Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1989/08/09 AGENDA City Planning Commission Chula Vista, California Wednesday, August 9, 1989 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 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. Consideration of Final Environmental Impact Report EIR-88-1, Sunbow II 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-89-7 and PCZ-87-E: Consideration of a General Development Plan and Planned Community Pre-Zone for Sunbow II located south of Telegraph Canyon Road, adjacent to the Chula Vista Medical Center - Rancho Del Sur Partnership 3. Consideration of CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations EIR-88-1 Sunbow II 4. Consideration of Mitigation Monitoring Program for EIR-88-1, Sunbow II 5. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-89-20 and PCS-89-8: Consideration of a sectional planning area plan and tentative subdivision map known as Woodcrest Southwestern, Chula Vista Tract 89-8, located on the north side of Telegraph Canyon Road, between Apache Drive and Buena Vista Way - Woodcrest Development (Continued) 6. Consideration of Final Environmental Impact Report, EIR-89-6, Salt Creek I 7. PUBLIC HEARING: a) PCM-89-9: Consideration of an amendment to the EastLake I General Development Plan for 130 acres at the northeasterly and southeasterly quadrants of East 'H' Street extended and proposed State Route 125 - EastLake Development Company AGENDA -2- August 9, 1989 b) PCM-89-10: Consideration of an amendment to the EastLake I SPA Plan for 130 acres - EastLake Development Company c) PCS-89-9: Consideration of tentative subdivision map for 130 acres known as Salt Creek I, Chula Vista Tract 89-9 The Baldwin Company 8. Consideration of CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations EIR-89-6, Salt Creek I 9. Consideration of Mitigation Monitoring Program for EIR-89-6, Salt Creek I OTHER BUSINESS Written Communication - Letter regarding I-L Zone DIRECTOR'S REPORT COMMISSION COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT AT p.m. to the Study Session Meeting of August 16, 1989 at 5:00 p.m. in Conference Rooms 2 & 3 August 3, 1989 TO: Chairman and Members of Planning Commission VIA: George Krempl, Planning Director ~ ~ FROM: Douglas D. Reid, Environmental Review Coordinato~-'~ SUBJECT: Sunbow II Final Environmental Impact Report EIR-88-1, General Development Plan, Planned Community Pre-Zone, CEQA Findings, Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring Program After the Planning CommissiOn public hearing on the Draft EIR for the above noted project, substantial comments were received from LAFCO and the State Department of Fish and Game. It will take some time to consult with these agencies and prepare an adequate response to their comments. Therefore, it is recommended that all of these items be continued to the September 13 Planning Commission meeting. City Planning Commission Page 1 Agenda Items for Meeting of August 9, 1989 ' 5. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-89-20 and PCS-89-8: Consideration of a sectional ~lannin9 area plan and tentative subdivision map known as Woodcrest Southwestern, Chula Vista Tract 89-8'~ located on the north side of lele~raph Canyon Roa,f between Apache Drive and Buena Vista Way - WoodcresC Development (continued) A. BACKGROUND 1. The applicant has submitted a sectional planning area plan and tentative subdivision map known as Woodcrest Southwestern, Chula Vista Tract 89-8, in order to subdivide 19.2 acres into 54 single-family lots and one open space lot. The property is located on the north side of Telegraph Canyon Road between Buena Vista Way and Apache Drive in the P-C zone. 2. The Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an Initial Study, IS-89-63 of potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the project. Based on the attached Initial Study and comments thereon, if any, the Coordinator has concluded that there would be no significant environmental impacts, and recommends adoption of the Negative Declaration issued on IS-89-63. 3. This item was continued from the meeting of July 12, 1989, in order to allow the applicant additional time to address certain interface issues with adjoining property owners. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Based on the Initial Study and comments on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-89-63. 2. Based on the findings contained in Section "D" of this report, adopt a motion recommending that the City Council approve the sectional planning area plan and tentative subdivision map for Woodcrest Southwestern, Chula Vista Tract 89-8, subject to the following conditions: a. A maximum of 20% or ll lots within the project may provide sideyard setbacks of 5 ft. and 5 ft. for 3-car garages provided the lots are developed in compliance with the other provisions of Resolution No. 13426; namely, that reduced sideyards shall be level, l0 ft. between dwellings shall be maintained, garage conversions are prohibited as reflected in the CC&R's, and locations are subject to staff approval. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 9, 1989 Page 2 b. Lot "A" shall be included within an open space maintenance district, and subject to a landscape enhancement program to be reviewed and approved by the City Landscape Architect. c. A minimum 10 ft. level width of landscaping shall be provided at the rear of Lots 46, 47, and 48; landscaping for these areas and the slopes at the rear of lots 49 thru 54 (and the side of Lot 54) shall be installed by the developer and maintained by the owners of the lots as reflected in the CC&R's. The CC&R's shall also require a consistent design and high level of maintenance for these areas. All other lots within the project shall be included as parties to the enforcement of these provisions as reflected in their own CC&R's. Gates shall be installed at the rear of Lots 46 thru 54 to provide for maintenance access. d. A 15' wide landscaping area featuring trees shall be incorporated adjacent to the westerly property line of lots 23-29. The CC&R's shall set forth requirements of maintenance and preclude the construction of any structure higher than the rear fence. The City shall be made a party to this portion of the CC&R's to insure continued enforcement. e. The view fencing shall be used where the open space lot adjoins Southview Circle; all view fence within the open space maintenance district shall be provided