conditions of the
Engineering Department, the proposed project will comply with this
Threshold/Standards 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 proposed project
will comply with this Threshold Policy.
Due to recent drought conditions, as a condition of project approval,
the applicant must aQree to a zero net increase in water consumption
or participate in whatever water conservation or fee off-set program
the City of Chula Vista has in effect at the time of building permit
issuance.
E. Identification of Environmental Effects
An initial study conducted by the City of Chula Vista determined that the
proposed project could have one or more significant environmental
effects. Subsequent revisions in the project design have implemented
specific mitigation measures to reduce these effects to a level of less
than significant.
The project, as revised, now avoids or mitigates the potentially
significant environmental effects previously identified, and the
preparation of an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. A
Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with
Section 15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Specific mitigation measures
have also been set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring Program which is
attached as Attachment "A".
F. ~i~iqation necessary to avoid sianificant effects
Specific project mitigation measures and project redesign have been
required to reduce potentially significant environmental impacts
identified in the initial study for this project to a level of less than
significant.
Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project design and
have been made conditions of project approval, as well as requirements of
the attached Mitigation Monitoring Program (Addendum "A").
-5-
Traffic circulation and water consumption impacts have been determined to
be potentially significant and are required to be reduced to a level of
less than significant. A discussion of each of these issues follows.
Also included is a discussion of those impacts deemed not significant,
which are visual quality schools and land use/community character.
Traffi~ Circulation
A traffic study was prepared by P & D Technologies in April of 1991 to
address the traffic circulation impacts associated with the proposed
project. The objective of the analysis w~:s to verify the adequacy of the
existing circulation system and recommend necessary improvements where
appropriate.
The traffic study addresses a site plan with two entrances/exits to the
proposed project instead of the proposed four. The City Traffic Engineer
and traffic consultant have confirmed that the difference in number of
driveways would not affect the traffic analysis, as the following summary
of the traffic analysis is current and applicable to the proposed site
plan.
Trip Generation:
Utilizing trip generation rates from the City of San Diego, traffic
entering and leaving the project from East H Street and Otay Lakes Road is
expected to total 5,500. trips per day. Passer-bys account for
approximately 4,100 of these. Passer-by trips are associated with those
vehicles that are already on the street and would stop at the proposed
project site en route to other destinations. Therefore, passer-by trips
are not considered new trips associated with the proposed project. Of the
5,$00 total trips associated with the proposed' project, roughly 1,400
daily trips would be considered new trips associated with the project that
are added to the surrounding street system.
)~tersection and Roadway Levels of Service:
A level of service analysis was conducted for three separate scenarios
including existing conditions, "near-term" background conditions, and
"near-term" background plus proposed project conditions. In Chula Vista,
the standard for acceptable level of service on arterial roadways is LOS C
or better. For signalized intersection, LOS D is permitted for not more
than two hours per day.
~Q)dwav Seaments:
As for near term 1995 traffic volumes, projections show that the most
significant increase in volume will occur on Otay Lakes Road south of East
H Street. At this location, the traffic volumes would increase from
approximately 18,000 {existing) to 33,000 ADT by 1995 given approved
development in the area {i.e., projects with approved Final and Tentative
Subdivision Maps).
Level of Service for the segment of Otay Lakes Road south of East H Street
now operates at LOS B and will operate, without project and improvements,
at LOS E during the projected 1995 near term. With the project and
improvements projected near term, the segment will operate at LOS A. The
project is anticipated to add approximately 200 ADT during the peak hour
to this segment.' This volume (less than 1% of the hourly volume} would
not have a significant impact of the segment's level of service. All
other roadway segments linked to the intersection now operate at LOS A and
are project to continue at this level in the near term.
)ntersections:
As shown on Table 1, the Otay Lakes Road/East H Street intersection
currently operates at LOS A during the afternoon (PM) peak hour. The
level of service at the intersection of Otay Lakes Road and East H Street
will worsen due to the projected volume increase associated with
development that is already approved. THe P&D study indicated that the
intersection of East H and Otay Lakes Road would operate at a F level of
service under the approved maps plus Rancho del Rey SPA III scenario.
According to P & D, this conclusion was based on data from the TPP.
However, the TPP did not identify this intersection as being critical.
Based on follow-up discussion with the TPP consultant (Joe Oliva} and the
project traffic consultant {Ed Plank), it appears that there is
insufficient information to determine the short term (approved map plus
SPA III} impact. Because of Southwestern College, which is a major
traffic generator with entrances on both East H Street and Otay Lakes Road
prior to this intersection, more data is needed to determine actual
intersection traffic volumes and characteristics. It is, however,
recognized that widening of Otay Lakes Road south of East H Street will be
necessary to serve build out traffic and that such an improvement will
also provide short term relief. Therefore, widening adjacent to the
project is considered necessary. Monitoring of traffic through the Growth
Management Program will provide adequate time and opportunities to program
necessary additional capacity improvements if needed.
In summary, there, is insufficient data to determine the extent of
intersection improvements needed prior to SR 125. More detailed analysis,
including new information about the proposed development of the Otay Ranch
coupled with more specific traffic access information relative to the
distribution of traffic, will provide a more precise assessment of overall
needed intersection improvements beyond additional northbound lane
required at this parcel.
-7-
TABLE 1
Intersection Level of Service at Otay Lakes Road/East H Street
PM Peak Hour
Scenario Volume Capacity Ratio LOS
Existing Conditions .53 A
Projected 1995 Background
Traffic Volumes with Improvements
and with Proposed Project .80 C/D
Traffic Safety
The proposed project is located directly across East H Street from Bonita
Vista High School. The high school is attended by approximately 2,000
students. Many of these students walk to school and would be potentially
attracted to the services offered by the proposed shopping plaza. As
such, the Sweetwater Union High School District has raised the issue of
the safety of students who may cross East H Street from the high school to
the shopping plaza. The Sweetwater Union High School District has
suggested installation of solid barrier or a "Jersey wall" along the
median of East H Street to discourage illegal pedestrian crossings.
However, the City Engineering Department does not believe this will be an
adequate deterrent and may create potential traffic hazards to motorists.
City Engineering has, therefore, suggested that a decorative wall with
more intense landscaping be installed along the high school property line
to require students to use the newly constructed steps at the corner.
Installation of the wall and landscaping as mitigation measures are
included to reduce the potential safety impact to below a level of
significance.
The proposed project would result in potentially significant
traffic/circulation impacts which require project specific mitigation.
With compliance to the mitigation measures as set forth in Section F of
this document and in the Mitigation Monitoring Program {Attachment A),
potentially significant traffic/circulation impacts will be reduced below
a level of significance.
Water ConsumDtion
Because of the severe drought conditions in Southern California, efforts
have been made by the City of Chula Vista to reduce cumulative impacts on
water consumption. The proposed project could potentially create a
cumulative impact on water quality given the existing shortage of adequate
water supplies. With compliance to mitigation measures set forth in
Section F of this document, potential water consumption impacts will be
reduced below alevel of significance.
Mitiqation of Traffic Circulation and Safety Impacts
1. Dedicate necessary right-of-way and construct an additional
northbound lane along Otay Lakes Road fronting the project consistent
an ultimate six-lane prime arterial.
2. Dedicate necessary right-of-way and construct a transition lane
needed for eastbound traffic on East H Street fronting the project
consistent with an ultimate six-lane prime arterial roadway.
3. Construct a decorative wall along the high school property line on
East H Street and install landscaping as approved by the Planning
Department.
4. Contribute funds to the Development Impact Fees and Traffic Signal
Fees financing program.
Mitiqation of Water Consumption Impacts
1. Participate in a no net increase water consumption program, an
in-lieu-of fee offset program, or any other comparable water
conservation program that the City of Chula Vista has in effect
at the time of the building permit issuance.
G. Findinqs of Insiqnificant Impact and Impacts Deemed Less than Siqnificant
Schools
The project is situated within the Chula Vista Elementary School District
and Sweetwater Union High School District. District enrollment, within
the Chula Vista Elementary School District has been increasing at the rate
of 4 - 5 percent per year. Permanent capacity has been exceeded at many
schools and temporary relocatable classrooms are being utilized to
accommodate increased enrollments. It is the School District's opinion
that the project will generate approximately 13 new elementary age
children. The Planning Department's opinion is that commercial projects
do not generate students.
The relationship between non-residential development and student
enro)lment has been recognized by the State through authorization of
collection of school fees. To mitigate project impacts on schools
services, State law currently provides for a developer fee of $0.26/square
foot to be charged for non-residential developments. This fee will assist
the financing of facilities needed to serve the growth of both the
financing of facilities needed to serve the growth of both school
districts. However, the Chula Vista Elementary School District is
conc~cned that the estimated per student facility costs ($8,814/student)
will far exceed maximum allowable developer fees that are collectable.
Given this shortfall, the school district has recommended developer
participation in alternative financing mechanisms to help assure that
facilities will be available to serve children generated by new
construction. The Chula Vista School District maintains that
participation in a Community Facilities District (CFD) could be
accomplished in lieu of developer fees. However, the City of Chula Vista
has no mechanism in place to require the developer to pay anything over
and above the State-mandated fees.
Visual Quality
The proposed project will change a vacant lot into a developed parcel
thereby creating a change in the visual environment. Potential visual
impacts have been deemed less than significant due to the urbanized nature
of the surrounding area particularly the four corners of the intersection
at East H Street and Otay Lakes Road as mentioned previously, the
northwest corner of the intersection is a commercial center providing
small food establishments, neighborhood specialty shops, and a major
grocery store. The northeast corner of the intersection supports a high
school. The southwest corner is a vacant lot which is adjacent to
Southwestern College. And behind the proposed project site is a church
and associated parking lot. While the proposed project would represent a
change to the subject site, the development would be visually compatible
with the surrounding built-up area.
Land Use/Community Character
The proposed project would create a change in existing land use from a
vacant lot to a developed commercial shopping plaza. In addition, the
proposed use would require a Rezone and General Plan Amendment to change
the existing single-family residential zoning and land use designation of
the project site. The surrounding land uses are urbanized commercial,
public facility, residential and institutional uses.
-10-
Based on the following findings, it is determined that the project
described above will not have a significant environmental impact and no
environmental i~pact report needs to be prepared.
1. The project has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of
the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the
major peri.,ds of California history or prehistory.
The proposed project would not substantially degrade the quality of
the environment, threaten to eliminate sensitive plant or animal
species, nor threaten to eliminate important cultural resources.
2. The project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental
goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals.
The project would not achieve short term environmental goals to the
disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, since long-term goals
will be achieved through strict compliance to the Mitigation Measures
outlined herein.
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 is not associated with cumulatively considerable impacts,
since project specific mitigation has been implemented to reduce
potentially significant impacts to less than significant.
4. The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
The proposed project is not associated with any significant, adverse
impacts to human beings. No human health impacts were identified in
the Initial Study conducted for this report.
H. Consultation
1. Individuals and Organizations
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
Rick Carpenter, Planning
Barbara Reid, Planning
Chula Vista City School District: Kate Shurson
Sweetwater Union High School District: Tom Silva
Applicant's A~ent: Hedenkamp & Associates
2. Documents
East H Street/Otay Lakes Road Traffic Study, P & D Technologies,
April 1991
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.
ENVIRON~N~TALREVIEW COORDINATOR
EN 6 (Rev. 12/90)
WPC 9461P
FOR OFFICE USE:
Case No,
Fee ,~.~
INITIAL STUDY Receipt No .
Date Rec ' d ~/.j ~,~
C~ of Chute Vtsta Accepted
AppliCation Fo~ P~oJact Ho,--~'~.
A, ~KG~UND
1. PROJECT TZTLE OTAY IJ%KES PLAZA ..
2. PROJECT L~ATION (Street address or description: sec East "H" Street
and Otay Lakes Road
~sesso~s Book', P~ & Parce~ No.
3. BRIEF PR~ECT DE~RIPTZON
4, Na~ of ~pl~cln~ KELTON TITLE CORP.
~d~p~$ 2716 ~E~ PA~ BLVD. STE.3006 Phone ~i3-396-4514
CJ~ ~TA MONICA .... S~. CA Z~p 90405
5, ~ of P~epa~/Age~% .... _. ..
Addpess .......... Phene ....
c~ty ,, State , , Zip .
R~lat~on to Applicant ...... . _._
Indicate all ~s or approvals and enclosures or docu~nts
requ1~d by the ~nvtronmntal Review Coord{nator.
a, Pe~ts or approvals requi~d:
Gene~al Plan Revision Design Review Co~ltt~ Public Pro~ect
Rezoning/P~ezonlng Tentative Subd, Map ~ Annexatio~
P~c(se Plan ~ Grading Permit ~ Design Re'view Board
Spect ftc P1 an Tentative Panel Map Red.lOp. hr Agency
Oond. Use Pe~It Site Plan & Arch. Review
Va~a~e ~ Other
b. Enclosu~s or docu~nts (as required by the Envtro~ntal Review
Coo~dt nmtor).
Location ~p APch. Elevations Eng. ~olo~
~radtng Plan Landscape Plans ~drolog(cal
Site Plan Photos of Site &
Biological Stu~
Parcel ~p ' Setting Aechaeolog~cal Survey
Precise Plan Tentative ~ubd. Map ~ Noise Assessment
Specific Plan ' Improv~nt Plans Traffic Impact Report
Othe~ Agency Pe~it or ~ ~ils Repoet . Other
Approvals Requi~
-2-
Land A~e~.* sq. foot, Se ....... **** , .or acreage .,p~
~f land a~a to be dedtcated~ state acreage an~ purpose.
~. Comp~e~ th~s sectton ~f project ~s res~den~.~a~.
a. Type develo~nt: Stngle famt~y Two family ,,
Nultt famtly .. Townhouse.., Condom1
b. ~er of structu~s and hetghts ......
c. Nu~er of untts: 1 bedroom ~ bedto~s .
3 bedeooms 4 bedrooms . Total units .,,
d. Grols dens~ (OU/total acres) .,
e. ~t dens(~ (OU/total acres mtnus a~ dedication)
f. *Esttmted pro~ect p°Pulat~on
g. Estl~~d sale ot ren~l p~ce ~ange ..
h, ~ua~ footage of ~oor area(s) ...........
?. Percent of lo: coverage by buildings Or structures
~e~ of on.s~te parking spaces to be p~ovtded ..
k. Percen: of st~ t~n toad and paved surface .......
3. Complete ~s section ~f pto~ect ~s c~.~al
a. Type(s) of land use, ~L C~c~L ......
Type of construction used ~n the struc:u~e ~
an~ s~cco)
d. ~sce~be ~jor access potnts~to the struCtu~s and the
orlentat?on ~ a~otntng propertles and streets u~no~ a~ chis cite.
e. ~ee of on-s~ parktng spaces provided __220
f. Est~ted h~er of employees per shtft u~o~ ,
' sh~ its Total
g, Esttma~d nu~er of custo~rs (per d~) and bas~s of esttmate
18oo.
-3-
h, £sttmated range of se~vtce area and basis of estimate IMMEDIATE AREA
__. PLUS PASSING (DROP-IN) TRAFFIC.
t. Type/extent of operations not in enclosed buildings .... -
j ·
· Hours of operation __ UNKNOWN AT THIS TIME
Type of,exterior lighting .UNKNO,W~, AT THIS TIME
4. If project is other, than residential, con~mrclal o? industrial
complete this section.
a, Type of project
b. Type of factllttes pPovtdad
c. Square feet of enclosea structures
d. Height of structure(s) - maximum
e. Ultimate occupancy load of project
i'. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided
g, Square feet of road and paved surfaces
C, PR0~ECT CHARACTERISTICS
1. Zf the proJeg, t could result in the direct emission o? any
pollutants, (hydrocarbons; sulfur, dust, etc.) identify them.
2, Is any type of grading or excavation of the property anticipated
(If yes, complete the following:)
a. Excluding t~enches to be backftlled, how many cubic yards of
eePth will be excavated?. +_45,000 YARDS
b. HOw many Cubic yards of fill will be placed? +_ 37,0oo YARDS
C. HOW much area (sq. ft. or acres) will be 0~aded? 3.67 AC. (PREV.GRADED)
d. Met will be the - Maximum depth of cut 10 ~T.
Average depth of cut 9-~0 FT.
Maximum depth of fill _§ _FT_._
Average depth of fill 3 FT.
-4-
3, Describe all ener~ consumtn~l dev!ces whtch are par: of the proposed
project.and the t~pe 0f ~nergY Use~d, ~a~r cond~ng electr~ca
appliance, hea~ng' eaut~nt etc '~'~ ..... '
4. Zndtca~ ~e a~unt of natuta~ open space that ~s pa~t of :he proJec:
(sq. ft. or acres) ~ON~
S. if the pro3~:~;~'W~l resul: ~n a~ emplo~n: opportunft~es descrfbe ---
~e nature and ~pe of these 3obs. ~OYg~N~ ASS~[ATgD ~[~H
L ~RC[AL ACT[-[~-~ ~ , ~ .. , -
6. ~1 h~gh.l~ fla~ble or poten:ta]]~ explosive materials or
substa~es be used or stored ~1:hln the
s~te? ' NO
7.~ow ma~,estl~ted aut~obile trfps, per day, wi~ be generated by
the p~act/
8. ~scrfbe {tf a~} off-sfte fmproveman:s necessary :o (mp]emen: the
pro~ect, and ~etr potnts of access or connectloh to the
s~te. Zmprove~nts ~nClude bu: no: ~Imfted to the fo~lo~lng: new
steers; street wldenfng; ex:enslon of gas, e]ect~fc, and sewer
~nes~ cut and f~11 slopes; and pedestrian an~ bfc~c~e
0. ~E~R~PT~0~ ~ ENVZR0,NMENTAL
a geolo~ stu~'been conducted on the properS5? ~o
Has a So~1% ~port on :he proSec: sl:e been made?.
(%f ~es~ please a~ach)
2, ~dPelo~.
Aee a~ of the fo~owfng features present on o~ ad~acen( to
sltel ~o.. '; ~' (~f~es, please exp~afn ~
a. ~s there a~ suPface evidence of a shallo~ g~ound
b. A there-a~ wate~ourses o~ a~alnage ~mp~ovemen~s on or
a~acent to the sttet ~o ' .
- 5 -
c, Res runoff from the project site dra~n dtrectly into or toward
a demestlcwater supply, lak~,.reservotrorbaY?
NO
d, Could drainage from the site cause erosion or siltation to
a~acentlareas? ' NO
e, ~s~Ptbe ali drainage facilities to be provldedand their
location. N/A .,,
Noise
a. Will there be any noise generated from the Proposed project site
or. from points of access which may impact the su6roundlng or
adjacent land use)? No
· a. TS ~_A~0Ject.~t~_~a_nk~u~al or partially natural state/'
_ ~o. [~ II3~ )~N GP. AD~D
b. Indicate type, size and quantity of trees, on the site and which
(if arQ,) wtl]rberemoved by the project NONE'
Past Use_.of ~h,e, L.an.d
a. Are there any known ~lstorlcal resources located on or near the
pro~ect stte? NO
b. Have there been any hazardous materials disposed of or stored on
or' near the-~roJect site? NO ....
CU~nt Land Use
a. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on the
project slte. , NON~
-7-
"::.'Mark Kelto~..
Vice Pre~.IKELTON TITLE CORPORATION 0r
consul~nt or A~en~
HEREBY AFFZ~, that to the best of ~ belief, the statements and ~nformat~on
herein contained are In all respects :rue and correct and that all known
~nformatfen concerning the project and ~ts setting_have been ~ncluded ~n
Parts B, C and O of this appllcat~on for a~ Initial Stuc[y of '~sslble
envlronmntal Impact an~ aRy enclosures for attachments thereto.
*~f acting for a corpora?.ton, ~n¢~ude cal~acl~, and compar~ name.
-8-
Case No.
CITY DATA
F. PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1. Current Zoning on site:
North
South
East ~--I '
West
~ .... ~ .ODes. the 9ro.iect confqrm to the cureant zoning?
[. ~eneral Plan /aha use . ~ ~ b~ ~dc
Is the pr~ect compatible with t~e General Plan Land,Use Oiaqram~
Is the project area designated for conservation or open space or a~acent
to an area so designated?
Is ~e project located adjacent to any scenic routes?
(If yes, descri? the design ~echniques being used t~protect or efl~ance
~e scenic quality of Ohula V~sta.) ~
How many acres of developed parkland are within the Park Service District
of this project as shown in the Parks and Recreation Element of the
General Plan?
What is the current park acreage requirements in the Park Service
District?
How many acres of parkland are necessary to serve the proposed project?
(2AC/IO00 pop.) ~, ~
Does the project site provide access to or have the potential to provide
access to any mineral resource? (If so, describe in detail.)
- 9 -
3. Schools
If the proposed project is residential, please complete the following:
Current Current Students Generated
School Attendance Capacity From Project
Elementary ~
Jr. High
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.)
5. Energy Consumption
Provide the estimated consumption by the proposed project of the following
sources:
~K/~,~/~o Electricity (per year) ~ajq~2 K~K/btao
Natural Gas (per year)' . ~jZi. q,~q1 ~o.~/j~o.
Water {per day) ....... ' ~¢o. ~oq- c~k~%(e
6. Remarks:
~'irecto~-6~lanning or ~epresentative bate
G. ~IGINEERING DEPART)!ENT
C'
l. D~ainage
~ ~( )-(q'~l a. Is the project site within a flood plain?
~ ~j~ b. Hill the project be subject.to any existing flooding hazards?
~ c. Will the project create any :flooding hazards?
d. ~lhat is the location and description of existi~ on-site
e. Are they adequate to serve the project?
[ f. What is the location and descri ti ·
~ dFa~nage fac~l~ties/ ~_ ~ ~n ~f ex~sting off-site
g. Are they adequate to serve the project?
i a. ~at roads provide primary access to the project?
b. What is the estimated number of one-way auto trips to be
generated by the project {per day)? ,
c. ~ha~ is the ADT and estimated )e el of service kef
If not, explain b~iefly, ye the project?
~ e. Will it be necessary that additional dedication,
improvement be made to existing streets! widening and/or
If so, specify the general nature of the necessary Jc{'ions.
G. kNGINE£RING DEPARINENT
] - D~rai na ~_e
a. Is the project site within a flood plain~ ~/o
b. Will the project be subject~to any existing flooding hazards?
c. Will the project create any ~flooding hazards?
d. What ~s the location and description of existing
dra?age faci]itie~2 v~ ....... on-site
e. Are they adequate to serve the project?
f. What is the location and description of existing
drainage facilities? ~.~ W off-site
g. Are they adequate to serve the project?
2. ?ansgortation
a. ~at roads provide primary access to the project?
b. ~hat 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 Comp] etion?
Before
After
d. Are the primary access roads adequate to serve the project? ~
Zf not, exp3ain briefly. ~
~ e. W~ll it be necessary that additiOnal dedication, widening and/or
improvement be made to exiSting Streets?
3. Geology Case No. _]~CS
a. Is the project site subject to:
Known or suspected fault hazards? ~~
Liquefaction?~ ~
Landslide or slippage?_
b. Is an engineering geology report necessary to evaluate the
project?_~
a. Are there any anticipated adverse ' · ·
Site?o~_~~~- ,~ .... · soil conditions on the oroiec~
b. If yes, what are these adverse soil conditions~~
c. Is a soils report necessary?
5. Land Form
a. What is the average natural slope of the site?~/~
b. What is the maximum natural slope of the site~ ~F
6. Noise --
Are there any traffic-related noise levels impacting the site that
are significant enough to justify that a noise analysis be required
of the applicant? __.~/~
7. _Air Quality
If there is any direct or indirect automobile usage associated with
this project, complete the following:
Total Vehicle
Trips Emission Grams of
= (per day) ~Factor Pollution
CO ~6'oo X 118.3 :
Hydrocarbons 36 ~o X 18.3 :
NOx {NO2) 66'00 X 20.0
Particulates 65'00 ~ l .5 =
Sulfur ~oo X .78 ~ ~,~oo
8. W~e Generation
How much solid and liquid (sewage) waste will be generated by the
proposed project per day?
What is the location and size of existing
to the site~ ~ .... . . sewer lines on or adjacent
~e tfiey adequate to sePve the p~oposed pPo~ect?
- 9. Pub]~c Foc~]~es/Resou~ces
Zf the p~o~ect could exceed trio t~Pes~o]d of fiav~n~ ~ny poss~b]e
~n~f~can~ ~mp~c~ on tile environment, p]e~se ~dent~fy tile pub]~c
f~c~]~t~es/resou~ces ~nd/op fi~z~Pds ~nd describe the ~dvo~se ~mpact.
(~nc]ude ony potent~a] to ~tta~n ond/o~ exceed the c~p~c~ty of ~ny
pub]~c street, sewe~, cu]ve~t, etc. sePv~n~ tile p~o~ect ~e~.)
emo~s/necessaPy ~t~at~on measures ~ ~~
- 13 -
Case No. /~-~_~¢.
H. FIRE DEPARTMENT
1. What is the distance to the nearest fire station and what is the Fire
Department's estimated reaction time? 1/4 mile, less than two minutes.
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? yes,
3. Remarks Pro'ect will renu' fire hydrants.
Fire flow reduced to 200 ire
~ste~ at bld.~_~.
Fire Marshal v . Dat~
Case N o ._~,,_~_~.~,~ _/~
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?
Neighborhoo~
Community parks
2. If not, are parkland dedications or other mitigation proposed
as part of the project adequate to serve the population increase?
Neighborhood ~,~
Community parks ~v
3. Does this project exceed the Parks and Recreation Thresholds
established by City Council policies?
Parks and Recreation Director or
Representative Date
~OUTING FORM
DATE: April 9, 1991
TO:
Ken Larson, Building & Housing
John Ltppttt, Engineering (EIR only)
~ Cliff Swanson, Engineering (EIR only)
Hal Rosenberg, Engineering (EIR only)
Roger Oaoust, Engineering (IS/3, EIR/2)
Ruth Fritsch, Deputy City Attorney (EIR only)
Carol Gore, Fire Oepartment
Shauna Stokes, Parks & Recreation
Keith Hawkins, Police Department
Current Planning
Advance Planning
Bob Sennett, City Landscape Architect
Bob Leiter, Planning Director
Chula Vista Elementary School District, Kate Shurson
Sweetwater Union H.S. District, Tom Silva {IS & EIR)
Other ~
FROh: _, Rick Carpenter Environmental Section
to be
SUBJECT: ~ Application for Initial Study (IS-90-1) /FA- 443 /Dp. assign)d
F--) Checkprint OPaft EIR (20 days)(EIR- /FB- /DP )
~ Review of a Draft EIR {EIR-. /FB- /DP )
F---) Review of Environmental Review Record FC- /ERR- )
The project consists of: Consideration of an amendment to the Chula Vista General
Plan, changing the land use designation for
~esi~ential" to "Retail Commer~-~,, .... 3.67 acres from "Medium Density
· . . ~,a, and a cnan e
r~?]l~ R~s~deQt~al) to C-C (Cent?l Commercialt. in zoning from R-1 (Single
The proposed development
w~)/ ~nc)uae five buildings consisting of a bank, an ATM structure, a fast
food restaurant, a family-style restaurant and various small commercial shops
totalling 33,461 sq..ft, of Type V-N (wood frame stucco) structures.
Location: Southeast corner of Otay Lak6s Road and East "H" Street
Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have by 4/19/91
Comments:
ROUTING FORM
DATE: April 9, lggl
J ~~Ken Larson, Building & Housing
~.. ~ Oohn Lippitt, Engineering (EIR only}
Cliff Swanson, Engineering {EIR only)
Hal Rosenberg, Engineering {EIR only}
Roger Daoust, Engineering (IS/3, EIR/2)
Ruth Fritsch, Deputy City Attorney (EIR only)
Carol Gove, Fire Department
Shauna Stokes, Parks & Recreation
Keith Hawkins, Police Department
Current. P)ann!ng
~d~nce 'Plannln~
~ob '$ennett, City Landscape Architect '
Bob Leiter, Planning Director
' Chula Vista Elementary School District,' Kate Shurson
Sweetwater Union H.S. District, Tom Silva (IS & EIR)
. Rick Carpenter Environmental Section to- -
~ Application for Initial.Study (IS-90-13 /FA-' 443 /DP assb~gn~d
~ Checkprint Draft EIR (20 days)(EIR-. /FB-- /DP )
~ Review of a Draft EIR ';~ (EIR-.. /FB-. /DP.
F'-] Review of Environmental Review Record FC- /ERR- )
The project consists of: Consideration of an amendment to the Chula Vista General
Plan, changing the land use designation for 3.67 acres from "Medium Density
Residential" to "Retail Commercial" and a change in zoning from R-1 {Single
Family Residential) to C-C (Central Commercial). The proposed development
will include five buildings consisting of a bank, an ATM structure, a fast
food restaurant, a family-style restaurant and various small commercial shops
totalling 33,461 sq..ft, of Type V-N {wood frame stucco) structures.
Location: Southeast corner of Otay Lakes Road and East "H" Street
Please review the document and forward to me any comments you have by 4/19/91
Sweetwater Union High School District
April 23, 1991 ~
Mr. Rick Carpenter
City of Chula Vista
Planning Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91gll
Dear Mr. Carpenter:
Re: IS-90-13 - Rezone of 3.67 Acres From "Median Density
Residential' to 'Retail Community,
Please be advised that the above subject development proposal is
located across from the Bonita Vista High School. Approximately
2,000 students attend this campus daily, many of whom walk to
school. It has been my experience that small shopping centers
such as the one described in this proposal contain shops that are
attractive to teenagers. I am concerned for their safety.
As we have seen along Otay Lakes Road in front of the Point Bonita
Center, students will cross a busy street to access the shopping
center. The same thing can be expected to occur at this new
center. Therefore, I am requesting that the city require, as a
condition of approval, that a solid barrier be placed in the "H"
Street median strip. This will discourage illegal pedestrian
crossing. As we have learned from the Otay Lakes Road experience,
landscaping alone does not discourage jaywalking.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this issue.
~ Silva
Director of Planning
TS/sf
CHULA V TA EI,EMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT
84 EAST "J" STREET * CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 92010 · 619 425-9600
EACH CHILD IS AN ~D~IDUAL OF GREAT WO~ H RECEIV[D
.OAROOF£~0N April 19, 1991 [
2 1991
~RRY ~IN~AM
~ARON GILES
PA?R~K A, JU~
~.£~..S~V^L MS. Maryann Miller PLANNING
Environmental Review Section
su.£m~£.m~ City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
~,,~.~n~.p,D. Chula Vista, CA 91910
RE: Case No. I~-90-13 / FA-443
Project: Otay Lakes Plaza
Applicant: Mark Kelton
Location: Otay Lakes Road & East ~ Street
Dear Ms. Miller:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Otay Lakes
Plaza project.
This project, located at the Southeast corner of Otay Lakes
Road and East H Street, is within the Chula Vista Elementary
School District which serves children from Kindergarten
through Grade 6.
District enrollment has been increasing at the rate of 4 - 5
percent over the past several years, and this is projected
to continue. Permanent capacity has been exceeded at many
schools and temporary relocatable classrooms are being
utilized to accommodate increased enrollments. The District
also buses students outside their attendance areas, both to
accommodate growth and assist in achieving ethnic balance.
The Initial Study prepared for the proposed project does not
identify potential significant impacts on schools. The
relationship between non-residential development and student
enrollment has been clearly recognized by the State
Legislature through authorization of collection of school
fees. A joint study sponsored by five South Bay school
districts, prepared in 1990 by SourcePoint, further
documents and demonstrates this relationship. Based on this
study, the proposed 33,461 square feet of commercial space
will generate approximately 13 new elementary age children.
Per student facility costs to the District are estimated at
$8,814, or $114,582 for this project. These costs far
exceed developer fees currently allowed under State law.
State law currently provides for a developer fee of $ .26
for non-residential area to be charged (Chula Vista
Elementary School District - $ .12/square foot; Sweetwater
Union High School District - $ .14/square foot) to assist in
financing facilities needed to serve growth.
April 19, 1991
Ms. Maryann Miller
Page 2
RE: Otay Lakes Plaza / IS-90-13
Given this shortfall, the District encourages developer
participation in alternative financing mechanisms to help
assure that facilities will be available to serve children
generated by new construction. We are currently utilizing
Community Facilities Districts (CFD's) as one method to help
fund this deficit. Participation in a CFD is in lieu of
developer fees.
The subject project, Otay Lakes Plaza, is located in the
Tiffany School attendance area. This school ia presently
operating over permanent capacity, and an alternative
financing mechanism, such as participation in or annexation
to a Community Facilities District is recommended.
If you have any questions, please contact this office.
Sincerely,
Kate Shurson
Director of Planning
KS:dp
cc: Rick Carpenter
Mark Kelton
ATTACHMENT: SCENIC ROUTES
East H Street:
The alignment of East H Street provides views of Mother Miguel Mountain
and San Miguel Mountain. East H Street also traverses a variety of
topographic features including the westerly end of Rice Canyon and the
rolling hills near Southwestern College and Eastlake.
Otay Lakes Road offers panoramic views of the hills and mountains to the
east, the Sweetwater Valley to the north and downtown San Diego to the
northwest.
The treatment of these roadways should be consistent with maintaining the
current scenic quality and maximizing the future scenic highway potential of
these routes. It is, therefore, an important consideration to maintain a
consistent quality of development and landscaping along the routes. As such,
these issues will be addressed throughout the planning and permitting process.
WPC 8900P
MF RETAI
VAC
SUBJECT
CITY OF CHULA
EAST "H" STREET/OTAY LAKES ROAD
TRAFFIC STUDY
Submitted To:
_ CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Planning Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 92010
Submitted By:
P&D TECHNOLOGIES
401 West "A" street ·
Suite 2500
San Diego, California 92101
(619) 232-4466
April 1991
Project No. 10369.00
'1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SEL2T/ON
PAGE
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 Project Description 1-1
2.0 EXIST/NG SE't-HNG 2-1
2.1 Project Location . : 2-1
2.2 Existing Circulation System . 2-1
3.0 METHODOLOGY - 3-1
3.1 Trip Generation 3-1
3.2 Trip Dislribution. 3-4
3.3 Traffic Assignment
, 3.4 Background Traffic Projections 3-4
3-4
3.5 Level of Service Analysis , · 3-7
4.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS · 4-1
4.1 Alternative Land Uses. 4-1
5,0 CIRCULATION IIVIPACT MITIGAT/ON 5-1
5.1 Discussion of Improvements . 5-1
5.2 Explicit Responsibilities for Mitigation 5-4
APPENDICES
A TRIP GENERATION RATES
B LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFIN1T/ON
C CHULA VISTA ROADWAY CAPACITY STANDARDS
D ICU CALCULATIONS
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE NO. .PAGE
1-1 Proposed Site Plan 1-2
2-1 Vicinity Map 2-2
2-2 East "H" S~reet/Otay Lakes Road - Existing
2-3
Intersection Geomewics
_
3-1 Trip Dislribution 3-5
3-2 Existing Traffic Volumes & Level of Service 3-9
3-3 , Near-Term Traffic Volumes & Level of Service . 3-10
3-4 Near-Term Traffic Volumes & Level of. Service . 3-12
(With Proposed Project)
5-0 Intersection Geometric Improvements 5-2
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE NO. PAGE
3-1 Trip Generation - Proposed Project 3-1
3-2 Intersection Level of Service Summary 3-8
4-1 Trip Generation - Alternative Uses 4-2
4-2 Level of Service Summary - Alternative Uses 4-3
L
SECTION 1.0
INTRODUCTION
This report addresses the traffic impacts of a proposed commercial development in the City of
Chula Vista. This study was prepared for the Kelton 'rifle Corporation and presents the basic
resource information, analysis and findings for the portion'of the circulation system that will be
affected by the new development. The objective of this analysis is to verify the adequacy of the
existing circulation system and recommend necessary improvements where appropriate.
1.I PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed development is located on a 3.6 acre site and will consist of four buildir_gs
including a bank, a fast-food restaurant, a family-style restaurant and various small commercial
shops. Total leasable area will equal approximately 35,400 square feet. The site plan for the
proposed project is displayed in Figure 1-1.
SECTION 2.0
EXISTING SETTING
2.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The proposed project is located on the southeast comer of the East "H" Street/Otay Lakes Road
intersection. Regionally this location lies in the "Eastern Territories" of Chula Vista as shown
in Figure 2-1.
2.2 EXISTING CIRCULATION SYdTEM
Access to the project will be provided by both East "H" Street and Otay Lakes Road. East "H"
Street, west of Otay Lakes Road currently operates as a six-lane Primary arterial facility. East
of Otay Lakes Road, East "H" Street operates as a four-lane major arterial facility. Each of these
sections of East "H" Street are bui't to their ultimate designations under the City of Chula Vista
General PI'an. Otay Lakes Road, south of East H Street currently provides four travel lanes and
a two-way center turn lane. North of East "H" Street, Otay Lakes Road operates as a four-lane
major arterial. It is divided by a raised median from East "H" Street northerly to Ridgeback
Road. The Chula Vista General Plan calls for Otay Lakes Road to ~ operate as a six-
lane primary arterial facility.
Figure 2-2 displays the existing lane geometry of the East "H" Street/Otay Lakes Road
intersection
2-1
Figure 2-2
'East "H" Street/Otay Lakes Ro. ad
Existing Intersection Geometr~cs
I SECTION 3.0
METHODOLOGY
TMs Section of the report discusses the methodology used and assumptions made in the analysis
of traffic impacts created by the proposed project as well as by the alternative land uses specified
for consideration by the City.
3.1 TRW GENERATION
Trip generation rates from the City of San Diego were used in this ,study and are summarized in
Appendix A. City of San Diego rates were utilized because they allow consideration of both a
"driveway" rate and a "cumulative" generation rate. The "driveway" rate reflects the total daily
vehicular,traffic projected to access the project site. However, much of this traffic will consist
of vehicles already on the roadway which will utilize the development's facilities as an
intermediate stop. The "cumulative" rate takes this into account and projects the "net new" traffic
or cumulative increase in overall traffic due to the proposed project activities.
Table 3-1 summarizes the trip generation for the proposed project_ Traffic entering and leaving
the project is expected to total approximately 5,500 trips per day. Passer-by trips account for
approximately 4,100 of these. This results in a total of 1,400 daily trips actually added to the
surrounding street system.
3-1
3.2 TRIP DISTRIBUTION
The distribution patterns of traffic destined to a.~d originating from the proposed project are
shown in Figure 3-1. These patterns were derived based upon turn moves at the East "H"
Street/Otay Lakes Road intersection along with knowledge of planned development in the
al'ea.
Due to the project's proximity to the East "H'.': treet/Otay Lakes Road intersection, median
openings allowing left-turn access to the development will not be permitted according to
Chula Vista Traffic Engineering Staff. Thus, access to the project will consist of right-turn-
in/right-mm-out only. This will cause a diversion in the normal traffic patterns of some
p?oject traffic through the East "H" St;:eet/Otay Lakes Road intersection. Specifically, an
increase in U-turn activity at the intersection is expected as patrons attempt to enter the
%
project from the east or exit the project to the south.
3.3 TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT
Based on the access constraints and the trip distribution pattern mentioned above, project
related traffic was assigned to East "H" Street and Otay Lakes Road. In addition, those trips
determined to be of the passer-by nature (approximately 75% of the total in this case) were
assigned noting that these trips are not round-trips but rather trips with a final destination
further down their initial route.
3.4 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS
As instructed by the City of (~hula Vista Planning Department, P&D Technologies utilized
the Transportation Phasing Plan traffic volume forecast produced by Willdan Associates as
the source for 1995 ("near-term") background traffic in the study area. The volumes
reflected in this forecast include all traffic generated by "approved" development in the
Eastern Territories. ("Approved" is defined as those projects with approved Final and
Tentative Subdivision Maps.) These modelled volumes have been updated to reflect the
latest results which incorporate SANDAG 1995 Series 7 land use forecasts.
3-3
Peak hour intersection turn volumes associated with these anticipated Average Daily Traffic
(ADT) volumes were not available, therefore P&D used "CINCH" computer software to
estimate them. Th.ts estimate is made based on the methodology outlined in Transportation
Research Record number 795 and utilizes information regarding existing turn movements,
expected ADT on the approaches, and the daily directional volume split assumed for each
approach. It was conservatively assumed that the percentage of daily traffic occurring in the
PM peak hour will oe 10%. The results are shown in Figure 3-3. The extremely large
increases in turn movements to and from the s~uth Otay Lakes Road approach are driven by
the modelling results; these project a significant increase in traffic on Otay Lakes Road south
of East "H" Street with relativ61y minor increases projected for the other roadway segments.
The 1995 n'affic forecast was developed under the assumption that SR-125 is not yet,
constructed. City staff indicate that completion of a SR-125 facility (interim or freeway)
would be expected to reduce traffic volumes on the roadways of interest in this study. Thus
the assumption here that SR-125 is not in place presents a worst case near term scenario.
It should be stated that while modelled 1995 traffic'volumes and projected intersection turn
movements represent the best information available at this time, the City should continue to
monitor the traffic levels and turn movements to verify circulation patterns and growth
projections.
3-4
3.5 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS
In order to evaluate the operating conditions of a circulation system, the concept of Level
of Service (LOS) has been developed. It is a qualitative measure of the effect on traffic flow
of factors such as speed, travel time, interruption, and freedom to maneuver. Levels of
service are rated "A" through "F" with LOS A signifying the best'operating conditions and
LOS F representing the worst. A table defining levels of service A through F is provided
in Appendix B.
Standards for "acceptable" versus "unacceptable" LOS vary from community to community.
In Chula Vista, the standard for acceptable level of service on arterial roadways is LOS D
or better. For signalized intersections, LOS D is permitted for not more than two hours per
day.
Pursuant to City of Chula Vista Traffic Engineering Department specifications, two methods
have been utilized to analyze level of service. First, arterial ADT projections have been
compared to the street capacity criteria shown in Appendix B to calculate link specific
volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratios. Second, the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU)
methodology has been used to calculate PM peak hour v/c ratios and corresponding levels
of service.
Level of service analysis was conducted on three separate scenarios. They include:
· Existing conditions
· "Near-term" background conditions
· "Near-term" background plus proposed project conditions.
3-6
SEGMENTS
Daily traffic volume projections for adjacent roadway segments along with eorresgonding
levels of service for each case are shown in Figure 3-2, 3-3, and 3-4. These indiccte that
Otay Lakes Road south of East "H" Street is projected to experience the largest increase in
traffic volume, growing from approximately 18,000 (existing) to 33,000 ADT by 1995 given
approved development in the area. This near term volume exceeds the capacity of r Class
I Collector and would result in LOS F operations in the absence of improvements. ,nterim
improvement of Otay Lakes Road to 4-lane major arterial standards (as exist' north of East
"H" Street) would provide sufficient capacity to accomodate this projected growth. Also, the
construction of a SR-125 facility would reduce traffic volumes in this area in the near term.
The project is anticipated to add approximately 200 ADT to this roadway segment. This
volume (less than 1%) would not have a significant impact on LOS. All other roadway
segments now operate at LOS A and are projected to continue at this unconge~ted level in
the near term.
INTERSECTIONS
Since background lxaffic volumes and trips generated by the project are greater in the PM
peak hour than in the AM peak hour, analysis was limited to the PM peak hour in order to
simplify calculations as well as present the worst case scenario.
The Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) method has been used to calculate PM peak hour
v/c ratios and corresponding levels of service based on estimated future intersection mm
movements. Chula Vista recommends the following vehicles per hour per lane capacities
be used for the ICU calculations:
· Turning lane capacity = 1,500 vph
· Three lane capacity = 1,700 vph
' 3-7
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY
Scenario PM Pe~k Hour
ICU LOS
Existing Conditions .53 A
Projected 1995 Background 1.09 F
Traffic Volumes~
Projected 1995 Background Traffic
Volumes with Improvements and with
Proposed Project2 .80 C/D
The ICU calculation results are summarized in Table 3-2. As indicated, the level of service at
this intersection will worsen due to the projected volume increase associated with approved
developn~ent. This increase is most significant on Otay Lakes Road south of East "H" Street.
Associated with the projected doubling in ADT on this segment is a significant increase in turn
movements both to and from this approach. The result would be LOS F operations in the PM
peak period if existing intersection geometrics were maintained. This impact can be mitigated
to LOS D through provision of a dual left turn lane on the northbound approach of Otay Lakes
Road. Although the exact duration of this level of service cannot be determined given the
forecasted methodology, it is expected to be limited to the afternoon peak period.
The proposed project will result in increased left turn and U-turn activity at this intersection due
to the imposed access restrictions at its driveways. The addition of project mm volumes to those
projected in 1995 will require provision of a dual left turn lane westbound on East "H" Suet to
mitigate project impacts. This improvement would result in LOS C/D operation (ICU=.80) as
reflected in Figure 3-4.
From Willdan Associates modelling as described in text.
Improvements include dual left turn lanes northbound and westbound.
3-8
oo
SECTION 4.0
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
This section of the report discusses the development alternatives for the proposed project.
4.1 ALTERNATIVE LAND USES
Five alternative land uses for the project site wsre analyzed and their respective trip generation
totals based on the generation rates presented in Appendix A, are presented in Table 4-1. From
the table it is seen that each of the five alternatives will create fewer daily trips than the proposed
project and therefore will impact the circulation system to a lesser degree.
Analysis was conducted for the East "H" Street/Otay Lakes Road intersection for each alternative.
Since ba,ckground traffic volumes and trips generated by each of the alternatives are greater in
the PM peak hour than in the AM peak hour, analysis was limited to the PM peak hour in order
to simplify calculations as well as present a worst case scenario. Results of the analysis are
shown in Table 4-2.
It should be noted that analysis for each of the alternatives was conducted with thc assumption
that improvements required by the "near-term" background traffic alone are complete. These
improvements are discussed in Section 5 - Circulation Impact Mitigation.
4-1
Table 4-2
LEVEL OF SERVICE - SUMMARY - ALTERNATIVE USES
PM Peak Hour
Alternative Land Use ICU LOS
Project Development
No
1.091
F
Propose i Project
p (See Tattle 3-2) .80.2 C/D
1 Post Office .84s D
2 , Library .85~ D
3 Church .83~ D
4 , Medium Density .833 D
Residential
5 Low Density .83s D
Residential
= Proposed Project
= Assumes no intersection improvements
= Assumes dual left mm lanes on northbound and westbound approaches
= Assumes dual left mm lane on northbound approach
4°3
CIRCULATION IMPACT MITIGATION
[1
This section discusses the circulation improvements that are recommended for mitigation of
[~ traffic impacts associated with near term growth in the area, as well as those created by the
proposed project.
[,I 5.1 DISCUSSION OF.IMPROVEMENTS
i The improvements necessary in order to maintain Chula Vista City standards for level of service
1 are discussed below. Because Otay Lakes Road and East "H" Street are included in Chula
Vista's DIF (Development Impact Fee) network, this. project's contribution toward these
i improvements is defined based on development square footage. As discussed, the improvements
are base4:l on segment volume projections (and related intersection turn movement estimates)
! which indicate an ex~emely large increase in traffic on Otay Lakes Road south of East "H"
Ii Street. While these projections represent the best information available at this time, the City
should continue to monitor the traffic levels and turn movements to verify circulation patterns
and growth projections, and that these improvements are appropriate to meet future demands,
particularly as they are impacted by SR-125.
1 The completion of these improvements would result in the circulation system functioning
! acceptably well into the future. It should be noted that all of the improvements listed except the
addition of a dual left turn lane westbound on East "H" Street are warranted by development
Ii already approved by the City. They are not a direct result of the proposed project and would be
necessary irrespective of whether the site is developed.
1 o The circulation element of the Chula Vista General Plan calls for Otay Lakes
Road to ultimately be constructed to six-lane primary arterial standards. 1995
Volume projections indicate that dual left mm lanes will be necessary on the
northbound approach at the East "H" Street intersection. With this in mind, it is
suggested that this project, fronting Otay Lakes Road, dedicate the additional
I! right-of-way necessary to accommodate future half width-improvements consistent
~ 5-1
with this ultimate cross-section. Ultimately, this will require similar dedication
of additional fight-of-way from the unimproved parcel fronting the west side of
Otay Lakes Road so that proper lane alignment across the intersection can be
maintained.
In addition to the right-of-way dedication, an interim upgrade of Otay Lakes Road
south of East "H" Street to four-lane major arterial standards will be required
to
accommodate projected 1995 traffic levels. This project provides an opportunity
to complete these half-widths improvements along the east side of the portion of
Otay Lakes Road fronting the property. These improvements should be
engineered for consistency with the ultimate cross-section as well as providing a
safe alignment with Otay Lakes Road across the intersection. This may require
concurrent half-width improvements to the western side of the roadway.
The circulation ~lement of the Chula Vista General Plan calls for East "H" Street
heading easterly, to transition from a six-lane primary arterial to a four-lane major
roadway as it crosses Otay Lakes Road. 1995 projections indicate the addition of
a dual left-turn lane on the westbound approach of East "H" Street will be
required to mitigate project impacts in conjunction with the growth in near term
traffic, and that the existing exclusive fight turn lane on this approach is not
required. It is recommended that the subject property dedicate the additional
fight-of-way required to accommodate an ultimate East "H" Street cross-section
consistent with these requirements. To ensure proper lane alignment across the
intersection when these ultimate improVements are completed, similar dedication
will be required from the school property fronting the north side of East "H"
Street at this intersection.
This project does provide an opportunity to make some of these improvements to
the east approach. The required dual left turn lane westbound and the transitional
third through lane eastbound could be constructed at the expense of the existing
exclusive westbound fight turn lane. The resulting intersection geometries would
be as shown in Figure 5-1. In order to maintain a safe alignment with East "H"
Street across the intersection, concurrent half-width improvements to the northside
of East "H" Street may be required.
Additional ROW dedication and completion of further ultimate intersection
improvements should be completed when development of the southwest quadrant
occurs or when the City's annual Traffic Monitoring program identifies the need.
5-2
EXISTING GEOMETRICS
NEAR-TERM GEOMETRICS
Figure 5-1
East "H" Street/Otay Lakes Road
Intersection Geometrics
In summary, substantial cumulative traffic increases are projected to occur at the East "H"
Stree~/Otay Lakes Road intersection given the level of approved development occurring in the
area. This is particularly the case for Otay Lakes Road south of East "H" Street. As a result,
improvements will be required to maintain acceptable City operation standards irrespective of
whether the site is developed or of the proposed usage. With the above described improvements
and dedications, the circulation system will function acceptably. The project should contribute
to these improvements according to the procedures defined in the City's DJF program. While
the project does provide an opportunity to implement some of these imp· ~vements, the City
should monitor circulation in the area as development continues to ensure, that required
modifications are timely and efficient.
5.2 EXPLICIT RESPONSIBILITIES FOR MITIGATION
I Responsibilities of the Developer:
o Dedicate necessary right-of-way and construct an additional northb, ound lane along
Otay Lakes Road fronting the project consistent with an ultimate six-lane prime
arterial roadway.
I o Dedicate necessary right-of-way and construct a transition lane needed for
eastbound traffic on East "H" Street fronting the project consistent with an
ultimate four-lane major roadway.
I o Modify the traffic signal at East "H" Street and Otay Lakes Road in conjunction
with street improvements.
I o Contribute funds to the Development Impact Fees and Traffic Signal Fees
financing program.
Responsibilities of the City of Chula Vista:
o Construct dual left tums on all legs of the intersection of East "H" Street and Otay
Lakes Road when traffic demands indicate their need as determined by the City
the Traffic Monitoring Program. The recommended
Engineer
through
City's
improvement shall be implemented at such time as deemed necessary by the City
i Engineer.
r 5-4
APPENDIX A
TRIP GENERATION RATES
APPENDIX A
AVERAGE DAILY TRIP RATES
Land Use Driveway ADT Rate "Cumulative" ADT Rate
Retail 40/1000 $.F. 40/1,000 S.F.
Bank 200/1,000 S.F. 40/1,000 S.F.
Restaurant 200/1,000 S.F. 40/1,000 S.F.
Fast Food 770/1,000 S.F. 40/1,000 S.F.
ATM 260/Unit 40/Unit
Library 46/1,000 S.F. 20/1,000 S.F.
Post Office 140/1,000 S.F. 20/1,000 S.F.
Church 15/1,000 S.F. 15/1,000 S.F.
Low Density Res. 10/D.U. N/A
Med. Density Res. 8/D.U. N/A
Source: City of San Diego Weekday T~'ip Generation Rates
APPENDIX B
LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITION
LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS
Level of Volume
Service Traffic Flow Characteristics Capacity Ratio
A Level-of-Service A represents free flow. Individual 0.00 - 0.60
users are virtually unaffected by the presence of others
in the traffic stream. Freedom to select desired speeds
and to maneuver within the traffic stream is extremely
high. The general level of comfort and convenience
provided to the motorist, passenger, or pedestrian is
excellent.
B Level-of-Service B is in the rahge of stable flow, but 0.61- 0.70
the presence of other users in the traffic stream begins
to be noticeable. Freedom to select desked speeds is
relatively unaffected, but there is a slight decline in
the freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream
from LOS A. The level of comfort and convenience
provided is somewhat less than at LOS A, because the
presence of others in the traffic stream begins to affect
individual behavior.
C Level-of-Service C is in the range of stable flow, but 0.71 - 0.80
marks the beginning of the range of flow in which the
operation of individual users becomes significantly
affected by interactions with others in the traffic
stream. The selection of speed is now affected by the
presence of others, and maneuvering within the traffic
stream requires substantial vigilance on the part of the
user. The general level of comfort and convenience
declines noticeably at this level.
D Level-of-Service D represents high-density, but stable, 0.81 - 0.90
flow. Speed and freedom to maneuver are severely
restricted, and the driver or pedestrian experiences a
generally poor level of comfort and convenience.
Small increases in traffic flow will generally cause
operational problems at this level.
E Level-of-Service E represents operating conditions at 0.91 - 1.00
or near the capacity level. All speeds axe reduced to
a tow, but relatively uniform value. Freedom to
maneuver within the traffic stream is extremely
difficult, and it is generally accomplished by forcing
a vehicle or pedestrian to "give way" to accommodate
such maneuvers. Comfort and convenience levels are
~ extremely poor, and driver or pedestrian frustration is
generally high. Operations at this level are usually
unstable, because small increases in flow or minor
perturbations within the traffic stream will cause
breakdowns.
Service Traffic Flow Characteristics Capacity Ratio
F Level-of-Service F is used to define forced or ove~ 1.00
breakdown flow. This condition exists wherever the
amount of traffic approaching a point exceeds the
amount which can traverse the point. Queues form
behind such locations. Vehicles may progress at
reasonable speeds for several hundred feet or more,
then be required to stop in a cyclic fashion. Level-of-
Service F is used to describe the operating conditions
within the queue, as well as the point of the
breakdown.
Source: Highway Capacit~Manttal, Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board,
National Research Council, 1985.
I
i
!
I
i
II CHOLA VISTA ROADWAY CAPACITY AND DESIGN STANDARDS
II
iI
CITY_ OF CHULA VISTA RO~ADWAY_(~APACITY STANDARD~;*
AVERAGE DAILY VEHICLE TRIPS
ROAD
LEVEL OF SERVICE
Cz,ASS ' ~-SECTION A B C D E
v/c }~atio (.6) 67) (.s) ,,(.9) (1.0)
Expressway 104/128 52,500 61,300 70,000 78,800 87,500
Prime Anedal 104/128 37,500 43,800 50,000 56,300 62,500
Majqr Stree;
(6 lanes) 104/128 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000
Major Street
(4 lanes) 80/104 22~500 26,300 30,000 33,800 37,500
Class I
Collector 74/94 16,500 19,300 22,000 24,800 27,500
Class H
Collector 52/72 9,000 10,500 12,000 13,500 15,000
Class III
Collector 40/60 5,600 6,600 7,500 8,400 9,400
* LOS 'C' Capacities are from the City of Chula Vista Circulation Element of the
General Plan. Other levels of service are derived by volume to capacity (V/C)'
ratios.
J
J
APPENDIX D
ICU CALCULATIONS
!
!
1
I
East "H" Street/Otay Lakes Road Traffic Study
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET
East "H" Street & Otay Lakes Road
Northbound ~l Eastbound
3~oo
5~oo
Southbound
~ Westbound
15o0 ' 1500
PM PEAK HOUR ~ Job No.
Date 8/6/
]' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCuLATIO" WORKSHEET
] ~..,o. E~+ "," s~-,~- ~- o~.1 ~ ~
FI'
ii3
_ / ~' Critical Movement
! ~.~"'t"..x.~.:l ' H /
I ' I Uob
j Date
] I~ ~ ,, ,7, --
" East "H" Street/Otay Lakes Road Traffic Study
I INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET
ii! ,~,,o. East "H"Street& Olay Lakes Road
il Nor,hbound Eas,bound
il i I
~ ~~ ~ ' Cdtical Movement
PM PEAK HOUR Job No. 10369.~_
Dale 8/6/1990
East H Street/Otay Lakes Road Traffic Study
/ INTERSECTION ~i~ACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET
East H Street & Otav Lakes Road
/ N°rihb°und J I Eastbound
/ ~/ ~'°°-
/~?~./. '/ ~ °1
·~~'
East "H" Street/Otay Lakes Road Traffic Study
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET
Northbound
Eastbound
Southbound ~ { Westbound
~ ~J~Ik~/ ~ ' Critical Movement
M PEAK HOUR Job No._ I0369.~
Da~e 8/61199o
ast H Street/Otay Lakes Road Traffic Study
iN TER S EC"~"~-ION"'"~APACiTY U'~==~=~
ILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET
East "H" Street & Otav Lakes Road
Northbound I I Easlbound
Southbound J ~ ' ~l ,
~ ~ ~ / ~ Critica~ Movement
PEAK HOUR Jc~e No-
negative declaration-,
PROJECT NAME: Otay Lakes Plaza
PROJECT LOCATION: Southeast corner of East H Street and Otay Lakes Road
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 642-020-17
PROJECT APPLICANT: Kelton Title Corporation
CASE NO: IS-90-13 DATE: May 24, 1991
A. Project Setting
The project site is a vacant triangular-shaped lot comprised of 4.32 gross
acres located on the southeast corner of East H Street and Otay Lakes
Road. East H Street borders the property on the north and Otay Lakes Road
borders the property on the west. The site is situated within an area
which is largely developed. Surrounding land uses include Bonita Vista
High School to the north, a church parking lot and fire station to the
south, a church to the east, and a vacant lot surrounded by the parking
lots of Southwestern Junior College across Otay Lakes Road to the west.
The northwest corner of the intersection of East H Street and Otay Lakes
Road is fully developed with Bonita Point Plaza. The plaza consists of a
supermarket, drug store, full service gas station, banks, fast-food
restaurants, and other community-serving retail shops.
The site has been disturbed by previous grading. On-site grading has
created two level pads, one tiered at a higher elevation than the other.
Slope gradients of the pads are generally level, with slopes ranging
between 1% and 5%. Construction debris is found scattered throughout the
property, and there is no existing vegetation on the site other than
evasive grasses and weeds.
B. Pro,iect Description
The City conducted a special study resulting in recommendation for a
rezone and general plan amendment. The recommended changes would
designate the site for commercial office use subject to a precise plan.
C. Compatibility with Zoninq and Plan~
The current zoning on-site is R-1 (single family residential). The
proposed rezone would change the zoning from R-1 to C-O-P
(Commercial-Office subject to a Precise Plan).
The existing General Plan Designation for the site is Low-Medium Density
Residential (3-6 dwelling units per acre (du/ac)) with a Special Study
overlay. The proposed General Plan Amendment would change the land use
designation to Professional and Administrative Commercial.
-,. WPC 9554P (7/17/91) city of chula vista planning department
environmental review section CHULA VISTA
The Special Study overlay established by the Chula Vista City Council in
July 1989, requires the evaluation of alternative land uses for the site.
Alternative uses have been evaluated by the Traffic Study prepared for a
variety of land uses in conjunction with this Negative Declaration, and
will be addressed by the Planning Department analysis and staff report to
be prepared in conjunction with the above mentioned General Plan Amendment
and Rezoning proposals.
D. Compliance 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 throughout the City within 7 minutes
or less in 85% of the cases {measured annually) 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 approximately 1/4 mile away and would be associated with a
less than 2 minute response time. The proposed project will comply
with this Threshold Policy.
The estimated distance to the nearest Fire Station location is 1/4
mile, with a corresponding response time of less than two minutes.
The City of Chula Vista currently contracts ambulance service with
Hartson Medical Services, which could provide a response time of less
than 10 minutes. However, all City Fireman are registered Emergency
Medical Technicians {EMT's) who would provide any necessary medical
assistance at the project site within their two minute response
time. Therefore, the proposed project complies with this Threshold
Standard 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 62.10% 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 Police Department
has not indicated that they would be unable to serve this project.
Therefore, the proposed project will comply with this Threshold
Policy.
3. Traffic
The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that all intersections must
operate at a Level of Service {LOS) "C" or better, with the exception
that Level of Service (LOS) "D" may occur during the peak two hours
of the day at signalized intersections. No intersection may reach
LOS "F" during the average weekday peak hour. Intersections of
arterials with freeway ramps are exempted from this policy.
wPc 955~.P (7/17/rYl)
The City Traffic Engineer has reviewed the traffic study prepared by
an outside consultant. An additional traffic study may be needed
when a specific project is proposed in order to verify existing
findings and potentially recommend mitigation measures.
4. Parks/Recreation
The Threshold/Standards Policy for Parks and Recreation provides a
population ratio of 3 acres of neighborhood and community parkland
with appropriate facilities per 1,000 residents east of 1-805. This
threshold applies only to residential projects. Since the proposed
project is a retail commercial use, the Thresholds/Standards Policy
for Parks/Recreation is not applicable.
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 Engineering Department has reviewed the proposed project and has
indicated that existing off-site drainage facilities would adequately
serve the project. There are no existing on-site drainage
facilities. The project site is not situated within a flood plain
and would not be subject to any existing flooding hazards. The
project would therefore comply with this Threshold/Standards Policy.
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 Master
Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards.
The City Engineering Department has reviewed the proposal with
respect to sewage capacity and has indicated that there is an
existing sewer line within the immediate vicinity of the project.
City Engineering has indicated that the location and size of the
existing sewer line is adequate to serve the project. Drainage
improvements to connect to the existing sewer line would be
required. With compliance to the requirements and conditions of the
Engineering Department, the proposed project will comply with this
Threshold/Standards 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 proposed project
will comply with this Threshold Policy.
wpC 9554P (7/17/91)
Due to recent drought conditions, as a condition of project approval,
the applicant must agree to a zero net increase in water consumption
or participate in whatever water conservation or fee off-set program
the City of Chula Vista has in effect at the time of building permit
issuance.
E. Identification of Environmental Effects
An initial study conducted by the City of Chula Vista determined that the
proposed commercial retail project could have one or more significant
environmental effects. Subsequent revisions in the project design have
implemented specific mitigation measures to reduce these effects to a
level of less than significant.
The development of this site as a commercial office center according to
mitigation measures developed by City staff, now avoids or mitigates the
potentially significant environmental effects previously identified, and
the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. A
Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with
Section 15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
F. Mitiqation necessary to avoid siqnificant effects
As there is not a specific project proposed but only a general plan
amendment, no significant effects are expected and no mitigation measures
are necessary.
Traffic Circulation
A traffic study was prepared by P & D Technologies in April of 1991 to
address the traffic circulation impacts associated with a retail
commercial center and several land use alternatives including office
commercial use. The objective of the analysis was to verify the adequacy
of the existing circulation system and recommend necessary improvements
where appropriate.
City staff calculated the average daily trip generation for an office
commercial use based on a SANDAG formula. On this site, it was estimated
at 1,300 trips per day. This represents less trips than a retail
commercial would generate.
At this time, no mitigation is required as there is no specific project
proposed. In the event that a specific project is proposed in the future,
mitigation as proposed in the above cited traffic study would be
applicable.
Water Consumption
Since no immediate project is proposed in conjunction with the recommended
land use designation changes, no impact on water consumption will occur.
WPC 9554P (?/17/~1)
-5-
G. Findinqs of Insiqnificant Impact and Impacts Deemed Less than SiqnificanL
Schools
The impacts on schools will be addressed in the environmental review at
the time a specific project is proposed.
Visual Quality
Since no immediate project is proposed in conjunction with the recommended
land use designation changes, no visual quality impact will occur.
Land Use/Community Character
Since no immediate project is proposed in conjunction with the recommended
land use designation changes, no impact on land use or community character.
Based on the following findings, it is determined that the land use
designation changes described above will not have a significant
environmental impact and no environmental impact report needs to be
prepared.
1. The project has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of
the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory.
The proposed changes in land use designation would not substantially
degrade the quality of the environment, threaten to eliminate
sensitive plant or animal species, nor threaten to eliminate
important cultural resources.
2. The project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental
goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals.
The changes would not achieve short term environmental goals to the
disadvantage of long-term environmental 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.
Only a general amendment is being determined not a specific project.
WP(: 9554P (7/17/91)
4. The environ~ntal effects of a project will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
The proposed changes are not associated with any significant, adverse
impacts to human beings. No human health impacts were identified in
the Initial Study conducted for this report.
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
Rick Carpenter, Planning
Barbara Reid, Planning
Chula Vista City School District: Kate Shurson
Sweetwater Union High School District: Tom Silva
Applicant's Agent: Hedenkamp & Associates
2. Documents
East H Street/Otay Lakes Road Traffic Study, P & D Technologies,
April 1991
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.
ENVIRO~(ENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR
EN 6 (Rev. 12/g0}
WPC 9554P (7/17/91)
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of July 24, 1991 Page 1
4b. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-90-B - Consideration to rezone aoproximately 3.65
acres located at the southeast corner of East "H' Street and
Otay Lakes Road From "R-I" to "C-C-P" - Kelton Title
Corn_ oration
A. BACKGROUND
1. The proposal is to rezone 3.65 acres of property located at the southeast coraer
of East "H" Street and Otay Lakes Road from R-1 (Single-Family Residential) to
C-C-P (Central Commercial subject to a Precise Plan). The approval of the
companion request, GPA-90-01, to amend the General Plan from Low-Medium
Residential (3-6 alu/ac)" and "Special Study" to "Retail Commercial" is
prerequisite to the consideration of this proposed rezoning, PCZ-90-B.
2. The accompanying General Plan Amendment Report includes the Environmental
Review Coordinator's recommendation.
3. The accompanying General Plan Amendment Report summarizes the background
leading to the present application.
B. RECOMMENDATION
1. Adopt a motion to deny PCZ-90-B.
2. Approve the Planning Department's alternative amendments to C-O~P (if
"Professional and Administrative Commercial" is approved for the General Plan
designation).
C. DISCUSSION
Adjacent Zoning and Land Use
North: R-1 Bonita Vista High School
South: R-1 Church
East: R-1 Church
West: R-1 Southwestern College
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of July 24, 1991 Page 2
Existim, Site Characteristics
The site consists of one vacant 3.65 acre comprised of two relatively level pads separated
by a steep slope, and stepping up from west to east.
General Plan
The present General Plan designates the.property as "Low-Medium Density Residential*
(3-6 alu/ac) and "Special Study." The applicant is proposing a redesignation to Retail
Commercial.
D. ANALYSIS
This analysis serves as a companion report to the application for a General Plan
Amendment which analyzes the "pros" and "cons" of the applicant's proposals to
redesignate the parcel to "Retail Commercial" and rezone the parcel to "C-C-P" as well
as the "pros" and "cons" of City staff's recommendations that the parcel be redesignated
to "Professional and Administrative Commercial" and rezoned to C-O-P. This analysis
serves as a summary of that analysis.
The Planning Department is recommending denial of the applicant's request to rezone to
C-C-P and instead recommends C-O-P based on the lack of discernable need for
additional neighborhood/community retail commercial acreage within the Eastern
Territories area, and the fact that the "Professional and Administrative Commercial"
designation and C-O-P rezoning would promote land use balance and diversity within the
Southwestern College Activity Center.
The General Plan specifies that the P Modifying District shall be applied to those
properties along the scenic corridors and Otay Lakes Road and "H" Street are identified
as a scenic corridor. Although not recommended, if the Commission chooses to support
the applicant's request for C-C-P zoning, the staff would recommend the following:
A. The subject property, or the neighborhood or area in which the property is
located, is unique by virtue of topography, geological characteristics, access,
configuration, traffic circulation or some social or historic situation requiring
special handling of the development on a precise plan basis.
B. The property or area to which the P modifying district is applied is an area
adjacent and contiguous to a zone allowing different land uses, and the
development of a precise plan will allow the area so designated to coexist between
land usages which might otherwise prove incompatible.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of July 24, 1991 Page 3
C. The basic or underlying zone regulations do not allow the property owner and/or
the city appropriate control or flexibility needed to achieve an efficient and proper
relationship among the uses allowed in the adjacent zones.
D. The area to which the P modifying district is applied consists of two or more
properties under separate ownership wherein coordination regarding access, on-
site circulation, site planning, building design and identification is necessary to
enhance the public convenience, health, safety and general welfare.
In this instance under number 'C', the proposed underlining zone regulations would not
allow the City appropriate control to achieve the efficient and proper relationship among
the uses allowed in the adjacent zones. The Precise Plan guidelines to be attached to the
property shall include:
1. The architectural theme of any proposed development need not be identical to the
design theme of the Latter Day Saints Church building located immediately to the
east, but shall be designed to be in harmony with and compatible with said
structure.
2. The setback established along both Otay lakes Road and "H" Street shall be not
less than 25 feet for any building or parking area. Setbacks for any buildings
over 25 feet in height shall be equal to the setback from the front property line.
The minimum setback from the radius of the comer shall be 60 feet with the
distance measured perpendicular from the comer radius.
3. Eighty percent of the off-street parking area shall be located behind or between
buildings so as to not be the predominant feature facing either Otay lakes Road
or "H" Street.
4. Pedestrian-oriented areas shall be enhanced through the use of a combination of
textured paving, benches, sculptures, and landscaping.
RETAIL
VAC
SUBJECT SIT,
~ND~
.,oo[ GPA~'~O-01 i
..
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA ITEMS for MEETING of JULY 24, 1991
5. a. CONSIDERATION OF FINAL EIR-89-08
MIDBAYFRONT LCP RESUBMITTAL NO. 8 AMENDMENT
A. BACKGROUND
The original Draft EIR prepared on this proposal addressed the potent/al environmental
effects of a proposed Local Coastal Program Resubmittal including both text and graphics.
At the end of the public review period (Planning Commission hearing on September 26,
1990) Chula Vista Investors (the applicant) introduced a new revised concept plan. This
new proposed project is termed Alternative 8. Should the City Council choose to approve
the Alternative 8 concept plan, then the applicant would be required to prepare a revised
LCP Resubmittal document to reflect the reduced density plan proposed by Alternative 8.
Two major changes to the certified LCP would occur if Alternative 8 were approved. The
first would involve the redesignafion to "open space" on all City plans of the "D" Street Fill
and Gunpowder Point, consistent with the establishment of the Sweetwater Marsh National
Wildlife Refuge which includes those areas. The second major change would be to modify
the arrangement of land uses, building height controls, and development intensity in the
Midbayfront planning subarea.
The Alternative 8 concept plan for the Midbayfront proposes a mixed use project totalling
approximately 3.9 million square feet of building area. The concept plan proposes 1,400
residential units, 1,800 hotel units, 150,000 square feet of commercial retail, 640,000 square
feet of professional office, and approximately 246,000 square feet which includes athletic
facilities and a conference center.
Alternative 8 includes parks and part of a man-made lagoon at the northern and western
perimeter of the Midbayfront planning area. The lagoon is a salt water feature that would
extend east from the Bay to the central portion of the Midbayfront. The parks and lagoon
would be available for public use as well as for resident and visitor use.
Alternative 8 proposes:
One 229 foot-high hotel which exceeds the parameters established for highrise
development in the Chula Vista General Plan;
Two hotels and three apartment buildings in the highrise category (99-210
feet);
One hotel, approximately fifteen apartment buildings, eight specialty retail
buildings, two commercial buildings, one office building, one
conference/theater facility, one ice rink, and one light industri~il building in
the midrise range (43-98 feet); and
-1-
The remainder of the structures are below 43 feet in height (within the
lowrise category).
Wetland setbacks are proposed along the perimeter of the Midbayfront which is adjacent
to both San Diego Bay and Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge.
The environmental analysis included in the Final EIR 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
Final EIR also examines alternatives to the project, growth inducing impacts, cumulative
impacts, and other environmental summaries required by CEQA. The environmental
consultant that prepared this Final EIR is Keller Environmental Associates, Inc. of San
Diego, California.
B. RECOMMENDATION
Certify that Final EIR-89-08 has been prepared in compliance with the State CEQA
Guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures for the City of Chula Vista, and
further that the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information in the
Final EIR as it reaches its recommendation on the Alternative 8 concept plan.
C. ANALYSIS
In addition, the Final EIR includes expanded and refined impact definitions to clearly
distinguish between those significant impacts that may be mitigable at a later stage of
planning and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 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 mJtigable 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 thai can only be
avoided through project redesign or selection of another alternative.
'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 are 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.
"Adverse, Not SignificantH - 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.
An analysis of the significant adverse enwronmental impacts which would result from
implementation of Alternative 8 follows.
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 column
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
-3-
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.
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. S i g n i f i c a n t, 1. Flooding of: (a) low-lying areas from tidal highs,
Mitigable compounded by run-up from wind-driven waves
(coastal flood hazards); (b) flooding from the
c. S i g n i f i c a n t, n o t Sweetwater River; (c) flooding associated with
mitigated at plan level 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 standards,
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 10-acre public lagoon and the semi-public
residential lagoon in the northern portion of the site.
3. Visual Aesthetics/Communi _ty Character
Significant visual and aesthetic impacts would occur from development of
Alternative 8 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.
-4-
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.
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 any potential agricultural
land represents an incremental contribution to a regionally significant loss of
agricultural land to development.
5. Air Quality
Potentially significant air quality impacts would occur from development of the
proposed co-generation 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 co-generation 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 co-generation 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 1-5 and the co-generation facility raise noise concerns. These impacts can
be mitigated to a level below significant by limiting construction activities tb certain
times, limiting construction access routes, establishing a noise performance standard
for the co-generation facility, and by requiring a noise barrier along the eastern end
of the child care facility.
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 FEIR. 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 alteration 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 Final EIR provide adequate assurance that impacts associated with
degradation of water quality alterations of predator/competition/prey regimes,
human and pet presence, endangered species concerns, and vector control issue can
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.
The impacts to archaeological and historical resources were found to be significant
but mitigable by subjecting off-site improvements (e.g., for utility extension) to
archaeological review.
9. Paleontology
Significant impacts to paleontological resources could occur during project grading.
The standard on-site monitoring requirements are included in the Final 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.
Impact Level Impact Description
Significant, not mitigable 1. Incompatibility of the intense nature of the ,
development with the land uses of the suri'ounding
Chula Vista area;
-6-
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 certified LCP, General Plan
the plan level (2010), and Bayfront Redevelopment Plan.
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. 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 an LCP Resubmittal, a General Plan Amendment, and a
Redevelopment Plan Amendment; otherwise, 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.
12. Community 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.
-7-
Park development according to the proposed phasing plan would not provide
adequate park area or parking for parks within Phase 1 to accommodate the
anticipated high public usage;
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 open space 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.
Provision of access plan, showing designated public parking areas, access
routes to public areas, and access routes and signage from the east side of 1-5
across the "E" Street bridge. The access plan must be approved by City
Planning and Community Development Departments.
The fourth impact can only be reduced by project redesign, thus, it remains
significant and unmitigable.
14.
In the area of schools, the creation of new 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 annuai school transportation costs. The issue of new school sites
or additional property adjacent to existing schools for the construction of capital
improvements must be resolved during the project level of CEQA compliance and
the impact remains significant at the plan level.
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. 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 - Arterial
Intersections, LOS E or worse - Freeway Ramp Intersections).
I-5 Southbound Ramp/"E" Street (LOS F, ICU 1.05)
1-5 Northbound Ramp/"E" Street (LOS F, ICU 1.30)
Broadway/"E" Street (LOS F, ICU 1.04)
Broadway/"F~' Street (LOS D, ICU 0.84)
Broadway/"H" Street (LOS E, ICU 0.95)
Measures have been suggested and analyzed that would result in the following levels
of service.
1-5 Southbound Ramp/"E" Street (LOS D, ICU 0.87)
I-5 Northbound Ramp/"E" Street (LOS C, ICU 0.74)
Broadway/"E" Street (LOS C, ICU 0.76)
Broadway/"F" Street (LOS C, ICU 0.79)
Broadway/"H" Street (LOS C, ICU 0.75)
The feasibility of several of the measures including 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. In addition, at the project level, a determination of the applicant's fair share
of the improvements required at the off-site intersections will be analyzed.
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.
(i) No Project
(2) Development Under Existing Certified LCP
(3) Reduced Density 1 (26 percent intensity decrease from developer's proposal)
-9-
(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
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 and to
respond to public comments regarding the project density, bulk, and height. The impacts
associated with Alternatives 7 and 9 are 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 (~his
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 Final 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
-10-
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 wonid remain unresolved, and
therefore, significant under Alternative 7.
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.
[C: \WP51 \BAYFRONT~EI R894)9.TXT]
-Il-
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
AGENDA ITEM for JULY 24, 1991
5. b. CONSIDERATION OF MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
EIR-89-08, LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM ALTERNATIVE $
BACKGROlfND
The Mitigation Monitoring Program for Local Coastal Program Alternative $ is attached as
Exhibit A. The program is designed to ensure that, during project implementation, the
applicant and any other responsible parties comply with the feasible mitigation measures
identified in the CEQA Findings.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program
prepared for Local Coastal Program Alternative 8.
[C:\WP51 \BAYFRONI~MMP_LCP4~.TX~
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
ALTERNATIVE 8
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
MONITORING PROGRAM DESCRIPTION AND PURPOSE
Assembly Bill 3180 (AB 3180) was passed by the California State Assembly on August 22,
1988 and subsequently signed into law by the Governor of California. AB 3180 requires
a lead or responsible agency that approves or carries out a project where an Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) has identified significant environmental effects to adopt a "reporting
or monitoring program for adopted or required changes to mitigate or avoid significant
environmental effects." This bill became effective January 1, 1989 as Section 21081.6 to the
Public Resources Code.
The City of Chula Vista is acting as the lead agency for the Local Coastal Program
Alternative 8 project. A Draft, Recirculated Draft and Final EIR was prepared to address
the potential environmental effects of text and graphics which constituted a proposed Local
Coastal Program Resubmittal. These documents were program-level EIRs in accordance
with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and State CEQA Guidelines.
Usually, program-level EIRs are general in nature as no specific development is proposed.
However, for this project, the applicant submitted a concept plan for a portion of the LCP
Resubmittal area. The concept plan did not contain enough detailed information to prepare
a project specific EIR; however, the concept plan was analyzed to the extent possible.
The EIR also analyzed nine alternative plans for that concept plan area. Two of those
alternatives were "no-project" alternatives. Five alternative concept plans were evaluated
in the same level of detail as the applicant's original concept plan. At the end of the public
review period (Planning Commission hearing on September 26, 1990) Chula Vista Investors
(the applicant) introduced a new revised concept plan. This new proposed project is termed
Alternative 8. Should the City Council choose to approve the Alternative 8 concept plan,
then the applicant would be required to prepare a revised LCP Resubmittal document to
reflect the reduced density plan proposed by Alternative 8.
- 1 - 89-4. rnmp. OIO 07/16/91
Two major changes to the certified LCP would occur if Alternative 8 were approved. The
first would involve the redesignation to "open space" on all City plans for the "D" Street Fill
and Gunpowder Point, consistent with the establishment of the Sweetwater Marsh National
Wildlife Refuge which includes those areas. The second major change would be to modify
the arrangement of land uses, building height controls, and development intensity in the
Midbayfront planning subarea.
The Alternative 8 concept plan for the Midbayfront proposed a mixed use project totalling
approximately 3.9 million square feet of building area. The concept proposes 1,400
residential units, 1,800 hotel units, 150,000 square feet of commercial retail, 640,000 square
feet of professional office, and approximately 246,000 square feet which includes athletic
facilities and a conference center.
Alternative 8 includes parks and part of a man-made lagoon at the northern and western
perimeter of the Midbayfront planning area. The lagoon is a salt water feature that would
extend east from the Bay to the central portion of the Midbayfront. The parks and lagoon
would be available for public use as well as for resident and visitor use.