with a slump stone base approximately 36" high. The owners of Lots 13-22 shall sign a statement when purchasing their homes that they are aware that the view fence is on City property and that they may not modify or supplement the fence or encroach onto City property. The 6' cedar fence with pilasters shall be extended along the west property line to include lots 23 through 29. f. The decorative fence shall be used on the exterior sideyards of Lots 2 & 3 adjacent to the Street between Lots 2 and 3. g. The retaining wall illustration and notation shall include a maximum height limit of 7.5 ft. for retaining walls. The restrictions on retaining walls shall be included within the CC&R's. h. The CC&R'S shall contain private fence/wall standards for slopes and top of slopes as well as landscaping requirements, subject to review and approval of the Director of Planning. i. Written evidence shall be submitted to the City that agreements have been reached with both school districts regarding the provision of adequate school facilities to serve the project prior to approval of the final map. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 9, 1989 Page 3 j. The developer shall reach agreement with the Otay Water District with regard to the provision of terminal water storage and other major facilities to assure water availability to the project prior to the approval of a final map. k. The approval of all final maps by the City Council will require compliance with the City's adopted threshold standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. 1. Fire hydrants shall be required at maximum 500 ft. spacing subject to review and approval of the Fire Marshal. m. The developer shall be responsible for providing adequate right-of-way to construct Santa Cruz Court from Apache Drive to the existing improvements in Santa Cruz Court as shown on the Tentative Map.* Said right-of-way shall be dedicated prior to approval of the Final Subdivision Map. *NOTE: Final recommendation is to provide a knuckle design at the west end of the subdivision to preclude vehicular access. n. The developer shall be responsible for the construction of full street improvements for all streets as shown on the Tentative Map within the subdivision boundary, and for the construction of necessary off-site improvements to construct Santa Cruz Court as shown on the Tentative Map to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Said improvements shall include, but not be limited to: asphalt concrete pavement, base, curb, gutter and sidewalk, sewer and water utilities, drainage facilities, street lights, signs, and fire hydrants. The developer shall have the existing pavement in Santa Cruz Court evaluated and replaced if said evaluation determines that the structural integrity does not meet City standards. Santa Cruz Court shall conform to City standards for a residential collector street, and Southview Court and Southview Circle shall conform to City standards for residential streets. Prior to approval of the Final Subdivision Map, the developer shall deposit with the City sufficient money to guarantee the construction of full street improvements for the future street between lot 2 and 3. Said improvements shall include, but not be limited to, asphalt concrete pavement, base, curb, gutter and sidewalk sewer and water utilities, drainage facilities, street lights, and fire hydrants. Said street shall conform to City standards in effect at time of Final Subdivision approval, for residential streets. o. All work within the public right-of-way shall be done in accordance with the Standard Specifications for Public Works construction, the San Diego Area Regional Standard Drawings and the Design and Construction Standards of the City of Chula Vista. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 9, 1989 Page 4 p. The developer shall grant to the City street tree planting and maintenance easements along all public streets, except Telegraph Canyon Road, within the subdivision. Said easements shall extend to a line 10 feet from the back of sidewalk. q. Sewers serving l0 or less lots shall have a minimum grade of 1%. r. An erosion and sedimentation control plan shall be prepared as part of the grading plans. s. The cul-de-sac and the knuckle shall be designed and built in accordance with City Standards. t. Specific methods of handling storm drainage are subject to detailed approval by the City Engineer at the time of submission of improvement and grading plans. Design shall be accomplished on the basis of the requirements of the Subdivision Manual and the Grading Ordinance (No. 1797 as amended) The developer shall submit calculations to demonstrate compliance with all drainage requirements of the Subdivision Manual. Calculations shall also be provided to demonstrate the adequacy of downstream drainage structures, pipes and inlets. u. All off-site grading within the private property shall require a Letter of Permission from the property owners allowing the work to be done v. The sewer system shall be extended to the northerly property line at a grade and location sufficient to serve the property northerly of the subdivision. w. Paved access shall be provided to all sewer manholes. Graded access shall be provided to all public storm drain structures including inlet and outlet structures. The developer shall obtain and grant to the City easements for storm drains prior to Final Map approval. x. Lots shall be so graded as to drain to the street or an approved drainage system. Drainage shall not be permitted to flow over slopes y. The boundary of the subdivision shall be tied to the California Coordinate System - Zone VI. z. The design of all improvements shall conform to City of Chula Vista Subdivision Manual, Standard Drawings and City standards in effect at the time of Tentative Map approval aa. All vertical curves and intersection corner sight distance requirements shall conform to the requirements in the CalTrans Highway Design Manual. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 9, 1989 Page 5 bb. Preparation of final plans shall be based on the approved City benchmark system. cc. Lots 46 through 54 shall relinquish access rights to Southview Circle. dd. No lot shall be allowed to have frontage on public streets of less than 35 feet unless said reduced frontage is approved by the City Engineer. ee. No driveways shall be located within 8 feet of any curb return unless approved by the City Engineer. ff. The maximum grade at any intersection of two streets shall be 6% within the intersection and for at least 50 feet past the nearest curb lines of the intersecting street. This requirement also applies to the intersection of Santa Cruz Court and the future street as shown on the Tentative Map. gg. The street name for Santa Cruz Court is subject to change. hh. The developer shall provide access on an equal basis to and upon individual lots for all franchised cable television companies. ii. Unless off-site slope rights are obtained, an easement shall be granted to the City between the toe-of-slope and property line on Lots 1-5 and 7-13 which will allow the City or its authorized representative to enter the property for the purpose of grading and related earthwork and/or the installation of retaining walls at the time the adjoining property develops. The developer as a condition of approval for developing the adjoining property, shall be required to compensate the City for any and all such expenses associated with this work, including any necessary re-landscaping or refencing on the lots. The following are map revisions submitted by the Engineering Department: a. Show the existing street grades of Apache Drive and Santa Cruz Court. b. For existing utilities (on-site and off-site) show the following information: -- Sewers: Location, type, size of sewer and manhole invert and rim elevations. -- Water: Location, type and size. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 9, 1989 Page 6 -- Electricity, Telephone and Cable TV: Location, type and size. -- Gas: Location, type and size. c. Show size and type of proposed sewer main. Show sewer manhole invert and rim elevations. Number all manholes. d. Easements shall not straddle lot lines (see Lots 17 and 18). e. Add Engineer's stamp and expiration date to the Tentative Map. f. Revise the tract number to read Chula Vista Tract 89-8. C. DISCUSSION Existing site characteristics The 19.2-acre property has an irregular shape, and topography which slopes down from north to south -- the steepest slopes being on the southerly portion of the site adjacent to Telegraph Canyon Road. The area to the west of the property is single family residential. Southwestern College is to the north, with townhomes to the east and vacant acreage and single family dwellings to the south. The property is designated for residential development at 4-6 du/ac within the South College SPA of the E1 Rancho Del Rey Specific Plan. Development proposals The proposal calls for 54 single family lots on 13.6 acres, plus a 5.6 acre open space lot, which results in a gross density of 2.8 du/ac and a net density of 4.0 du/ac. Santa Cruz Court would be extended from Buena Vista Way through to Apache Drive -- providing two access points for the project. Lots would also be served by a loop street (Southview Circle) and cul-de-sac (Southview Court), and an unnamed street will be stubbed-out to serve future development of the vacant acreage directly to the south and east of the proposal site. The lots will step-down the site from north to south, with larger slopes between banks of lots and smaller slopes between individual pads. All of the lots meet the requirements for standard R-1 development. The average lot size is 8,900 sq. ft., with a minimum of 5,900 sq. ft. and a maximum of 18,000 sq. ft. There are two lots between 5-6,000 sq. ft. and nine lots between 6-7,000 sq. ft., whereas the R-1 standards would allow up to 20%, or ll lots, to be between 6,000-7,000 sq. ft. and an additional 10%, or 5 lots, to be between 5,000-6,000 sq. ft. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for r4eeting of August 9, 1989 Page 7 The SPA Plan shows all of the dwellings with 3-car garages. The dwellings will meet all of the basic bulk and setback standards applicable to R-1 development, with the exception of a percentage of the sideyard setbacks. In 1988, the Council adopted a policy for P-C zoned developments which allows 20% of the lots within a project to reduce sideyards from 3' and 10' to 5' and 5' for dwellings with a 3-car garage. Woodcrest was originally requesting an increase in the allowance from 20% to 33%, or from ll to 18 lots. As a result of concerns raised at the last Commission hearing, however, they are no longer requesting an exception from the policy. The open space lot would be within an open space maintenance district and subject to a landscape enhancement program. The developer will also install landscaping on the interior slopes. The maintenance of the rear of the lots which back-on to the loop street will be the responsibility of the nine involved property owners under the CC&R'S. We are further recommending that a minimum l0 ft. level width of landscaping be established at the rear of Lots 46, 47, and 48. The fencing plan includes decorative fencing where rear yards abut the street, and at sideyards, and view fencing at the rear of lots along the southerly boundary. The decorative fence should also be used on the exterior yards of Lots 2 and 3 and the view fencing should be used where the open space lot adjoins Southview Circle. A notation and illustration requires split walls for any retaining walls which exceed 6 ft. high for more than 20 ft. We further recommend a maximum height of 7.5 ft. An additional condition would require the CC&R's to contain private fence standards in order to provide continuity at prominent slope and top-of-slope locations. Adjoining vacant acreage With the approval of Woodcrest Southwestern, the only remaining developable acreage within the South College SPA would be the 5+ acre property adjoining the south and east boundaries of the project-site. This property carries the same 4-6 du/ac designation as the proposal site, and we believe its physical relationship to and access through the Woodcrest project argues strongly for a similar development pattern, which would result in a maximum yield of lO-12 dwelling units. As a result, staff intends to initiate an amendment to the ERdR Specific Plan to change the designation from 4-6 du/ac to 2-4 du/ac. The owner of this adjoining property has withheld permission for any off-site grading. As a result, additional grading and/or retaining walls will be necessary in order to extend the stub street, and it may result in an awkward and undesirable relationship with Lots 1-5 and 7-13 dependinQ on how the property develops. Since the stub street is for the benefit of this property, we believe any extraordinary expense to extend the street or correct the corresponding interface with Lots 1-5 and 7-13 as a result of future development should be borne by this adjoining property. A condition to address these matters has been included in the recommendation. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 9, 1989 Page 8 Neighborhood concerns As indicated in the Background portion of this report, consideration for Commission approval of this Sectional Planning Area Plan and Tentative Map were continued to allow the applicant to address certain neighborhood concerns raised at the July 12 meeting. Those concerns centered on the following issues: 1. The desirability and necessity of carrying Santa Cruz Court to the west to connect the present portion of Santa Cruz which stubs into Buena Vista. 2. How should the adjacent subdivision to the west be buffered from this development. Explore the possibility of using landscaping, alternative subdivision design, and/or change in topography. 3. Further clarification on the improvements required for the stub street interfacing with the Centrullo property located south of the easterly portion of this development. In reference to concern number l, the extension of Santa Cruz Court, the Planning staff indicated at the previous Planning Commission hearing that the development of this site with single-family homes and existing developments in the area make it logical to provide the road connection to complete the linkages that provide for typical urban services, such as mail service and other deliveries. In addition, the connection provides a convenience to residents in the area who might have children attending the elementary school lying west of Southwestern College. However, the northerly dedication of Santa Cruz is dependent upon cooperation with Southwestern College which apparently is still uncertain as to the ultimate land use that may be placed on the southwesterly quadrant of their College facility. Any future access onto Santa Cruz by the College would not be looked on favorably by the staff in terms of providing a connection back to the west onto Buena Vista. Therefore, we have asked the applicant of this subdivision to design a knuckle at the west end of Santa Cruz to preclude vehicular movement while allowing pedestrian activity to flow between the two areas. We feel this offers the best design solution at this point in time. In regards to item 2, the question of buffering the project at the west end, the project applicant has met with various homeowners on the 1st of August explaining that the lots on the west side within the subdivision are somewhat lower than the existing adjacent parcels immediately to the west with a differential of grade of as much as ll' near the end of the cul-de-sac. The applicant has offered to create a 15' wide landscaping buffer zone on lots 23 through 29 which interface on the west side of the property. In addition, the applicant is proposing the continuation of the 6' high cedar fence with pilasters located at each property line to provide a decorative fence separation between the two developments. The landscaping buffer would also preclude the construction of any structures over the height of the fence within that 15' area and would require the homeowners to maintain the tree form landscaping in perpetuity. We are recommending that the City be a party to that portion of the CC&R's to ensure its enforcement. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 9, 1989 Page 9 Item no. 3 involves the proposed improvements ultimately required for the stub street which interfaces with the Centrullo property located near the east end of the development. Attached is a letter dated July 21, 1989, from the Woodcrest Development to Mr. Gordon Day who resides along Telegraph Canyon Road frontage with a carbon copy to Mrs. Centrullo indicating their effort in trying to meet with Mrs. Centrullo to resolve the grading issues. The letter again indicates a willingness to meet with Mrs. Centrullo as well as Mr. Day or any consultants that they might have to discuss the issues. The applicant has indicated as of this date that no contact has been made by the parties addressed in the letter. The Planning Department is recommending, therefore, that the Planning Commission approve the project with the conditions listed in the report. D. FINDINGS Pursuant to Section 66473.5 of the Subdivision Map Act, the tentative subdivision map for Woodcrest Southwestern, Chula Vista Tract 89-8, is found to be in conformance with the various elements of the City's General Plan based on the following: 1. The site is physically suitable for residential development and the proposal conforms to all standards established by the City for such projects. 2. The design of the subdivision will not affect the existing improvements -- streets, sewers, etc. -- which have been designed to avoid any serious problems. 3. The project is in substantial conformance with the Chula Vista General Plan Elements as follows: a. Land Use - The project density of 2.8 du/ac is consistent with the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan which calls for residential development at between 4-6 du/ac. b. Circulation - The project will be served by public streets which conform with City standards. A stub-street has been provided to serve a future development area. c. Housing - The project will provide housing consistent with the Specific Plan designation and adjoining single family areas to the west. d. Conservation - No cultural resources have been found on the site and the value of biological resources is low. The open space area adjacent to Telegraph Canyon Road shall be revegetated with native plant species to mitigate impacts to a coastal sage scrub community below a level of environmental significance. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 9, 1989 Page l0 e. Park and Recreation, Open Space - The project will result in the dedication and enhancement 5.6 acres of open space adjacent to Telegraph Canyon Road. Park acquisition and development fees will be collected prior to approval of a final map. f. Seismic Safety The site is not located on any known active fault trace. A geotechnical investigation indicates that current building code requirements are sufficient to protect dwellings from potential seismic activity. g. Safety - Fire response time is three minutes, or well below the City's threshold standard of seven minutes for 85% of the cases. Fire hydrants will be required at 500 feet spacing. Police response times are within the threshold standard. h. Noise - There are no projected adverse impacts from noise based on the distance of the dwellings from Telegraph Canyon Road. i. Scenic Highway - Open Space will be dedicated and enhanced adjacent to the Telegraph Canyon Road scenic corridor. j. Bicycle Routes - There are no designated bicycle routes through the project. Telegraph Canyon Road will be widened to accommodate bicycle travel. k. Public Buildings - The project will be incorporated into an established Mello-Roos District in order to provide for adequate school facilities. 4. Pursuant to Section 66412.2 of the Subdivision Map Act, the Commission certifies that it has considered the effect of this approval on the housing needs of the region and has balanced those needs against the public service needs of the residents of the City and the available fiscal and environmental resources. 5. The subdivision has been designed to allow an east-west orientation for a majority of the dwellings in order to provide for passive or natural heating opportunities. The size of the lots along with tiering of lots and private and common open space areas will provide for passive or natural cooling opportunities. WPC 6456P ~' LOCATOR --_ [E ~.y) pC..M ,~,'::l-.~O ?! ~-'"~'~P~OPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN - ~ ~'1~ " PUBLm ~AC~IES 14.Z &~ Exhi~t A DATE: July 7, 1989 I:~CU-ECTNO.: 88.358 LOT AREATABLE FOR WOODCRESTq'~:I~t{CANYC~ 1 10,914 23 8,275 2 10,900 24 8,080 3 6,426 25 7,315 4 5,916 26 6,710 5 5,916 27 6,710 6 6,313 28 7,452 7 6,660 29 7,583 8 6,900 30 7,334 9 6,900 31 7,300 10 6,900 32 7,200 11 6,900 33 7,360 12 7,130 34 7,360 13 7,200 35 7,200 14 7,301 36 7,360 15 7,297 37 7,360 16 7,804 38 7,114 17 7,754 39 9,140 18 8,194 40 9,110 19 8,479 41 9,833 20 8,589 42 8,592 21 10,269 43 9,479 22 10,895 LOT AREA TABLE FOR W00~ ~%:~ ~GRAPH CANYON 07/07/89 PAGE 2, I_OT SQUARE FP. 44 10,399 45 15,120 46 18,031 47 12,849 48 10,030 49 10,931 50 7,790 51 7,940 52 7,430 53 7,665 54 10,048 August 3, 1989 Dear Planning Commissioners: At the July 12 Planning Co~mission meeting some of my neighbors and I addressed the Con~ission during tha public hearing on the subject of the Woodcrest Southwestern Development. At the conclusion of the public hearing the Commission expressed their concerns about this project and asked the developer if he would like an extension to have an opportunity to respond to comments from the commissioners and residents. The developer was also asked if August 9 would be a satisfactory date. The developer agreed to that date. However, residents were not asked if August 9 was a convenient date for them. Unfortunately, three families living at the end of La Mancha Place, including myself, will be on previously planned ~,mmer vacations the week of August 7, therefore unable to attend the August 9 meeting. On August 1, the developer held a meeting with residents ancl it is evident attempts are being made to resolve many of our concerns. However, some questions regarding conditions,, convenants, and restrictions (CC&R's) were asked and the developer has not had time to respond to these questions. Also, as of August 2, the developer was still working with staff on a change in the road, which could somewhat alter siting of homes adjacent to my property line and at the end of La Mancha Place. Since all interested parties, including myself, have not seen final plans or heard answers to questions regarding CC&R's, it is respectfully requested that the Woodcrest Southwestern agenda item be postponed until the next Planning Commission meeting. I realize this project has been delayed at least four times, however, this is the first request from residents for an extension. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, 1395 La Mancha PI~ ~ Chula Vista, CA 92010 DAY: md AUG 4 !98,3 WOODCREST DEVELOPMENT OF SAN DIEGO, INC. 5473 Kearny Villa Rd., Suite 210 · San Diego. CA 92123 {619) 277-9810 FAX 1619] 277-9820 July 21, 1989 Mr. Gordon Day 1483 Telegraph Canyon Road Chula vista, CA 92010 RE: TRACT 89-8, WOODCREST SOUTHWESTERN Dear Mr. Day, I would like to respond to a few of the statements you made at the July 12th Planning Commission Meeting with regard to our project, Chula Vista Tract 89-8, Woodcrest Southwestern. First, it should be made clear that Mrs. Centrullo, whom you represent, has a dispute with the original purchasers of her property and not Woodcrest Development. Second, your statement that Woodcrest is unwilling to meet with Mrs. Centrullo is incorrect. I did meet with Mrs. Centrullo in February of this year to show her our plans. After that meeting, she retained William S. Cannon, Esq. to represent her. I met Mr. Cannon and spoke on the phone with him through the months requesting a meeting with Mrs. Centrullo to review our plans and discuss her concerns. I even suggested she hire a consultant to attend the meeting to verify that our plans would benefit her. I was told by Mr. Cannon that she did not want to meet. I wrote directly to Mrs. Centrullo in a final effort to meet a week prior to the Planning Commission Meeting of July 12th and received a return phone call. She asked where the intersection of the access street to her property was located. I responded that the engineering department required we move it westerly a short distance and I would not have the final location for a couple of days. She then said that if the intersection was not in the same location as shown on the preliminary plan, it would not be acceptable and she did not want to meet. Also, upon my request, our attorney had several conversations with Mrs. Centrullo's attorney. We presented to him alternate design proposals in an effort to accommodate her frequently changing requests regarding our project. These efforts were also of no avail. Page 1 of 2 Mr. Gordon Day J~y 21, 1989 Page 2 of 2 Finally, I would like to clarify that Woodcrest did not suggest to the planning staff that her property be down zoned. Nor did we have anything to do with the recommendation that the developer of her property compensate the city for any work that might be needed on our lots 1 - 5 and 7 - 13 in order to develop her property. I am willing to meet with Mrs. Centrullo, you or any consultants you may have to discuss our project. Please call me if you-wish to set up a meeting.