Alternative 8 proposes: one 229 foot-high hotel which exceeds the parameters established
for highrise development in the Chula Vista General Plan; two hotels and three apartment
buildings in the highrise category (99-210 feet); one hotel, approximately fifteen apartment
buildings, eight specialty retail buildings, two commercial buildings, one office building, one
conference/theater facility, one ice rink, and one light industrial building in the midrise
range (43-98 feet). The balance of the structures proposed under Alternative 8 are below
43 feet in height (within the lowrise category).
Wetland setbacks are proposed along the perimeter of the Midbayfront which is adjacent
to both the San Diego Bay and Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge.
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
The Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) for the proposed project will be in place
through all phases of the project, including final design, pre-grading, constructign, and
operation. The City of Chula Vista will have the primary enforcement role for the
mitigation measures which are the responsibility of the City of Chula Vista to implement.
-2- 89-4. mmp. O]O 07/16/91
This includes mitigation measures contained in the Final EIR. The Planning Director of
the City of Chula Vista may delegate individual enforcement tasks to various city
departments.
MITIGATION MONITORING PROCEDURES
The MMP consists of a Mitigation Monitoring Program Summary, filing requirements, and
reporting and compliance verification. These procedures are outlined below.
Mitigation Monitoring Program Summary_
The Mitigation Monitoring Program Summary provides a comprehensive list of the required
mitigation measures that are the responsibility of the City of Chula Vista to implement. In
addition, the Mitigation Monitoring Summary includes: the monitoring activity, the timing
for monitoring activity, and the party or City agency responsible for monitoring mitigation
compliance. The Mitigation Monitoring Program Summary for LCP Alternative 8 is
provided as Table 1.
Mitigation Monitorin~ Program Files
Files shall be established to document and retain the records of the MMP. The files shall
be established, organized, and retained by the City of Chuta Vista, Planning Department.
PROGRAM OPERATIONS
Mitigation measures shall be implemented as specified by the Mitigation Monitoring
Program Summary. During any project phase, unanticipated circumstances may arise
requiring the refinement or addition of mitigation measures, particularly in the case of a
project similar to LCP Alternative 8 with a multi-year phasing program. The Planning
Director of the City of Chula Vista, with advise from staff or another City Department, is
responsible for recommending changes to the mitigation measures, if needed. If mitigation
measures are refined, the change will be documented by the Planning Director and the
appropriate design, construction, or operations personnel shall be notified of the refined
requirements.
-3- s9 4. mmp. OlO 07/16/91
MEASURES TO BE MONITORED
The following text includes a summary of significant impacts, required mitigation measures,
and the monitoring efforts needed to ensure that the measures are adequately implemented.
The mitigation requirements are based on the analysis contained in the Midbayfront LCP
Resubmittal No. 8 Amendment Final EIR. Because of the conceptual plan-level nature of
the project, many of the mitigation measures involve the requirement for further study.
Final determination of the measures necessary to mitigate construction impacts can only be
made when an applicant submits the detailed plans associated with a development project.
Consequently, for those mitigation measures that would occur during project construction
and/or operations, this plan-level monitoring plan consists of carrying forward the measures
to the project-level of CEQA compliance for finalization and implementation.
GEOLOGY/SOILS/GROUNDWATER
Adoption of the LCP Alternative 8 and construction of the proposed Conceptual Plan would
result in four potentially significant impacts: (1) ground settlement due to consolidation of
the compressible estuarine/fluvial (bay) deposits and the artificial fill soils on-site; (2)
grading impacts for on-site and off-site water and sewer pipelines; (3) seismic hazards,
including ground shaking, surface displacement, liquefaction, tsunamis, and earthquake-
induced flooding; and (4) potential foundation design and construction difficulties associated
with the construction of foundations and subterranean parking structures at or hear the
groundwater table.
Mitigation Measures
1. When detailed development plans for the project area are proposed, grading and
drainage plan must be prepared in accordance with the Chula Vista Code, Subdivision
Manual, and City ordinances and adopted standards. These plans must include not .
only grading for structures and roads, but also grading for on-site and off-site water
and sewer pipelines.
2. A site-specific geotechnical engineering investigation, including soils study and seismic
study, must be performed for each proposed structure. Each investigation shall
-4- 89-4. mmp. Ol O 07/16/91
contain adequate subsurface exploration and analyses to determine short- and long-
term settlement magnitudes, expected seismic ground shaking magnitudes and
characteristics, and potential mitigation for seismic ground failure (including
liquefaction). Every investigation shall also provide detailed foundation
recommendations.
3. To provide adequate foundation support for the structure, all high-rise structures will
require deep foundations, or some type of mat foundation integrated into subterranean
parking.
4. Structures that encroach onto areas overlain by existing fill soils, alluvial soils, or bay
deposits will require some form of subgrade modification to improve the support
capacity of the existing soils for the additional engineered fills and/or structural
improvements. Soil improvement could include partial or total removal and
recompaction, dynamic compaction, and/or the use of surcharge fills to pre-compress
saturated alluvial deposits or bay deposits which exist below the groundwater table.
Deep foundations or mat foundation design may also be used to mitigate potential
geotechnical impact due to compressible soil.
5. Roadways, embankments, and engineered fills encroaching onto existing compressible
bay deposits and/or existing fill soils are likely to require subgrade modification to
improve the support capacity of the existing soils and reduce long-term post-
construction settlement. Soil improvement could include partial or total removal,
recompaction, dynamic compaction and/or the use of surcharged fills, to precompress
saturated alluvial deposits or bay deposits which exist below the groundwater table.
Portions of roadway fill, embankments, and other engineered fills may be judged
capable of accommodating some post-construction differential settlements, depending
upon the type of improvements they are to support. Site specific geotechnical studies
should address post-construction settlement potential as well as ways to mitigate post-
construction total and differential settlements to acceptable ranges, based on the
specific types of improvements proposed.
6. The soil-cement lining (covering a clay soil layer) currently planned for the 10-acre
salt water lagoon (which encroaches onto compressible bay deposits) is a relatively
brittle material which may require relatively stringent subgrade improvement to ensure
-5- 89-4. nlmp,OlO 07/16/91
acceptable long-term performance. Subsequent design shall consider other options for
this liner, including clay soil liners and flexible pond liners.
7. To reduce the risk of property damage and injury caused by seismic shaking,
geotechnical studies must specifically address seismic analysis based on site-specific
subsurface data. As a minimum, seismic analysis should address seismically-induced
slope failure, liquefaction, and ground surface accelerations. Appropriate measures
to reduce seismic risk must be implemented into project design.
8. The embankment separating the 10-acre salt water lagoon from San Diego Bay has
tentatively been designed with a crown elevation of + 11 feet. Wind-induced storm
waves or earthquake-induced flooding could exceed the height of the embankment.
An assessment must be made to evaluate the stability of the embankment during these
conditions and the likelihood of these hazards. Mitigation may include either
elevating the height of the embankment or reinforcing the crown of the embankment.
9. Geotechnical studies must also address the impact of foundation location near or
below the groundwater table, and suitable recommendations should be provided to
mitigate both construction-period difficulties and uplift pressures that may affect both
foundation elements and subterranean parking floor slabs extending below the
transient groundwater level. Construction period mitigation may require temporary
dewatering and/or utilization of a gravel mat to provide a working surface upon which
to operate construction equipment. Design techniques to accommodate transient
groundwater highs may include thicker concrete slabs to provide sufficient dead weight
to resist uplift pressures, deep foundations and/or structural foundations to restrain
slabs.
Monitoring Agent
The City of Chula Vista Planning Department is responsible for ensuring, via the Mitigation
Compliance Coordinator (MCC), that mitigation measures for geology/soils/groundwater
impacts are mitigated. The City of Chula Vista Engineering Department is responsible for
verifying the completion of the required technical studies and the incorporation of the
recommended measures into future project design.
-6- sg-4.,,mp.o~o o7/~6/pl
Monitoring Schedule
The soils and geotechnical studies must be submitted for review with all other project level
plans so that the environmental analysis will include these studies. Approval of the studies
will occur prior to the issuance of grading permits. The choice of pond liner for the 10-acre
salt water lagoon, and the associated subgrade improvements, must be approved by the
Engineering Department prior to the initiation of grading for the lagoon. Design
modifications to ensure structural integrity of all buildings must be incorporated to the
satisfaction of the Building and Housing Department prior to issuance of building permits.
HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY
Approval of LCP Alternative 8 and eventual construction of the Concept Plan or other
development alternatives would result in five potentially significant hydrology/water quality
impacts. These include: (1) flooding of (a) low-lying areas from tidal highs, compounded
by runup from wind-driven waves (coastal flood hazards); (b) flooding from the Sweetwater
River; (c) flooding associated with exceeding the capacity of proposed storm drain facilities
on-site; (2) erosion from inland or coastal flooding; (3) siltation and chemical
contamination/degradation of water quality from surface runoff-pesticides, fertilizers, oil,
grease, etc.; (4) inconsistency with City of Chula Vista standards, specifically related to the
design storm flow, and gravity pipe requirements; and (5) issues regarding quantity and
quality of water for both the 10-acre lagoon and the semi-public residential lagoon in-.the
northern portion of the site.
Mitigation Measures
10. A detailed drainage plan must be prepared in accordance with the Chula Vista Code
Subdivision Manual and applicable ordinances and adopted standards (including
Thresholds Standard Policy). Any deviation from City standards must be approved by
the City Engineer.
11. A site-specific hydrology study must be performed for the Midbayfront site, addressing
such issues as flooding of low-lying areas during high tide conditions and the _effect of
wind-driven waves generated from within San Diego Bay; flooding from the
Sweetwater River; and erosion from inland or coastal flooding.
-7- 89-4.mmp. OlO 07/I6/91
12. Recommendations shall be provided for erosion control to mitigate both coastal
erosion and erosion from inland flooding. Additionally, monitoring shall be performed
for a minimum period of three years to evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed
outlet protection at the on-site storm drains discharging directly into San Diego Bay.
The existing bay deposits, located bayward of the two proposed discharge points, are
highly susceptible to erosion and the resulting scour is likely to impact sensitive marine
habitat west of the Midbayfront site, if the force of the storm water being discharged
is not properly mitigated by the proposed discharge aprons.
13. The effectiveness of proposed oil and sediment traps, as well as that of the desilting
basin in removing both sediment and chemical pollutants from the "F" & "G" Street
Marsh shall be monitored for a minimum period of three years. All recommendations
must be implemented before or during project construction.
14. Traps for contaminant control must be approved by the City Engineering Department
before they may be installed. The City Engineering Department must verify that all
EPA, and any Regional Water Quality Control Board Standards and all other
applicable regulations are met. Grading may not proceed until the standard are met.
Proof of effectiveness of the traps must be demonstrated.
15. The proposed on-site storm drain system must be designed in accordance with City of
Chula Vista Standards and the City of Chula Vista Subdivision Manual. Any deviation
from these standards must be approved by the City Engineer. In addition, calculations
should be made for the 100-year design storm, as required by FEMA and prudent
engineering practice.
16. The applicant must prepare a groundwater quality and quantity analysis for
replacement water required for the lagoons. If groundwater is not available in the
required amount, and/or if it is contaminated, then an alternative source must be .
approved by the City Planning and Engineering Departments.
17. Specific measures provided in the LCPR No. 8 text (1989:16-84) to guid. e operation
of the desilting basin upstream of the "F" & "G" Street Marsh must be clarified. These
measures include:
-8- 89 4. r~mt~.010 07/16/91
- Control of detention basin discharge (state how/when this is controlled)
- Regulate construction schedules
- Control erosion at new construction
18. To maintain water quality in both the "F" & "G" Street Marsh and lower San Diego
Bay, measures in the LCPR No. 8 Text (1989: 16-84) must be implemented. Two of
particular concern are:
- Re-seed or apply vegetation cover to disturbed areas.
Control littering by providing adequate receptacles, frequent pickup, educational
signs, and enforcement.
Monitoring Agent
The City of Chula Vista Planning Department, via the MCC, is responsible for ensuring that
the hydrology/water quality mitigation measures are implemented. The City of Chula Vista
Engineering Department and Planning Department will be responsible for reviewing and
approving the drainage plan for the development area, including storm drains; the hydrology
study; the erosion control recommendations, including discharge aprons; the traps for
contaminant control; and the groundwater study for the lagoons. A monitor under the
direction of the MCC will be responsible for periodic inspection of the oil and sediment
traps, the desiring basins, storm-drain outlets in the bay, and the detention basin upstream
of the "F" & "G" Street Marsh.
Monitoring Schedule
The drainage and hydrology studies must be received with all other project level plans so
that environmental analysis will include those studies. Approval will occur prior to grading
for installation of drainage structures. All standards and regulations of the EPA and
RWQCB must be met prior to initiation of grading. All contamination traps must be
approved by the Engineering Department before they may be installed. The groundwater .
evaluation and source determination of water for the lagoons must be approved before the
lagoons are graded.
The MCC will be responsible for periodic evaluation of the desilting basins, oil and
sediment traps and erosion control structures at the storm-drain outlets in the bay. This
-9- 89 4. mrnp. OlO 07/J6/91
evaluation should occur at least twice a year, in the spring and fall, for three years to
determine the before and after conditions with winter storms.
BIOLOGY
Numerous biological resource impacts were cited, including:
· generation of contaminants affecting water quality
· alteration of the predator/competitor/prey balance
· incremental, yet significant, loss of raptor foraging habitat
incompatibilities between insects and humans
· predator enhancement impacts on the Light-footed Clapper Rail and Belding's
Savannah Sparrow
· increased freshwater input from site drainage
· sediment accretion and erosion
· construction effects
· increased human and pet presence
· habitat alteration effects on California Least Tern
· effects from drainage on eelgrass and mudflats
Mitigation Measures
19. The applicant must prepare a Biological Resource Management Plan to determine
project-specific mitigation measures. The Plan must include the following biological
resource management plans as individual sections:
Predator Management Plan
Human Activities Management Plan
Landscape Design and Management Plan
Water Quality/Runoff/Drainage Management Plan
Mudflat and Wetland Monitoring Plan
Project Lighting Plan
Construction Monitoring and Management Plan
CC&Rs/Ordinances/Applicable Policies
-10- $9-4.mmp,OlO 07/16/91
20. A "biologically aware" construction monitor shall be required for all phases of grading
and installation of drainage systems. The monitor should be employed through the
City and should report directly to a specific responsible person in the Engineering,
Planning or Community Development Department or the mitigation compliance
coordinator (MCC). The monitor will remain on-site and available for consultation
should construction activities fail to meet the conditions outlined or should unforseen
problems arise which require immediate action or stopping of construction activities.
This monitor should continue monitoring on a reduced basis during actual building
construction.
21. All post-construction collector drains must be directed through large volume silt and
grease traps prior to being shunted into the freshwater detention basin or the bay
discharges. The trap/traps placed on lines entering the detention basin must be triple-
chambered.
22. The silt and grease traps must be maintained regularly with thorough cleaning to be
conducted in late September or early October and as needed through the winter and
spring months. Maintenance should be done by removal of wastes rather than
flushing. City inspections of these traps must occur to ensure that maintenance is
proceeding as required.
23. The two "direct to bay" drains must be extended to subsurface discharge points located
in the existing J Street Marina boat channel. These discharge points should be located
at a minimum depth of -10 ft. MLLW and should be buried in the mudflat to a point
below the existing eelgrass beds. Drain placement must seek to impact the least
amount of eelgrass habitat possible by either combining the drains or avoiding dense
eelgrass beds. Surface contours must be restored and any construction impacts to
eelgrass must be mitigated by replanting over the pipeline. As an alternative, the
"direct to bay" drains should be designed and constructed with effective energy
dissipators and flow diffusers which eliminates erosion or accretion of the mudflats
and ensures the protection of adjacent eelgrass beds. An expected loss of mudflat
totaling no fewer than 1.7 acres must be replaced within the NWR in a location away
from the proposed development area. The drains and the surrounding mudflats and
eelgrass beds must be monitored in accordance with an approved Mudflat and
Wetlands Monitoring Plan for a period of 5 years and any additional corrective
-11- 89-4. mmp. OlO 07/16/91
measures required must be implemented and any additional impacted areas resulting
must be replaced by the creation of a similar area from the uplands of the "D" Street
Fill or Gunpowder Point.
24. Studies are required to evaluate the effects of groundwater pumping to fill the
proposed lagoons. If these studies indicate that this is not a suitable solution for
reasons of groundwater contaminants or induced salinities, a saltwater intake from the
bay should be placed in a drain alignment or along a similar low impact corridor and
should be separated from the drain at a point below the existing eelgrass beds.
Impacts associated with the placement of this system must be mitigated by the rapid
restoration of impacted areas. Any required discharge or drainage system from the
interior lagoons must be to the proposed storm drain system rather than directly to the
bay.
25. No "in water" construction shall be allowed during the period of 1 April through 15
September to avoid the potential for elevating turbidity in the nearshore foraging and
chick training areas of the California least tern. Further, any other activities which are
identified by the biological monitor as having this effect should be precluded from
occurring during this period. If it can be demonstrated that the least tern has not yet
arrived in south San Diego Bay, or has departed earlier than the specified dates, the
applicant or agent may petition the City to modify this timing constraint. The City,
acting in consultation with the USFWS shall have the ability to modify this period to
reflect the presence of terns during the actual year(s) of construction.
No construction activity, earthmoving or high intensity activity will occur within 200
feet of any salt marsh, freshwater marsh, or mudflat habitat during the period 15
March to 31 August without prior approval by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
California Department of Fish and Game.
26. Several desiltation basins and back-up basins large enough to handle storm water
runoff must be maintained during the construction phase so that no silts are allowed
to leave the construction site. In addition, construction dewatering should be directed
into a basin with a filter-fabric, gravel leach system so that clear water is released into
a basin. As an alternative, dewatering water should be pumped across the mudflat
-12- 89-4.mmp. OlO 07/16/91
into the boat channel and discharged at a point above the bottom to avoid
re-suspending bottom silts, but at a depth of at least 8 feet.
27. Fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides utilized within the landscaping areas of the
project should be of the rapidly biodegradable variety, and registered by the
Environmental Protection Agency for use near wetlands. Further plans required for
water quality management, landscape management, and runoff management should
be developed in accordance with Mitigation Measure Number 19 identified in this
document.
28. All landscape chemical applications must be done by a state-certified landscape
contractor.
29. Landscape plant materials to be utilized in the project area must be submitted to the
City Landscape Architect for review. Plant materials which are known to be invasive
in salt and brackish marshes (Lbnonium or Carpobrotus species), or those which are
known to be attractive as denning, nesting or roosting sites for predators,
(Washingtonia or Cortadeda), must be restricted from use.
30. A full-time enforcement staff of two or more officers should be funded by revenues
generated within the bayfront or by other funding mechanisms to conduct the predator
management program, ensure compliance, issue citations, and conduct routine checks
to ensure maintenance of other mitigation requirements (i.e., silt/grease trap
maintenance, etc.). Such officers should work closely with the USFWS in enforcement
issues as they relate to Federal Reserve Lands. Officers should have training in
predator control and should possess the necessary'skills, permits and authority to trap
and remove problem predators. Detailed plans are required to be submitted for
review at the project level.
31. The proposed bayfront development and parks shall be designated as a "no pets" area.
This means posting all of the parklands/public access areas and imposing fines based
on the existing or new City municipal codes, and posting the development areas and
including this restriction in all leases and enforcing these restrictions. Plans addressing
how pets will be prohibited will be required to be reviewed at the project level.
-13- s94.,,,,p.o~o
Public awareness signs explaining the resources, concerns and prohibited activities
must be prominently posted throughout the affected parklands.
Kite flying activities result in high avian disturbance due to the kites being perceived
as predatory birds and thus must be prohibited from parkland areas adjacent to
wetlands or bay mudflats.
Human access to marshlands and buffer areas must be restricted through fencing and
signs. This restriction will be enforced with trespass citations and fines. Specific areas
of concern are along the fringes of Vener Pond, "E" Street Marsh and Sweetwater
Marsh. Additional human/pet encroachment must be restricted through fencing and
visual buffers at the mouth of the "F" & "G" Street feeder channel and southeast of
the "F" Street/Marina Parkway intersection. Detailed landscape and buffer design
plans will be required at the project level.
32. Open garbage containers shall be restricted and all dumpsters must be totally enclosed
to avoid attracting avian and mammalian predators and scavengers to the area.
Garbage must be hauled away as often as possible. Citations for open garbage
containers must be issued to any entity not complying. Restaurants and park areas are
of special concern. Plans addressing how garbage will be contained will be required
and reviewed at the project level.
33. Annual funding shall be designated for the purpose of trash control, repair and
maintenance of drainage facilities, fencing, the predator control program, and
mitigation programs for the project.
34. Not less than 3.5 acres of Brackish Marsh and 4 acres of Salt Marsh must be created
in the area between the "F" & "G" Street Marsh and San Diego Bay. In addition, tidal
flushing must be enhanced as identified in the Wetlands Research Associates
restoration plans (1987). Further, if marshlands are to be created, as proposed, on
both sides of Marina Parkway, undercrossing areas which remain dry during high tide
would be required. It is suggested that large half-round corrugated culverts of a 10
foot or larger radius be considered for this purpose. This restoration will a!so assist
in mitigating a portion of the human encroachment impacts identified by expanding
the area and value of the existing marshlands.
-14- a9 4. mmp. OlO 07/16/91
35. No further dredging, structural changes, or proposed uses shall be allowed to occur
along the mudflat or marshland areas of the bayfront. This includes such activities as
marinas, water sports courses, etc. Additionally, the developer, City, and USFWS
should jointly seek to have the San Diego Unified Port District post a line of buoys
to limit access to the mudflat and marsh areas.
36. Buildings must utilize non-reflective glass and heavy architectural lines. A film glass
manufactured by 3M is recommended. Plans addressing glass type and architecture
will be required and they will be reviewed at the project level.
Buildings facing marshlands must not include extraneous ledges upon which raptors
could perch or nest. Additionally, roof peaks and crests which are exposed to the
wetlands must be covered with an anti-perch material such as Nixalite. A commitment
to correct any additional problem areas must be obtained should heavy incidence of
perching be observed or should nest building by raptors be initiated on the buildings
or in landscaping materials. Plans addressing specific mitigation to prevent raptor
perching require review at the project level.
37. Park uses within the lower third of the 6.8 acre park zone at the "F" & "G" Street
Marsh feeder channel must be limited to passive use and should include such features
as abundant native shrubland restoration, which would preclude active recreation in
this area. Park and buffer areas along the "E" Street Marsh and Vener Pond must be
designed to include a visual and human encroachment barrier between active
recreation areas and the marshlands. This could be best accomplished using a
vegetated berm separated from a lowered recreation area ("pits") by a fence. Passive
overlooks could be incorporated on the development side of the recreational "pits."
This would provide both a visual screen between the marsh and the high human
activity as well as a distance separation between passive observation areas and the
marshlands. Both the needs for habitat protection and recreation would be met by
this design approach. Buffer area landscape plans require project-level review.
38. New marshland, pond fringe and salt pond habitats totaling no fewer than 13.2 acres
must be created on the more isolated western portions of Gunpowder Poin[, ideally
with marsh linkage to both the "E" Street Marsh and Sweetwater Marsh to aid in off-
setting impacts associated with encroachment, predation, and loss of habitat use by
-15- 89-4. mmp. OlO 07/16/91
avian species. These 13.2 acres would replace the loss of some of the values
associated with the 3,840-foot length of the marshland fringing the "E" Street Marsh,
Vener Pond, and Sweetwater Marsh that would be impacted by predator/competitor
threats.
39. A predator management program for the Chula Vista Bayfront must be developed to
control domestic as well as wild animal predators. This program should utilize the
Connors (1987) plan as a basis, but should be tailored to fit the needs of the proposed
development. This plan must include the use of fines as an enforcement tool to
control human and pet activities. The plan should be comprehensive and should
include management of predators within the adjacent wildlife refuge as well as the
proposed development areas. Detailed landscape and buffer design plans will be
.. required at the project level.
Monitoring Agent
The City Planning Department will be ultimately responsible for the implementation of all
measures, via the MCC, Biological Monitor, and with input from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, the California Department of Fish and Game, the City Engineering Department,
and City Landscape Architect.
Mitigation Schedule
The complete schedule of mitigation measure implementation is contained in the Summary
Table and summarized below.
The Biological Resource Management Plan must be completed and available for review
during the CEQA process for any subsequent project-specific development plans. Other
impacts that are currently unresolved such as fertilizer treatment and groundwater quality
must also be resolved during subsequent environmental review. No grading or other
construction permits may be issued until these issues are resolved.
The contamination traps must be cleaned in the fall as specified and througho.ut thg winter
as needed. The drainage facilities must be approved by the City Engineering Department
prior to grading for installation.
-16- 89-4. mmp. OlO 07/16/91
All revegetation must be initiated as soon as possible after the area to be revegetated is
available. In areas where the revegetation is to occur on a site not to be disturbed by future
grading, then the revegetation should be started prior to site grading. Otherwise,
revegetation should begin as soon as feasible after grading is completed.
ARCHAEOLOGY tHISTORY/PALEONTO LOGY
Development outside of the project boundaries (e.g., for the extension of utilities to serve
the site) could impact adjacent archaeological sites. The site is underlain by soils and
geologic formations that may contain paleontological resources (fossils). Grading for site
preparation has the potential to disturb or destroy these resources.
Mitigation Measures
40. All off-site improvements shall be subjected to archaeological review at the project
level of environmental review.
41. A qualified paleontologist must be at any pre-construction meeting to consult with the
grading and excavation contractors.
A paleontological monitor must be on-site on a half-time basis during the original
cutting of previously undisturbed sediments of the deposits mapped as Bay Point
Formation to inspect cuts for contained fossils. If the deposits are discovered to be
fossiliferous then monitoring shall proceed; if they turn out to be barren colluvial
deposits, then monitoring should not be continued. (The areal distribution of these
deposits is summarized on the geological map of Kennedy and Tan 1977.)
In the event that well-preserved fossils are discovered, the paleontologist must be
allowed to temporarily direct, divert, or halt grading to allow recovery of fossil remains
in a timely manner. Because of the potential for the recovering of small fossil remains
such as isolated mammal teeth, it may be necessary to set up a screen-washing
operation on the site.
- 17- 89-4. mmp. OlO 07/16/91
Fossil remains collected during any salvage program shall be cleaned, sorted, and
cataloged and then with the owner's permission, deposited in a scientific institution
with paleontological collections such as the San Diego Natural History Museum.
Monitoring Agency
The City of Chula Vista Planning Department is responsible for ensuring that mitigation
measures for paleontological resources are incorporated into the project-level CEQA
compliance process and mitigation monitoring plans. That plan will include the following
measures. The MCC shall coordinate at least one pre-construction meeting with a qualified
paleontologist and the grading and excavation contractors for any area to be developed. It
is the responsibility of the MCC to coordinate with the City Field Inspector and ensure that
the paleontological monitor is informed of any cutting of previously undisturbed Bay Point
Formation deposits.
Monitoring Schedule
The pre-construction meeting must occur prior to any grading on the site. Monitoring
ceases upon the completion of grading activities and approval of final grading.
AIR QUALITY
Potentially significant air quality impacts would occur from development of the proposed
co-generation plant. An incremental contribution to regional air quality problems would
also occur from vehicular sources. Vehicular emissions added to cogeneration plant
emissions would result in cumulative impacts. Construction activities also result in short-
term air quality impacts.
Mitigation Measures
42. Mitigation for air quality impacts associated with the co-generation plant required by
the APCD before an Authority to Construct and a Permit to Operate is issued.
Mitigation would include concurrent reductions in NOx, ROG, and CO to "off-set"
project (co-generation plant) emissions.
-18- 89 4. mmp. OlO 07/16/91
Dust control measures required by the AQMD will be implemented during
construction. Such measures include maintaining adequate soil moisture as well as
removing any soil spillage onto traveled roadways through site housekeeping
procedures.
43. Various transportation control measures (TCMs) must be incorporated into the
project. Such measures would be aimed primarily at employees on the project site,
but might also include site residents and visitors in certain instances. Measures that
should be included are:
- Airport shuttle services for destination resort visitors
- Ridesharing
- Vanpool Incentives
- Alternate Transportation Methods
- Work Scheduling for Off-Peak Hour Travel
- Transit Utilization
- Program Coordination
- Traffic Signal Coordination
- Physical Roadway Improvements to Maintain LOS of "D" or Better
The effective implementation of these various TCMs will be significantly enhanced if
they are coordinated through a transportation management agency (TMA) dealing
specifically with bayfront traffic demand management. Formation of such a TMA,
including funding of a TMA coordinator and mandatory tenant participation through
CCR covenants in tenant leases, will maximize the potential for emissions reduction.
44. Reducing interference with existing traffic and preventing truck queuing around local
receptors should be incorporated into any project construction permits. Trucks must
turn off engines while waiting, or not be allowed to enter the site again. The permits
should limit operations to daytime periods of better dispersion that minimizes
localized pollution accumulation.
- 19- 89-4.mmp. OlO 07/16/91
Monitoring Agency
The City of Chula Vista Planning Department must receive notification from the APCD that
an Authority to Construct and Permit to Operate have been issued before they issue the
building permit for the cogeneration facility.
All dust control measures required by the AQMD must be implemented and verified by the
MCC and/or Engineering Department. Periodic checks of the construction sites must be
performed to verify that these measures are being implemented.
The establishment of minimum participation goals and the formation of a Midbayfront TMA
shall be made a Condition of Approval by the City Council in the LCPR No. 8. The City
of Chula Vista Planning Department is responsible for ensuring that the TCMs are
incorporated into the project-level CEQA compliance process and mitigation monitoring
plan.
Monitoring Schedule
Monitoring to verify that dust control measures are being implemented should occur
biweekly, unannounced during construction and grading. Monitoring will cease upon
completion of grading activities and approval of final grading.
TRANSPORTATION/ACCESS
Development of the proposed project would result in significant impacts to street and
intersection capacities on the local street network. In the Year 2000, with project
development, all study area intersections would operate at LOS C or better during the a.m.
peak hour. In the p.m. peak hours, five intersections would operate at unacceptable levels
of service (LOS D or worse - Arterial Intersections, LOS E or worse - Freeway Ramp
Intersections). Those intersections are: Broadway at "E" Street, "F" Street, and "H" Street .
and the southbound and southbound ramp intersections of "E" Street and I-5.
-20- 89-4. mmp. OlO 07/16/91
Mitigation Measures
45. To improve these levels-of-service, 'the following mitigation measures are required:
a. Broadway/"E" Street
Westbound: Construction of an additional left-turn lane and an exclusive right-
turn only lane
Eastbound: Construction of an additional left-turn lane and an exclusive right-
turn only lane
b. Broadway/"F" Street
Westbound: Restriping to provide an exclusive right-turn only lane
Eastbound: Restriping to provide an exclusive right-turn only lane
c. Broadway/"H" Street
Westbound: Construction to provide an additional through lane
Eastbound: Construction to provide an additional through lane and an exclusive
right-turn only lane
d. I-5 Northbound Ramp/"E" Street
Ramp intersection: Widen the I-5 northbound off-ramp at "E" Street to provide
an exclusive left-turn lane, a shared left- and right-turn lane and an exclusive
right-turn lane.
Eastbound "E" Street: Construction of double left-turn lanes to I-5 northbound
on-ramp (or restriping the "E" Street overcrossing to maintain two through lanes
in either direction and the double left-turn lanes.
Westbound "E" Street: Widen westbound "E" Street from the northbound I-5 on-
ramp to provide separate right-turn lane from westbound "E" Street to the 1-5
northbound on-ramp. This separate right-turn lane should be a minimum of 250
feet in length. .
e. 1-5 Southbound Ramp/"E" Street
Ramp intersection: Widen northbound Bay Boulevard to provide an exclusive
left-turn lane and two right-turn lanes. Widen eastbound Marina Parkway to
provide three through lanes and a right-turn only lane.
-21- 89-4. mrnp. O]O 07/16/91
Monitoring Agency
The Summary Table attached to this document provides information on the agency or
persons responsible for monitoring each individual mitigation measure recommended above;
only the general responsibilities are described in this section.
The City of Chula Vista Planning Department is responsible for ensuring that the mitigation
measures for Traffic and Access are carried forward to the project-level of CEQA review,
and are incorporated, to the degree feasible, into the project-level mitigation monitoring
plans. The feasibility of the above stated planned roadway improvements must be
determined by the City of Chula Vista, Engineering Department and Caltrans. The City
Engineering and Planning Departments shall condition project approval on all traffic
improvements determined to be the responsibility of the applicant.
Monitoring Schedule
The schedule for monitoring will be based on the time-table for planned roadway
improvements negotiated between the City, Caltrans, and the applicant. Circulation
improvements shall be triggered by construction of a pre-determined amount of square-
footage, construction of specific facilities, or threshold traffic volume as required by the
City. It will be the responsibility of the City, in coordination with the MCC, to verify these
improvements are made when required.
LAND USE
Development of the Midbayfront, as proposed, would result in incompatibility between the
project and surrounding land uses, specifically the Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife
Refuge and the Nature Interpretive Center. There is also the potential for incompatibility
between residences located above and nearby the commercial retail and commercial visitor
uses in the central core area. The building heights and intensities are inconsistent with the
existing, certified LCP and the General Plan.
-22- 89-4.mmp. OlO 07/16/91
Mitigation Measures
46. Incorporation of buffering design measures -- including maximum insulation in all
exterior and interior walls, floor separation design, window treatments to reduce light
and intrusion, and designated parking spaces for residents within a separated and
locked area of parking.
Mitigation Agency
The City of Chula Vista Planning Department shall review all development plans to verify
that buffering design measures have been incorporated to the extent feasible.
· Mitigation Schedule
Review of the buffering design measures would occur prior to the issuance of building
permits.
PARKS/RECREATION/OPEN SPACE
As currently proposed, the project would result in several impacts to parks and recreation
and open space. Park development according to the proposed phasing plan would not
provide adequate park area or parking for parks to accommodate the anticipated high public
usage. In addition, there is a potentially insufficient amount of parking for park users in the
overall plan. Information regarding public access from on-site areas to parks, and from
areas east of I-5, is considered inadequate. Several parks and public areas would be
adversely affected by shade from tall structures.
Mitigation Measures
47. All park development and associated parking must be provided within Phase I. To
mitigate the public access inadequacies, the applicant must submit an access plan,
showing designated public parking areas, access routes to public areas, and access
routes and signage from the east side of I-5 across "E" Street. The access plan must
be approved by the City Planning and Community Development Departments.
-23- ~9-4 ,,mp.O~O 07/~/9J
48. Additional public parking spaces may be required by the City. The number of spaces
and the location of those spaces will be determined during project-level CEQA
compliance.
49. Project redesign would be required to mitigate the shade/shadow impacts to a less
than significant level. Such a redesign is not, however, proposed at this time.
50. The City's Parks and Recreation Department has stated the need to hire one gardener
for every five acres of parkland (a total of six), as well as to acquire additional
landscaping equipment such as mowers.
Monitoring Agency
The City of Chula Vista Planning Department is responsible for ensuring that the
park/recreation/open space mitigation measures are incorporated at the project-level of
CEQA compliance and mitigation monitoring program. The City of Chula Vista Planning
Department must determine the adequate number of parking spaces and verify that they are
provided in future development plans. A public access plan must be approved by the
Planning and Community Development Departments of the City. The City Parks and
Recreation Department must hire the gardeners necessary to maintain the park.
Monitoring Schedule
Adequate park acreage and public parking must be provided prior to issuance of the
occupancy permits in Phase I. Issues of public access must be resolved prior to approval of
project-specific development plans.
UTILITY SERVICE
The Midbayfront development project would require modifications to the existing SDG&E
service system, as well as an increase in the amount of energy to the site. The project
would also impact the City Fire Department's services and would require acquisition of a
ladder truck and employment of four new personnel. There would be no im. pact_s to the
provision of police protection. The project would result in an incremental contribution to
regionally significant concerns regarding landfill space. The existing sewer infrastructure
-24- 89-4. rnmp. OlO 07/16/91
would be inadequate to accommodate disposal from the site at build-out. Water
infrastructure both on-site and off-site would be inadequate to provide service. Development
of the project would result in generation of 1,986 school-age children that would impact
surrounding schools. The location of I-5 between the project area and the schools would
prohibit the feasibility of students walking to and from school, resulting in potentially
significant transportation costs.
Mitigation Measures
Ener~
51. Energy resources shall be conserved by such generally accepted methods as sealing
doors and windows, double-pane glass, increases in wall and ceiling insulation, and the
incorporation of solar benefits. Time-controlled lighting systems throughout the
industrial/commercial portions of the project will also be required to conserve energy.
Solid Waste
52. A recycling program must be undertaken by the developer in conjunction with a local
recycling company. This would include bins on site for the collection of recyclable
materials such as glass, plastic, metal and paper products. Additionally, the
development must incorporate trash compactors to reduce volume.
Fire
53. The following measures are required by the City Fire Department to reduce the
significant impacts to below a level of significance:
a. Maximum fire flow shall be 5,000 gpm.
b. Fire department roadway access shall be provided to within 150 feet of all portions
of any building.
c. All roadway widths shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide.
-25- SP-4. m,~p.O ~ O 07/J 6/9 ~
d. Ail apartments three stories or more in height or containing more than 15 dwelling
units and every hotel three or more stories in height or containing 20 or more
guest rooms shall be provided with a fully automatic fire sprinkler system.
e. A fire alarm/evacuation system shall be provided for all public assembly and
multi-residential occupancies.
f. All Title 1924 CCR shall apply relative to public assembly and high rise
occupancies.
g. Fire department access roadways greater in length than 150 feet shall be provided
with the provision for the turning around of fire apparatus (either a 75 X 24 foot
.~ hammerhead or a 40 foot radius cul-de-sac).
h. Private fire hydrants will be required to satisfy the requirement that any part of
the ground floor of any building shall be within 150 feet of a water supply. These
hydrants shall be in place and operable prior to the delivery of combustible
building materials.
i. Public fire hydrants will be required every 300 feet on public streets. However,
if the location of major buildings is unknown, hydrants may be located specific to
the buildings. This would result in more effective coverage, and could possibly
result in fewer fire hydrants. For design interest, there are hydrants manufactured
which have a lower profile than the traditional barrel type.
j. Address signs - Easily readable signs which can be seen from the street are
required. Large, contrasting block letters and numbers must be utilized.
k. An additional fire inspector would be necessary to handle additional work load
created by this project. .
Additionally, the applicant is responsible for payment for the additional ladder truck
through the Development Impact Fees, and the City's general fund would pay for the
annual salaries for the four-person crew and fire inspector.
-26- 89-4. mmp. O~O 07/16/91
Sewer
54. The developer must submit detailed drawings to the City showing sewer line locations
and capacities. The City Engineering Department must review and approve the plans
for consistency with the thresholds policy and with the Metro system (which the project
will tie into).
Water
55. Specific water mains must be completed or upgraded. These include:
a. A 12 inch main in "F" Street from Broadway to approximately 830 feet west must
.~ be installed.
b. A 12 inch main in Bay Boulevard from Moss Street to about Sierra Way extension
westerly must be installed. (This will connect the project with supplies of water
from the southern portion of Chula Vista, thus providing the project site with two
sources of water instead of one.)
c. The existing 8 inch main along "F" Street from Bay Boulevard running west must
be upgraded to a 12 inch main.
d. All on-site mains must be sized 12 inches.
56. To mitigate the incremental impact to regional water supply, the applicant must provide
water conservation measures at the project-design level, including such elements as low-
flow shower heads, low-flush toilets, timed irrigation, landscaping with drought-tolerant
species, drip irrigation where appropriate and development of reclaimed water lines for
future use.
-27- 89-4.romp. O JO 07/16/91
Schools
57. To mitigate school overcrowding and transportation cost impacts the applicant must:
a. Form new Mello-Roos districts to finance capital costs such as permanent or
relocatable classrooms and school buses.
b. Resolve the issue of new school sites or additional property adjacent to existing
schools for the construction of capital improvements at the project-level of CEQA
compliance.
c. Provide annual costs for student transportation including bus maintenance and
drivers' salaries either by a cash contribution or a long-term binding agreement
with the school district to finance the annual student transportation costs.
Monitoring Agency
The City of Chula Vista Planning Department is responsible for ensuring that the energy,
fire, sewer and water measures are incorporated at the project-level of CEQA compliance
and mitigation monitoring program. The City of Chula Vista Engineering and Planning
Departments would be responsible for verifying that any future development would be in
conformance with Title 20 of the California Code of Regulations (formerly titled the
California Administrative Code), which requires energy saving devices in new buildings.
The City Fire Department must approve all building plans for inclusion of fire suppression
requirements prior to approval of the building permit.
The developer must install recycling bins. The MCC would be responsible for ensuring their
availability. They must also evaluate the recycling bins for compliance with the mitigation
measures designed to reduce pests.
The City Engineering Department must approve all sewer and infrastructure plans.
The City of Chula Vista Planning Department will be responsible for verifying a resolution
of the school issues to the satisfaction of the local school districts and applicant.
-28- 89-4. mmp. OlO 07/16/91
Monitoring Schedule
The energy saving, fire prevention and recycling measures must be inspected and approved
prior to issuance of occupancy permits. Recycling efforts would continue over the life of the
project.
Sewer and water improvements must be approved prior to grading for installation. More
detailed water conservation measures will be determined during future CEQA review of
project-specific development plans.
Transportation funding, school CFD's, and school site issues must be resolved during
subsequent environmental review. No further development entitlements will be granted
until the applicant has met the requirements to the satisfaction of the City Planning
Department.
-29- sp.4.,,,,p.oJo o7/~/~
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for July 24, 1991
5c. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Local Coastal Program
Alternative 8
A. BACKGROUND
Chula Vista Investors is the major landowner of property located
in the Chula Vista Bayfront north of "F" Street. Since
purchasing the property in August of 1988, Chula Vista Investors
has been working on a complete revision of the City's certified
Local Coastal Program (LCP) referred to as an LCP Resubmittal~
Pursuant to a request from the applicant, Alternative 8 (a
reduced density alternative concept plan proposed by the
applicant) is being considered by the Planning Commission, rather
than the original proposed project, which included the tex~ and
graphics constituting a Local Coastal Program Resubmittal, as
well as a proposed concept plan. A letter from the applicant's
attorney making the request for consideration of Alternative 8 is
attached as Exhibit A.
The Alternative 8 concept plan for the Midbayfront proposes a
mixed use project totalling approximately 3.9 million square feet
of building area. The concept plan proposes 1,400 residential
units; 1,800 hotel units; 150,000 square feet of commercial
retail use; 640,000 square feet of professional office use
(approximately 560,000 square feet of the office space is within
the Rohr campus); and approximately 246,000 square feet, which
includes athletic facilities and a conference center.
Should the City Council choose to approve Alternative 8, the
applicant would be required to prepare a revised LCP Resubmittal
document, which would reflect the reduced density plan proposed
by Alternative 8. The revised LCP Resubmittal and associated
General Plan Amendment would require a Planning Commission
recommendation and City Council approval prior to being forwarded
to the California Coastal Commission for certification. Thus,
this staff analysis focuses on the major issues raised by the
Alternative 8 concept plan.
An EIR was prepared to address the potential environmental
impacts associated with the applicant's LCP Resubmittal and six
reduced density alternatives (Alternative 8 was one of those
alternatives). Any changes to the LCP would require
corresponding changes to the General Plan, Zoning Code, and
Bayfront Redevelopment Plan. Thus, the EIR also addressed
changes to those plans.
FEIR-89-08 is included in the members' packets and is ~vailable
for public review at the Community Development Department.
1
B. RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended ~hat the Planning Commission adopt a motion
recommending that the City Council:
1. Adopt a resolution:
a. Certifying that FEIR-89-08 has been prepared in
accordance with CEQA and the Environmental Review
Procedures of the City of Chula Vista and that the
Planning Commission has reviewed these documents; and
b. Continue this item and direct staff to work with the
applicant and the Bayfront Planning Subcommittee to
resolve the key issues raised by the proposed project.
Resolution of those key issues would entail:
-Determination of appropriate land use intensity
-Location of buildings exceeding two stories away
from the perimeter of the site where they conflict with
public open space uses and uses of the adjacent
National Wildlife Refuge
-Preservation of public views to the bay from "E"
and "F" Streets and removal of buildings west of Marina
Parkway to ensure public views to the bay and wetlands
from Marina Parkway
-Evaluation of the potential for inclusion of a
cultural arts facility in the plan
-Exploration of alternative phasing and financing
programs to increase the financial feasibility of the
plan
-Resolution of unmitigated impacts in the areas 'of
traffic, land use, visual quality,
parks/recreation/open space and schools
C. DISCUSSION
Alternative 8 includes parks and part of a man-made lagoon at the
northern and western perimeter of the Midbayfront Planning Area.
The lagoon, which is a positive feature of the proposal, would be
salt water, and would extend east from the Bay into central
portion of the Midbayfront (Exhibit B). The parks and the lagoon
would be available for public use, as well as for resident and
visitor use.
The attractive visitor serving land uses proposed by Alternative
8, including hotels, retail shops, restaurants, a conference
2
center, and athletic facilities (a tennis complex, swimming
facility and an ice rink) are consistent with the visitor serving
focus outlined in the goals and objectives for Bayfront
development adopted by the Redevelopment Agency in 1988.
Further, the proposal to incorporate underground parking included
in Alternative 8 would improve the aesthetics of the project
because it would allow more productive uses of the limited
bayfront acreage, more flexibility in site planning (building
placement), and avoid an unappealing expanse of asphalt and
parked cars.
Although the number of potential employers resulting from
implementation of Alternative 8 is not yet known, it is
anticipated that the proposed project will result in substantiai
employment opportunities. Those employment opportunities would
result in beneficial impacts to the City and the regional
economy. In addition, the residential component of the project
would add to the Citywide and regional supply of housing.
While Alternative 8 includes the appealing visitor serving land
uses and community benefits detailed above, the proposal raises
several key issues. Those issues include consistency with the
1988 goals and objectives for Midbayfront development approved by
the Redevelopment Agency; overall intensity; economic
feasibility; and unmitigated environmental impacts.
Consistency with 1988 RedeveloDment Aqenc¥ Approved Goals and
Objectives
An analysis was conducted to determine the extent to which the
proposed Alternative 8 is consistent with or implements the goals
and objectives for Midbayfront development approved by the
Redevelopment Agency in 1988. The highlights of that consistency
analysis follows. (Summarized objectives/criteria are
underlined; analysis/comments are presented without the
underline.)
The Midbayfront should include uses which balance the existinq
development in other areas of the Bayfront. These could includo
comDatible office or residential; uses which do not detract fro,,,
the destination resort focus. Alternative 8 generally does
include uses which complement and balance uses in other areas of
the Bayfront and the benefits of a mixed use development could be
realized. However, it also has a substantial high density
residential component (approximately 1.4 million square feet) and
a 640,000 square office component (560,000 square feet is for the
Rohr campus). When combined, the office and residential elements
exceed the Visitor Commercial component, potentially detracting
from the "destination resort" focus specified in the goals and
objectives.
Because of the broad mix of uses on the project site and adjacent
properties, the development plan should be responsive to critical
edqe conditions, inteqratinq compatible adjacent uses and
bufferinq conflictinq uses. Alternative 8 has incorporated a
significant buffer adjacent to the wildlife refuge. However, the
nature and scale of the project may create conflicts regardless
of buffer size or setbacks. The location of intense land uses
adjacent to the National Wildlife Refuge boundary will result in
significant impacts on the biological resources within the
Refuge.
Provide opportunities for public coastal access (includinq visual
access), open space, park and recreation uses adjacent to th~
natural resources of the bay. Alternative 8 provides public park
and open spaces along the perimeter of the Midbayfront, adjacent
to the National Wildlife Refuge and bay. Pedestrian and bicycle
trails are proposed for this area, with connections to off-site
destinations. Alternative 8 integrates a luxury hotel within the
public open space west of Marina Parkway. This luxury hotel
would obstruct views to the Bay and wetlands from Marina Parkway.
In addition, the location of public open space immediately
adjacent to high density residential uses in the northern portion
of the Midbayfront also raises the concern that the public open
space would tend to function as a private amenity.
Alternative 8 would also result in significant visual access
impacts including: (1) obstruction of existing scenic bay views
from public use areas; and (2) creation of a visually dominant
landscape from the Nature Interpretive Center, where aesthetic
enjoyment of the natural environment is a significant part of the
visitor experience.
Overall Intensity
The total proposed development for Alternative 8 includes
approximately 3.9 million square feet (s.f.) of building space in
the Midbayfront subarea. In comparison, the certified LCP ali6ws
1.9 to 2.5 million s.f. of building space in the Midbayfront
subarea (Exhibit C). Thus, the proposed Alternative 8 building
space is approximately 1.4 million square feet greater than the
maximum allowable density in the MidbaYfront under the certified
LCP. Exhibit D provides a land use comparison between
Alternative 8, the certified LCP, and other alternatives
addressed in the EIR for the Midbayfront subarea.
Increased intensity is not necessarily negative. The
acceptability of increased intensity depends on factors such as
translation into building bulk and scale, the resultant
environmental impacts, economic viability, and character and
overall relationship with the rest of Chula Vista.
4
Building Heights
The height of many of the buildings exceed the maximum height
limitations allowed by the certified LCP. In general, the
prevalent building height within the Midbayfront subarea in the
certified LCP is 4 stories (or 44 feet). A small 5 story (55
feet) area, and a single 70-foot focal point are, however,
provided for under the certified LCP.
In addition, the General Plan defines the categories of
development in Chula Vista with respect to height as follows:
Lowrise 0-3 stories
Midrise 4-7 stories
Highrise 8-15 stories
Using a general guideline of 14 feet per story, those ranges
would translate to the following building heights.
Lowrise 0-42 feet
Midrise 43-98 feet
Highrise 99-210 feet
In comparison to these existing standards, Alternative 8
proposes: one 229 foot-high hotel which exceeds the parameters
established for highrise development in the General Plan; two
hotels and three apartment buildings in the highrise category;
and one hotel, approximately fifteen apartment buildings, eight
specialty retail buildings, two commercial buildings, one office
building, one conference / theater facility, one ice rink, and
one light industrial building in the midrise range. The balance
of the structures proposed under Alternative 8 are below 43 feet
in height ( within the lowrise category).
Acceptable building heights will vary with specific uses,
specific locations on the site, and ~he overall character of a
plan. Generally, taller buildings would be acceptable wi~h
decreased bulk, increased open space, or other public or
aesthetic benefits. They should be located in the interior of
the site providing a low profile adjacent to open space and
existing low-rise development on the perimeter of the site.
Preservation of views, including on and off site view corridors,
views on "arrival", views to public areas, and views to the bay,
should be considered in the placement of buildings.
Although the Alternative 8 plan includes taller buildings, the
proposal would not result in decreased building bulk on the site.
Regarding the issue of increased open space, Alternative 8 would
actually provide slightly less ( approximately three acres) of
public parks than the certified LCP. Alternative 8 also proposes
to locate several tall buildings at the perimeter of .the site
adjacent to the open space and the National Wildlife Refuge,
5
particularly in the northern portion of the Midbayfront where
three highrise residential buildings are proposed to be located
adjacent to the public open space, proximate to the National
Wildlife Refuge.
Residential Intensity
The certified Local Coastal Program allows 15 to 30 dwelling
units per acre in the residentially designated areas of the
Midbayfront. The General Plan outlines the Residential High
category as allowing 18 to 27+ dwelling units per gross acre and
specifies that any new project under this category must contain
substantial landscaped open space for use by residents of the
project. There is no maximum density for this category. The
density shown as maximum indicates only that projects in the City
have traditionally been constructed below this density.
Section 6.2 of the General Plan provides guidelines for
establishing residential densities within the range. It provides
the criteria used in determining the appropriate gross density
for project implementation within any given range. In the city's
evaluation to determine the appropriate density for a project,
the assumed density, in any residential range begins at the
"baseline density" (or lower end of the range) and may move
toward the upper end of the range.
Alternative 8 proposes residential densities in the northern area
of 63.1 dwelling units per acre. This density substantially
exceeds the low end of the Residential High category. The
analysis of General Plan criteria for determining the appropriate
density within the range does not support the density proposed
for the following reasons.
1. The intensity of the proposed project is not compatible
with the intensity of existing and proposed surrounding
land use patterns. The intensity of the proposed
residential and hotel development is out of scale with
the surrounding area, particularly, the National
Wildlife Refuge and Chula Vista Greenbelt which are
located immediately west of the proposed project.
For residential development, the existing densities in
the .5 mile surrounding area range from an average of
15 dwelling units per acre to a high of approximately
35 to 40 dwelling units per acre in the older areas.
The newer residential developments have maximum
densities of 22 to 28 dwelling units per acre.
2. The proposed project does not appear to be sensitive to
the physical characteristics of the site because:
- The proposed building placement would result in shadow
/ shading impacts to park areas. Those impacts were
6
quantitatively determined in studies undertaken for the
EIR.
- Buildings are located in areas where they adversely
impact public views of the Bay and wetlands.
Economic Feasibility
Summary of Economic Analysis
Williams-Kuebelbeck & Associates, Inc. (WK&A) was retained by the
Redevelopment Agency to evaluate the financial feasibility of the
developer's original proposal and two reduced density
alternatives, and the fiscal impacts of each. (This summary does
not include the fiscal impact analysis.)
It is important to note that Alternative 8, the developer's
current proposal, is slightly less dense than the developer's
original proposal, and slightly more dense than the first reduced
density alternative included in the economic feasibility
analysis. The economic study conducted by WK&A analyzed the
Developer's proposal, Alternative 3 and Alternative 5 as
described in Exhibit D.
Two financial performance measures were used to evaluate the
financial feasibility of the proposed project to the developer:
internal rate of return ~IRR) and net present value (NPV). The
proposed project and both the reduced density alternatives are
financially infeasible according to both measures used.
According to WK&A there are several potential modifications to
the proposed project that would improve its financial
performance. First, it may be appropriate to reevaluate the
heavy up-front costs of the project. Items such as public
improvements, subterranean parking, and sports facilities were
identified as resulting in heavy up-front costs. It is important
to determine which nonrevenue producing amenities the project
should provide so that non-essential elements with high costs can
be eliminated to reduce those heavy up-front costs. Second, the
project phasing could be adjusted to include some of the heavy
up-front costs in later phases to improve the project's economic
feasibility. In addition, it should be noted that alternative
financing options were not analyzed. Such options could also
positively impact the financial feasibility of the project for
the developer.
Unmitiqated Environmental Impacts
Under Alternative 8, 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. Impacts in the areas of visual aesthetics/community
7
character, land use/general plan elements/zoning, and
parks/recreation/open space would be significant and unmitigable
under Alternative 8. Specific visual concerns include the
obstruction of existing public views to the Bay from "E" and "F"
Streets, and the blockage of future views of the bay and wetlands
from Marina Parkway because of the location of a hotel west of
Marina Parkway.
Seven 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. Any development
of the site would result in the loss of raptor foraging habitat.
Traffic impacts were assessed as significant and unmitigable at
the plan level under Alternative 8 because of uncertainty
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.
Conclusion
In summary, this report provides an analysis of the key issues
raised by Alternative 8 including: consistency with 1988 goals
and objectives for Midbayfront development approved by the
Redevelopment Agency; overall intensity; economic feasibility;
and unmitigated environmental impacts. A short synopsis of the
conclusion of each of those analyses follows.
-In general, Alternative 8 is consistent with the goals
and objectives calling for a visitor serving focus and a mixed
use development, although the proposed development does include
substantial residential and office elements which could interfere
with the visitor serving focus.
-The overall intensity of the proposed project exceeds
the intensity parameters established in the certified LCP and the
General Plan. Several other factors that should be considered in
determining the acceptability of increased intensity were also
explored including whether Alternative 8 would result in:
decreased bulk, increased open space, preservation of views, and
consolidation of tall buildings away from the perimeter of the
site. Alternative 8, as proposed does not incorporate any of
these factors that would help to make increased intensity more
attractive.
-Based on the two measures of financial feasibility
tested by the City's economic consultant, neither the proposed
project nor either of the reduced density alternatives tested
were financially feasible. The economic consultant did identify
several ways to increase the financial feasibility of the project
including re-evaluation of heavy up-front costs such as public
improvements, subterranean parking, and sports facilities.
Adjusting project phasing to include some of the high cost items
in later phases of the project was also identified as a way to
make the project more financially feasible. No alternative
financing options were evaluated in the financial feasibility
analysis. Such options could increase the financial feasibility
of the proposal.
-Alternative 8 would result in numerous unmitigated
environmental impacts. Impacts in the areas of land use and
visual aesthetics can only be mitigated by project redesign..
Traffic, s~hools, geology/soils/groundwater, hydrology/water
quality and several biological impacts will require resolution at
the project level of CEQA compliance. The significant
unmitigable biological impact, loss of raptor foraging habitat,
would occur with any development of the site.
The Bayfront Planning Subcommittee was established by the city
Council in May 1991, in an effort by the Council to increase
public participation in the Bayfront Planning process. In
addition to a nine member appointed Subcommittee, Mayor Nader and
Councilwoman Grasser Horton serve on the Subcommittee. The
following list includes the name and the appointing
commission/councilmember for each member of the Bayfront Planning
Subcommittee. The two current vacancies resulted from the recent
appointment of Ms. Grasser Horton to the City Council.
Subcommittee Member Appointinq Commission/Councilmember Pat Ables Cultural Arts Commission
John Ray Resource Conservation Commission
William Tuchscher Economic Development CommiSsion
(to be appointed) Planning Commission
Larry Dumlao Mayor Nader
Russ Bullen Councilman Moore
John Moot Councilman Malcolm
William Virchis Councilman Rindone
(to be appointed) Councilwoman Grasser Horton
To date the Bayfront Planning Subcommittee has considered items
such as the history of the Bayfront, the Subcommittee's vision
for development of the Bayfront, the Environmental Impact Report
prepared for the applicant's proposal, and the potential for
inclusion of a cultural arts facility within the Bayfront
development. Thus, it would be appropriate to include the
Bayfront Planning Subcommittee in future planning efforts for the
Bayfront to ensure an expanded opportunity for community input
into the process.
(LCP8)
PETER. SON 0 PR. ICE
,=aOC ^. pEI-~-~$ON ^ P~OFE~ION~ COK~TION 3U~ 2 4 TELEPHONE
June 21~ 1991 3848.002
Mr. Chris Salomone
Community Development Director
City of Chula Vista
276 4th Avenue
(Public Services Building)
Chula Vista, CA 92010
Re: Chula Vista Bayfront
Local Coastal Program Resubmittal
Dear Chris:
As a follow up to your letter dated June 14, 1991, please be
advised that we would like the Planning Commission and City Council
to consider Alternative 8 rather than the proposed LCP Resubmittal
dated June 28, 1990.
It is our understanding that Alternative 8 has already been
analyzed in terms of environmental impacts and has also been
analyzed by your staff in terms of density, traffic and other
considerations. We recognize that should the Planning Commission
and City Council approve Alternative 8, we would need to prepare a
revised LCP Resubmittal document which would reflect the reduced
density project proposed by Alternative 8.
We believe that we could process such revisions in a very
short time period and would assume that the City could also docket
the Planning Commission and City Council hearings within a very
short time frame. We are assuming that should the Planning
Commission and City Council approve Alternative 8, that staf. f would
not need to, once again, independently, analyze or do any'further
work, with the exception of verifying that the modifications
Mr. Chris Salomone
June 21, 1991
Page 2
proposed in the LCP Resubmittal are consistent with the project as
contemplated in Alternative 8. If this is not the case, please
contact us at your earliest convenience so that we can clarify the
appropriate procedure.
Thank you for your courtesy.
Very truly yours,
PETERSON & PRICE
A Professional Corporation
Matthew A. Peterson
cc: Chula Vista Investors
ALTERNATIVE El
:,T, :. --
'-' EXHIBIT C
GREENBELT
ALTE~ATIVE ~
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
AGENDA ITEM for JULY 24, 1991
§.d. CONSIDERATION OF CEQA FINDINGS
EIR-89-08, LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM ALTERNATIVE 8
A. BACKGROUND
Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that, for each significant environmental
effect identified in an EIR for a proposed project, the approving agency must issue a written
finding reaching one or more of the following three allowable conclusions:
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR~
2. Such changes or alterations 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.
3. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make. infeasible
the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the
Final EIR.
The "Candidate" CEQA Findings are attached as Exhibit A.
B. RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the Candidate CEQA Findings
prepared for Local Coastal Program Alternative 8.
[C:~WP51 \BAYFRO NT~CEQA.LCP8.TXTl ~'
BEFORE THE CHULA VISTA
CITY COUNCIL
RE: Proposed Local Coastal
Program Alternative 8
FINDINGS OF FACT
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
The original Draft EIR prepared on this proposal addressed the potential environmental
effects of a proposed Local Coastal Program Resubmittal including both text and graphics.
At the end of the public review period (Planning Commission hearing on September 26,
1990) Chula Vista Investors (the applicant) introduced a new revised concept plan. This
new proposed project is termed Alternative 8. Should the City Council choose to approve
the Alternative 8 concept plan, then the applicant would be required to prepare a revised
LCP Resubmittal document to reflect the reduced density plan proposed by Alternative 8.
Two major changes to the certified LCP would occur if Alternative 8 were approved. The
first would involve the redesignation to "open space" on all City plans of the "D" Street Fill
and Gunpowder Point, consistent with the establishment of the Sweetwater Marsh National
Wildlife Refuge which includes those areas. The second major change would be to modify
the arrangement of land uses, building height controls, and development intensity in the
Midbayfront planning subarea.
The Alternative 8 concept plan for the Midbayfront proposes a mixed use project totalling
approximately 3.9 million square feet of building area. The concept plan proposes 1,400
residential units, 1,800 hotel units, 150,000 square feet of commercial retail, 640,000 square
feet of professional office, and approximately 246,000 square feet which includes athletic
facilities and a conference center.
Alternative 8 includes parks and part of a man-made lagoon at the northern and western
perimeter of the Midbayfront planning area. The lagoon is a salt water feature that would
extend east from the Bay to the central portion of the Midbayfront. The parks and lagoon
would be available for public use as well as for resident and visitor use.
Alternative 8 proposes:
· One 229 foot-high hotel which exceeds the parameters established for highrise
development in the Chula Vista General Plan;
· Two hotels and three apartment buildings in the highrise category (99-210 feet);
-1-
* One hotel, approximately fifteen apartment buildings, eight specialty retail
buildings, two commercial buildings, one office building, one conference/theater
facility, one ice fink, and one light industrial building in the midrise range
(43-98 feet); and
The remainder of the structures are below 43 feet in height (within the lowrise
category).
Wetland setbacks are proposed along the perimeter of the Midbayfront which is adjacent
to both San Diego Bay and Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge.
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
For purposes of CEQA and the findings set forth below, the administrative record of the
City Council decision on this project shall consist of the following:
1. the Draft and Final EIR for the project;
2. all reports, memoranda, maps, letters and other planning documents prepared by
the planning consultant, the environmental consultant, and the City;
3. all documents submitted by members of the public, and public agencies in
connection with the proposed project;
4. minutes and verbatim transcripts of ail workshops, public meetings and public
hearings held by the City and Redevelopment Agency;
5. any documentary or other evidence submitted at workshops, public meetings and
public hearings; and
6. Matter of common knowledge to the City, which it considers, including but not
limited to, the following:
a. Chula Vista General Plan (update)-2010;
b. Chula Vista Bayfront Specific Plan;
c. Chula Vista Zoning Ordinance;
d. Chula Vista Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan;
e. Chula Vista Bayfront Redevelopment Project Plan;
f. Chula Vista Threshold and Standard Policy;
g. City of National City General Plan;
h. National City Local Coastal Program;
i. San Diego Unified Port District Master Plan;
j. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Interim Final Permit, No. 88-267-RH
TERMINOLOGY[THE PURPOSE OF FINDINGS UNDER CEQA
Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that, for each significant e.nvironmental
effect identified in an EIR for a proposed project, the approving agency must issue a written
finding reaching one or more of the three allowable conclusions. The first is that "[c]hanges
or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR."
(Emphasis added.) The second potential finding is that "[s]uch changes or alterations 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." The third permissible conclusion is that "[s]pecific economic,
social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternative
identified in the final EIR."
As regards the first of the three potential findings, the CEQA Guidelines do not define the
difference between "avoiding" a significant environmental effect and merely "substantially
lessening" such an effect. The meaning of these terms therefore must be gleaned from the
other contexts in which they are used. Public Resources Code section 21081, on which
CEQA Guidelines section 15091 is based, uses the term "mitigate" rather than "substantially
lessen." The CEQA Guidelines therefore equate "mitigating" with "substantially lessening."
Such an understanding of the statutory term is consistent with Public Resources Code
section 21002, which declares the Legislature's policy disfavoring the approval of projects
with significant environmental effects where there are feasible mitigation measures or
alternatives that could "avoid or substantially lessen" such significant effects.
For purposes of these findings, the term "avoid" will refer to the ability of one or more
mitigation measures to reduce an otherwise significant effect to a less-than-significant level.
In contrast, the term "substantially lessen" will refer to the ability of such measure or
measures to substantially reduce the severity of a significant effect, but not to reduce that
effect to a level of insignificance. Although CEQA Guidelines section 15091 requires only
that approving agencies specify that a particular significant effect is "avoid[ed] or
substantially lessen[ed]," these findings, for purposes of clarity, in each case will specify
whether the effect in question has been fully avoided (and thus reduced to a level of
insignificance) or has simply been substantially lessened (and thus remains significant).
Moreover, although Section 15091, read literally, does not require findings to address
environmental effects that an EIR identifies as merely "potentially significant," these find!ngs
will nevertheless fully account for all such effects identified in the Final EIR.
IV.
LEGAL EFFECT OF FINDINGS
To the extent that these findings conclude that various proposed mitigation measures
outlined in the Final EIR are feasible and have not been modified, superseded or
withdrawn, the City of Chula Vista (City) hereby binds itself and any other responsible
parties to implement those measures. These findings, in other words, are not merely
informational or hortatory, but constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into
effect when the City adopts a resolution approving the concept plan.
Many of the adopted mitigation measures that have been made express conditions of
approval. Other measures are referenced in the mitigation monitoring program adopted
-3-
concurrently with these findings, and will be effectuated through the process of constructing
and implementing the concept plan.
V.
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
As required by Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista, in adopting these findings, also adopts a mitigation monitoring and reporting program
as prepared by Keller Environmental Associates, Inc. The program is designed to ensure
that, during project implementation, the applicant and any other responsible parties comply
with the feasible mitigation measures identified below. That program is described in the
document entitled, Local Coastal Program Alternative 8 Mitigation Monitoring Program
City of Chula Vista.
VI.
SIGNIFICANT AND POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT
EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The Final EIR identified a number of significant or potentially significant environmental
effects (or "impacts") that Local Coastal Program Alternative 8 will cause, of which some
could be fully avoided through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures, while others
could not be avoided.
The proposed project will generate a number of environmental effects that, when considered
collectively, result in a significant cumulative effect to the environment.
The impacts anticipated to geology, soils, hydrology and water quality, visual/aesthetics and
the community character, air quality, biological resources, land use, transportation/access
and from conversion of agricultural lands to urban uses are considered cumulatively
significant to the Bayfront and/or contribute significantly to the impact of a resource in the
region.
If this project is approved, potential cumulative impacts would result not only from two or
more project area impacts but also from the combination of the project impacts with other
properties in the South Bay region. In addition, the proposed project could encourage
developments in the nearby region that are of greater height or intensity than currently
allowed. In order to build or redevelop, these properties would be subject to CEQA,
probably requiring an EIR for review of proposed plans. Thus, a mechanism exists to check
and limit cumulative impacts; however, the potential exists for development and/or
redevelopment at a greater scale than is presently allowed.
The 15 + projects proposed or approved for the South Bay and discussed in the Cumulative
Impacts section of the Final EIR, will collectively result in significant alteration to the
bayfront environment. Although individual projects may reduce impacts to levels that are
considered less than significant, impacts cannot be entirely mitigated or avoided.-
-4-
An attempt to address impacts on a cumulative, regional scale has been initiated by the San
Diego Unified Port District. The South San Diego Bay Enhancement Plan (not adopted to
date) addresses biological resources of the South Bay region and identifies areas that should
be reserved and enhanced, as well as potential mitigation areas for cumulative impacts. Due
to the increased urbanization of the South Bay region, and the limited possibilities (e.g.,
locations) for mitigation of habitat and species, any large project proposed in this region
should be considered to contribute significantly to cumulative impacts.
When combined with numerous impacts of a similar type, the incremental contributions of
the proposed project become significant for selected environmental resources as detailed
above.
Potentially Significant Effects
The following environmental effects, which would be significant or potentially significant in
the absence of mitigation measures, can be avoided because of the adoption of such
measures. Page numbers of the Final EIR where the impacts are discussed follow each
impact.
Detailed plans not available for on- and off-site water and sewer pipelines [FEIR,
Volume II, p. 3-4 through 3-9; Volume I, p. 4-6]
Ground settlement due to consolidation of compressible bay deposits and artificial fill
soils [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-4 through 3-10; Volume I, p. 4-6]
Flooding of low lying areas [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-14 through 3-20; Volume I, p. 4-6]
Inconsistency with City of Chula Vista design storm flow and gravity pipe requirements
[FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-15 through 3-22; Volume I, p. 4-6]
Adequate data regarding quantity and quality of groundwater for lagoons [FEIR,
Volume II, p. 3-16 through 3-21; Volume I, p. 4-6]
The co-generation plant could create emissions that exceed new source limits and
cumulative impacts could occur from vehicular emissions combined with co-generation
plant impacts [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-52 through 3-54; Volume I, p. 4-11]
Vehicular emissions would contribute incrementally to a regionally significant air
quality impact [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-51 through 3-55; Volume I, p. 4-12]
Construction dust and idling trucks could result in unacceptable air quality effects
[FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-49 through 3-54; Volume I, p. 4-11]
Construction noise could reach unacceptable levels [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-58 through
3-60; Volume I, p. 4-12]
-5-
Proximity of child care center to I-5 and the go-generation facility could result in
unacceptable noise levels [FEIR, Volume II, 3-59 through 3-60; Volume I, p. 4-12]
Fluctuations in salinity regines of the marshlands due to increased freshwater input
from site drainage could impact wetland wildlife and vegetation [FEIR, Volume II,
p. 3-76 through 3-115; Volume I, p. 4-13]
Eelgrass habitats and mudflat habitat may be damaged from near shore
sedimentation/turbidity [HEIR, Volume II, p. 3-82 through 3-115; Volume I, p. 4-13]
Project construction would generate considerable noise and increased human activities
for a 20-year period [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-84 through 3-115; Volume I, p. 4-13]
Human and pet presence will decrease the use of the adjacent Sweetwater Marsh
National Wildlife Refuge by nesting and foraging avifauna [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-88
through 3-115; Volume I, p. 4-13]
Indirect effects on California Least Tern including water quality, degradation, nest site
predation, disruption from humans and pets, and altering of the predatory regime
[FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-104 through 3-115; Volume I, p. 4-13]
Placement of drainage pipes and resultant increased freshwater inputs and
sedimentation could severely affect eelgrass and mudflats marine resources [FEIR,
Volume II, p. 306 through 3-115; Volume I, p. 4-13]
Development outside the project boundaries (e.g., for utility extension to serve the site)
could impact archaeological sites [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-120 through 3-124; Volume I,
p. 4-13]
Site grading may result in impacts to paleontological resources [FEIR, Volume II,
p. 3-122 through 3-123; Volume I, p. 4-13]
Traffic congestion, competition for parking, noise from traffic and visitors, and night
lighting would create significant incompatibility impacts with the residential component
of the project [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-148 through 3-151; Volume I, p. 4-18 through
4-19]
The proposed phasing plan would not provide adequate park area or parking for parks
[FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-148 through 3-151; Volume I, p.4-18]
Potentially insufficient amount of parking for park users [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-149
through 3-152; Volume I, p. 4-18 through 4-19]
Concept plan would result in incremental contribution to cumulative impacts to non-
renewable energy resources [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-158 through 3-16.3; V_olume I,
p. 4-20]
-6-
Proposed highrise buildings would result in the need for an additional ladder truck and
four-person fire crew [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-159 through 3-164; Volume I, p. 4-21]
Proposed project would result in increased fire inspection workload [FEIR, Volume II,
p. 3-159 through 3-164; Volume I, p. 4-21]
Potential to result in fire service impacts if project is not properly designed [FEIR,
Volume II, p. 3-159 through 3-164; Volume I, p. 4-21]
Solid waste from proposed project would result in incremental contribution to limited
and declining landfill space . [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-160 through 3-164; Volume I,
p. 4-21]
Impacts to sewer infrastructure [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-160; Volume I, p. 4-21 through
4-22]
Impacts to water infrastructure [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-164 through 3-165; Volume I,
p. 4-221
Incremental contribution to regionally significant demand on water resources [FEIR,
Volume II, p. 3-162 through 3-165; Volume I, p. 4-23]
Adequacy of supply and infrastructure for lagoon water from wells [FEIR, Volume II,
p. 3-162; Volume I, p. 4-23]
Potentially inadequate funding for school transportation costs [FEIR, Volume II,
p. 3-162 through 3-167; Volume I, p. 4-23 through 4-24]
~ffects
The project will result in the following irreversible environmental changes. All page
numbers following the impacts refer to pages from the Final EIR.
Seismic hazards/risk including ground shaking, surface displacement, liquefaction,
tsunamis, and earthquake induced- flooding [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-6 through 3-11;
Volume I, p. 4-6]
Foundation design difficulties associated with construction of foundations at or near the
groundwater table [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-6 through 3-11; Volume I, p. 4-6]
On-site flooding from storm drain overflow [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3- through 3-22;
Volume I, p. 4-6]
Erosion from coastal or inland flooding [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-14 through 3-22;
Volume I, p. 4-6]
-7-
Siltation and chemical contamination/degradation of water quality from surface runoff
[FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-15 through 3-22; Volume I, p. 4-6]
Change in character of the view from the Nature Interpretive Center [FEIR,
Volume II, p. 3-29 through 341; Volume I, p. 4-7 through 4-8]
Obstruction of existing scenic bay views from public use areas and establishments along
Bay Boulevard [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-31 through 3-41; Volume I, p. 4-7 through 4-8]
Creation of visually dominant urban landscape from areas within Chula Vista and I-5
incompatible w/th the waterfront image identity of Chula Vista [FEIR, Volume II,
p. 3-34 through 3-42; Volume I, p. 4-7 through 4-10]
Construction and project operations would create contaminants that would degrade
water quality [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-79 through 3-115; Volume I, p. 4-12 through 4-13]
Concept plan would result in shade/shad°w impacts to park and open space areas
[FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-150 through 3-151; Volume I, p. 4-19 through 4-20]
The alteration of predator/competition/prey regines would adversely impact biological
resources [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-91 through 3-115; Volume I, p.4-13]
Loss of raptor habitat [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-98 through 3-115; Volume I, p. 4-13]
Proximity of development to extensive wetland would result in vector impacts [FEIR,
Volume II, p. 3-101 through 3-115; Volume I, p. 4-13]
The development would create predator enhancement effects to the Light-footed
Clapper Rail and the Belding's Savannah Sparrow which are federal and state listed
endangered species respectively [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-104 through 3-115; Volume I,
p. 4-13]
The development would increase human and pet presence, significantly affecting 'the
quality of the adjacent Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge, and decreasing the
use of the area by nesting and foraging avifauna [FEIR Volume II, p. 3-88 through
3-91; Volume I, p. 4-13]
The intensity of the proposed project will result in a significant conflict due to
compatibility with the land use intensity in the surrounding area [FEIR, Volume II,
p. 3-131 through 3-138; Volume I, p. 4-13 through 4-15]
Proximity of the proposed development coupled with its intensity creates significant
land use compatibility impacts with the National Wildlife Refuge [FEIR, Volume II,
p. 3-133 through 3-138; Volume I, p. 4-14]
-8-
Proposed concept plan not consistent with certified LCP, General Plan (2010), and
Bayfront Redevelopment Plan [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-138 through 3-140; Volume I,
p. 4-15]
Inability of schools to serve needs of students produced from the site [FEIR,
Volume II, p. 3-162 through 3-166; Volume I, p. 4-23 through 4-25]
Significant traffic impacts at Broadway/"E" Street intersection [FEIR, Volume I,
p. 4-27]
Significant traffic impacts at Broadway/"lw' Street intersection [FEIR, Volume I,
p. 4-27]
Significant traffic impacts at Broadway/"H" Street intersection [FEIR, Volume I,
p. 4-27]
Significant traffic impacts at I-5 Northbound Ramp/"E" Street freeway ramp
intersection [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4-27]
Significant traffic impacts at I-5 Southbound Ramp/"E" Street freeway ramp
intersection [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4-27]
These impacts caImot be substantially lessened or avoided at the plan level; but, as
described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City Council has determined
that the impacts are acceptable because of overriding economic, social and other
considerations. The sub-sections below will explore each of the above-described impact
issues in detail, setting forth either the reasons why they are significant and unavoidable, the
mitigation measures adopted to substantially lessen or avoid them, or the reasons why
proposed mitigation measures proved to be infeasible due to specific economic, social or
other considerations.
A. GEOLOGY/SOILS/GROUNDWATER
Significant Effect: Seismic hazards/risk exist, including ground shaking, surface
displacement, liquefaction, tsunamis, and earthquake-induced flooding. [FEIR, Volume II,
p. 3-6 through 3-7; Volume I, p. 4-6]
Finding: Standard required design criteria and conventional engineering techniques can
be implemented to reduce the risk. However, the FEIR concluded that even with the
adoption of these criteria and techniques, set forth in the FEIR and restated below,
additional study is necessary at the project level to determine impact significance for the
detailed development plans. Impacts are therefore considered significant and not mitigated
at this plan level of analysis [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-7, 3-11; Volume I, p. 4-6]. As described
in The Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City Council ha.s determined
that this significant impact is acceptable because of overriding economic, social and other
considerations.
-9-
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be
feasible and have been required either as a condition of approval or been made binding on
the applicant through these f'mdings. [FEIR, Volume II, p.3-8 through 3-10]
1. When detailed development plans for the project area are proposed, detailed
grading and drainage plans must be prepared in accordance with the Chula Vista
Code, Subdivision Manual, and City ordinances and adopted standards. These
plans must include not only grading for structures and roads, but also grading for
on-site and off-site water and sewer pipelines. These plans must be approved and
permits issued by the Engineering Division prior to any grading work.
2. A site-specific geotechnical engineering investigation, including soils study and
seismic study, must be performed for the detailed grading and drainage plan, and
for each proposed structure for the project or any of the alternatives as a condition
for issuance of building permits. Each investigation must contain adequate
subsurface exploration and analyses to determine short- and long-term settlement
magnitudes, expected seismic ground shaking magnitudes and characteristics, and
potential mitigation for seismic ground failure (including liquefaction). Each
investigation must contain detailed foundation recommendations, and would be
subject to review and approval by the City of Chula Vista Engineering Department
pursuant to adopted standards.
3. All high-rise structures will probably require deep foundations, or some type of
mat foundation integrated into subterranean parking, to provide adequate
foundation support for the structure.
4. Structures that encroach onto areas overlain by existing fill soils, alluvial soils, or
bay deposits will require some form of subgrade modification to improve the
support capacity of the existing soils for the additional engineered fills and/or
structural improvements. Soil improvement could include partial or total removal
and recompaction, dynamic compaction, and/or the use of surcharge fills to pre-
compress saturated alluvial deposits or bay deposits which exist below the
groundwater table. Other conventional engineering techniques may also be t/sed
to mitigate potential geotechnical impacts due to compressible soil. These
additional techniques to be determined at the project level may include designs
such as deep foundations or mat foundations.
5. Roadways, embankments, and engineered fills encroaching onto existing
compressible bay deposits and/or existing fill soils are likely to require subgrade
modification to improve the support capacity of the existing soils and reduce long-
term post-construction settlement. Soil improvement could include partial or total
removal and recompaction, dynamic compaction, and/or the use of surcharged
fills, to precompress saturated alluvial deposits or bay deposits which exist below
the groundwater table. Portions of roadway fills, embankments, and other
engineered fills may be judged capable of accommodating some post:construction
differential settlements, depending upon the type of improvements they are to
support. Site-specific geotechnical studies to be completed at the project level
must address post-construction settlement potential as well as ways to mitigate
post-construction total and differential settlements to acceptable ranges, based on
the specific types of improvements proposed.
6. The use of the currently planned soil-cement lining (covering a clay soil layer) for
the 10-acre salt water lagoon (which encroaches onto compressible bay deposits)
is a relatively brittle material, and may require relatively stringent subgrade
improvement to ensure acceptable long-term performance. There are other
options for this type of liner, including clay soil liners and flexible pond liners.