__~nk you. Sincerely, WOODC~ST D~VE~MENT Vic~ President RV/jm cc: Mrs. Centrullo Chula Vista Planning Department negative declaration PROJECT NAME: Woodcrest/Southwest PROJECT LOCATION: Telegraph Canyon Road/Apache Dr. PROJECT APPLICANT: Woodcrest Development of San Diego, Inc. CASE NO: IS-89-63 DATE: April 17, 1989 A. Project Sett.in~ The 19.17-acre parcel is located east of 1-805 on the north side of East H Street in Chula Vista, between Buena Vista Way and Apache Drive. Land uses in the vicinity are primarily existing or planned for residential uses. The area to the west of the project site is primarily single family residential. Southwestern College is to the north, condominium townhomes are to the east with open space and single family dwellings to the south. B. Project Description. The proposed project includes the construction of 54 single family residences on 19.1? acres of land with a net density of 5.35 dwelling units per acre {2.82 dwelling units per gross acre). All lots exceed the sizes required by the R-1 zone standards. Grading for the project includes approximately 73% of the site, including 40,000 cubic yards of excavation and 54,000 cubic yards of import. The maximum cut and fill is 9 and 35 feet, respectively. An average of 9-10 feet of cut and fill will occur. Offsite improvements include new streets, extension of gas, electric and sewer lines and drainage facilities. C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans The site has been designated a residential site, under the Planned Community Zoning of the property. The general development plan of the Planned PC Zoning permits 4-6 dwellings per unit. The project is consistent wi th the City of Chula Vista's General Plan land use designation for that location. D.Compliance with the Threshold/Standards Policy 1. Fi re/EM The Fire Station is located one and a half miles from the site with an estimated response time of three minutes. The fire standards require a seven-minute response time for 85% of the cases. The Fire Department has indicated that they will be able to provide protection,t{f~ to the site without an increase in equipment or personnel. city of chula vista planning department CI1YOF environmental review section CHUIA VIS-rA -2- As a condition of approval, the building permit will provide on-site fire hydrants to be located at 500 foot spacing. The threshold standards will be met. 2. Police The Police Department is currently maintaining an acceptable level of service based on the threshold standard, and the project will not result in a significant impact to the provision of police protection. 3. Traffic The project would be served by Telegraph Canyon Road, Santa Cruz Court and Apache Drive. The project proposes 54 single family residence, which can be expected to generate 648 Average Daily Trips (ADT). The existing ADT on Telegraph Canyon Road is 15,170. The projected ADT on Telegraph Canyon Road including the project would be 15,818 when the project is built out. Telegraph Canyon Road is currently maintaining an E level of service which represents operating conditions at or near the capacity level. Grading was recently initiated for the Telegraph Canyon Road widening project. Telegraph Canyon Road will be widened from its existing two and four lanes to six lanes. The City has estimated that the project should take a minimum of one year to complete. After the project is completed, Telegraph Canyon Road would operate at an A level of service. An A level of service represents a free flow of traffic, not affected by other users in the traffic stream. These dwellings will not be occupied until these improvements are made and therefore, the thresholds will be met. 4. Parks/Recreation Existing neighborhood and community parks near the project are adequate to serve the population increase resulting from the project. The project is served by Independence neighborhood park located at 1245 Calle Santiago, near Southwestern College. The project will also be served by the proposed 28-acre Rancho del Rey Community Park on Paseo Ladera, north of Telegraph Canyon Road, approximately 3 miles from the project site. Developer fees of $1,680 per dwelling unit will be required to provide facilities for this project. The project therefore meets the Parks and Recreation Thresholds established by the City of Chula Vista. 5. Drainage A portion of the open space area on the project site near Telegraph Canyon Road lies within a 100 and 500 year flood boundary; however, the proposed residential uses will not be subject to any flooding hazards. There are currently no existing drainage facilities to -3- serve the site. The project proposes to construct adequate drainage facilities to convey offsite runoff. An offsite pipe inlet west of the project at the north side of Telegraph Canyon Road, is adequate to serve the downstream facilities with the proposed Telegraph Canyon Road Improvement and drainage channel. 6. Sewer Approximately 1,418 pounds of solid and 15,120 gallons of liquid waste will be produced daily. A fifteen inch sewer main is located on Telegraph Canyon Road, flowing westerly. The existing sewer main is adequate to serve the proposed project. 7. Water Water will be provided by the Otay Water District. The water supply from the San Diego County Water Authority to the Otay Water District may be limited during hot weather days of the year. The District has prepared a water allocation report which limits the number of dwelling units to 1900 which can be provided service hy the District in a year. The proposed project will be considered for water service in accordance with the number of units that have been allocated water. A will serve letter assuring the provision of water from the District will be necessary prior to building permit issuance. The Otay Water District was granted an easement for a 12" pipeline that runs in a east-west direction from Apache Drive to Santa Cruz Court across the northerly line of the proposed project. The qrading requirements for this project may require that the pipeline be replaced. The applicant will be required to meet Otay Water District's requirements regarding the location of the pipeline. The Otay Water District has not objected to the project and the threshold standards have been met. 8. Geology and Soils A prelimina[v geotechnical investigation was completed for the project site by GEOCON in February 1989. The proposed project site is not located on any known active fault trace. The potentially active La Nacion