The applicant must determine which liner would be used, any subgrade
improvements necessary, and the choice and design must be approved by the City,
in accordance with approved engineering standards, prior to project approval.
7. To reduce the risk of property damage and injury caused by seismic shaking,
geotechnical studies must specifically address seismic analysis based on site-specific
subsurface data. At a minimum, seismic analysis must address seismically-induced
slope failure, liquefaction, and ground surface accelerations. Measures are
technically available to reduce seismic risk, and must be included in project design.
8. The embankment separating the 10-acre salt water lagoon from San Diego Bay has
tentatively been designed with a crown elevation of + 11 feet. Wind-induced storm
waves (discussed in the Hydrology section of this EIR), or earthquake-induced
flooding could exceed the height of the embankment. An assessment must be
made to evaluate stability of the embankment during these conditions and the
likelihood of these hazards. Mitigation to be defined prior to project approval
may include either elevating the height of the embankment or reinforcing the
crown of the embankment.
Significant Effect: Potential foundation design and construction difficulties associated
with the construction of foundations at or near the groundwater table could occur [FEIR,
Volume II, p. 3-4; Volume I, p. 4-6].
Finding: The FEIR concluded that even with adoption of the measures set forth in the
FEIR and restated below, additional study is necessary when detailed development plans
are available at the project level to determine impact significance and mitigation feasibility.
Impacts are therefore considered significant and not mitigated at this level of analysis
[FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-7 through 3-11; Volume I, p. 4-6]. As described in The Statement
of Overriding Considerations, however, the City Council has determined that this significant
impact is acceptable because of overriding economic, social and other considerations.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible
and have been required either as a condition of approval or been made binding on the
applicant through these findings. [FEIR, p.3-8 through 3-10]
-11-
1. When detailed development plans for the project area are proposed, detailed
grading and drainage plans must be prepared in accordance with the Chula Vista
Code, Subdivision Manual, and City ordinances and adopted standards. These
plans must include not only grading for structures and roads, but also grading for
on-site and off-site water and sewer pipelines. These plans must be approved and
permits issued by the Engineering Division prior to any grading work.
2. A site-specific geotechnical engineering investigation, including soils study and
seismic study, must be performed for the detailed grading and drainage plan, and
for each proposed structure for the project or any of the alternatives as a condition
for issuance of building permits. Each investigation must contain adequate
subsurface exploration and analyses to determine short- and long-term settlement
magnitudes, expected seismic ground shaking magnitudes and characteristics, and
potential mitigation for seismic ground failure (including liquefaction). Each
investigation must contain detailed foundation recommendations, and would be
subject to review and approval by the City of Chula Vista Engineering Department
pursuant to adopted standards.
3. All high-rise structures will probably require deep foundations, or some type of
mat foundation integrated into subterranean parking, to provide adequate
foundation support for the structure.
4. Structures that encroach onto areas overlain by existing fill soils, alluvial soils, or
bay deposits will require some form of subgrade modification to improve the
support capacity of the existing soils for the additional engineered fills and/or
structural improvements. Soil improvement could include partial or total removal
and recompaction, dynamic compaction, and/or the use of surcharge fills to pre-
compress saturated alluvial deposits or bay deposits which exist below the
groundwater table. Other conventional engineering techniques may also be used
to mitigate potential geotechnical impacts due to compressible soil. These
additional techniques to be determined at the project level may include designs
such as deep foundations or mat foundations.
5. Roadways, embankments, and engineered fills encroaching onto existing
compressible bay deposits and/or existing fill soils are likely to require subgrade
modification to improve the support capacity of the existing soils and reduce long-
term post-construction settlement. Soil improvement could include partial or total
removal and recompaction, dynamic compaction, and/or the use of surcharged
fills, to precompress saturated alluvial deposits or bay deposits which exist below
the groundwater table. Portions of roadway fills, embankments, and other
engineered fills may be judged capable of accommodating some post-construction
differential settlements, depending upon the type of improvements they are to
support. Site-specific geotechnical studies to be completed at the project level
must address post-construction settlement potential as well as ways to mitigate
post-construction total and differential settlements to acceptable ranges, based on
the specific types of improvements proposed.
-12-
6. The use of the currently planned soil-cement lining (covering a clay soil layer) for
the 10-acre salt water lagoon (which encroaches onto compressible bay deposits)
is a relatively brittle material, and may require relatively stringent subgrade
improvement to ensure acceptable long-term performance. There are other
options for this type of liner, including clay soil liners and flexible pond liners.
The applicant must determine which liner would be used, any subgrade
improvements necessary, and the choice and design must be approved by the City,
in accordance with approved engineering standards, prior to project approval.
7. Geotechnical studies prepared prior to project approval and included in the
environmental analysis for this project must also address the impact of foundation
location near or below the groundwater table, and suitable recommendations shall
be provided to mitigate both construction-period difficulties and uplift pressures
that may affect both foundation elements and subterranean parking floor slabs
extending below the transient groundwater level. Construction-period mitigation
must require temporary dewatering and/or utilization of a gravel mat to provide
a working surface upon which to operate construction equipment. Design
techniques to accommodate transient groundwater highs may include thicker
concrete slabs to provide sufficient dead weight to resist uplift pressures, deep
foundations and/or structural foundations to restrain slabs.
Potentially Significant Effect: Ground settlement could occur due to the consolidation
of the compressible estuarine/fluvial (bay) deposits and artificial fill soils on site [FEIR,
Volume II, p. 34; Volume I, p. 4-6].
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the
Final EIR.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be
feasible and have been required either as a condition of approval or been made binding on
the applicant through these findings. [FEIR, p.3-8 through 3-10]
1. When detailed development plans for the project area are proposed, detailed
grading and drainage plans must be prepared in accordance with the Chula Vista
Code, Subdivision Manual, and City ordinances and adopted standards. These
plans must include not only grading for structures and roads, but also grading for
on-site and off-site water and sewer pipelines. These plans must be approved and
permits issued by the Engineering Division prior to any grading work.
2. A site-specific geotechnical engineering investigation, including soils study and
seismic study, must be performed for the detailed grading and drainage plan, and
for each proposed structure for the project or any of the alternatives .as a condition
for issuance of building permits. Each investigation must contain adequate
subsurface exploration and analyses to determine short- and long-term settlement
magnitudes, expected seismic ground shaking magnitudes and characteristics, and
potential mitigation for seismic ground failure (including liquefaction). Each
investigation must contain detailed foundation recommendations, and would be
subject to review and approval by the City of Chula Vista Engineering Department
pursuant to adopted standards.
3. All high-rise structures will probably require deep foundations, or some type of
mat foundation integrated into subterranean parking, to provide adequate
foundation support for the structure.
4. Structures that encroach onto areas overlain by existing fill soils, alluvial soils, or
bay deposits will require some form of subgrade modification to improve the
support capacity of the existing soils for the additional engineered fills and/or
structural improvements. Soil improvement could include partial or total removal
and recompaction, dynamic compaction, and/or the use of surcharge fills to pre-
compress saturated alluvial deposits or bay deposits which exist below the
groundwater table. Other conventional engineering techniques may also be used
to mitigate potential geotechnical impacts due to compressible soil. These
additional techniques to be determined at the project level may include designs
such as deep foundations or mat foundations.
5. Roadways, embankments, and engineered fills encroaching onto existing
compressible bay deposits and/or existing fill soils are likely to require subgrade
modification to improve the support capacity of the existing soils and reduce long-
term post-construction settlement. Soil improvement could include partial or total
removal and recompaction, dynamic compaction, and/or the use of surcharged
fills, to precompress saturated ailuvial deposits or bay deposits which exist below
the groundwater table. Portions of roadway fills, embankments, and other
engineered fills may be judged capable of accommodating some post-construction
differential settlements, depending upon the type of improvements they are to
support. Site-specific geotechnical studies to be completed at the project level
must address post-construction settlement potential as well as ways to mitigate
post-construction total and differential settlements to acceptable ranges, based on
the specific types of improvements proposed.
6. The use of the currently planned soil-cement lining (covering a clay soil layer) for
the 10-acre salt water lagoon (which encroaches onto compressible bay deposits)
is a relatively brittle material, and may require relatively stringent subgrade
improvement to ensure acceptable long-term performance. There are other
options for this type of liner, including clay soil liners and flexible pond liners.
The applicant must determine which liner would be used, any subgrade .
improvements necessary, and the choice and design must be approved by the City,
in accordance with approved engineering standards, prior to project approval.
-14-
7. To reduce the risk of property damage and injury caused by seismic shaking,
geotechnical studies shall specifically address seismic analysis based on site-specific
subsurface data. As a minimum, seismic analysis shall address seismically-induced
slope failure, liquefaction, and ground surface accelerations. Measures are
technically available to reduce seismic risk, and will be recommended as
appropriate, and implemented into the project design.
8. The embankment separating the 10-acre salt water lagoon from San Diego Bay has
tentatively been designed with a crown elevation of + 11 feet. Wind-induced storm
waves (discussed in the Hydrology section of this EIR), or earthquake-induced
flooding could exceed the height of the embankment. An assessment must be
made to evaluate stability of the embankment during these conditions and the
likelihood of these hazards. Mitigation may include either elevating the height of
the embankment or reinforcing the crown of the embankment.
Potentially Significant Effect: No grading plans are available for on-site and off-site
water and sewer pipelines [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-4; Volume I, p. 4-6].
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the
Final EIR.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be
feasible and have been required either as a condition of approval or been made binding on
the applicant through these findings. [FEIR, p.3-8 through 3-9]
1. When detailed development plans for the project area are proposed, detailed
grading and drainage plans must be prepared in accordance with the Chula Vista
Code, Subdivision Manual, and City ordinances and adopted standards. These
plans must include not only grading for structures and roads, but also grading for
on-site and off-site water and sewer pipelines. These plans must be approved and
permits issued by the Engineering Division prior to any grading work.
2. A site-specific geotechnical engineering investigation, including soils study and
seismic study, must be performed for the detailed grading and drainage plan, and
for each proposed structure for the project or any of the alternatives as a condition
for issuance of building permits. Each investigation must contain adequate
subsurface exploration and analyses to determine short- and long-term settlement
magnitudes, expected seismic ground shaking magnitudes and characteristics, and
potential mitigation for seismic ground failure (including liquefaction). Each
investigation must contain detailed foundation recommendations, and would be
subject to review and approval by the City of Chula Vista Engineering Department
pursuant to adopted standards.
-15-
B. HYDROLOGY/WATER OUALITY
Significant Effect: Flooding on-site from storm drain overflow [FEIR, Volume II, p.
3-14 through 3-15; Volume I, p. 4-6]
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which will lessen, although not to a less than significant level, the significant
unmitigable environmental effects regarding storm drain flooding. These measures shall be
incorporated into the project level design. Additional information is necessary to determine
project level impact significance and mitigation feasibility [FEIR Volume II, p. 3-22; Volume
I, p. 4-6]. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City
Council has determined that this significant impact is acceptable because of overriding
economic, social and other considerations.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be
feasible and have been required either as conditions of approval or have been made binding
on the applicant through these findings. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 3-20]
1. Preparation of a detailed drainage plan in accordance with adopted engineering
standards, which must be approved by the Engineering Department before
construction. To achieve required standards, it may be necessary to raise proposed
pad elevations at the easterly portion of the site in order to provide no less than
a 0.5 percent westerly slope of the storm drain system.
2. Where storm drain pipes are installed with slopes flatter than 0.5 percent, and/or
where the storm drain pipes are continually or intermittently under water as at bay
discharges, an annual pipe inspection (e.g., by video camera) shall be provided.
Any siltation problems must be cleaned prior to the following rainy season.
3. Preparation of a site-specific hydrology study to address flooding, and erosion must
be completed prior to project approval and included in the environmental analysis
for the project. Recommendations developed as a result of this study mus~ be
made a part of the Mitigation Monitoring Program.
4. The storm drain system will be designed in accordance with adopted City
standards.
Significant Effect: Erosion from coastal or inland flooding. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-14;
Volume I, p. 4-6]
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which will lessen, although not to a less than significant level, the significant
unmitigable environmental effects related to coastal or inland flooding. The. se measures
shall be incorporated into the project level design. Additional information is necessary when
detailed development plans are available to determine impact significance and mitigation
-16-
feasibility. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-22; Volume I, p. 4-6] As described in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations, however, the City Council has determined that this significant
effect is acceptable because of overriding economic, social and other considerations.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be
feasible and have been required either as conditions of approval or have been made binding
on the applicants through these findings. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 3-20 through 3-21]
1. Preparation of a detailed drainage plan in accordance with adopted engineering
standards, which must be approved by the Engineering Department before
construction. To achieve required standards it may be necessary to raise proposed
pad elevations at the easterly portion of the site in order to provide no less than
a 0.5 percent westerly slope of the storm drain system.
2. Preparation of a site-specific hydrology study to address flooding, and erosion must
be completed prior to project approval and included in the environmental analysis
for the project. Recommendations developed as a result of this study must be
made a part of the Mitigation Monitoring Program.
3. Erosion control recommendations developed during site-specific hydrological
studies must be provided, and made a part of the Mitigation Monitoring Program.
These erosion control recommendations are to include coastal erosion of
embankments, erosion from inland flooding (including exceeding capacity of site
storm drain system), erosion from flooding of the Sweetwater River, and erosion
of the mudflats at storm drain outlets.
4. The embankment separating the 10-acre salt water lagoon from San Diego Bay is
to be constructed as a soil berm extending up to elevation + I1 feet. The bayward
slope may be subject to shoreline erosion. Likewise, the landward slope may be
subject to erosion from inland flooding. Mitigation measures may include a rock
revetment to minimize erosion, or other suitable design.
Significant Effect: Siltation and chemical contamination/degradation of water quality
from surface runoff (pesticides, fertilizers, oil, grease, etc.). [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-15
through 3-16; Volume I, p. 4-6]
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which will lessen the significant, unmitigable impacts. However, the FEIR concluded
that even with adoption of these measures, set forth in the FEIR and restated below,
additional study is necessary when detailed development plans are available to determine
impact significance and mitigation feasibility. Impacts are therefore considered significant
and not mitigated at this level of analysis [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-22; Volume I, p. 4-6]. As
described in The Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City. Council has
determined that this significant impact is acceptable because of overriding economic, social
and other considerations.
-17-
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be
feasible and have been required either as conditions of approval or have been made binding
on the applicants through these findings. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 3-20 through 3-21]
1. Preparation of a detailed drainage plan in accordance with adopted engineering
standards, which must be approved by the Engineering Department before
construction. To achieve required standards it may be necessary to raise proposed
pad elevations at the easterly portion of the site in order to provide no less than
a 0.5 percent westerly slope of the storm drain system.
2. Where storm drain pipes are installed with slopes flatter than 0.5 percent, and/or
where the storm drain pipes are continually or intermittently under water as at bay
discharges, an annual pipe inspection (e.g., by video camera) shall be provided.
Any siltation problems can then be cleaned prior to the following rainy season.
3. Preparation of a site-specific hydrology study to address flooding and erosion must
be completed prior to project approval to include in the environmental analysis for
the project.~ Recommendations developed as a result of this study must be made
a part of the Mitigation Monitoring Program.
4. The detention basin has been designed with a minimum 1-foot freeboard based
on a 100-year/6-hour storm event. Additionally, a dip in "17" Street creates a
spillway for excess waters, which would then encroach on "F" Street as they travel
over the embankment and into the "F" and "G" Street Marsh [John Goddard, pers.
comm.] Conventional engineering practice requires consideration of inclusion of
an emergency spillway in the design of the basin. (This spillway must be designed
to discharge excess storm water without encroaching on "F" Street or causing
damage to the downstream embankment.)
5. It is noted that proposed design of the detention basin in effect makes use of the
adjacent "F" Street embankment on the southerly edge of the basin as a small
dam. A dam of this relatively small size is required to comply with the
requirements of the County of San Diego and shall be constructed in accordance
with the County Design and Procedure Manual [rev. October 1985] outlines
spillway design for small dams (p. 11-13). The applicant will be required to
comply with all applicable County of San Diego regulations. Compliance with
these regulations will be verified by the City of Chula Vista Engineer.
6. Traps for contaminant control must be approved by the City Engineering
Department before they may be installed.
Potentially Significant Effect: Flooding of (a) low-lying areas from tidal highs,
compounded by runup from wind-driven waves (coastal flood hazards); (b) fl. ooding from
the Sweetwater River [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-14; Volume I, p. 4-6].
¥
-18-
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the
Final EIR.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be
feasible and have been required either as a condition of approval or been made binding on
the applicant through these findings. [FEIR, Volume II, p.3-20]
1. Preparation of a detailed drainage plan 'in accordance with approved engineering
standards, which must be approved by the City Engineering Department before
construction. To achieve required standards it may be necessary to raise proposed
pad elevations at the easterly portion of the site in order to provide no less than
a 0.5 percent westerly slope of the storm drain system.
2. Where storm drain pipes are installed with slopes flatter than 0.5 percent, and/or
where the storm drain pipes are continually or intermittently under water as at bay
discharges, an annual pipe inspection (e.g., by video camera) shall be provided.
Any siltation problems must be cleaned prior to the following rainy season.
3. Preparation of a site-specific hydrology study to address flooding, and erosion.
Recommendations developed as a result of this study must be made a part of the
Mitigation Monitoring Program. If recommendations are not carried out,
construction must halt until they are.
Potentially Significant Effect: Inconsistency with City of Chula Vista standards,
specifically related to the design storm flow and gravity pipe requirements. [FEIR, Volume
II, p. 3-15; Volume I,p. 4-6]
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which will avoid the potentially sigrdficant environmental effect as identified in the
Final EIR.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be
feasible and have been required either as a condition of approval or been made binding on
the applicant through these findings. [FEIR, Volume II, p.3-20 through 3-22]
1. Preparation of a detailed drainage plan in accordance with approved engineering
standards, which must be approved by the Engineering Department before
construction. To achieve required standards it may be necessary to raise proposed
pad elevations at the easterly portion of the site in order to provide no less than
a 0.5 percent westerly slope of the storm drain system.
2. Where storm drain pipes are installed with slopes flatter than 0.5 percent, and/or
where the storm drain pipes are continually or intermittently under water as at bay
-19-
discharges, an annual pipe inspection (e.g.~ by video camera) shall be provided.
Any siltation problems must be cleaned pr/or to the following rainy season.
3. Preparation of a site-specific hydrology study to address flooding, and erosion must
be completed prior to project approval and included as part of the environmental
analysis for the project. Recommendations developed as a result of this study
must be made a part of the Mitigation Monitoring Program. If recommendations
are not carried out, construction must halt until they are.
4. The storm ~lrain system will be designed in accordance with adopted City
standards.
Potentially Significant Effect: Limited data regarding quantity and quality of
groundwater for the lagoons. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-16 through 3-17; Volume I, p. 4-6]
Finding: Changes or alterations can be incorporated into the project at the project
level of CEQA compliance which will avoid the potentially significant enviromnental effect
as identified in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be
feasible and have been required either as a condition of approval or been made binding on
the applicant through these findings.
1. The adequacy of quantity and quality of groundwater for a lagoon on the site must
be addressed by the applicant by a thorough analysis conducted pursuant to a
scope of work approved by the City. This analysis must be completed prior to
project approval and included as part of the environmental analysis for the project.
If quantity and/or quality are not adequate, a different source of water to be
approved by the City must be used (i.e., San Diego Bay). [FEIR, Volume II, p.
3-211
C. VISUAL AESTHETICS/COMMUNITY CHARACTER
Significant Effect: Change of the overall character of the view from the Chula Vista
Nature Interpretive Center, from a predominantly natural and scenic wetlands setting to one
of intense urban development [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-29, 3-41; Volume I, p. 4-7 through 4-
8].
Finding: The FEIR described mitigation measures that required a redesign of the
proposed project. No other measures were found that would reduce the impacts to a level
below significant. Redesign would include lowering building heights to existing LCP
limitations, with Iow profile apartments, high rise hotels not exceeding 12 stories, and scaled
down development east of the marsh. Redesign (of Concept Plan, Alternative 8) is not
proposed, thus the environmental effects remain significant. [FEIR, Volume II; p. 3-39,
3-41; Volume I, p. 4-7 through 4-8] As described in the Statement of Overriding
-20-
Considerations, however, the City Council has determined that this significant impact is
acceptable because of overriding economic, social and other considerations.
Mitigation Measures: Project redesign to lower building heights to existing LCP
limitations, with Iow profile apartments and high rise hotels no higher than 12 stories is
recommended by the FEIR. Also, development shall be scaled down in size and height east
of the marsh, with the marsh perceived as an open space system, and used to soften the
.visual impact of development in the vicinity. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-39] Project redesign
~s not proposed, thus the impact remains significant.
Significant Effect: Obstruction of existing scenic bay views from public use areas and
establishments along Bay Boulevard. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-31; 3-39, Volume I, p. 4-8]
Finding: The FEIR described measures that required a redesign of the proposed
project in such a way as to permit intermittent views to the bay in order to reduce the
significant impacts to a level below significant. No other measures were found that reduced
the impacts to a level below significant. Redesign (of the Concept Plan, Alternative 8) was
not proposed, thus the environmental effects remain significant. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-39,
3-41; Volume I, p. 4-7 through 4-8] As described in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations, however, the City Council has determined that this significant impact is
acceptable because of its overriding economic, social and other considerations.
Mitigation Measures: Project redesign to move building locations to permit
intermittent views to the bay, also likely reducing building densities is recommended by the
FEIR. This redesign is not proposed, thus the impacts remain significant.
Significant Effect: 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. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-34, 3-35; Volume I, p~ '4-9
through 4-10].
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which will lessen, although not to a less than significant level, the significant,
unmitigable environmental effects. These measures must be incorporated into the project
level design and illustrated in the environmental review for the project. Even with
incorporation of these measures, set forth in the FEIR and restated below, mitigation to a
level of less than significant would require project (Concept Plan, Alternative 8) redesign.
Redesign is not proposed, thus the environmental effects remain significant [FEIR, Volume
II, p. 3-39 through 3-42; Volume I, p. 4-7, 4-9 through 4-10]. As described in the Statement
of Overriding Considerations however, the City Council has determined that this significant
~mpact is acceptable because of its overriding economic, social and other considerations.
-21-
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be
feasible and have been required either as a condition of approval or been made binding on
the applicant through these f'mdings. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 340 through 341; Volume 1,
p. 4-7 through 4-10]
1. Establish landmarks on the site which would be visible from "E" Street. Establish
a design pattern or sequence north of the freeway and continue this design
element on the site. Use compatible streetscapes along "E" Street on both sides
of the freeway to create a visual connection between the project site and portions
of Chula Vista east of the freeway. The streetscape could consist of a combination
of street trees, street lights, or paving.
2. Install plants which eventually would frame but not block views. Use plants with
seasonal or structural interest to emphasize view corridors. Emphasize on-site
view corridors by flanking views with plants and buildings.
3. Implement lighting plans which accentuate entrances to the site and landmarks.
Keep overhead lighting to a minimum and hood lights in order to prevent light
spill. Low lighting will be required along the shoreline.
4. Use colors and materials which would blend into the site. Appropriate colors
could include lighter tones and pastels. Do not allow reflective glass or reflective
roof materials.
5. Provide visual orientation soon after entering the site in order to direct visitors to
each major site area. Such orientation could be provided by street design and
amenities, such as recognizable patterns, and by building siting.
D. CONVERSION OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS
Less-than-Significant Effect: The loss of approximately 45 to 65 acres of potential
agricultural land. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-44; Volume I, p. 4-11]
Finding: The FEIR does not cite any significant adverse project effects in the area of
conversion of agricultural lands. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-45; Volume I, p. 4-11]
Potentially Significant Effect: Development of a co-generation plant could create
emissions that exceed new source review limits, and cumulative impacts could occur from
vehicular emissions added to the co-generation plant impacts. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-52
through 3-54; Volume I, p. 4-11]
-22-
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the
Final EIR.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be
feasible and have been required either as a condition of approval or been made binding on
the applicant through these findings.
i. Mitigation is required by the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District
(APCD) before an authority to Construct and a Permit to Operate is issued.
Mitigation would include concurrent reductions in NOx, ROG, and CO to "offset"
project (co-generation plant) emissions. Mitigation must be achieved before the
plant may be built. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-54]
Potentially Significant Effect: An incremental contribution to a regionally significant
air quality impact in the San Diego Air Basin would occur from vehicular emissions. [FEIR,
Volume II, p. 3-51; Volume I, p. 4-12]
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the
Final EIR.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be
feasible and have been required either as a condition of approval or been made binding on
the applicant through these findings.
Various transportation control measures (TCMs) must be incorporated into the
project. Such measures must include provisions for employees, residents, and visitors.
Measures that must be included are:
Airport shuttle services for destination resort visitors
Ridesharing
Vanpool Incentives
Alternate Transportation Methods
Work Scheduling for Off-Peak Hour Travel
Transit Utilization
Program Coordination
Traffic Signal Coordination
Physical Roadway Improvements to Maintain LOS of "D" or Better
The effective implementation of these various TCMs will be significantly enhanced if
they are coordinated through a transportation management agency (TMA) dealing
specifically with bayfront traffic demand management. Formation of such a TM&
including funding of a TMA coordinator and mandatory tenant particip~ition- through
CC&R agreements in tenant leases, will maximize the potential for emissions reduction.
-23-
The establishment of minimum participation goals and the formation of a midbayfront
TMA must be a condition of approval for the proposed project to mitigate air pollution
effects from any increased development intensity. The City Planning Department
would be responsible for reviewing the TMA plan. [FEIR, Volume 1I, p. 3-54 through
3-551
Potentially Significant Effect: Construction activities would create dust that contributes
to violations of inhalable dust (PM-10) standards, and multiple construction-related tracks
blocking traffic or idling near occupied receptor sites could create unacceptable air quality
effects. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-49 through 3-50; Volume I, p. 4-11]
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the
Final EIR.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be
feasible and have been required either as a condition of approval or been made binding on
the applicant through these findings. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-54]
1. Dust control measures required by the AQMD will be implemented during
construction, and monitored via the Mitigation Monitoring Program. Such
measures must include maintaining adequate soil moisture as well as removing any
soil spillage onto traveled roadways through site housekeeping procedures.
2. Reducing interference with existing traffic and preventing truck queuing around
local receptors must be incorporated into any project construction permits. Trucks
must turn off engines while waiting, or not be allowed to enter the site again. This
regulation could be undertaken by the on-site biological monitor. The permits will
limit operations to daytime periods of better dispersion that minimizes localized
pollution accumulation.
F. NOISE
Potentially Significant Effect: Construction noise could reach 75 to 100 dB at 50 feet
from the source [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-58; Volume I, p. 4-12]. Noise impacts related to
Biological Resources are discussed in the following section.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the
Final EIR.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be
feasible and have been required either as a condition of approval or been made binding on
the applicant through these findings.
-24 -
1. Construction noise intrusion will be limited by conditions on construction permits
to weekday hours between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.. Those same permits will also
specify construction access routing to minimize construction truck traffic past
existing residential, park, or other noise sensitive uses to comply with General Plan
noise policies. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-58, 3-60]
Potentially Significant Effect: The proximity of the proposed Child Care Center to 1-5
(800 feet) and to the co-generation plant exhaust stacks (500 feet) has the potential to result
in significant noise effects [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-59; Volume I, p. 4-12].
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the
Final EIR.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be
feasible and have been required either as a condition of approval or been made binding on
the applicant through these findings.
1. Child care center noise exposure must be minimized by establishing a noise
performance standard on co-generation exhaust stack noise met through the use
of silencers; a performance standard of 45 dB at night and 50 dB by day at 400
feet from the exhaust stack is recommended to prevent excessive exhaust noise
intrusion. A noise barrier along the eastern play area boundary to screen out
traffic noise must also be incorporated into the project level design. The measures
shall be implemented and monitored via a Mitigation Monitoring Program.
[FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-60]
G. BIOLOGY
Significant Effect: Construction and ongoing use of the proposed development w6uld
generate contaminants that wonid degrade water quality [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-79 through
3-82; Volume I, p. 4-12 through 4-13].
Finding: The FEIR concluded that even with adoption of the measures set forth in the
FEIR and restated below, additional study is necessary when detailed development plans
are available at the project level to determine impact significance [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-82;
Volume I, p. 4-13]. Impacts are therefore considered significant and not mitigated at this
level of analysis. As described in The Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the
City Council has determined that this significant impact is acceptable because of overriding
economic, social and other considerations.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been .found to be
feasible and have been required either as a condition of approval or been made binding on
the applicant through these findings. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-110 through 3-115]
-25-
1. The project must include the preparation of a program which incorporates the
following biological resource management plans as individual sections:
Predator Management Plan
Human Activities Management Plan
Landscape Design and Management Plan
Water Quality/Runoff/Drainage Management Plan
Mudflat and Wetland Monitoring Plan
Project Lighting Plan
Construction Monitoring and Management Plan
CC&Rs/Ordinances/Applicable Policies
This document must be available in a completed form for review during the
project level environmental process.
2. All post-construction collector drains must be directed through large volume silt
and grease traps prior to being shunted into the freshwater detention basin or the
bay discharges. The trap/traps placed on lines entering the detention basin must
be triple-chambered.
3. The silt and grease traps must be maintained with thorough cleaning to be
conducted in late September or early October and as-needed through the winter
and spring months. Maintenance must be done by removal of wastes rather than
flushing, as is unfortunately often the case. City inspections of these traps must
be done to ensure that maintenance is occurring as required.
4. Long-term silt removal maintenance of the detention basin must be minimized
following the initial construction phases of the proposed project. This
maintenance cleaning should not be required since the traps, if properly
constructed and maintained, will capture the vast majority of the silts which would
be deposited in this basin.
5. Further studies are required to evaluate the effects of groundwater pumping to' fill
the proposed lagoon. If these studies indicate that this is not a suitable solution
because of contaminants or reduced salinities, a saltwater intake from the bay
must be placed in a drain alignment or along a similar low impact corridor and
shall be separated from the drain at a point below the existing eelgrass beds.
Impacts associated with the placement of this system must be mitigated by the
rapid restoration of impacted areas. Any required discharge or drainage system
from the interior lagoons must be to the proposed storm drain system, which flows
through a triple baffle trap intended to control contaminants, rather than directly
to the bay. The specific drainage discharge system will be further defined and
environmental review will be completed at the project level.
6. Several desiltation basins and back-up basins large enough to handle storm water
runoff must be maintained during the construction phase so that' no silts are
allowed to leave the construction site. In addition, construction dewatering will
-26-
be directed into a basin with a filter-fabric, gravel leach system so that clear water
is released into a basin. As an alternative, dewatering water must be pumped
across the mudflat into the boat channel and discharged at a point above the
bottom to avoid resnspending bottom silts, but at a depth of at least 8 feet.
7. Fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides utilized within the landscaping areas of the
project shall be of the rapidly biodegradable variety and approved for use near
wetlands by the Environmental Protection Agency. Further plans required for
water quality management, landscape management, and runoff management shall
be developed in accordance with Requirement 1.
8. All landscape chemical applications must be done by a state-certified landscape
contractor.
9. A full-time enforcement staff of two or more officers shall be funded by the
applicant to conduct the predator management program, ensure compliance, issue
citations, and conduct routine checks to ensure maintenance of other mitigation
requirements (i.e., silt/grease trap maintenance, etc.). Such officers will work
closely with the USFWS in enforcement issues as they relate to Federal Reserve
Lands. Officers must have training in predator control and shall possess the
necessary skills, permits and authority to trap and remove problem predators.
Detailed plans are required to be reviewed at the project level.
10. Annual funding must be designated for the purpose of trash control, repair and
maintenance of drainage facilities, fencing, the predator control program, and
mitigation programs for the project.
11. Public awareness signs explaining the resources, concerns and prohibited activities
must be prominently posted throughout the affected parklands.
Significant Effect: Alteration of the Predator/Competition/Prey balance as a resUlt of
the proposed changes in land uses would significantly affect biological resources [FEIR,
Volume II, p. 3-91 through 3-97; Volume I, p. 4-13].
Finding: The FEIR found that, although feasible measures are available to reduce the
significant environmental effects to a level of less than significant at the project level, these
measures, set forth in the EIR and restated below, have not, as yet, been undertaken. Thus,
these impacts remain significant and not mitigated at this level of analysis [FEIR, Volume
II, p. 3-97; Volume I, p. 4-13]. As described in The Statement of Overriding Considerations,
however, the City Council has determined that this significant impact is acceptable because
of overriding economic, social and other considerations.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have bee~l found to be
feasible and have been required either as a condition of approval or been made binding on
the applicant through these findings. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-110 through 3-115]
-27-
1. The project must include the preparation of a program which incorporates the
following biological resource management plans as individual sections:
* Predator Management Plan
* Human Activities Management Plan
* Landscape Design and Management Plan
* Water Quality/Runoff/Drainage Management Plan
* Mudflat and Wetland Monitoring Plan
* Project Lighting Plan
* Construction Monitoring and Management Plan
* CC&Rs/Ordinances/Applicable Policies
2. a. No "in-water" construction shall be allowed during the period of 1 April
through 15 September tO avoid the potential for elevating turbidity in the
nearshore foraging and chick train/ng areas of the California Least Tern.
Further, any other activities which are identified by the biological monitor as
having this effect will be precluded from occurring during this period. If it
can be demonstrated that the least tern has not yet arrived in south San
Diego Bay, or has departed earlier than the specified dates, the applicant or
agent may petition the City to modify this timing constraint. The City, acting
in consultation with the USFWS shall have the ability to modify this period
to reflect the presence of terns during the actual year(s) of construction.
b. No construction activity, earth moving or high intensity activity will occur
within 200 feet of any salt marsh, freshwater marsh, or mudflat habitat during
the period between 15 March and 31 August without prior approval by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game.
3. Landscape plant materials to be utilized in the project area must be submitted to
the City Landscape Architect for review and approval. Plant materials which are
known to be invasive in salt and brackish marshes such as Lirnoniurn or
Carpobrotus species, or those which are known to be attractive as denning, nesting
or roosting sites for predators such as Washingtonia or Cortadetia, shall' be
restricted from use. Landscape plan required to be reviewed at the project level.
4. The proposed development and parks must be designated as a "no pets" area.
This means posting all of the parklands/public access areas and imposing fines
based on the existing or new City municipal codes, and posting the development
areas and including this restriction in all leases and enforcing these restrictions.
Plan required to be reviewed at the project level.
5. Open garbage containers must be restricted and all dumpsters must be totally
enclosed to avoid attracting avian and mammalian predators and scavengers to the
area. Garbage must be hauled away as often as possible. Citations for open
garbage containers will be issued to any entity not complying. Restaurants and
park areas are of special concern. Plan required to be reviewed ~t the project
level.
-28-
6. Human access to marshlands and buffer areas shall be restricted through fencing
and signs. This restriction shall be enforced with trespass citations and fines.
Specific areas of concern are along the fringes of Vener Pond, and the "E" Street
Marsh and Sweetwater Marsh. Additional human/pet encroachment shall be
restricted through fencing and visual buffers at the mouth of the "F" and "G" Street
feeder channel and southeast of the "F" Street/Marina Parkway intersection.
Detailed landscape and buffer design plans shall be required for environmental
review at the project level.
7. A predator management program for the Chula Vista bayfront will be developed
to control domestic as well as wild animal predators as part of the project level
environmental review process. This program shall utilize the Connors [1987] plan
as a basis, but must be tailored to fit the needs of the proposed development.
This plan shall include the use of fines as an enforcement tool to control human
and pet activities. The plan will include the use of fines as an enforcement tool
to control human and pet activities. The plan shall be comprehensive and must
include management of predators within the adjacent wildlife refuge as well as the
proposed development areas. Detail plan required to be reviewed at the project
level
8. A full-time enforcement staff of two or more officers shall be funded by the
applicant to conduct the predator management program, ensure compliance, issue
citations, and conduct routine checks to ensure maintenance of other mitigation
requirements (i.e., silt/grease trap maintenance, etc.). Such officers will work
closely with the USFWS in enforcement issues as they relate to Federal Reserve
Lands. Officers must have training in predator control and shall possess the
necessary skills, permits and authority to trap and remove problem predators.
Detailed plans are required to be reviewed at the project level.
9. Annual funding must be designated for the purpose of trash control, repair and
maintenance of drainage facilities, fencing, the predator control program, and
mitigation programs for the project.
10. Public awareness signs explaining the resources, concerns and prohibited activities
must be prominently posted throughout the affected parklands.
11. No further dredging, structural changes, or proposed uses shall be allowed to occur
along the mudflat or marshland areas of the bayfront. This includes such activities
as marinas, water sports courses, etc. Additionally, the developer, City, and
USFWS shall jointly seek to have the San Diego Unified Port District post a line
of buoys to limit access in the mudflat and marsh areas.
12. Buildings must utilize non-reflective glass and bold architectural lines which are
readily observable by birds. These features will be reviewed by the Planning
Department during the design review process. A film glass manufacturexl by 3M
or its equivalent is required. These design features will be reviewe'd during the
project level CEQA analysis.
-29-
13. Buildings facing marshlands shall not include extraneous ledges upon which
raptors could perch or nest. Additionally, roof peaks and crests which are exposed
to the wetlands must be covered with an anti-perch material such as Nixalite. A
commitment to correct any additional problem areas shall be obtained should
heavy incidence of perching be observed or should nest building by raptors be
initiated on the buildings or in landscaping materials. These design features will
be reviewed during the project level CEQA analysis.
14. Park uses within the lower third of the 6.8-acre park zone at the "1~' & "G" Street
Marsh feeder channel shall be limited to passive use and must include such
features as abundant native shrubland restoration, which would preclude active
recreation in this area. Park and buffer areas along the "E" Street Marsh and
Verier Pond shall be designed to include a visual and human encroachment barrier
between active recreation areas and the marshlands. This could be best
accomplished using a vegetated berm separated from a lowered recreation area
("pits") by a fence. Passive overlooks could be incorporated on the development
side of the recreational "pits." This would provide both a visual screen between
the marsh and the high human activity as well as a distance separation between
passive observation areas and the marshlands. Both needs would be met by this
design approach. Buffer area landscape plans shall be required at the project level
of CEQA compliance.
15. Kite flying activities result in high avian disturbance due to the kites being
perceived as predatory birds and thus will be prohibited from parkland areas
adjacent to wetlands or bay mudflats.
16. New marshland, pond fringe, and salt pond habitats totaling no fewer than 13.2
acres must be created on the more isolated western portions of Gunpowder Point,
ideally, with marsh linkage to both the "E" Street Marsh and Sweetwater Marsh
to aid in off-setting impacts associated with encroachment, predation, and loss of
habitat use by avian species. These 13.2 acres would replace the loss of some of
the values associated with the 3,840-foot length of marshland fringing the "E"
Street Marsh, Vener Pond, and Sweetwater Marsh that would be impacted' by
predator/competitor threats and encroachment pressures.
Significant Effect: Due to the limited extent of coastal habitats, and the high diversity
and. numbers of raptors utilizing this area, the loss of habitat to development is considered
an ~ncremental, but significant effect of the project. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-98 through
3-100; Volume I, p. 4-13]
Finding: The FEIR concluded that, although there are feasible measures available to
reduce this impact, the loss of the resource cannot be substantially compensated for and the
impact remains significant. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-100; Volume I, p. 4-13] .The_feasible
measures, as set forth in the FEIR, are restated below. As described in the Statement of
-30-
Overriding Considerations, however, the City Council has determined that this significant
impact is acceptable because of overriding economic, social, and other considerations.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be
feasible, and have been required either as conditions of approval or have been made binding
on the applicant through these findings. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-110 through 3-115]
1. Landscape plant materials to'be utilized in the project area must be submitted to
the City Landscape ArChitect for review and approval. Plant materials which are
known to be invasive in salt and brackish marshes such as Limonium or
Carpobrotus species, or those which are known to be attractive as denning, nesting
or roosting sites for predators such as Washingtonia or Cortadeda, shall be
restricted from use. Landscape plan required to be reviewed at the project level,
2. A full-time enforcement staff of two or more officers shall be funded by the
applicant to conduct the predator management program, ensure compliance, issue
citations, and conduct routine checks to ensure maintenance of other mitigation
requirements (i.e., silt/grease trap maintenance, etc.). Such officers will work
closely with the USFWS in enforcement issues as they relate to Federal Reserve
Lands. Officers must have training in predator control and shall possess the
necessary skills, permits and authority to trap and remove problem predators.
Detailed plans are required to be reviewed at the project level.
3. Annual funding must be designated for the purpose of trash control, repair and
maintenance of drainage facilities, fencing, the predator control program, and
mitigation programs for the project.
4. Public awareness signs explaining the resources, concerns and prohibited activities
must be prominently posted throughout the affected parklands.
5. Conversion of the small brackish water marsh to a freshwater detention basin
would reduce, but not eliminate, the resource values of this pond. These values
shall be reclaimed through the creation of additional salt and brackish marsh
within the "F" & "G" Street Marsh area and the area between the "F" & "G" Street
Marsh and San Diego Bay. No fewer than 3.5 acres of Brackish Marsh and 4
acres of Salt Marsh shall be creatdd in this area. In addition, tidal flushing shall
be enhanced as identified in the Wetlands Research Associates restoration plans
[1987]. Further, if marshlands are to be created, as proposed, on both sides of
Marina Parkway, undercrossing areas which remain dray during high tide would
be required. It is suggested that large half-round corrugated culverts of a 10 foot
or more radius be considered for this purpose. This restoration will also assist in
mitigating a portion of the human encroachment impacts identified by expanding
the area and value of the existing marshlands.
6. No further dredging, structural changes, or proposed uses shall be allowed to occur
along the mudflat or marshland areas of the bayfront. This includes si~ch ~ctivities
as marinas, water sports courses, etc. Additionally, the developer, City, and
-31-
USFWS shall jointly seek to have the San Diego Unified Port District post a line
of buoys to 1/mit access in the mudflat and marsh areas.
7. Buildings must utilize non-reflective glass and bold architectural lines which are
readily observable by birds. These features will be reviewed by the Planning
Department during the design review process. A film glass manufactured by 3M
or its equivalent is required. These design features will be reviewed during the
project level CEQA analysis.
8. Buildings facing marshlands shall not include extraneous ledges upon which
raptors could perch or nest. Additionally, roof peaks and crests which are exposed
to the wetlands must be covered with an anti-perch material such as Nixalite. A
commitment to correct any additional problem areas shall be obtained should
heavy incidence of perching be observed or should nest building by raptors be
initiated on the buildings or in landscapin~ materials. These design features will
be reviewed during the project level CEQA analysis.
9. New marshland, pond fringe, and salt pond habitats totaling no fewer than 13.2
acres must be created on the more isolated western portions of Gunpowder Point,
ideally, with marsh linkage to both the "E" Street Marsh and Sweetwater Marsh
to aid in off-setting impacts associated with encroachment, predation, and loss of
habitat use by avian species. These 13.2 acres would replace the loss of some of
the values associated with the 3,840-foot length of marshland fringing the "E"
Street Marsh, Vener Pond, and Sweetwater Marsh that would be impacted by
predator/competitor threats and encroachment pressures.
Significant Effect: The proximity of the proposed development to the extensive
surrounding wetlands creates significant vector impacts. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-101 to
3-102; Volume 1, p. 4-13]
Finding: The FEIR concluded that, with adoption of the mitigation measures set f6rth
in the FEIR and restated below, the significant impact would be minimized, but that until
a vector control plan is available for the project level analysis, a determination of mitigation
effectiveness cannot be determined. Thus, this impact remains significant at this level of
analysis. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-101 to 3-102; Volume I, p. 4-13] As described in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City Council has determined that this
significant impact is acceptable because of overriding economic, social, and other
considerations.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be
feasible, and have been required either as conditions of approval or have been made binding
on the applicant through these findings. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-110 through 3-115]
-32-
1. Fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides utilized within the landscaping areas of the
project must be of the rapidly biodegradable variety and approved for use near
wetlands by the Environmental Protection Agency. Further plans required for
water quality management, landscape management, and runoff management shall
be developed and available in a completed form for review during the project level
environmental process.
2. All landscape chemical applications must be done by a state-certified landscape
contractor.
3. Open garbage containers must be restricted and all dumpsters must be totally
enclosed to avoid attracting avian and mammalian predators and scavengers to the
area. Garbage must be hauled away as often as possible. Citations for open
garbage containers will be issued to any entity not complying. Restaurants and
park areas are of special concern. Plan required to be reviewed at the project
level.
4. Human access to marshlands and buffer areas shall be restricted through fencing
and signs. This restriction shall be enforced with trespass citations and fines.
Specific areas of concern are along the fringes of Vener Pond, and the "E" Street
Marsh and Sweetwater Marsh. Additional human/pet encroachment shall be
restricted through fencing and visual buffers at the mouth of the "F" & "G" Street
feeder charmel and southeast of the "?' Street/Marina Parkway intersection.
Detailed landscape and buffer design plans required at the project level.
5. A predator management program for the Chula Vista bayfront will be developed
to control domestic as well as wild animal predators as part of the project level
environmental review process. This program shall utilize the Connors [1987] plan
as a basis, but must be tailored to fit the needs of the proposed development.
This plan shall include the use of fines as an enforcement tool to control human
and pet activities. The plan will include the use of fines as an enforcement tool
to control human and pet activities. The plan shall be comprehensive and must
include management of predators within the adjacent wildlife refuge as well as the
proposed development areas. Detail plan required to be reviewed at the project
level.
6. A full-time enforcement staff of two or more officers shall be funded by the
applicant to conduct the predator management program, ensure compliance, issue
citations, and conduct routine checks to ensure maintenance of other mitigation
requirements (i.e., silt/grease trap maintenance, etc.). Such officers will work
closely with the USFWS in enforcement issues as they relate to Federal Reserve .
Lands. Officers must have training in predator control and shall possess the
necessary skills, permits and authority to trap and remove problem predators.
Detailed plans are required to be reviewed at the project level.
-33-
7. Annual funding must be designated for the purpose of trash control, repair and
maintenance of drainage facilities, fencing, the predator control program, and
mitigation programs for the project.
8. Park uses within the lower third of the 6.8-acre park zone at the "F" & "G" Street
Marsh feeder channel shall be limited to passive use and must include such
features as abundant native shrubland restoration, which would preclude active
recreation in this area. Park and buffer areas along the "E" Street Marsh and
Vener Pond shall be designed to include a visual and human encroachment barrier
between active recreation areas and the marshlands. This could be best
accomplished using a vegetated berm separated from a lowered recreation area
("pits") by a fence. Passive overlooks could be incorporated on the development
side of the recreational "pits." This would provide both a visual screen between
the marsh and the high human activity as well as a distance separation between
passive observation areas and the marshlands. Both needs would be met by this
design approach. Buffer area landscape plans shall be required at the project level
of CEQA compliance.
9. Public awareness signs explaining the resources, concerns, and prohibited activities
must be prominently posted throughout the affected parklands.
Significant Effect: Development would create predator enhancement effects to the
Light-footed Clapper Rail and Belding's Savannah Sparrow, which are listed by the
California Department of Fish and Game as endangered, and by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service as endangered - Clapper Rail, and as Category li - Belding's Savannah Sparrow.
Finding: The FEIR has found that not enough specific project-level detail has been
provided to determine whether or not these impacts would be reduced to a less than
significant level. Mitigation measures, set forth in the EIR and restated below, would
minirnize the impacts, but not to a level of less than significant, therefore, these impacts
remain significant at this level of analysis. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-104 through 3q'05;
Volume I, p. 4-13] As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however,
the City Council has determined that this significant impact is acceptable because of
overriding economic, social, and other considerations.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be
feasible, and have been required either as conditions of approval or have been made binding
on the applicant through these findings. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-110 through 3-115]
1. The project must include the preparation of a program which incorporates the
following biological resource management plans as individual sections:
Predator Management Plan
Human Activities Management Plan
Landscape Design and Management Plan
-34-
Water Quality/Runoff/Drainage Management Plan
Mudflat and Wetland Monitoring Plan
Project Lighting Plan
Construction Monitoring and Management Plan
CC&Rs/Ordinances/Applicable Policies
This document must be available in a completed form for review during the
project level environmental process.
2. Landscape plant materials to be utilized in the project area must be submitted to
the City Landscape Architect for review and approval. Plant materials which are
known to be invasive in slat and brackish marshes such as Limonium or
Carpobrotus species, or those which are known to be attractive as denning, nesting,
or roosting sites for predators such as Washingtonia or Cortadetia, shall be
restricted from use. Landscape plan required to be reviewed at the project level.
3. A qualified construction monitor (as determined by the City Planning Department)
shall be required for all phases of grading and installation of drainage systems.
The monitor shall be employed through the City and shall report dirqctly to a
specific responsible person in the Engineering, Planning, or Community
Development departments should construction activities fail to meet the conditions
outlined or should unforseen problems arise which require immediate action or
stopping of the construction activities. This monitor will also be required to
monitor on a reduced basis during actual building construction.
4. The proposed development and parks must be designated as a "no pets" area.
This means posting all of the parkiands/public access areas and imposing fines
based on the existing or new City municipal codes, and posting the development
areas and including this restriction in all leases and enforcing these restrictions.
Plan required to be reviewed at the project level.
5. Open garbage containers must be restricted and all dumpsters must be totally
enclosed to avoid attracting avian and mammalian predators and scavengers tO the
area. Garbage must be hauled away as often as possible. Citations for open
garbage containers will be issued to any entity not complying. Restaurants and
park areas are of special concern. Plan required to be reviewed at the project
level.
6. Human access to marshlands and buffer areas shall be restricted through fencing
and signs. This restriction shall be enforced with trespass citations and fines.
Specific areas of concern are along the fringes of Vener Pond, and the "E" Street
Marsh and Sweetwater Marsh. Additional human/pet encroachment shall be
restricted through fencing and visual buffers at the mouth of the "F~' & "G" Street
feeder channel and southeast of the "F" Street/Marina Parkway intersection.
Detailed landscape and buffer design plans required at the project !evek
-35-
7. A predator management program for the Chula Vista bayfront will be developed
to control domestic as well as wild animal predators as part of the project level
environmental review process. This program shall utilize the Connors [1987] plan
as a basis, but must be tailored to fit the needs of the proposed development.
This plan shall include the use of fines as an enforcement tool to control human
and pet activities. The plan will include the use of fines as an enforcement tool
to control human and pet activities. The plan shall be comprehensive and must
include management of predators within the adjacent wildlife refuge as well as the
proposed development areas. Detail plan required to be reviewed at the project
level.
8. A full-time enforcement staff of two or more officers shall be funded by the
applicant to conduct the predator management program, ensure compliance, issue
citations, and conduct routine checks to ensure maintenance of other mitigation
requirements (i.e., silt/grease trap maintenance, etc.). Such officers will work
closely with the USFWS in enforcement issues as they relate to Federal Reserve
Lands. Officers must have training in predator control and shall possess the
necessary skills, permits and authority to trap and remove problem predators.
Detailed plans are required to be reviewed at the project level.
9. Annual funding must be designated for the purpose of trash control, repair and
maintenance of drainage facilities, fencing, the predator control program, and
mitigation programs for the project.
10. Conversion of the small brackish water marsh to a freshwater detention basin
would reduce, but not eliminate, the resource values of this pond. These values
must be reclaimed through the creation of additional salt and brackish marsh
within the "F" & "G" Street Marsh area and the area between the "1*' & "G" Street
Marsh and San Diego Bay. No fewer than 3.5 acres of Brackish Marsh and 4
acres of Salt Marsh shall be created in this area. In addition, tidal flushing shall
be enhanced as identified in the Wetlands Research Associates restoration plans
[1987]. Further, if marshlands are to be created, as proposed, on both sides of
Marina Parkway, undercrossing areas which remain dray during high tide would
be required. It is suggested that large half-round corrugated culverts of a 10 foot
or more radius be considered for this purpose. This restoration will also assist in
mitigating a portion of the human encroachment impacts identified by expanding
the area and value of the existing marshlands.
11. No further dredging, structural changes, or proposed uses will be allowed to occur
along the mudflat or marshland areas of the bayfront. This includes such activities
as marinas, water sports courses, etc. Additionally, the developer, City, and
USFWS shall jointly seek to have the San Diego Unified Port District post a line
of buoys to limit access in the mudflat and marsh areas.
12. Buildings must utilize non-reflective glass and bold architectural lines which are
readily observable by birds. These features will be reviewed by ~he Planning
Department during the design review process. A film glass manufactured by 3M
-36-
or its equivalent is required. These design features will be reviewed during the
project level CEQA analysis. -
13. Buildings facing marshlands shall not include extraneous ledges upon which
raptors could perch or nest. Additionally, roof peaks and crests which are exposed
to the wetlands must be covered with an anti-perch material such as Nixalite. A
commitment to correct any additional problem areas shall be obtained should
heavy incidence of perching be observed or should nest building by raptors be
initiated on the buildings or in landscaping materials. These design features will
be reviewed during the project level CEQA analysis.
14. Park uses within the lower third of the 6.8-acre park zone at the "F" & "G" Street
Marsh feeder channel shall be limited to passive use and must include such
features as abundant native shrubland restoration, which would preclude active
recreation in this area. Park and buffer areas along the "E" Street Marsh and
Vener Pond shall be designed to include a visual and human encroachment barrier
between active recreation areas and the marshlands. This could be best
accomplished using a vegetated berm separated from a lowered recreation area
("pits") by a fence. Passive overlooks could be incorporated on the development
side of the recreational "pits." This would provide both a visual screen between
the marsh and the high human activity as well as a distance separation between
passive observation areas and the marshlands. Both needs would be met by this
design approach. Buffer area landscape plans shall be required at the project level
of CEQA compliance.
15. Kite flying activities result in high avian disturbance due to the kites being
perceived as predatory birds and thus will be prohibited from parkland areas
adjacent to wetlands or bay mudflats.
16. Public awareness signs explaining the resources, concerns, and prohibited activities
must be prominently posted throughout the affected parklands.
17. New marshland, pond fringe, and salt pond habitats totaling no fewer than t3.2
acres must be created on the more isolated western portions of Gunpowder Point,
ideally, with marsh linkage to both the "E" Street Marsh and Sweetwater Marsh
to aid in off-setting impacts associated with encroachment, predation, and loss of
habitat use by avian species. These 13.2 acres would replace the loss of some of
the values associated with the 3,840-foot length of marshland fringing the "E"
Street Marsh, Vener Pond, and Sweetwater Marsh that would be impacted by
predator/competitor threats and encroachment pressures.
Potentially Significant Effect: Vegetation and wildlife within wetlands could be
significantly altered by wide fluctuations in the salinity regimes of the marshlands due to
increased freshwater input from site drainage. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-76 through 3-79;
Volume I, p. 4-13]
-37-
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the
Final EIR.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be
feasible and have been required either as a condition of approval or been made binding on
the applicant through these findings. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-110 through 3-115]
1. The project must include the preparation of a program which incorporates the
following biological resource management plans as individual sections:
Predator Management Plan
Human Activities Management Plan
Landscape Design and Management Plan
Water Quality/Runoff/Drainage Management Plan
Mudflat and Wetland Monitoring Plan
Project Lighting Plan
Construction Monitoring and Management Plan
CC&Rs/Ordinances/Applicable Policies
This document must be available in a completed form for review during the
project level environmental process.
2. Long-term silt removal maintenance of the detention basin will be minimized
following the initial construction phases of the proposed project. This
maintenance cleaning may not be required since the traps, if properly constructed
and maintained, will capture the vast majority of the silts which would be
deposited in this basin.
3. Several desiltation basins and back-up basins large enough to handle storm water
runoff must be maintained during the construction phase so that no silts are
allowed to leave the construction site. In addition, construction dewatering will
be directed into a basin with a filter-fabric, gravel leach system so that clear water
is released into a basin. As an alternative, dewatering water must be pumped
across the mudflat into the boat channel and discharged at a point above the
bottom to avoid resuspending bottom silts, but at a depth of at least 8 feet.
4. A full-time enforcement staff of two or more officers shall be funded by the
applicant to conduct the predator management program, ensure compliance, issue
citations, and conduct routine checks to ensure maintenance of other mitigation
requirements (i.e., silt/grease trap maintenance, etc.). Such officers will work
closely with the USFWS in enforcement issues as they relate to Federal Reserve
Lands. Officers must have training in predator control and shall possess the
necessary skills, permits and authority to trap and remove problem predators.
Detailed plans are required to be reviewed at the project level.
-38-
5. Annual funding must be designated for the' purpose of trash control, repair, and
maintenance of drainage facilities, fencing, the predator control program, and
mitigation programs for the project.
6. Conversion of the small brackish water marsh to a freshwater detention basin
would reduce, but not eliminate, the resource values of this pond. These values
shall be reclaimed through the creation of additional salt and brackish marsh
within the "F" & "G" Street Marsh area and the area between the "F" & "G" Street
Marsh and San Diego Bay. No fewer than 3.5 acres of Brackish Marsh and 4
acres of Salt Marsh must be created in this area. In addition, tidal flushing shall
be enhanced as identified in the Wetlands Research Associates restoration plans
[1987]. Further, if marshlands are to be created, as proposed, on both sides of
Marina Parkway, undercrossing areas which remain dray during high tide would
be required. It is suggested that large half-round corrugated culverts of a 10 foot
or more radius be used for this purpose. This restoration will also assist in
mitigating a portion of the human encroachment impacts identified by expanding
the area and value of the existing marshlands.
Potentially Significant Effect: The substantial grading, excavating, and dewatering have
the potential for creating considerable erosion within the uplands, and
sedimentation/turbidity in the wetland and nearshore marine systems--eelgrass habitat may
be lost, and mudflat habitats may be modified. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-82 through 3-84;
Volume I, p. 4-13]
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the
Final EIR.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be
feasible and have been required either as a condition of approval or been made binding on
the applicant through these findings. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-110 through 3-115]
1. The project must include the preparation of a program which incorporates the
following biological resource management plans as individual sections:
Predator Management Plan
Human Activities Management Plan
Landscape Design and Management Plan
Water Quality/Runoff/Drainage Management Plan
Mudflat and Wetland Monitoring Plan
Project Lighting Plan
Construction Monitoring and Management Plan
CC&Rs/Ordinances/Applicable Policies
-39-
This document must be available in a completed form for review during the
project level environmental process.
2. All post-construction collector drains must be directed through large volume silt
and grease traps prior to being shunted into the freshwater detention basin or the
bay discharges. The trap/traps placed on lines entering the detention basin must
be triple-chambered.
3. The silt and grease traps must be maintained with thorough cleaning to be
conducted in late September or early October and as-needed through the winter
and spring months. Maintenance must be done by removal of wastes rather than
flushing, as is unfortunately often the case. City inspections of these traps must
be done to ensure that maintenance is occuring as required.
4. Long-term silt removal maintenance of the detention basin will be minim/zed
following the initial construction phases of the proposed project. This
maintenance cleaning may not be required since the traps, if properly constructed
and maintained, will capture the vast majority of the silts which would be
deposited in this basin.
5. Further studies are required to evaluate the effects of groundwater pumping to fill
the proposed lagoon. If these studies indicate that this is not a suitable solution
because of contaminants or reduced salinities, a saltwater intake from the bay
must be placed in a drain alignment or along a similar low impact corridor and
shall be separated from the drain at a point below the existing eelgrass beds.
Impacts associated with the placement of this system must be mitigated by the
rapid restoration of impacted areas. Any required discharge or drainage system
from the interior lagoons must be to the proposed storm drain system, which flows
through a triple baffle trap intended to control contam/nants, rather than directly
to the bay. The specific drainage discharge system will be further defined and
environmental review will be completed at the project level.
6. Several desiltation basins and back-up basins large enough to handle storm water
runoff must be maintained during the construction phase so that no silts are
allowed to leave the construction site. In addition, construction dewatering will
be directed into a basin with a filter-fabric, gravel leach system so that clear water
is released into a basin. As an alternative, dewatering water must be pumped
across the mudflat into the boat channel and discharged at a point above the
bottom to avoid resuspending bottom silts, but at a depth of at least 8 feet.
7. A full-time enforcement staff of two or more officers shall be funded by the
applicant to conduct the predator management program, ensure compliance, issue
citations, and conduct routine checks to ensure maintenance of other mitigation
requirements (i.e., silt/grease trap maintenance, etc.). Such officers will work
closely with the USFWS in enforcement issues as they relate to Federal Reserve
Lands. Officers must have training in predator control and shal~ pogsess the
-40-
necessary skills, permits and authority to trap and remove problem predators.
Detailed plans are required to be reviewed at the project level.
8. Annual funding must be designated for the purpose of trash control, repair, and
maintenance of drainage facilities, fencing, the predator control program, and
mitigation programs for the project.
9. Public awareness signs explaining the resource, concerns, and prohibited activities
must be prominently posted throughout the affected parklands.
Potentially Significant Effect: Construction of the project would generate considerable
noise and increased human activities for a 20-year period, could increase sediment erosion
and accretion patterns, further generate elevated turbidity in adjacent waters, siltation in
adjacent wetlands, potentially release toxins into adjacent wetlands, and elevate
predator/scavenger densities within the vicinity of the development area. [FEIR, Volume
II, p. 3-84 through 3-85, 3-105 through 3-106; Volume I, p. 4-13]
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the
Final EIR.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be
feasible and have been required either as a condition of approval or been made binding on
the applicant through these findings. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-110 through 3-115]
1. The project must include the preparation of a program which incorporates the
following biological resource management plans as individual sections:
Predator Management Plan
Human Activities Management Plan
Landscape Design and Management Plan
Water Quality/Runoff/Drainage Management Plan
Mudflat and Wetland Monitoring Plan
Project Lighting Plan
Construction Monitoring and Management Plan
CC&Rs/Ordinances/Applicable Policies
This document must be available in a completed form for review during the
project level environmental process.
2. a. No "in-water" construction shall be allowed during the period of 1 April
through 15 September to avoid the potential for elevating turbidity in the
nearshore foraging and chick training areas of the California. Least Tern.
Further, any other activities which are identified by the biological monitor as
having this effect will be precluded from occurring during this period. If it
-41-
can be demonstrated that the least tern has not yet arrived in south San
Diego Bay, or has departed earlier than the specified dates, the applicant or
agent may petition the City to modify this timing constraint. The City, acting
in consultation with the USFWS shall have the ability to modify this period
to reflect the presence of terns during the actual year(s) of construction.
b. No construction activity, earth moving or high intensity activity will occur
within 200 feet of any salt marsh, freshwater marsh, or mudflat habitat during
the period between 15 March and 31 August without prior approval by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game.
3. Several desiltation basins and back-up basins large enough to handle storm water
runoff must be maintained during the construction phase so that no silts are
allowed to leave the construction site. In addition, construction dewatering will
be directed into a basin with a filter-fabric, gravel leach system so that clear water
is released into a basin. As an alternative, dewatering water must be pumped
across the mudflat into the boat channel and discharged at a point above the
bottom to avoid resuspending bottom silts, but at a depth of at least 8 feet.
4. Landscape plant mater/als to be utilized in the project area must be submitted to
the City Landscape Architect for review and approval. Plant materials which are
known to be invasive in salt and brackish marshes such as Limoniurn or
Carpobrotus species, or those which are known to be attractive as denning, nesting
or roosting sites for predators such as Washingtonia or Cortaderia, shall be
restricted from use. Landscape plan required to be reviewed at the project level.
5. A qualified construction monitor (as determined by the City Planning Department)
shall be required for all phases of grading and installation of drainage systems.
The mouitor shall be employed through the City and shall report directly to a
specific responsible person in the Engineering, Planning, or Community
Development departments should construction activities fail to meet the conditions
outlined or should unforseen problems arise which require immediate action or
stopping of the construction activities. This monitor will also be required to
monitor on a reduced basis during actual building construction.
Significant Effect: Increased human and pet presence would significantly affect the
quality of the adjacent Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge, and decrease the use
of the area by nesting and foraging avifauna. [FEIR, Volume II p. 3-88 through 3-91;
Volume I, p. 4-13]
Finding: The FEIR found that mitigation measures, set forth in the FEIR and restated
below, are feasible to reduce this impact to a level less than significant at the project level,
but that for this plan level, impacts are not mitigated. Thus, project level evaluation of
specific detail would be required to confirm adequacy of project level plans including the
measures. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-91] As described in the Statement of Overriding
-42-
Considerations, however, the City Council has determined that this significant impact is
acceptable because of overriding economic, social, and other considerations.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be
feasible and have been required either as a condition of approval or been made binding on
the applicant through these findings. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-110 through 3-115]
1. The project must include the preparation of a program which incorporates the
following biological resource management plans as individual sections:
Predator Management Plan
Human Activities Management Plan
Landscape Design and Management Plan
Water Quality/Runoff/Drainage Management Plan
Mudflat and Wetland Monitoring Plan
Project Lighting Plan
Construction Monitoring and Management Plan
CC&Rs/Ordinances/Applicable Policies
This document must be available in a completed form for review during the
project level environmental process.
2. Landscape plant materials to be utilized in the project area must be submitted to
the City Landscape Architect for review and approval. Plant materials which are
known to be invasive in salt and brackish marshes such as Limonium or
Carpobrotus species, or those which are known to be attractive as defining, nesting
or roosting sites for predators such as Washingtonia or Cortaderia, shall be
restricted from use. Landscape plan required to be reviewed at the project level.
3. The proposed development and parks must be designated as a "no pets" area.
This means posting all of the parklands/public access areas and imposing fines
based on the existing or new City municipal codes, and posting the development
areas and including this restriction in all leases and enforcing these restricti6ns.
Plan required to be reviewed at the project level.
4. Open garbage containers must be restricted and all dumpsters must be totally
enclosed to avoid attracting avian and mammalian predators and scavengers to the
area. Garbage must be hauled away as often as possible. Citations for open
garbage containers will be issued to any entity not complying. Restaurants and
park areas are of special concern. Plan required to be reviewed at the project
level.
5. Human access to marshlands and buffer areas shall be restricted through fencing
and signs. This restriction shall be enforced with trespass citations and fines.
Specific areas of concern are along the fringes of Vener Pond, and the "E" Street
Marsh and Sweetwater Marsh. Additional human/pet encroachment shall be
restricted through fencing and visual buffers at the mouth of the "F" & "G" Street
-43 -
feeder channel and southeast of the "F" Street/Marina Parkway intersection.
Detailed landscape and buffer design plans required at the project level.
6. A predator management program for the Chula Vista bayfront will be developed
to control domestic as well as wild animal predators as part of the project level
environmental review process. This program shall utilize the Connors [1987] plan
as a basis, but must be tailored to fit the needs of the proposed development.
This plan shall include the use of fines as an enforcement tool to control human
and pet activities. The plan will include the use of fines as an enforcement tool
to control human and pet activities. The plan shall be comprehensive and must
include management of predators within the adjacent wildlife refuge as well as the
proposed development areas. Detail plan required to be reviewed at the project
level.
7. A full-time enforcement staff of two or more officers shall be funded by the
applicant to conduct the predator management program, ensure compliance, issue
citations, and conduct routine checks to ensure maintenance of other mitigation
requirements (i.e., silt/grease trap maintenance, etc.). Such officers will work
closely with the USFWS in enforcement issues as they relate to Federal Reserve
Lands. Officers must have training in predator control and shall possess the
necessary skills, permits and authority to trap and remove problem predators.
Detailed plans are required to be reviewed at the project level.
8. Annual funding must be designated for the purpose of trash control, repair and
maintenance of drainage facilities, fencing, the predator control program, and
mitigation programs for the project.
9. Conversion of the small brackish water marsh to a freshwater detention basin
would reduce, but not eliminate, the resource values of this pond. These values
shall be reclaimed through the creation of additional salt and brackish marsh
within the "?' & "G" Street Marsh area and the area between the "1*' & "G" Street
Marsh and San Diego Bay. No fewer than 3.5 acres of Brackish Marsh and 4
acres of Salt Marsh must be created in this area. In addition, tidal flushing shall
be enhanced as identified in the Wetlands Research Associates restoration plans
[1987]. Further, if marshlands are to be created, as proposed, on both sides of
Marina Parkway, undercrossing areas which remain dray during high tide would
be required. It is suggested that large half-round corrugated culverts of a 10 foot
or more radius be considered for this purpose. This restoration will also assist in
mitigating a portion of the human encroachment impacts identified by expanding
the area and value of the existing marshlands.
10. No further dredging, structural changes, or proposed uses must be allowed to
occur along the mudflat or rnarshland areas of the bayfront. This includes such
activities as marinas, water sports courses, etc. Additionally, the developer, City,
and USFWS shall jointly seek to have the San Diego Unified Port District post a
line of buoys to limit access in the mudflat and marsh areas.
-44-
11. Buildings facing marshlands shall not include extraneous ledges upon which
raptors could perch or nest. Additionally, roof peaks and crests which are exposed
to the wetlands must be covered with an anti-perch material such as Nixalite. A
commitment to correct any additional problem areas shall be obtained should
heavy incidence of perching be observed or should nest building by raptors be
initiated on the buildings or in landscaping materials. These design features will
be reviewed during the project level CEQA analysis.
12. Park uses within the lower third of the 6.8-acre park zone at the "F" & "G" Street
Marsh feeder channel shall be limited to passive use and must include such
features as abundant native shrubland restoration, which would preclude active
recreation in this area. Park and buffer areas along the "E" Street Marsh and
Vener Pond shall be designed to include a visual and human encroachment barrier
between active recreation areas and the marshlands. This could be best
accomplished using a vegetated berm separated from a lowered recreation area
("pits") by a fence. Passive overlooks could be incorporated on the development
side of the recreational "pits." This would provide both a visual screen between
the marsh and the high human activity as well as a distance separation between
passive observation areas and the marshlands. Both needs would be met by this
design approach. Buffer area landscape plans shall be required at the project level
of CEQA compliance.
13. Kite flying activities result in high avian disturbance due to the kites being
perceived as predatory birds and thus must be prohibited from parkland areas
adjacent to wetlands or bay mudflats.
14. Public awareness signs explaining the resources, concerns, and prohibited activities
must be prominently posted throughout the affected parklands.
15. New marshland, pond fringe, and salt pond habitats totaling no fewer than 13.2
acres must be created on the more isolated western portions of Gunpowder Point,
ideally, with marsh linkage to both the "E" Street Marsh and Sweetwater Marsh
to aid in off-setting impacts associated with encroachment, predation, and lost of
habitat use by avian species. These 13.2 acres would replace the loss of some of
the values associated with the 3,840-foot length of marshland fringing the "E"
Street Marsh, Vener Pond, and Sweetwater Marsh that would be impacted by
predator/competitor threats and encroachment pressures.
Potentially Significant Effect: Effects fi.om development on the California Least Tern
could occur including indirect effects of water quality degradation, nest site predation,
disruption from humans and pets, and altering of the predator regime. [FEIR, Volume II,
p. 3-104; Volume I, p. 4-13]
-45-
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the
Final EIR.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be
feasible and have been required either as a condition of approval or been made binding on
the applicant through these findings. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-110 through 3-115]
1. The project must include the preparation of a program which incorporates the
following biological resource management plans as individual sections:
Predator Management Plan
Human Activities Management Plan
Landscape Design and Management Plan
Water Quality/Runoff/Drainage Management Plan
Mudflat and Wetland Monitoring Plan
Project Lighting Plan
Construction Monitoring and Management Plan
CC&Rs/Ordinances/Applicable Policies
This document must be available in a completed form for review during the
project level environmental process.
2. All post-construction collector drains must be directed through large volume silt
and grease traps prior to being shunted into the freshwater detention basin or the
bay discharges. The trap/traps placed on lines entering the detention basin must
be triple-chambered.
3. The silt and grease traps must be maintained with thorough cleaning to be
conducted in late September or early October and as-needed through the winter
and spring months. Maintenance must be done by removal of wastes rather than
flushing, as is unfortunately often the case. City inspections of these traps must
be done to ensure that maintenance is occuring as required.
4. Long-term silt removal maintenance of the detention basin will be minimized
following the initial construction phases of the proposed project. This
maintenance cleaning may not be required since the traps, if properly constructed
and maintained, will capture the vast majority of the silts which would be
deposited in this basin.
5. Further studies are required to evaluate the effects of groundwater pumping to fill
the proposed lagoon. ' If these studies indicate that this is not a suitable solution
because of contaminants or reduced salinities, a saltwater intake from the bay
must be placed in a drain alignment or along a similar low impact corridor and
shall be separated from the drain at a point below the existing eelgrass beds.
Impacts associated with the placement of this must be mitigated by the rapid
restoration of impacted areas. Any required discharge or drainage system from
-46-
the interior lagoons must be to the proposed storm drain system, which flows
through a triple baffle trap intended to control contaminants, rather than directly
to the bay. The specific dra/nage discharge system will be further defined and
environmental review will be completed at the project level.
6. a. No "in-water" construction shall be allowed during the period of 1 April
through '15 September to avoid the potential for elevating turbidity in the
nearshore foraging and chick training areas of the California Least Tern.
Further, any other activities which are identified by the biological monitor as
having this effect will be precluded from occurring during this period. If it
can be demonstrated that the least tern has not yet arrived in south San
Diego Bay, or has departed earlier than the specified dates, the applicant or
agent may petition the City to modify this timing constraint. The City, acting
in consultation with the USFWS shall have the ability to modify this period
to reflect the presence of terns during the actual year(s) of construction.
b. No construction activity, earth moving or high intensity activity will occur
within 200 feet of any salt marsh, freshwater marsh, or mudflat habitat during
the period between 15 March and 31 August without prior approval by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game.
7. Several desiltation basins and back-up basins large enough to handle storm water
runoff must be maintained during the construction phase so that no silts are
allowed to leave the construction site. In addition, construction dewatering will
be directed into a basin with a filter-fabric, gravel leach system so that clear water
is released into a basin. As an alternative, dewatering water must be pumped
across the mudfiat into the boat channel and discharged at a point above the
bottom to avoid resuspending bottom silts, but at a depth of at least 8 feet.
8. Fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides utilized within the landscaping areas of the
project must be of the rapidly biodegradable variety and approved for use near
wetlands by the Environmental Protection Agency. Further plans required for
water quality management, landscape management, and runoff management shall
be developed in accordance with Requirement 1.
9. All landscape chemical applications must be done by a state-certified landscape
contractor.
10. Landscape plant materials to be utilized in the project area must be submitted to
the City Landscape Architect for review and approval. Plant materials which are
known to be invasive in salt and brackish marshes such as Limonium or
Carpobrotus species, or those which are known to be attractive as denning, nesting,
or roosting sites for predators such as Washingtonia or Cortaderia, shall be
restricted from use. Landscape plan required to be reviewed at the project level.
11. The proposed development and parks must be designated as a "no pets" area.
This means posting all of the parklands/public access areas and imposing fines
based on the existing or new City municipal codes, and posting the development
areas and including this restriction in all leases and enforcing these restrictions.
Plan required to be reviewed at the project level.
12. Open garbage containers must be restricted and ail dumpsters must be totaily
enclosed to avoid attracting avian and mammaiian predators and scavengers to the
area. Garbage must be hauled away as often as possible. Citations for open
garbage containers will be issued to any entity not complying. Restaurants and
park areas are of special concern. Plan required to be reviewed at the project
level.
13. Human access to marshlands and buffer areas shall be restricted through fencing
and signs. This restriction shail be enforced with trespass citations and fines.
Specific areas of concern are along the fringes of Vener Pond, and the "E" Street
Marsh and Sweetwater Marsh. Additional human/pet encroachment shall be
restricted through fencing and visual buffers at the mouth of the "F" & "G" Street
feeder channel and southeast of the "F" Street/Marina Parkway intersection.
Detailed landscape and buffer design plans required at the project level.
14. A predator management program for the Chula Vista bayfront will be developed
to control domestic as well as wild animai predators as part of the project level
environmental review process. This program shall utilize the Connors [1987] plan
as a basis, but must be tailored to fit the needs of the proposed development.
This plan shall include the use of f'mes as an enforcement tool to control human
and pet activities. The plan will include the use of fines as an enforcement tool
to control human and pet activities. The plan shall be comprehensive and must
include management of predators within the adjacent wildlife refuge as well as the
proposed development areas. Detail plan required to be reviewed at the project
level.
15. A full-time enforcement staff of two or more officers shall be funded by the
applicant to conduct the predator management program, ensure compliance, issue
citations, and conduct routine checks to ensure maintenance of other mitigation
requirements (i.e., silt/grease trap maintenance, etc.). Such officers will work
closely with the USFWS in enforcement issues as they relate to Federal Reserve
Lands. Officers must have training in predator control and shall possess the
necessary skills, permits and authority to trap and remove problem predators.
Detailed plans are required to be reviewed at the project level.
16. Annual funding must be designated for the purpose of trash control, repair and
maintenance of drainage facilities, fencing, the predator control program, and
mitigation programs for the project.
17. Conversion of the small brackish water marsh to a freshwater detention basin
would reduce, but not eliminate, the resource values of this pond..These values
shall be reclaimed through the creation of additional salt and brackish marsh
within the "F" & "G" Street Marsh area and the area between the "F" & "G" Street
-48-
Marsh and San Diego Bay. No fewer than 3.5 acres of Brackish Marsh and 4
acres of Salt Marsh shall be created in this area. In addition, tidal flushing shall
be enhanced as identified in the Wetlands Research Associates restoration plans
[1987]. Further, if marshlands are to be created, as proposed, on both sides of
Marina Parkway, undercrossing areas which remain dray during high tide would
be required. It is suggested that large half-round corrugated culverts of a 10 foot
or more radius be considered for this purpose. This restoration will also assist in
mitigating a portion of the human encroachment impacts identified by expanding
the area and value of the existing marshlands.
18. No further dredging, structural changes, or proposed uses will be allowed to occur
along the mudflat or marshland areas of the bayfront. This includes such activities
as marinas, water sports courses, etc. Additionally, the developer, City, and
USFWS shall jointly seek to have the San Diego Unified Port District post a line
of buoys to limit access in the mudflat and marsh areas.
19. Buildings must utilize non-reflective glass and bold architectural lines which are
readily observable by birds. These features will be reviewed by the Planning
Department during the design review process. A film glass manufactured by 3M
or its equivalent is required. These design features will be reviewed during the
project level CEQA analysis.
20. Buildings facing marshlands shall not include extraneous ledges upon which
raptors could perch or nest. Additionally, roof peaks and crests which are exposed
to the wetlands must be covered with an anti-perch material such as Nixalite. A
commitment to correct any additional problem areas shall be obtained should
heavy incidence of perching be observed or should nest building by raptors be
initiated on the buildings or in landscaping materials. These design features will
be reviewed during the project level CEQA analysis.
21. Park uses within the lower third of the 6.8-acre park zone at the "F" & "G" Street
Marsh feeder channel shall be limited to passive use and must include such
features'as abundant native shrubland restoration, which would preclude aciive
recreation in this area. Park and buffer areas along the "E" Street Marsh and
Vener Pond shall be designed to include a visual and human encroachment barrier
between active recreation areas and the marshlands. This could be best
accomplished using a vegetated berm separated from a lowered recreation area
("pits") by a fence. Passive overlooks could be incorporated on the development
side of the recreational "pits." This would provide both a visual screen between
the marsh and the high human activity as well as a distance separation between
passive observation areas and the marshlands. Both needs would be met by this
design approach. Buffer area landscape plans shall be required at the project level
of CEQA compliance.
22. Kite flying activities result in high avian disturbance due to the. kites being
perceived as predatory birds and thus must be prohibited from parkland areas
adjacent to wetlands or bay mudflats.
-49-
23. Public awareness signs explaining the resources, concerns, and prohibited activities
must be prominently posted throughout the affected parklands.
24. New marshland, pond fringe, and salt pond habitats totaling no fewer than 13.2
acres must be created on the more isolated western portions of Gunpowder Point,
ideally, with marsh linkage to both the "E" Street Marsh and Sweetwater Marsh
to aid in off-setting impacts associated with encroachment, predation, and loss of
habitat use by avian species. These 13.2 acres would replace the loss of some of
the values associated with the 3,840-foot length of marshland fringing the "E"
Street Marsh, Vener Pond, and Sweetwater Marsh that would be impacted by
predator/competitor threats and encroachment pressures.
Potentially Significant Effect: Placement of site drainage pipes and resultant increased
freshwater inputs and sediment accretion and erosion could severely affect the eelgrass and
mudflats marine resources. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-106 through 3-107; Volume I, p. 4-13]
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the
Final EIR.
Mitigation Measuresi The following mitigation measures have been found to be
feasible and have been required either as a condition of approval or been made binding on
the applicant through these findings. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-110 through 3-115]
1. The project must include the preparation of a program which incorporates the
following biological resource management plans as individual sections:
Predator Management Plan
Human Activities Management Plan
Landscape Design and Management Plan
Water Quality/Runoff/Drainage Management Plan
Mudflat and Wetland Monitoring Plan
Project Lighting Plan
Construction Monitoring and Management Plan
CC&Rs/Ordinances/Applicable Policies
This document must be available in a completed form for review during the
project level environmental process.