Fault Zone lies approximately one mile west of the site. According to the geotechnical consultant, the effects of seismic shaking at the site from a major earthquake can be reduced through the adherence by the project proponent to the current building code and recommended lateral force requirements. The site had been determined by the registered geotechnical enoineer to be suitable for development with nominal and relatively standard earthwork and site preparation procedures. -4- 9. Noise A noise contour model was utilized to assess the impact on the Proposed project from traffic associated noise from Telegraph Canyon Road which will be widened to six lanes. Assuming a four-lane road with eight percent truck traffic, with an ADT of 15,818 (projected future ADT for Telegraph Canyon Road), the 65 dB(A/ noise contour would be 169 feet from the center line of the road. When Telegraph Canyon Road is expanded to a six-lane road, with the same percentage of truck traffic, the noise contour would not be substantially different. The nearest residence is approximately 250 feet from the road. There would, therefore, be no adverse impact to the project from the associated noise from Telegraph Canyon Road. lO. Schools Approximately 16 elementary students would be generated by the proposed project. The project is located within the Chula Vista Hills Elementary School attendance area of the Chula Vista City School district. The current enrollment for Chula Vista Hills is 329. It has a capacity of 600 students on a standard school schedule and 900 students on a year-round schedule (Table 1~. A new elementary school facility is currently under construction in the Hills Community of EastLake. Other potential elementary school sites are being planned in the area; including Terra Nova, the Rancho del Rey SPA I school and a site located at the intersection of Paseo Ranchero and East J Street. Table 1 CURRENT SCHOOL ENROLLMENT Temporary School Capacity Enrollment Difference Bonita Vista Junior High 1,524 1,525 (1) Bonita Vista High 1,932 1,740 192 Chula Vista Hills Elementary 600 329 271 900 * Possible in the future with a year-round schedule. Source: City of Chula Vista School District, Carol Henderson Rancho del Rey SPA ll Draft Supplemental EIR, ~qarch 1989 Sweetwater Union Hiqh School District, Thomas Silva -5- Schools in this district are at capacity and the district has added 19 relocated classrooms over the past two years to serve the growth. Bussing is being utilized to alleviate the overcrowding and to achieve ethnic balance. Current developer fees of $0.67 per square foot have been determined by the District to be inadequate to provide facilities for this development. The incorporation of this project into Mello-Roos Community Facilities District #5, established by the City of Chula Vista School District, would mitigate the impact of the project on the elementary school system below a level of significance. Approximately six middle and ten high school students would be generated by this project. Students from the project would be served by the Sweetwater Union High School District, and would attend Bonita Jr. and Sr. High schools. However, the District has indicated that present boundaries could change in the future. While total capacity for Bonita Jr. High School is 1,524 students, it currently has an enrollment of 1,525 students. The total capacity for Bonita High School is 1,932 students. It has a current enrollment of 1,740 students. The Sweetwater District will add four relocatable classrooms to Bonita High and three relocatable classrooms at Bonita Jr. High for the 1989-90 school year. The Sweetwater District has begun EastLake High School in the EastLake development. This facility is expected to serve 2,000+ students. Completion is expected for the 1991-92 school year. Preliminary planning has begun on the middle school facility within Rancho del Rey SPA III, south of East H Street on Paseo Ranchero. ll. Biological Resources A biological survey of the project site was conducted in July 1988 by RECON. Two sensitive botanical and no sensitive zoological resources were present on the property. Diegan coastal sage scrub found on the project site, is considered a sensitive plant community. The development will adversely effect the coastal sage scrub community on the project site. The San Diego sunflower, a sensitive plant species was found as part of the coastal sage scrub plant community; however, few individuals were found. According to the biological report, habitat value on the site is low. The native vegetation occurs as an island, surrounded by development or by highly disturbed areas. To mitigate the impacts to the coastal sage scrub community below a level of significance, the open space area adjacent to Telegraph Canyon Road should be revegetated with native plant species. -6- 12. Cultural Resources A cultural resources survey of the project site was conducted by RECON in July 1988. No historic or prehistoric cultural resources were found within the project area. Development of the proposed project will not impact cultural resources. E. Identification of Environmental Effects 1. Traffic The project proposed 54 single family residences which can be expected to generate 548 ADT. The project is served by Telegraph Canyon Road which is currently maintaining an E level of service. Telegraph Canyon Road will be widened from its present two and four lanes to six lanes under a separate project. With an upgrade to six lanes, Telegraph Canyon Road would maintain an A level of service with the addition of the ADT from this project. The additional traffic generated by the proposed project will not significantly affect Telegraph Canyon Road. 2. Parks/Recreation The project meets the Parks and Recreation Thresholds established by the City of Chula Vista. No adverse impacts to parks/recreation will result from the implementation of the proposed project. 