2. Long-term silt removal maintenance of the detention basin will be minimized
following the initial construction phases of the proposed project. This
maintenance cleaning may not be required since the traps, if properly constructed
and maintained, will capture the vast majority of the silts which would be
deposited in this basin.
-50-
3. a. The two "direct to bay" drains must be extended to subsurface discharge
points located in the existing "J" Street Marina boat channel. These discharge
points must be located at a minimum depth of -10 ft. MLLW and shall be
buried in the mudflat to a point below the existing eelgrass beds. Drain
placement shall seek to impact the least amount of eelgrass habitat possible
by either combining the drains or avoiding dense eelgrass beds. Surface
contours must be restored and any construction impacts to eelgrass must be
mitigated by replanting over the pipeline.
b. As an alternative, the "direct to bay" drains shall be designed and constructed
with effective energy dissipators and flow diffusers which eliminate erosion or
accretion of the mudflats and ensure the protection of adjacent eelgrass beds.
An expected loss of mudflat totaling not less than 1.7 acres must be replaced
within the NWR in a location away from the proposed development area.
The drains and the surrounding mudflats and eelgrass beds shall be monitored
in accordance with an approved Mudflat and Wetlands Monitoring Plan
(Requirement 1) for a period of five years and any additional corrective
measures required must be implemented and any additional impacted areas
resulting shall be replaced by the creation of a similar area from the uplands
of the "D' Street Fill or Gunpowder Point.
4. Further studies are required to evaluate the effects of groundwater pumping to fill
the proposed lagoon. If these studies indicate that this is not a suitable solution
because of contaminants or reduced saiinities, a saltwater intake from the bay
must be placed in a drain alignment or along a similar low impact corridor and
shall be separated from the drain at a point below the existing eelgrass beds.
Impacts associated with the placement of this system must be mitigated by the
rapid restoration of impacted areas. Any required discharge or drainage system
from the interior lagoons must be to the proposed storm drain system, which flows
through a triple baffle trap intended to control contaminants, rather than directly
to the bay. The specific drainage discharge system will be further defined and
environmental review will be completed at the project level.
5. a. No "in-water" construction shall be allowed during the period of 1 April
through 15 September to avoid the potential for elevating turbidity in the
nearshore foraging and chick training areas of the California Least Tern.
Further, any other activities which are identified by the biological monitor as
having this effect will be precluded from occurring during this period. If it
can be demonstrated that the least tern has not yet arrived in south San
Diego Bay, or has departed earlier than the specified dates, the applicant or
agent may petition the City to modify this timing constraint. The City, acting ..
in consultation with the USFWS shall have the ability to modify this period
to reflect the presence of terns during the actual year(s) of construction.
-51-
b. No construction activity, earth moving or high intensity activity will occur
within 200 feet of any salt marsh, freshwater marsh, or mudflat habitat during
the period between 15 March and 31 August without prior approval by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game.
6. Several desiltation basins and back-up basins large enough to handle storm water
runoff must be maintained during the construction phase so that no silts are
allowed to leave the construction site. In addition, construction dewatering will
be directed into a basin with a filter-fabric, gravel leach system so that clear water
is released into a basin. As an alternative, dewatering water must be pumped
across the mudflat into the boat channel and discharged at a point above the
bottom to avoid resuspending bottom silts, but at a depth of at least 8 feet.
7. A full-time enforcement staff of two or more officers shall be funded by the
applicant to conduct the predator management program, ensure compliance, issue
citations, and conduct routine checks to ensure maintenance of other mitigation
requirements (i.e., silt/grease trap maintenance, etc.). Such officers will work
closely with the USFWS in enforcement issues as they relate to Federal Reserve
Lands. Officers must have training in predator control and shall possess the
necessary skills, permits and authority to trap and remove problem predators.
Detailed plans are required to be reviewed at the project level.
8. Annual funding must be designated for the purpose of trash control, repair and
maintenance of drainage facilities, fencing, the predator control program, and
mitigation programs for the project.
9. No further dredging, structural changes, or proposed uses will be allowed to occur
along the mudflat or marshland areas of the bayfront. This includes such activities
as marinas, water sports courses, etc. Additionally, the developer, City, and
USFWS shall jointly seek to have the San Diego Unified Port District post a line
of buoys to limit access in the mudflat and marsh areas.
10. Public awareness signs explaining the resources, concerns, and prohibited activities
must be prominently posted throughout the affected parklands.
H. ARCHAEOLOGY/HISTORY/PALEONTOLOGY
Potentially Significant Effect: Development outside of the project boundaries (e.g., for
the extension of utilities to serve the site) could impact adjacent archaeological sites.
[FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-120 through 3-122; Volume I, p. 4-13]
Finding: Changes or alternations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the
Final EIR.
-52-
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure has been found to be feasible
and has been required either as a condition of approval or been made binding on the
applicant through these findings:
a. All off-site improvements shall be subjected to archaeological review at the project
level of environmental review. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-124; Volume I, p. 4-13]
Potentially Significant Effect: Impacts to paleontological resources (fossils) may occur
when the site is graded as earth moving activities cut into the potentially fossil-beating layers
[FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-122; Volume I, p. 4-13].
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which w/Il avoid the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the
Final EIR.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be
feasible and have been required either as conditions of approval or been made binding on
the applicant through these findings. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-123; Volume I, p. 4-13]
a. A qualified paleontologist shall be at any pre-construction meeting to consult with
the grading and excavation contractors.
b. A paleontological monitor shall be on site on a half time basis during the original
cutting of previously undisturbed sediments of the deposits mapped as Bay Point
Formation to inspect cuts for contained fossils. If the deposits are discovered to
be fossiliferous then monitoring will proceed; if on the other hand they turn out
to be barren colluvial deposits then monitoring will not be continued. (The areal
distribution of these deposits is summarized on the geological map of Kennedy and
Tan, 1977.)
c. In the event that well-preserved fossils are discovered, the paleontologist'wilf be
allowed to temporarily direct, divert, or halt grading to allow recovery of fossil
remains in a timely manner. Because of the potential for the recovering of small
fossil remains such as isolated mammal teeth, it may be necessary to set up a
screen-washing operation on the site.
d. Fossil remains collected during any salvage program will be cleaned, sorted, and
cataloged and then, with the owner's permission, deposited in a scientific
institution with paleontological collections such as the San Diego Natural History
Museum.
-53-
I. LAND USE/GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS/ZONING
Significant Effect: The intensity of the proposed land uses will result in a significant
conflict because of incompatibility with the land use intensity in the surrounding area.
[FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-131 through 3-133; Volume I, p. 4-13 through 4-15]
Finding: The FEIR concluded that only project redesign to reduce intensity in
accordance with the building heights and square footage allowed by the certified LCP would
mitigate the impact to a less than significant level. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-138; Volume I,
p. 4-15] As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City
Council has determined that this significant impact is acceptable because of overriding
economic, social, and other considerations.
Mitigation Measure: Project redesign to reduce intensity in accordance with the
building heights and square footage allowed by the certified LCP would be necessary to
mitigate this significant effect. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-138; Volume I, p. 4-15] Since project
redesign is not proposed, however, these impacts are considered to remain significant.
Potentially Significant Effect: The residential units above the commercial retail and
the nearby commercial visitor uses in the central core area would be exposed to much
commercial activity. Traffic congestion, competition for parking, noise from traffic and
visitors, and night-lighting could create significant incompatibility impacts. [FEIR,
Volume II, p. 3-133; Volume I, p. 4-14 through 4-15]
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effects as identified in the
Final EIR.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be
feasible and have been required either as a condition of approval or been made binding on
the applicant through these findings. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-138; Volume I, p. 4-14 through
4-151
a. Maximum insulation shall be required in all exterior and interior residential walls.
b. Floor separation measures shall be incorporated into residential units.
c. Residential window treatments shall be designed to reflect some light.
d. Designated parking spaces within a separated and locked area shall be provided
for residents.
-54-
Significant Effect: The proximity of the proposed development site (even with the
buffers) coupled with the intensity of the proposed project, creates significant land use
compatibility conflicts between the National Wildlife Refuge and the proposed development
site. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-133; Volume I, p. 4-14]
Finding: The FEIR concluded that only project redesign to lower building heights
which are close to the Refuge boundaries (to no greater than 30 feet along the perimeter
of the site), and decrease intensity (to a level similar to the intensity allowed under the
certified LGP) would mitigate the impact to a less than significant level. [FEIR, Volume II,
p. 3-138; Volume I, p. 4-14] As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations,
however, the City Council has determined that this significant impact is acceptable because
of overriding economic, social, or other considerations.
Mitigation Measure: Project redesign to lower building heights which are close to the
Refuge boundaries (to no greater than 30 feet along the perimeter of the site) and decrease
intensity (to a level similar to the intensity allowed in the certified LCP) would mitigate the
impact to a less than significant level. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-138; Volume I, p. 4-14] Since
project redesign is not proposed, however, these impacts are considered to remain
significant.
Significant Effect: The proposed concept plan is not consistent with the certified LCP,
General Plan (2010), and Bayfront Redevelopment Plan.
Finding: Changes or alterations can be required in, or incorporated into, the proposal
which can reduce to a less than significant level the impact identified in the Final EIR.
Since plan amendments are not proposed at this time, however, further review of this item
will be necessary and the impact remains significant at this plan level of analysis. As
described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City Council has
determined that this significant impact is acceptable because of overriding economic, social,
or other considerations.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure is found to be feasible and has
been required either as a condition of approval or been made binding on the applicant
through these findings. Achievement of the measure would achieve consistency between the
project proposal and current City policies. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-138 through 3-140;
Volume I, p. 4-15]
The certified LCP, General Plan, and Bayfront Redevelopment Plan could be
amended to be consistent with the proposed concept plan.
J. COMMUNITY SOCIAL FACTORS
The FEIR does not cite any significant adverse effects in the area of Comrlaunity Social
Factors. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-142 through 3-143; Volume I, p. 4-15 through 4-16]
-55-
K. COMMUNITY TAX STRUCTURE
The FEIR does not cite any significant adverse effects in the area of Community Tax
Structure. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-144; Volume I, p. 4-16]
L. PARKS. RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE
Potentially Significant Effect: The proposed concept plan does not include enough
detailed information to adequately address provision of public access opportunities from I-5
and areas to the east. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-148 through 3-150; Volume I, p. 4-18 through
4-19]
Finding: Changes or alterations can be incorporated into the concept plan at the
project level of CEQA compliance which will avoid the potentially significant environmental
effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure has been found to be feasible
and shall be required to be incorporated into the project proposal at the project level of
CEQA compliance.
a. The applicant must submit an access plan, showing designated public parking
areas, access routes to public areas, and access routes and signage from the east
side of I-5 across the "E" Street bridge at the project level of environmental
review. This access plan must be approved by the City Planning and Community
Development departments before it will be considered adequate to mitigate the
impact. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-151; Volume 1, p. 4-18 through 4-19]
Potentially Significant Effect: Park development according to the proposed phasing
plan would not provide adequate park area or parking for parks to accommodate the
anticipated high public usage. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-148; Volume I, p. 4-18] '
Finding: Changes or alterations can be incorporated into the project phasing plan at
the project level of CEQA compliance which would avoid the potentially significant
environmental effect identified in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure has been found to be feasible
and shall be required to be incorporated into the project proposal at the project level of
CEQA compliance.
a. The applicant must include all parks development and parking for parks within the
first phase of development. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-151; Volume I, p. 4-18]
-56-
Potentially Significant Effect: The proposed concept plan includes a potentially
insufficient amount of parking for park users. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-149 through 3-150;
Volume I, p. 4-18]
Finding: Changes or alterations can be incorporated into the project at the project level
of CEQA compliance which would avoid the potentially significant environmental effect
identified in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure has been found to be feasible
and shall be required to be incorporated into the project proposal at the project level of
CEQA compliance.
a. Additional public parking spaces may be required by the City. The number of
spaces and the location of those spaces will be determined during project level
CEOA review. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-152; Volume I, p. 4-18 through 4-19]
Significant Effect: Implementation of proposed concept plan would result in
shade/shadow impacts to park and public open space areas. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-150
through 3-151; Volume I, p. 4-19 through 4-20]
Finding: The FEIR concluded that only project redesign to reduce the heights of the
hotels to a range of 6-12 stories would mitigate the impact to a less than significant level.
[FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-151; Volume I, p. 4-19 through 4-20] As described in the Statement
of Overriding Considerations, however, the City Council has determined that this significant
impact is acceptable because of overriding economic, social, or other considerations.
Mitigation Measure: Project redesign to reduce the heights of hotels to a range of 6-12
stories would be necessary to mitigate this significant effect. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-151;
Volume I, p. 4-19 through 4-20] Since project redesign is not proposed, however, these
impacts are considered to remain significant.
M. UTILITY SERVICE
Potentially Significant Effect: Implementation of the concept plan would result in an
incremental contribution to cumulative impacts to non-renewable energy resources (fossil
fuels). [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-158; Volume I, p. 4-20]
Finding: The Final EIR concluded that, cumulative energy resource impacts can be
mitigated below a level of significance by the adoption of the mitigation measures set forth
below. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-162 through 3-163; Volume I, p. 4-20]
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be
feasible and have been required either as conditions of approval or been made binding on
the applicant through these findings.
-57-
a. Include double-pane glass, provide increased wall and ceiling insulation,
incorporate solar energy opportunities, provide efficient sealing of doors and
windows, and include time controlled lighting systems throughout the
industrial/commercial portions of the project to minimize cumulative impacts to
non-renewable energy sources. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-162 through 3-163;
Volume I, p. 4-20]
81818
Potentially Significant Effect: The proposed high rise buildings would result in the
need for an additional ladder truck and four-person crew by the Fire Department. [FEIR,
Volume II, p. 3-159; Volume I, p. 4-21]
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the
Final EIR.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure has been found to be feasible
and has been required either as a condition of approval or been made binding on the
applicant through these findings.
a. An additional ladder truck will be funded by the applicant through Development
Impact Fees. The almual salaries of the four-person crew will be funded by the
City. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-164; Volume I, p. 4-21]
Potentially Significant Effect: The proposed project will result in an increased work
load for the Fire Department due to plan review, site inspections, routine fire safety
inspections, and public education programs. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-159; Volume I, p. 4-21]
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in ihe
Final EIR.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure has been found to be feasible
and has been required either as a condition of approval or been made binding on the
applicant through these findings.
a. An addition fire inspector will be necessary to handle the additional work load
created by this project. The City will fund that additional position. [FEIR, .
Volume II, p. 3-164; Volume I, p. 4-21]
-58-
Potentially Significant Effect: The proposed concept plan has the potential to result
in significant impacts on fire service if the subsequent project is not properly designed from
a fire safety standpoint. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-159 through 3-164; Volume I, p. 4-21]
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project
which will avoid the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the Final
EIR.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible
and have been required either as a condition of approval or been made binding on the
applicant through these findings. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-159 through 3-164; Volume I,
p. 4-21]
a. Maximum fire flow shall be 5,000 gpm.
b. Fire department roadway access shall be provided to within 150 feet of all portions
of any building.
c. All roadway widths shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide.
d. All apartments, three or more stories in height or containing more than 15
dwelling units and every hotel three or more stories in height or containing 20 or
more guest rooms shall be provided with a fully automatic fire sprinkler system.
e. A fire alarm/excavation system shall be provided for all public assembly, and
multi-residential occupancies.
f. All Title 1924 California Code of Regulations (State Fire Marshal's Rules and
Regulations) shall apply relative to public assembly and high r/se occupancies.
g. Fire department access roadways greater in length than 150 feet shall be provided
with the provision for the turning around of fire apparatus (either a 75 x 24 foot
hammerhead or a 40 foot radius cul-de-sac).
h. Private fire hydrants will be required to satisfy the requirement that any part of
the ground floor of any building shall be within 150 feet of a water supply. These
hydrants shall be in place and operable prior to the delivery of combustible
building materials.
i. Public fire hydrants will be required every 300 feet on public streets. However,
if the location of major buildings is unknown, hydrants may be located specific to
the buildings. This would result in more effective coverage, and could possibly
result in fewer fire hydrants. For design interest, there are hydrants manufactured
which have a lower profile than the traditional barrel type.
j. Address signs - Easily readable signs which can be seen from tl~e street are
required. Large, contrasting block letters and numbers must be utilized.
-59-
Potentially Significant Effect: Solid waste generated from the proposed project site
would result in an incremental contribution to the limited and declining landfill space in San
Diego County. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-160; Volume I, p. 4-21]
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
proposed project which will lessen the potentially significant environmental effect as
identified in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible
and have been required either as conditions of approval or been made binding on the
applicant through these finding.
a. In order to reduce the volume of trash, a recycling program shall be undertaken
by the applicant in conjunction with a local recycling company. The recycling
program shall include bins on site for the collection of recyclable materials such
as glass, plastic, metal, and paper products for residents, businesses, and visitors.
[FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-164; Volume I, p. 4-21]
b. Also to reduce the volume of trash, the development shall be required to
incorporate trash compactors. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-164; Volume I, p. 4-21]
Potentially Significant Effect: The proposed project may result in significant impacts
to sewer infrastructure. The magnitude of this impact will not be known until detailed plans
for the infrastructure are prepared. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-160; Volume I, p. 4-21]
Finding: Changes or alterations can be incorporated into the project at the project
level of CEQA compliance which would avoid the potentially significant environmental
effect identified in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure has been found to be feasible
and shall be required to be incorporated into the project proposal at the project level of
CEQA compliance.
a. The City Engineering Department must review the plans for consistency with the
City's Thresholds Standards and with the system which the project will tie into.
[FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-164; Volume I, p. 4-22]
Potentially Significant Effect: The proposed project would result in significant impacts
to water infrastructure. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-164 through 3-165; Volume I., p. _4-22]
-60-
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the
proposed project which will lessen the potentially significant environmental effect identified
in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible
and have been required either as conditions of approval or been made binding on the
applicant through these findings. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-164 through 3-165; Volume I, p. 4-
22]
The Sweetwater Authority analysis indicated specific areas where upgrading of water
mains must be completed. These include:
a. A 12 inch main in "F" Street from Broadway to approximately 830 feet west must
be installed.
b. A 12 inch main in Bay Boulevard from Moss Street to about Sierra Way extension
westerly must be installed. (This will connect the project with supplies of water
from the southern portion of Chula Vista, thus providing the project site with two
sources of water instead of one.)
c. The existing 8 inch main along "F" Street from Bay Boulevard running west must
be upgraded to a 12 inch main.
d. All on-site mains must be sized 12 inches.
Potentially Significant Effect: The project would incrementally contribute to a
regionally significant demand on water resources. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-162; Volume I,
p. 4-231
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the
proposed project which will lessen the potentially significant environmental effect'as
identified in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible
and have been required either as conditions of approval or been made binding on the
applicant through these findings.
a. The applicant must provide water conservation measures at the project level
design, including elements such as low flow showerheads, low flush toilets, timed
irrigation, drought-tolerant landscaping, drip irrigation (where appropriate) and
reclaimed water lines for future use. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-165; Volume I,
p. 4-23]
-61-
Potentially Significant Effect: Until the applicant demonstrates that there is an
adequate supply of well water for both lagoons and an engineering design for the circulation
system is provided a potentially significant effect on water supply is assumed. [FEIR,
Volume II, p. 3-162; Volume I, p. 4-23]
Finding: Changes or alterations can be incorporated into the project at the project
level of CEQA compliance which would avoid the potentially significant environmental
effect identified in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been found to be
feasible and shall be required to be incorporated into the project proposal at the project
level of CEQA compliance. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-162; Volume I, p. 4-23]
a. Further testing and verification of well supply must be completed for both lagoons
and included in an EIR at the project level.
b. Information must be provided to show the proposed well locations and engineering
design of the circulation systerr~
c. If quantity and/or quality are not adequate a different source of water to be
approved by the City must be used. A possible, feasible source is the adjacent San
Diego Bay. The impacts of such a water source would be reviewed during project
level environmental review.
Significant Effect: The proposed project has the potential to produce 1,413 elementary
school students and 406 junior high and high school students which would decrease the
ability of both districts to adequately serve the needs of the students. Additionally, the
City's Threshold Standards would not be met. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-162; Volume I,
p. 4-23 through 4-24]
Finding: Changes or alterations can be required in, or incorporated into, the project
which could reduce to a less than significant level the school overcrowding impacts. These
measures shall be incorporated into the proposed project at the project level of CEQA
compliance. Additional information is, however, necessary to determine project level impact
significance and mitigation feasibility. As described in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations, however, the City Council has determined that this significant impact is
acceptable because of overriding economic, social, or other considerations.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures may be feasible and shall be
required either as conditions of approval or been made binding on the applicant during the
project level of CEQA compliance.
- a. The applicant must form new Mello Roos districts to finance capital.costs such as
permanent or relocatable classrooms and school buses. [FEIR, Volume II,
p. 3-165 through 3-166; Volume I, p. 4-23 through 4-25]
-62-
b. The issue of new school sites or additional property adjacent to existing schools
for the construction of capital improvements will be resolved during project level
CEQA compliance. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-165 through 3-166; Volume I, p. 4-23
through 4-24]
Potentially Significant Effect: The location of 1-5 between the project area and the
schools would prohibit the feasibility of students walking to existing schools, potentially
resulting in significant transportation costs. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-162 through 3-167;
Volume I, p. 4-23 through 4-24]
Finding: Changes or alterations can be required in, or incorporated into, the project
at the project level of CEQA compliance which would reduce the impact identified in the
Final EIR to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure has been found to be feasible
and shall be required either as a condition of approval or been made binding on the
applicant through these findings.
a. Annual costs for student transportation including bus maintenance and drivers'
salaries must be funded by either a cash contribution from the applicant or a long-
term binding agreement with the applicant to finance the annual student
transportation costs. [FEIR, Volume II, p. 3-~66; Volume I, p. 4-24]
N. TRAFFIC
Significant Effect: Development under Alternative 8 would result in significant impacts
to intersection capacities in the project vicinity. During the p.m. peak hour, with the
Alternative 8 generated traffic added to the network, the Broadway/"E" Street intersection
would operate at LOS F (ICU 1.04) which is an unacceptable level of service. [FEIR,
Volume I, p. 4-27] .
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which will reduce to a less than significant level the impacts at the Broadway/"E"
Street intersection. These measures shall be incorporated into the project level design.
Additional information is, however, necessary to determine project level impact significance
and mitigation feasibility. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations,
however, the City Council has determined that this significant impact is acceptable because
of overriding econom/c, social, or other considerations.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible
and shall be required to be incorporated into the project at the project level CEQA
compliance.
-63-
a. The following improvements are required at the Broadway/"E" Street intersection.
Westbound: Construction of an additional left-turn and an exclusive right-
turn only lane.
Eastbound: Construction of an additional left-turn lane and an exclusive
right-turn only lane.
Significant Effect: Development under Alternative 8 would result in significant impacts
to intersection capacities in the project vicinity, during the p.m. peak hour, with the
Alternative 8 generated traffic added to the network, the Broadway/"F" Street intersection
would operate at LOS D (ICU 0.84) which is an unacceptable level of service. [FEIR,
Volume I, p. 4-27]
Finding: Changes or alterations have been require din, or incorporated into, the
project which will reduce to a less than significant level the impacts at the Broadway/"F"
Street intersection. These measures shall be incorporated into the project level design.
Additional information is, however, necessary to determine project level impact significance
and mitigation feasibility. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations,
however, the City Council has determined that this significant impact is acceptable because
of overriding economic, social, or other considerations.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible
and shall be required to be incorporated into the project at the project level of CEQA
compliance.
a. The following improvements are required at the Broadway/"F" Street intersection.
Westbound: Restriping to provide an exclusive right-turn only lane.
Eastbound: Restriping to provide an exclusive right-turn only lane.
Significant Effect: Development under Alternative 8 would result in significant impacts
to intersection capacities in the project vicinity. During the p.m. peak hour, with the
Alternative 8 generated traffic added to the network, the Broadway/"H" Street intersection
would operate at LOS E (icu 0.95) which is an unacceptable level of service. [FEIR,
Volume I, p. 4-27]
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which will reduce to a less than significant level the impacts at the Broadway/"H"
Street intersection. These measures shall be incorporated into the project level design.
Additional information is, however, necessary to determine project level impact sign. ificance
and mitigation feasibility. As described in the Statement of Overriding Cohsiderations,
-64-
however, the City Council has determined that this significant impact is acceptable because
of overriding economic, social, or other considerations.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible
and shall be required to be incorporated into the project at the project level of CEQA
compliance.
a. The following improvements are required at the Broadway/"H" Street intersection.
Westbound: Construction to provide an additional through lane.
Eastbound: Construction to provide an additional through lane and an
exclusive right-turn only lane.
Significant Effect: Development under Alternative 8 would result in significant impacts
to intersection capacities in the project vicinity. During the p.m. peak hour, with the
Alternative 8 generated traffic added to the network, the 1-5 Northbound Ramp/"E" Street
freeway ramp intersection would operate at LOS F. (ICU 1.30) which is an unacceptable
level of service. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4-27]
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which will reduce to a less than significant level the impacts at the I-5 Northbound
Ramp/"E" Street freeway ramp intersection. These measures shall be incorporated into the
project level design. Additional information is, however, necessary to determine project
level impact significance and mitigation feasibility. As described in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations, however, the City Council has determined that this significant
impact is acceptable because of overriding economic, social, or other considerations.
Furthermore, some of the changes (e.g., those to eastbound "E" Street) are within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of another agency (CalTrans) and not the City Council. Such
changes must be adopted by CalTrans.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible
and shall be required to be incorporated into the project at the project level of CEQA
compliance.
a. The following improvements are required at the 1-5 Northbound Ramp/"E" Street
Ramp intersection.
Northbound I-5 Off-Ramp at "E" Street: Construction of an additional right-
turn only lane.
Eastbound "E" Street: Construction of double left-turn lanes to I-5
northbound on-ramp by widening the "E" Street bridge (or restriping the "E"
Street overcrossing).
-65-
Westbound "E" Street: Widen westbound "E" Street from the northbound I-5
on-ramp to provide separate right-turn lane from westbound "E" Street to the
1-5 northbound on-ramp. This separate right-turn lane must be a minimum
of 250 feet in length.
Significant Effect: Development under Alternative 8 would result in significant impacts
to intersection capacities in the project vicinity. During the p.m. peak hour, with the
Alternative 8 generated traffic added to the network, the I-5 Southbound Ramp/"E" Street
freeway ramp intersection would operate at LOS F (ICU 1.05) which is an unacceptable
level of service. [FEIR, Volume I, p. 4-27]
Finding: Changes or alternations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which will reduce to a less than significant level the impacts at the 1-5 Southbound
Ramp/"E" Street freeway ramp intersection. These measures must be incorporated into the
project level design. Additional information is, however, necessary to determine project
level impact significance and mitigation feasibility. As described in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations, however, the City Council has determined that this significant
impact is acceptable because of overriding economic, social, or other considerations.
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures have been found to be feasible
and shall be required to be incorporated into the project at the project level of CEQA
compliance.
a. The following improvements are required at the 1-5 Southbound Ramp/"E" Street
Ramp intersection.
Widen northbound Bay Boulevard to provide an exclusive left-turn lane and
two right-turn lanes.
Widen eastbound Marina Parkway to provide three through lanes and a right-
turn only lane.
[C:\WP51 \BAYFRON~REVISION.TX~i]
-66-
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of July 24, 1991 Page 1
6. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-91-29~ request to construct
a car wash within the future Rio Sweetwater Plaza
commercial center at the southwest corner of 30th
Street and Edqemere Avenue Rio Sweetwater Plaza
Investors Limited
A. BACKGROUND
The applicant is proposing the development of a single-bay car wash on a
2,618 square foot site within the recently graded Rio Sweetwater Plaza
commercial center at the southwest corner of 30th Street and Edgemere
Avenue in the C-C-P zone. The site borders the cities of Chula Vista and
National City.
The Design Review Committee will consider the project design on July 22,
1991. The DRC~s action will be reported to the Commission at the public
hearing.
B. RECOMMENDATION
1. The Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an Initial Study,
IS-91-31, 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program
issued on IS-gl-31.
2. Based on the findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt
a motion to approve PCC-91-29 subject to the following conditions:
a. The proposal shall comply with the plan approved or
conditionally approved by the Design Review Committee (Ref.
DRC-91-46).
b. The applicant shall comply with a City-approved water use offset
policy. Said policy may require one or more of the following:
1. Compliance with a regional water use offset program, to be
administered by the San Diego County Water Authority.
2. Compliance with a locally administered water use offset
program (such program may be administered by the City,
water district, or a combination of both);
3. Implementation of specific water use offset measures for
this project, if neither a regional or locally-administered
water use offset program is in place prior to issuance of
building permits for any portion of this project.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of July 24, 1991 Page 2
In the event that a City-approved water offset policy is not in
effect at the time building permits are issued, the requirements
of this condition shall be met through implementation of
specific water offset measures for this project, with the level
of offsets and specific measures to be approved by the City.
c. 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 the right to be heard with regard thereto. 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 can not, in the
normal operation of the use permitted, be expected to
economically recover.
C. DISCUSSION
Adjacent zoninq and land use
North RS-2 Single Family - Single family homes and National City
golf course (National City)
South I-L-P Limited Industrial Right-of-way for SR 54 and
riparian vegetation associated with Paradise Creek, a
tributary to the Sweetwater River (Chula Vista)
East CG/RD General Commercial/Research Development - Sweetwater
Town and Country Shopping Center (National City)
West C-C-P Central Commercial subject to a Precise Plan
Remainder of graded Shopping Center site {Chula Vista) and
Highland Village Plaza (National City)
Existinq site characteristics
The project site is a 27,455 square foot pad on a previously graded
parcel. The project is part of a larger site that has been previously
approved and graded and will become the Rio Sweetwater Plaza Shopping
Center.
~Uses
Adjacent land uses include the Sweetwater Town and Country Shopping Center
to the east, and single family homes and the National City Golf Course
(both in National City) to the north. The right-of-way for SR-54 and
riparian vegetation associated with Paradise Creek, a tributary to the
Sweetwater River, exist to the south. The previously graded and approved
"Highland Village Plaza" project is located to the west in National City.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of July 24, 1991 Page 3
Proposed use
The proposed project would consist of an approximately 2,618 sq. ft.
enclosed and automated "full service" car wash facility at the southwest
corner of 30th Street and Edgemere Avenue. The proposed facility will
utilize eight of the 212 parking stalls currently proposed by the
commercial center's parking master plan. The proposal also includes site
and landscaping improvements which generally maintain the conceptual
landscaping theme which was approved as part of the Rio Sweetwater Plaza
master development proposal.
The site plan depicts a continuous, independent circulation system in
order to avoid vehicular conflicts between general retail and car wash
patrons. Eight parking stalls will be incorporated within the general car
wash circulation area for use by car wash employees and car wash patrons.
Adequate setback and vehicle car stacking areas are indicated on the
submitted site plan.
The car wash facility is stucco with a ceramic tile roof to match the
design of the balance of the center. The facility will include a waiting
room, office and two washrooms in addition to the car wash area. There
would be approximately 300 customers per day and 10 employees. The hours
of operation would be from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
D. ANALYSIS
The applicant has been working with the City over an extended period of
time in order to present a plan for which staff could recommend approval.
The car wash was originally proposed in the center portion of the Rio
Sweetwater Plaza project. Both the City of National City and Chula Vista
Planning Departments had concerns about this location with respect to
internal circulation and noise and activity impacts on residents directly
to the north. The relocation of the proposal to the eastern edge of the
center has resolved these concerns.
According to the applicant, there are no full service car washes within a
4-mile radius of this proposed project. One of the advantages of a
full-service car wash is that customers may park their car and then shop
and return later rather than driving to another location for a car wash.
This is a convenience for those shopping or residing in the community and
could possibly reduce fuel use and the associated emissions.
E. FINDINGS
1. That the proposed use at the location is necessary or desirable to
provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being
of the neighborhood or the community.
The proposed use will provide a convenient service for residents and
shoppers in the area.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of July 24, 1991 Page 4
2. That such use will not under the circumstances of the particular
case, be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons
residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements
in the vicinity.
The proposal will not interfere with the balance of circulation
within the center, nor create adverse noise and activity impacts on
residents to the northwest.
3. )hat the proposed use will comply with the regulations and
conditions specified in the code for such use.
The proposal shall be required to comply with all applicable codes,
conditions and requirements prior to the issuance of permits and on a
continuing basis thereafter.
4. That the granting of this conditional use permit will not adversely
affect the general plan of the City or the adopted plan of any government
agency.
With the granting of this permit, the proposal will comply with City
policies and plans.
WPC 9542P/2652P
STREET
ciTY
TROUSDALE
mitigated negative declaration -
PROJECT NAME: Rio Sweetwater Car Wash
PROJECT LOCATION: East building pad, southwest corner of 30th Street and
Edgemere Avenue
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 553-370-1g, 25, 28
PROJECT APPLICANT: Rio Sweetwater Plaza Investors, Ltd.
CASE NO: IS-91-31 DATE: July 3, 1991
A. Pro~ect Settina
The proposed project site is a 27,455 square foot pad on a previously
graded parcel at the southwest corner of 30th Street and Edgemere Avenue.
The proposed car wash would be located on property which borders the
cities of Chula Vista and National City. The project is part of a larger
commercial site that has been previously approved and graded. The
western-most portion of the con=nercial site is in the City of National
City.
Adjacent land uses include the Sweetwater Town and County Shopping Center
to the east and single-family homes and the National City Golf Course
(both in National City) to the north. The rSght-of-way for SR 54 and
riparian vegetation associated with Paradise Creek, a tributary to the
Sweetwater River exist to the south. The previously graded and approved
'Highland Village Plaza" project is located to the west in National City.
The proposed car wash site is entirely out of the riparian corridor, and
no biological resources will be impacted with the proposed project. An
E]R prepared in ]98! by Biggs Engineering analyzed the impacts of the
construction of a g2,000 square foot commercial center on the ]0 acre
site. This site ~s part of the larger parcel which was previously
environmentally assessed. Impacts discussed in the E]R included
geology~soils, drainage, 'landform alteration/aesthetics, air quality,
water quality, noise, biology, archeology, land use, public facilities,
traffic/access and economics.
The proposed project would consist of an approximately 2,6]8 square foot
enclosed, automated car wash approximately 24' 6' in height. Primary
access to the site ts from 30th Street, with secondary access from
Edgemere Avenue. There would be approximately 300 customers per day and
10 employees anticipated from the proposed use. Eight on-site parking
spaces will be provided. The hours of operation would be 8:00 a.m. to
6:00 p.m. Installation of street improvements will be required by the
Engineering Department. The discretionary actions associated with the
proposed project are a Conditional Use Permit and Design Review
application,
city of chul~ vista planning department
-2-
C. ~omnatibilitv with Zontna and Plans
The general plan designates the site as 'Retail Com=erclal" and the zoning
is "Central Commercial" with a precise plan (CCP). The Chula Vista
Hunicipal Code requires a Conditional Use Permit for approval of a car
· wash in the CCP zone. With conformance to the conditions of approval for
a Conditional Use Permit, the proposed project would be compatible with
the zone and general plan designation.
D. Comoliance with the Threshold/Standards Policy
]. Ftre/EHS
The Threshold/Standards Poltcy requtres that fire and medical units
must be able to respond to calls wtthtn 7 minutes or less in 85% of
the cases and within 5 mtnutes 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 2 miles away and would be
associated with a $ minute response time. The proposed project will
comply with this Threshold Policy.
The Fire Department has indicated that tt can provide an adequate
level of service to the site. Two fire extinguishers (2A]OBC) shall
also be required. Response to the proposed factlity wtll most likely
tnclude a unit from the City of National City in accordance with an
Automatic Aid Agreement.
2. Police
The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that police units must
respond to 84% of Priority ! 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 62.10% 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.
The Police Department has indicated they will be able to maintain an
acceptable level of service for this project.
3. Traffic ~
The Threshold/Standards Policy requires that all intersections must
operate at a Level of Service (LOS) 'C' or better, with the exception
that Level of Service (LOS) 'D" may occur during the peak two hours
of the day at signalized intersections. Intersections west of 1-805
are not to operate at a LOS below their 1987 LOS. No intersection
may reach LOS 'F" during the average weekday peak hour.
Intersections of arterials with freeway ramps are exempted from this
policy. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Policy.
-3-
A traffic study has been prepared for thts project. Potentially
significant traffic tmpacts wtll be discussed tn greater detail in
Sectton E of this document.
4. Parks/Recreation
The Threshold/Standards Policy for Parks and Recreation ts 3
acres/1,O00 population.
The policy applies only to residential projects on land east of
interstate Highway 805, thus, the project ts exempt from this
standard.
$. Oratnage
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.
The City Engineering Department is satisfied that with adherence to
conditions of project approval, this project will not cause storm
water flows and volumes to exceed City Engineering standards.
Potentially significant drainage impacts will be discussed in more
detail in Section E of this document.
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 Master
Plan{s) and City Engineering Standards. The proposed project will
comply with this Threshold Policy.
The proposed project would generate an estimated 3,710 gallons per
day of liquid waste which would be served by the existing 12" sewer
water main flowing west adjacent to the Sweetwater River. This line
is considered adequate to serve the proposed project.
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 proposed project
will comply with this Threshold Policy.
The Sweetwater Authority has indicated that an 8-inch line is located
along Edgemere Avenue and that water is currently available to the
site. They have not identified any constraints to providing adequate
water supplies for the project.
-4-
E. Identification of Environmental Effects
An initial study conducted by the City of Chula Vista determined that the
proposed project could have one or more significant environmental
effects. Subsequent revisions in the project design have implemented
specific mitigation measures to reduce these effects to a level of less
than significant.
The project, as revised, now avoids or mitigates the potentially
significant environmental effects previously identified, and the
preparation of an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. A
Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with
Section 15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Specific mitigation measures
have also been set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring Program which is
attached as Addendum "A".
Traffic, biology and drainage impacts have been determined to be
potentially significant and are required to be mitigated to a level of
less than significant. Water, noise and visual quality impacts identified
in the initial study are deemed to be less than significant and will not
require mitigation. A discussion of each of these impacts from the
proposed project is provided.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
W~ter
Due to recent drought conditions, as a condition of project approval, the
applicant must agree to no net increase in water consumption or
participate in whatever water conservation or fee off-set program the City
of Chula Vista has in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
lhe proposed project would construct an enclosed automated car wash on the
southwest corner of 30th Street and Edgemere Avenue. The project is part
of a larger commercial development project to the west. lhe site has
previously been graded and no additional grading or excavation is
anticipated. There are no sensitive receptors nearby that would be
adversely impacted by the proposed car wash. The applicant must adhere to
all design specifications determined during the Design Review process.
With compliance to the conditions for the issuance of the CUP, as well as
conditions set forth by the Design Review Committee, visual impacts are
deemed to be less than significant.
Noise
The proposed project will be associated with potential noise impacts
during the construction phase of the project. Noise impacts would result
from the use of h~avy construction equipment which can range up to 70
dB(A).
-5-
Although the car wash construction activities would represent a temporary
significant impact on ambient noise levels, they would be short-term and
would terminate upon completion of the project. Additionally, the hours
of construction would be limited to daytime hours in compliance with the
City's Noise Ordinance Standards. Therefore, construction phase noise
impacts are deemed to be less than significant.
Noise impacts from the daily operation of the car wash are deemed to be
less than significant due to the enclosed nature of the car wash and the
absence of sensitive receptors near the site. With compliance to the
City's Noise Ordinance Standards, project phase noise impacts will be less
than significant.
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFXCANT BIFT MITIr~RBLE
Bioloov
The natural vegetation adjacent to the site is limited to a small strip of
riparian woodland located along the south side of the parcel. The
proposed car wash will not impact this biological resource.
The integrity of the riparian corridor has been severely compromised by
the previous construction of the CalTrans State Route 54 project and U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers Flood Channel project. The riparian vegetation
has now been isolated from both the river and the tributary drainage of
Paradise Creek by the construction of these projects, resulting in a
significant reduction of its biological habitat value. As a result, the
riparian habitat adjacent to the project site has now been identified as
unsuitable for consideration by the Draft Sweetwater Habitat Conservation
Plan for the least Bell's vireo habitat (San Diego Association of
Governments, 1990).
An Army Corps of Engineers 404 Permit has been previously obtained for
development of the surrounding commercial development. With continued
compliance to the requirements of the nationwide 404 Permit, and the
conditions of project approval, no further mitigation measures are deemed
necessary for potential indirect biological impacts.
Orainaoe
The City Engineering Oepartment has indicated that the project site is
within the lO0-year flood boundary of the Sweetwater River. The
Engineering Department will be requiring that a storm drain system be
installed to meet drainage standards. The site is not considered to be
subject to any existing flooding hazards. Potential impacts to the
adjacent riparian vegetation will be mitigated through the requirement
that all drainage generated from the car wash be handled and contained on
site in accordance with City engineering standards.
-6-
A traffic study prepared by Willdan Associates (May 13, 1991), addressed
the potential traffic impacts of the proposed car wash. According to this
study, traffic/circulation impacts are not deemed to be significant.
Currently, 30th Street east of Edgemere Avenue operates at Level of
Service (LOS) 'B' with Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of 20,780.. Edg~m~
Avenue south of 30th Street and Sweetwater Road currently operate a: Lu)
mCm with 5,660 ADT.
After completion of the proposed car wash and adjacent retail center, the
estimated ADT on 30th Street would be 23,540. The estimated ADT on
Edgemere Avenue would be 6,800, resulting in a LOS 'C' for both 30th
Street and Edgemere Avenue.
In Chula Vista, the acceptable level of service for intersections is LOS
'C'. An intersection analysis completed for the intersection of 30th
Street and Edgemere Avenue determined that the existing LOS is 'A", and
after project completion, the LOS would be 'B". Therefore, traffic
impacts are deemed to be less than significant and no project specific
mitigation will be required.
F. Mitiqation necessary to avoid siqnificant effects
Specific project mitigation measures and project redesign have been
required to reduce potentially significant environmental impacts
identified in the initial study for this project to a level of less than
significant.
Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project design and
have been made conditions of project approval, as well as requirements of
the attached Mitigation Monitoring Program (Addendum 'A').
1. The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures set forth in
the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Highland Village Plaza
Shopping Center (IS 7g-26).
1. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the City
Engineering Department including installation of street improvements
per Chula Vista Drawings 90-204 through 90-202C.
2. The applicant shall comply with the site planning requirements
determined during the Design Review process, including circulation,
access, and parking requirements.
-7-
]. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the A~my Corps of
Engineers 404 Permit.
]. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Ctty
Engineering Department for installation of a storm drain system on
site to contatn stte runoff.
2. All paved surfaces shall be periodically cleaned to reduce
petrochemical related runoff.
G. Ftndinos of ]nsiqnificant 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 exmmples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory.
As is noted above in Section E 'Identification of Environmental
Effects", the proposed project will have have no significant impact
on the quality of the environment. There are no significant natural
or manmade resources present on the previously graded site that would
be impacted by the proposed.project.
2. lhe project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental
goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals.
With compliance to the conditions of project approval for the
issuance of a CUP, the project will be consistent with uses
designated by the zone and General Plan. lhe project would not
achieve any short-term goals to the disadvantage of long-term goals
since long-term goals would be achieved through the Conditional Use
Permit and Design Review process.
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 ere considerable when viewed in connection with the effects
of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects.
-B-
The proposed car wash will not result in any significant adverse
environmental effects which are cumulative in nature, provided all
conditions pursuant to the issuance of a CUP and the conditions of
the Design Review process are fulfilled. Potential drainage, traffic
and biology and impacts will be mitigated to a level of less than
significant.
4. lhe environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
?here is no substantial evidence that the project will cause adverse
effects to humans either directly or indirectly. Noise impacts will
be temporary. No public health impacts were identified in the
Initial Study.
N. Consultation
1. ]~dividuals and Oroanizations
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
Diana Lilly, Planning
Chula Vista City School District: Kate Shurson
Sweetwater Union High School District: Tom Silva
Applicant's Agent: Rick Marts, Inc.
8330 University Ave.
La Mesa, CA 91941
2. ~
Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code
General Plan, City of Chula Vista
Initial Study for Highland Village Plaza, Case #IS-8B-85
Willdan Associates, lKaffi~ Analysis for Commercial Develooment.
National City, CA May 13, lgg!
-g-
This environmental determination is based on the attached Initial
Study, any conanents received on the Initial Study and any comments
received during the public review period for the Negative
Declaration. Further information regarding the environmental review
of this project is available from the Chula Vista Planning
Oepartment, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR
EN 6 (Rev. 12/90)
WPC g465P
ADDENDUM 'A'
Hi~iqation Monitorino Proaram
Rio Sweetwater Car Wash
IS-91-31
This Mitigation Monitoring Program is prepared for the Rio Sweetwater Car Wash
Project, in order to comply with AB 3180. This legislation requires public
agencies to ensure that adequate mitigation measures are implemented and
monitored on mitigated negative declarations, such as IS-gl-31.
AB 3180 requires monitoring of potentially significant and/or significant
environmental impacts. The mitigation monitoring program for the Rio
Sweetwater Car Wash Project ensures adequate implementation of mitigation for
the following potentially significant impacts:
Traffic
Biology
Orainage
Oue to the nature of the environmental issues identified, the Mitigation
Compliance Coordinator {MCC) shall be the Environmental Review Coordinator
(ERC) for the City of Chula Vista. It shall be the responsibility of the
applicant to ensure that the conditions of the Mitigation Monitoring Program
are met to the satisfaction of the ERC.
The proposed project is associated with potentially significant traffic
impacts on site. Mitigation of Potentially Significant Traffic Impacts will
be ensured through the following measures:
1. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the City Engineering
Department including installation of street improvements per Chula Vista
Drawings g0-204 through g0-202C.
2. The applicant shall comply with the site planning requirements determined
during the Oesign Review process, including circulation, access, and
parking requirements.
The proposed project is associated with potentially significant biology
impacts on site. Mitigation of Potentially Significant Biology Impacts will
be ensured through the following measures:
1. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Army Corps
of Engineers 404 Permit.
The proposed project is associated with potentially significant drainage
impacts on site. Mitigation of Potentially Significant Drainage Impacts will
be ensured through the following measures:
1. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the City
Engineering Department for Installation of a storm drain system on
stte to contain stte runoff.
2. All paved surfaces shall be periodically cleaned to reduce
petrochemical related runoff.
WPC 9489P
-2-
FOR OFFICE USE
Case No. ~--~ ~[-,~/
Fee ~
INITIAL STUDY Receipt No.
Date Rec'd
City of Chula Vista Accepted by
Application Form Project No. [-,~ %17
A. BACKGROUND
1. pROJECT TITLE RIO SWEE?WATER CAR WASH
2. PROJECT LOCATION (Street address or description) East BLDG.
PAD,, S.W. CORNER OF 30th Street & Edgemere Ave.
Assessors Book,. Page & Parcel No. 563-370- 19,25,28
3. BRIEF pROJECT DESCRIPTION 2618. Sq. Ft. enclosed automated
car wash
~ ~'~ ~R PL.~A INVESTO..,.~, LTD
4. Name of Applicant RIO SW~ET~,AT~- ~" ~ '
Address 8880 Rio San Diego Dr. Ste.525 Phone 543-!000
City San Diego State CA Zip 92198
5. Name of Preparer/Agent RICK ~IARRS, ~NC.
Address 8330 university Ave. Phone 465-2011
City La Mesa State CA Zip 91941
Relation to Applicant Architect/Agent
6. Indicate all permits or approvals and enclosures or documents
required by the Environmental Review Coordinator.
a. Permits or approvals required:
General Plan Revision X Design Review Committee Public Project
Rezoning/Prezoning Tentative Subd. Map .... Annexation
Precise Plan 'Grading Permit X Design Review Board
.... Specific Plan Tentative Parcel Map Redevelopment Agency
x Cond. Use Permit Site Plan & Arch. Review
~Varia.nce Other
b. Enclosures or documents (as required by the Environmental Review
Coordinator).
X Location Map X Arch. Elevations Eng. Geology Report
Grading Plan x Landscape Plans '- Hydrological Study
X Site Plan Photos of Site & "Biological Study
Parcel Map Setting ~Archaeological Survey
Precise Plan Tentative Subd. Map Noise Assessment
- Traffic Impact Report
Specific Plan Improvement Plans ~ Other
Other Agency Permit or - Soils Report ..
Approvals Required
-2-
B. PROPOSED PROJECT
1. Land Area: sq. footage Pad 27~455 or acreage 0.63 AC
If land area to be dedicated, state acreage and purpose.
Complete this section if project is residential.
a. Type development: Single family Two family
Multi family Townhouse Condominium
b. Number of structures and heights
c. Number of Units: 1 bedroom 2 bedrooms
3 bedrooms 4 bedrooms Total units
d. Gross density (DU/total acres)
e. Net density (DU/total acres minus any dedication)
f. Estimated project population
g. Estimated sale or rental price range
h. Square footage of floor area(s)
i. Perc.ent of lot coverage by buildings or structures
j. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided
k. Percent of site in road and paved surface
3. Complete this section if project is commercial or industrial.
a. Type(s) of land use Commercial
b. Floor area 2618 sq.ft. Height of structure(s) 24'6"
c. Type of construction used in the structure wood frame
masonry walls, stucco
d. Describe major access points to the structures and the
orientation to adjoining properties and streets 3 driveways
from 30th Street~ i driveway from Edgemere
e. Number of on-site parking spaces provided 8 for this bldg.
f. Estimated number of employees per shift 5 , Number of
shifts 2 Total 10
Estimated number of customers (per day) and basis of estimate
300(Typical of other stores owned by same owner)
-3-
h.. Estimated range of service area and basis of estimate
Typical for local shopping center
i. Type/extent of operations not in enclosed buildings none
j. Hours of operation 8:00 am to 6:00 pm maximum
k. Type of exterior lighting
4. If project is other than residential, commercial or industrial
complete this section.
a. Type of project
b. Type of facilities provided
c. Square feet of enclosed structures
d. Height of structure(s) - maximum
e. Ultimate occupancy load of project
f. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided
g. Square feet of road and paved surfaces
C. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
1. If the project could result in the direct emission of any air
pollutants, (hydrocarbons, sulfur, dust, etc.) identify them.
NONE
2. Is any type of grading or excavation of the property anticipated NO · (If yes, complete the following:)
a. Excluding trenches to be backfilled, how many cubic yards of
earth will be excavated?
b. How many cubic yards of fill will be placed?
c. How much area (sq. ft. or acres) will be graded?
d. What will be the - Maximum depth of cut
Average depth of cut
Maximum depth of fill
Average depth of fill
-4-
3. D6scribe all energy consuming devices which are part of the proposed
project and the type of energy used (air conditioning, electrical
appliance, heating equipment, etc.) AL~ OF THE ABOVE
4. Indicate the amount of natural open space that is part of the project
(sq. ft. or acres) None.
5. If the project will result in any employment opportunities describe
the nature and type of these jobs. Typical for this use.
6. Will highly flammable or potentially explosive materials or
substances be used or stored within the project
site? NO
7. How many estimated a0tomobile trips, per day, will be generated by
the project? 300
8. Describe (if any)' off-site improvements necessary to implement the
project, and their points of access or connection to the project
site. Improvements include but not limited to the following: ne¥~
streets; street widening; extension of gas, electric, and sewer
lines; cut and fill slopes; and pedestrian and bicycl~ facilities.
None - all under previous permits
D. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
1. Geology
Has a geology study been conducted on the'property? NO
(If yes, please attach)
Has a Soil's Report on the project site been made? NO
(If yes, please attach)
2. Hydrology
Are any of the following features present on or adjacent to the
site? Y~S (If yes, please explain in detail.)
a. IS there any surface evidence of a shallow ground water
table? Not after final qradinq
b. Are there any watercourses or drainage improvements on or
adjacent to the site? Paradise Creek to the South
- 5 -
c. Does runoff from the project site drain directly into or toward
a domestic water supply, lake, reservoir or bay?
NO
d. Could drainage from the site cause erosion or siltation to
adjacent areas? No
e. Describe all drainage facilities to be provided and their
location. Existing
3. Noise
a. will there be any noise generated from the proposed project site
or from points of access which may impact the surrounding or
adjacent land uses? NO
4. Biology
a. Is the project site in a natural or partially natural state?
NO
b. Indicate type, size and quantity of trees on the site and which
(if any) will be removed by the project. None
5. Past Use of the Land
a. Are there any known historical resources located on or near the
project site? NO
b. Have there been any hazardous materials disposed of or stored on
or near the project site? NO
6. Current Land Use
a. Describe all str,uctures and land uses currently existing on the
project site. Two retail buildings to South approved
under construction
b. Describe all' structures and land uses currently existing on
adjacent property.
North GOLF COURSE, SINGLE F~94IT,¥
South Wetlands~ Highway 54
East Shopping Center
West Shopping Center
7. Social
a. Are there any residents on site? (If so, how many?) NO
b. Are there any current employment opportunities on site? (If so,
how many and what type?) NO
Please provide any other information which could expedite the evaluation of
the proposed project.
THIS IS THE DEVELOPMENT OF ONE OF THREE SATELLITE
BUILDI!~G PADS WITHIN AN APPROVED SHOPPING CENTER.
SITE G~ADING HAS BEEN APPROVED ( CASE ~15-88-85)
AND IS UNDERWAY.
-7-
E. CERTIFICATIO~
WINER/GREENWAT,D ~EVF, TmQDMER~m or
Owner/owner in escrow*
RICK MARRS, INC. or
Consultant or Agent*
HEREBY AFFIRM, that to the best of my belief, the statements and information
herein contained are in all respects true and correct and that all known
information concerning the project and its setting have been included in
Parts B, C and D of this application for an Initial Study of possible
environmental impact and any enclosures for attachments thereto.
DATE:
*It acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name.
STREET
PRO,JECT
'LOCJiTION
CITY
STATE H WY.
TROUSDALE
-8-
Case No.
CITY DATA
F. PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1. Current Zoning on site:
North
South
East
C
West
Does the project conform to the current zoning?
2. General Plan land use
ueslgnation on site: ~e~Fm, I
North ,~,io/r J~J,, ~,~( ~ (tj~9~C,~.
West ~,~ '
Is the project compatible with the General Plan Land Use Diagram? k/~
Is the project area designated for conservation or open space or adjacent
to an area so designated? ~}~
Is the project located adjacent to any scenic routes? ~o
(If yes, describe the design techniques being used to protect or enhance
the scenic quality of Chula Vista.)
How many acres of developed parkland are within the Park Service District
of this project as shown in the Parks and Recreation Element of the
General Plan?
What is the current park acreage requirements in the Park Service
District? ~. ~
How many acres of parkland are necessary to serve the proposed project?
(2AC/lO00 pop.) I~.~
Does the project site provide access to or have the potential to provide
access to any mineral resource? (If so, describe in detail.)
- 9 -
3. Schools
If the proposed project is residential, please complete the following:
Current Current Students Generated
School Attendance Capacity From Project
Elementary
,igh j/A
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.)
5. Energy Consumption
Provide the estimated consumption by the proposed project of the following
sources:
Electricity (per year) ~7,1~O k~vo~
Natural Gas (per year) ff~,~2 0 ~i~
Water (per day) ~7 ~
6. Remarks:
Director' of Planning or ~resent~ Date
- l0 -
Case No.~S-ql-
G. £H$INE£RING DEPARTMENT
1. Oraina~e
a. Is the project site within a flood plain? ~
b. Will the project be subject to any existing flooding hazards?
c. Will the project create any flooding hazards? ~0
d. What is the location and description of existing on-site
drainage facilities? ~v~_
e. Are they adequate to serve the project? ~.~.
f. What is the location and description of existing off-site
drainage facilities? ~i"x Ig" ee~P~ ¢(~i~j ~- ~
_
g. Are they adequate to serve the project? ~r~ ~In s)d~
Transportation ~- qo-~c
a. ~at roads provide primary access to the project? ~0~
b. What is the estimated number of one-way auto trips to be
generated by the project (per day)? ~00
c. What is the ADT and estimated level of service before and after
project completion?
Before After
A.D.T. u~o~ ~
L.O.S. UN~O~ ~
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.
- 11 -
Case No.
3. Geology
a. Is the project site subject to:
Known or suspected fault hazards?
Liquefaction? ~¥ · ~
Landslide or slippage?
b. Is an engineering geology report necessary to evaluate the
project? fao
4. Soils
a. Are there any anticipated adverse soil conditions on the project
site?
b. If yes, what are these adverse soil conditions? N.k.
C. IS a soils report necessary?
5. Land Form
a. What is the average natural slope of the site?
b. What is the maximum natural slope of the site? ?~.
6. Noise
Are there any traffic-related noise levels impacting the site that
are significant enough to justify that a noise analysis be required
of the applicant?
- 12 -
Case No.
7. Air Quality
If there is any direct or indirect automobile usage associated with
this project, complete the following:
Total Vehicle
Trip~ Emission Grams of
(per day) Factor Pollution
CO qoo X 118.3
Hydrocarbons floo X 18.3 =
NOx (NO2) ffoo X 20.0 = I ~, ooo
Particul ares fl oo X 1.5 = I,)~ o
Sulfur qoo X .78
8. Waste Generation
How much solid and liquid (sewage) waste will be generated by the
proposed project per day?
Solid ~0 I~/~ Liquid ~,o
What is the location and size of existing sewer lines on or adjacent
the site? ~" · I · ·
Are they adequate to serve the proposed project?
9. Public Facilities/Resources Impact
If the project could exceed the threshold of having any possible
significant impact on the environment, please identify the public
facilities/resources and/or hazards and describe the adverse impact.
(Include any potential to attain and/or exceed the capacity of any
public street, sewer, culvert, etc. serving the project area.)
Remarks/necessary mitigation measures
C'kt~'Eng;nee~ o~ Rep~e Uat.~/%1'/~'
- 13 -
Case No. IS 91-31
H. FIRE DEPARTMENT
1. What is the distance to the nearest fire station and what is the Fire
Department's estimated reaction time? Two Miles. 5 minutes
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? Yes
3. Remarks Response to the proposed facility will ~ost likely include
a unit from the City of National Cfty fn accoroance w~n an Automatic
Afd Agreement.
~ ~ · ~ EDo~ May 2, 1991
Fir~ Date
.-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 /kjl/l'
Community parks
2. If not, are parkland dedications or other mitigation proposed
as part of the project adequate to serve the population increase?
Neighborhood ~IY%
Community parks
3. Does this project exceed the Parks and Recreation Thresholds
established by City Council policies?
Parks and Recreation Director or Date
Representative
THE CITY OF CIIUL~! VISTA PARTY DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
S.tatement of disclosure of certain ownership interests, payments, or campaign contributions, on all matters
which will require discretionary action on tim part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all o~her
official bodies. The following information must be disclosed:
1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the contract, i.e., contractor,
subcontractor, material supplier.
RIO SWEETWATER PLAZA INVESTORS,LTD.
2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all
individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in 'the corporation or owning any partnership
interest in the partnership.
WINER/GREENWALD' DEVELOPHE~IT
(General Partner)
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names
of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary, or
trustor of the trust.
~,~/A
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted xvith any member of the CiD' staff,
Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes __
No x If yes, please indicate person(s):
5. Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants or independent
contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter.
RICK' .~&ARRS, Architect
6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than S1.000 ~o a
Councilmember in the current or preceding election period? Yes X. No If }'es. state which
Councilmember(s):
?cr.,,n is define0 as: "An), h~divMual, firm, co-part~ershi?, joi~t t,e~lttrc, associatio~, social club, fi'atcr~nl or~gnnizntion, corl~or,wio~.
c~ttItt'. I~gtXL receiver, ~-~difate, this at~d all), other cotlttO', ci0' t~iltl COtl~tO[ cio', Immicil~alio~ tlisoict or other political s:tbdit isio'~.
or ,:::)' o;her &~'o~tp or combination (ict)l~[,
(NOTE: Anach additional pages as neccssmy)
Signature ot' ctmtractor/applicant
Richard Marts
Print or b, pc name of contractor/applic:mt
CHUI VI, .A ELEMENTARY SCH(K DISTRICT
84 EAST "J" STREET · CHULAVISTA, CALIFORNIA 92010 · 619 425-9600
EACH CHILD IS AN IND~IDUAL OF GREAT WORTH
SOARD OF E~CATION ~.
February 5, 1991
JOSEPHD. CUMMINGS,~.D.
LARRY CUNNINGHAM
SHARON GILES
PATRICK A. JUDD
GREGR.~N~VAL Ms. Barbara Reid
SUPERI~ENDE~ Environmental Section
city of Chula Vista
~HNF. VUGRIN, Ph.D. 276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RE: Case No. IS-91-31
Applicant: Rio Sweetwater Plaza Investors Ltd.
Project: Rio Sweetwater Car Wash
Location: 30th & Edgemere Ave. (Rio Sweetwater
Shopping Center)
Dear Ms. Reid:
This is to advise you that the Rio Sweetwater Car Wash
project, located at 30th Street & Edgemere Avenue, is within
the Chula Vista Elementary School District which serves
children from Kindergarten through Grade 6.
District enrollment has been increasing at the rate of 4 - 5
percent over the past several years, and this is projected
to continue. Permanent capacity has been exceeded at many
schools and temporary relocatable classrooms are being
utilized to accommodate increased enrollments. The District
also buses students outside their attendance areas, both to
accommodate growth and assist in achieving ethnic balance.
The relationship between non-residential development and
student enrollment has been clearly documented in studies
done throughout the State. Since additional employment is
linked to new homes, students associated with
non-residential growth represent a subset of those from
residential development. A portion of the facilities need
associated with new employment activity is, therefore,
funded through residential fees. However, given that
residential fees produce only about twenty-five percent of
the required facility funding, there is a significant
shortfall. State law currently provides for a developer fee
of $ .26 for non-residential area to be charged (Chula Vista
Elementary School District - $ .12/square foot; Sweetwater
Union High School District - $ .14/square foot) to assist in
financing facilities needed to serve growth.
February 5, 1991
Ms. Barbara Reid
Page 2
RE: Rio Sweetwater Car Was
Given this shortfall, the District encourages developer
participation in alternative financing mechanisms to help
assure that facilities will be available to serve children
generated by new construction. We are currently utilizing
Community Facilities Districts (CFD's) as one method to help
fund this deficit. Participation in a CFD is in lieu of
developer fees.
The subject project is located in the Rosebank School
attendance area. This school is presently operating over
permanent capacity, and a developer fee as described above
is required to help mitigate school impacts. To fully
mitigate impacts this project will have on elementary
facilities, the project proponent is encouraged and has the
option to request annexation to CFD No. 5 in lieu of fees.
Should this option be chosen, the District must be notified
as soon as possible so annexation proceedings can commence.
If you have any questions, please contact this office.
Sincerely,
Kate Shurson
Director of Planning
KS:dp
cc: Rick Marrs, Inc.
Rio Sweetwater Plaza Investors, Ltd.
Sweetwater Union High School District
ADMINISTRATION CENTER
1130 FISH AVENUE
CNULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA
(619) 691-5553
P~NNING DEPA~ME~
January 25, 1991
Ms. Barbara Reid
Environmental Coordinator
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91911
Dear Ms. Reid:
Re: IS-gl-31 - Rio Sweetwater Car Wash/Southwest Corner of 30th
Street and Edgemere Avenue
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/sf
Sweetwater Union High School District
ADMINISTRATION CENTER
1130 FIFTH AVENUE
CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 92011
(619) 691-5553
/ I, IAY 719od
May 3, 1991 ~-~------'-.,
Mr. Douglas D. Reid
City of Chula Vista
Planning Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91gl1
Dear Mr. Reid:
Re: IS-gl-31 - Rio Sweetwater Plaza Investors Ltd.
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 ~ermit.
Cordially,
Thomas Silva
Director of Planning
TS/sf
cc: Kate Shurson
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of July 24, 1991 Page
7. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance ZAV-91-20~ reouest to retain the existinq
6-foot hiqh, 13-foot wide projectinq rooftop siqn on
the Camera Bug store at 381 E Street James L.
Papadakis
A. BACKGROUND
1. In 1974, when the City of Chula Vista adopted its first
comprehensive sign ordinance, a 15-year amortization, or grace
period for those existing signs which were legally placed but had
become nonconforming by reason of the City's new sign regulations
was established. The aforementioned amortization period ended
December 5, 1990.
2. On May 7, 1990, the Planning Department sent a letter to Mary
Willardson owner, and James L. Papadakis - tenant store manager,
of 381 E Street concerning the existence of the nonconforming
projecting rooftop sign on the Camera Bug store at 381 E Street.
The letter required abatement of the nonconforming sign by December
31, 1990.
3. On February 20, 1991, a notice was sent to Mary Willardson and to
James Papadakis citing Section 19.08.030 of the Chula Vista
Municipal Code regarding violations and penalties for the continued
nonconformance of the signage.
4. On March 12, 1991, James Papadakis applied for a zone variance to
allow the existing nonconforming sign to remain.
5. The project is exempt from environmental review.
B. RECOMMENDATION
Based on findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a motion
to deny ZAV-91-20.
C. DISCUSSION
The Camera Bug is located at 381 E Street, to the east of the
intersection of E Street and Fourth Avenue. The property is zoned C-T.
Since the building, which houses the Camera Bug and a laundromat and tire
store, extends over two parcels, the sign regulations apply to it as if
it were one parcel.
The City's sign regulations allow this three-unit commercial/ retail
complex on a corner lot to contain one freestanding sign or a
non-projecting rooftop sign. The site currently has both a conforming
freestanding sign which identifies the tire store, and the rooftop sign
above the Camera Bug. The rooftop sign is nonconforming because it
projects three feet beyond the face of the building, and also because the
regulations allow for either a freestanding or non-projecting rooftop
sign, but not both. The Camera Bug also has a wall sign and a canopy
sign facing E Street, both of which are permitted, conforming signs.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of July 24, 1991 Page 2
Subsequent to the submittal of the application for a variance, staff met
with the owner and applicant and suggested several alternatives,
including a coordinated sign program for all three tenants, perhaps
involving the existing freestanding sign. The applicant, however,
prefers to retain his sign and proceed with the variance.
The applicant included the following statements in support of the
variance.
1. The sign is vital to the operation of the business.
2. Customers find the sign invaluable in locating the store.
3. As per the above, the sign reduces emissions and adds to the public
safety in its vicinity.
4. The sign is not an advertising sign - only an identification sign.
5. The sign is neat and well maintained and is an asset to the City of
Chula Vista - not a liability.
D. ANALYSIS
The City's sign regulations are generous, particularly those in the C-T
Thoroughfare Commercial zone. But they are not intended to encourage a
proliferation of signs which clutter the streetscape and often compete
with one another for attention to such a degree that they defeat their
primary purpose which is to provide for business identification.
In this case, the Camera Bug may have a wall sign of 45 sq. ft. and the
three tenants in combination may have a freestanding pole sign (130 sq.
ft.) or a ground sign (50 sq. ft.) or a non-projecting rooftop sign (150
sq. ft.) A wall sign is particularly visible in this instance since the
building has a zero setback and is directly adjoining the street. Also,
as noted above, an attempt by staff to work with the owner and applicant
for an overall sign program and shared identification on the existing
freestanding sign was eventually rejected with the applicant's decision
to continue with the variance application.
An additional consideration is that "E" Street is designated in the
General Plan as a "Gateway" to the urban core. The General Plan states
that:
"A special treatment is considered to be appropriate to
signify ... arrival at and progression into an important
element of the City. This should include a theme of
signage and landscape material which varies to match the
specific topographic and roadway configuration."
Implementation of this General Plan section makes sign conformance within
the gateway a high priority.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Item for Meeting of July 24, 1991 Page 3
E. FINDINGS
1. That a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act
of the owner exists. Said hardship may include practical difficulties in
developing the property for the needs of the owner consistent with the
regulations of the zone; but in this context, personal, family or financial
difficulties, loss of prospective profits, and neighboring violations are not
hardships justifying a variance. Further, a previous variance can never have
set a precedent, for each case must be considered only on its individual
merits.
No hardship can be found to exist resulting from the particular
circumstances of the property. On the contrary, the site's zero
setback and proximity to the street is an asset to visibility not
shared by all neighboring properties.
2. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment
of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same
zoning district and in the same vicinity, and that a variance, if granted,
would not constitute a special privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his
neighbors.
The ordinance offers sufficient sign options to properly identify
this business. The granting of this variance would constitute a
special privilege not shared by other commercial establishments
under similar circumstances.
3. That the authorizing of such variance will not be of substantial
detriment to adjacent property, and will not materially impair the purposes of
this chapter or the public interest.
Approval of this variance would be of substantial detriment to
adjacent property and the public interest since it would grant the
applicant additional identification not enjoyed by his neighbors.
4. That the authorizing of such variance will not adversely affect the
General Plan of the City or the adopted plan of any governmental agency.
Granting of this variance is not consistent with General Plan policy
regarding the importance of conforming signage in "Gateways" to the
urban core.
WPC 953gP/O426P
J
STREET
-LJ-- 4~- !
-- ~AilETi
STREET
FERN ST.
STR lET
~ ~ ....
5' - ~ ---'~'~
__~ ~ r r~ ~;: .,-~ .. f'~...., ~ ,- . ·
. I ~ CiViC
]_~ C~Z~ ~UL~ WS~
THE CITY CHULA VISTA PARTY DISCLOSI.).~., STATEMENT
Statement of disclosure of certain ownership interests, payments, or campaign contributions, on all matters
which will require discretionary action on the part of thc City Council, Planning Commission, and all other
official bodies. The following information must be disclosed:
1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the contract, i.e., contractor,
subcontractor, material supplier.
.z. PA t IS
2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all
individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership
interest in the partnership.
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names
of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or
trustor of the trust.
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff,
Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes __
No If yes, please indicate person(s):
5. Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants or independent
contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter.
6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a
Councilmember in the current or preceding election period? Yes No ~ If yes, state which
-- Councilmember(s):
Person is defined as: "Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, paternal organization, corporation,
estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city and country, city, municipality, district or other political subdivixion,
or any other group or combination acting as a unit."
(NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary)
Si&~ature of contractor/appliCant
Q-~I /q ~ S ~ . PA PA b g ~1-~
Print or type name of contractor/applicant
[A-113~A:DISCLOSE.TXT] [Revised: 11/30/90]
July 16, 1991
To: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
From: Robert A. Leiter, Director of Planning ~i&
Subject: Request to file an appeal after the expiration of the appeal period on LFD-91-04 -
Peter Hayes
Large Family Home Day Care (LFDC) is considered an accessory use in a single family
residence. It is intended to provide residential day care for 7-12 children, including the
provider's own children under the age of 12. They are licensed by the State, and State law
generally preempts local zoning regulations with respect to these facilities. The LFDC permit
is largely a nondiscretionary permit, subject only to the standards listed in CVMC 19.58.147,
attached hereto.
On June 10, 1991, the Zoning Administrator approved a LFDC permit for the residence at 505
Chantel Court (please see attached). An appeal from that decision was filed by a neighboring
property owner on June 19, 1991 -- the 9th day of the 10-day appeal period. The item was
scheduled to be heard by the Commission on July 24, 1991. The appeal was subsequently
withdrawn on July 12, 1991, although public notices had already been mailed.
In response to the notice of the July 24th appeal hearing, another neighbor visited the Planning
Department on July 15, 1991, to review the file. When informed that the appeal had been
withdrawn, he raised the issue of whether or not the filing and subsequent withdrawal of the
appeal had extended the period in which an appeal could be filed. The argument being that
others (himself included) may have filed a timely appeal if an appeal had not already been filed.
The City Attorney has stated that in the absence of any language in the Code regarding this
circumstance, or, alternatively, any prior public disclosure of an operating policy on the matter
(such as by language on the application or appeal forms or in the public notice), it would be for
the Planning Commission to determine if it wishes to accept a late appeal under the particular
circumstances.
The City Attorney did not suggest what factors the Commission should consider in rendering its
decision. One important factor would appear to be whether or not the would-be appellant had
knowledge that the original appeal had been filed. An additional consideration is the basis for
the appeal (please see attached). The would-be appellant has been required to establish good
faith for the present request by submitting the appeal fee of $125.00. This fee will be refunded
if the Commission decides not to accept the appeal.
Planning Commission -2- July 16, 1991
The Large Family Home Day Care applicant, Mr. Paul Chacon, has submitted a statement
arguing against the request (please see attached).
If the Commission accepts the appeal, it will be noticed for the hearing of August 28, 1991.
RAL:SG/nr
Attachments
(LFI)-91-04)
CHULA VISTA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
June 10, 1991
Barbara Chacon
505 Chantel Ct.
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Subject: LFD-gl-4: Large Family Day Care Home at 505 Chantel Ct.
The Zoning Administrator has considered your request to operate a large
family day care home at 505 Chantel Ct. After reviewing the site plan and
existing conditions in the immediate vicinity, and after conducting an
administrative hearing on June 6, 1991, the Zoning Administrator has been
able to make the required findings to grant the request, which is hereby
approved subject to the following conditions:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1. Application to be obtained through community care licensing.
2. Obtain a business license through the City of Chula Vista Finance
Department.
3. The house shall be~etained as your primary residence.
4. The Zoning Administrator shall review the permit in one year to
evaluate noise impacts, and may impose measures to alleviate impacts
which include, but are not limited to, the installation of a 6 ft.
high block wall around all or a portion of the perimeter of the play
area.
5. Outside play areas shall be restricted to a maximum of six children
at any one time.
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
1. Obtain a certificate of compliance from the Building Department.
Failure to comply with any condition of approval shall cause this permit to
be reviewed by the City for additional conditions or revocation.
Findings of fact are as follows:
1. The family day care function is incidental to the residential us~
of the property.
2. The large family day care home is not lcoated within 1200 feet of
another such facility on the same street as measured from the
exterior boundaries of the property.
3. The usable rear yard play area of approximately 1,237 sq. ft.
exceeds the minimum code requirement of 1,200 sq. ft. Outdoor
play activities shall not be allowed in the front yard or side
yards.
4. The driveway in front of the two car garage will provide for the
temporary parking of at least two vehicles for the safe loading and
unloading of children.
5. The rear yard play area is completely enclosed by a 6 ft. high solid
wood fence. The Zoning Administrator shall review the permit in one
year and may require the installation of a 6-ft. high block wall
around all or a portion of the play area.
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 wihtin 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 received and granted prior to the expiration date.
Sincerely, ~
Senior Planner
SG:mh
cc: Fire Marshal
Building & Housing
Zoning Enforcement
PROJECT
LOCATI;
~r.
~,~'~- ,~ ~.,~'r
NOTES
f ~0~ ~ PROJECT LOCATION:
505 Chantel Cou~
(619) 223-3559
~ENT
APPLICANT: DESIGNED BY: SITE PLAN
Barbara J. Chacon ~ McMill~n Development
CHACON FAMILY DAY CAnE and Paul R. Chacon SCALE: }" = ~0~
Dated: April 24, 1991
lg.58.147 Family Daycare her, ms, Large.
A large family daycare home shall be allowed in the R-E and R-1 zones, ~nd
within the PC designated RE and RS zones, upon the issuance of a large family
davcare permit by the Zoning Administrator and in compliance with the
following standards:
A. Notice shall be given to properties within 300 feet of the pronosed large
family day care home a: least ten days prior to consideration of the
permit.
B. The permit shall be considered without public hearing unless a hearing' tt
requested by the applicant or other affected party. The applicant or
other affected party may appeal the Zoning Administrator's decision to the
Planning Con~nission.
C. The family day care function shall be incidental to the residential use of
the property.
D. A large family day care home shall not locate within 1200 feet of another
such facility on ~he same street as measured from the exterior boundaries
of the property.
E. An area shall be provided for the temporary parkin? of at least two
vehicles for the safe loading and unloading of children. In most cases
the driveway in front of a two-car garage will satisfy this requirement.
F. If in the opinion of the Zoning Administrator there is a potential for
significant traffic problems, the Zoning Administrator sh~ll request
review of the application by the City Traffic Engineer. The City Traffic
Engineer may impose accessory requirements for the daycare permit in these
instances to insure maintenance of traffic safety levels within the
vicinity of the home.
G. A usable rear yard play area of 1,?O0 sq. ft. shall be provided. Putdonr
play activity shall not be allowed in the front or exterior side yard of
the home.
H. Play areas shall be designed and located tO reduce the impact of noise on
surrounding propeP~ies. The Zoning Administrator may impose reasonahlp
requirements to alleviate noise, including but pot limited to installation
of a six-foot high block wall around the perimeter of the rear yard.
(Ord. 2269 ~ 2, 1988: Ord. 2111 § 8, 1985; Ord. 2123 § I.)
· City of Chula Vista ~ ~te Received
Planning Department tee Paid
Receipt No.
Appeal Form Case No:
Appeal from the decision of: rfTZoning [~]Planning ]--)'Design Review
· --Administrator Commission Committee
Appellant:Peter Hayes, and on behal~ o~ otherShone 691-~272
Address: 520 Chantei Ct.~ Chuia V±sta, Ca. 9~910
Request for: Permit ~or large ~am~iy da¥care home
{Example: zone change, variance, design review, etc.)
Please state wherein you believe there was an error in the decision of ~ZA O PC I-1DRC
for the property located at: 505 ChanteI Court, Chula Vista, Ca. 91910
Chapter 19.02 ~f the Municipal code of the City of Chula Vista
reads, in part, at section 19.02.010, "THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING.
~lVI~LE IS ADOPTED TO PROTECT AND PROMOTE THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY,
MORALS, PEACE, COMFORT, CONVENIENCE, PROSPERITY AND GENERAL WELFARE."
Section 19.02.030 (F) States, "USES WHICH WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT
ADJOINING USES OR THE PUBLIC WELFARE, UNLESS DESIGNED IN A PARTICULAR
WAY OR PERMITTED ONLY IN CERTAIN LOCATIONS, OR WHICH CANNOT BE READILY
PLACED IN A PARTICULAR ZONING. CLASSIFICATION ARE ALLOWED ONLY AS A
(see attched page) ~ '~Z,~f~ ~-I~"~l
Signature 'of A~pellant Date
Do Not Write In This Space
To: Planning Department Date Appeal Filed: ..
Case No: Date of decision: Receipt No:
The above matter has been scheduled for public hearing before the:
Planning Commission City Council on
Planning Commission Secretary ' City Clerk
{This form to be filed in triplicate.)
PL-60
Rev. 12/83
(continued)
CONDITIONAL USES, SUBJECT TO THE AUTHORITY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION."
The approval of the request for a zoning permit for operation of
a large family daycare center, .in light of public testimony as to the
negative impact on the existing residential use of surrounding property,
the potential for exposure to ~angers created by the acceptable uses
of the surrounding properties, increased liability exposure for the
owners of the surrounding properties, and the lack of immediate local
necessity for a family home daycare center in this area, would be
contrary to the objectives of the zoning title, and an assault on the
very principals is purports to protect.
A signifigant number of property, owners oppose the issuance of
the zoning permit~ and reqhest the opportunity to present their
objections before the Planning .Commission of the City of Chula Vista.
Submitted July 16, 1991
PAUL CHACON
BARBARA CHACON
505 Chantel Court
Chula Vista, Ca. 91910
(619) 691-8702
July 16, 1991
Chula Vista Planning Commission
276 Fourth Avenue
Chuia. Vista, CA 91910
Re: Large Family Daycare License Application
Dear Chairman and Members,
This letter is to request you disapprove of a request delivered by Mr. Peter Hayes
regarding our Large Family Daycare Application. I believe Mr. Hayes wants you to
consider letting him file an appeal to our license application past the required (10)
days from the Planning Department approval. He claims he was not afforded an
opportunity to file an appeal since he was not informed of the withdrawal of a
preceding appeal.
I contend that his right to appeal is not affected in any way by the actions of another
appellant. Every individual has been given the opportunity to file an appeal within the
proscribed time frame and should not be affected in any way the the filing or
withdrawal of another individual.
At this point, our application was submitted in May and appealed to the Planning
Department with a hearing in June. It has now been over (60) days since this
application process began for us and we have fully complied with alt the rules and
regulations that have been requested of us. Please do not cause any further unfair
and unwarranted delays in the approval of our application due to the oversight of Mr.
Hayes.
Thank you for your consideration in this regard.
Very Truly Yours,
Chacon Family Daycare
TOTAL PAGE.002 ~