3. Water Water will be provided by the Otay Water District. The water supply from the San Diego County Water Authority to the Otay Water District may be limited during hot weather days of the year. It is the policy of the District to allow no more than 1,900 dwelling units per years to receive service. The District recently prepared a water allocation report to address the problem of water availability. To qualify for water service and reduce the impact of the project on water resources below a level of significance, the proposed project must meet the requirements established in the water allocation report. A will serve letter from the District will be necessary prior to building permit issuance. The grading requirements for this project may require that the 12" pipeline between Apache Drive and Santa Cruz Court (across the northerly line of the proposed project) be replaced. The applicant will be required to meet the Otay ~ater District's requirements regarding the location of the pipeline. -7- 4. G9.olo9~ and Soils No significant geotechnical impacts would occur from the implementation of the project as long as building codes are adhered to by the developer. 5. Noise A noise contour model was utilized to assess the impact on the proposed project from noise generated by Telegraph Canyon Road which has been proposed to be expanded to six lanes. The 65 dB(A) noise contour is located 169 feet from the centerline. The nearest residential unit is 250 feet from the road, therefore, no siqnificant noise impacts would result from the implementation of the proposed project. 6. Schools Both the Sweetwater District and the Chula Vista City School District are currently at capacity. The generation of students by the proposed project would impact the schools located in the attendance areas of the project site. Both the Sweetwater District and the Chula Vista District have indicated that current developer fees are not adequate to provide facilities for this development. The districts have also indicated that the incorporation of the project into an established Mello-Roos Community Facilities District, would reduce the impacts of the projects to the secondary and elementary school system below a level of significance. 7. Biological Resources Two sensitive botanical resources, Diegan coastal sage scrub and the San Diego sunflower exist on the project site. Diegan coastal sage scrub is considered a sensitive plant community and will be adversely impacted by the implementation of the proposed project. The San Diego sunflower, a sensitive plant species was found as part of the coastal sage scrub plant community; however, few individuals were found. To reduce the impacts to the coastal sage scrub community below a level of significance, the open space area adjacent to Telegraph Canyon Road should be revegetated with native plant species. 8. Cultural Resources A cultural resources survey of the project site was conducted by RECON in July 1988. ~o historic or prehistoric cultural resources were found within the project area. Development of the proposed project will not impact cultural resources. -8- F. Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Effects 1. Traffic Telegraph Canyon Road will not be significantly impacted with the additional traffic generated by the proposed project and no mitigation measures are necessary. 2. Parks/Recreation Developer fees of $1,680 per dwelling unit are adequate to provide facilities for this project. The project meets the Parks and Recreation Thresholds established by the City of Chula Vista. No adverse impacts to parks/recreation will result from the implementation of the proposed project and no mitigation measures are necessary. 3. Water It is the policy of the Otay Water District to allow no more than 1,900 dwelling units per year to receive service. The District recently prepared a water allocation report to address the problem of water availability. To qualify for water service and mitigate the impact of the project on water resources the Prooosed project must meet the requirements established in the water allocation report. A will serve letter from the District will be necessary prior to building permit issuance. The grading requirements for this project may require that the 12" pipeline that runs from Apache Drive to Santa Cruz Court across the northerly lne of the proposed project be replaced. The developer has agreed to replace the pipeline. The developer will be required to meet the Otay Water District requirements regarding the location of the pipeline. 4. Geolo~s and Soils No significant geotechnical impacts would occur from the implementation of the project as long as building codes are adhered to by the developer, and no additional mitigation measures are necessary. 5. Noise There are no significant noise impacts associated with the project and no mitigation measures are required. -9- 6. Schools The Sweetwater and the Chula Vista City School districts have indicated that the incorporation of the project into an established Mello-Roos Community Facilities District, would mitigate the impacts of the project to the secondary and elementary school system below a level of significance. 7. Biological Resources To mitigate the impacts to the coastal sage scrub community below a level of significance, the open space area adjacent to Telegraph Canyon Road would be revegetated with native plant species in accordance with the revegetation program devised by RECON. 8. Cultural Resources Development of the proposed project will not impact cultural resources and no mitigation measures are required. G. Finding.s. of Insignificant Impact Based on the following findings, it is determined that the project described above will not have a significant environmental impact and no environmental impact report needs to be Prepared. 1. The project has the potential to substantially deqrade 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. Although the project has the potential of significant environmental impacts, all will be mitigated below a level of significance through measures identified in this Negative Declaration and the attached Initial Study. 2. The project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. The project conforms to the long-term goals of the City as identified and therefore will not achieve any short-term goals to the disadvantage of long-term goals. 3. The project has possible effects which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. As used in the subsection, "cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. -10- All impacts to the surrounding community will be incremental and will not cause significant growth in the surrounding community to occur. Therefore, there is no significant growth inducement nor cumulative impact. 4. The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. There are no known hazardous materials on the property. The Project will not emit any hazardous gases, noise, vibration or radiation which could impact human beings. H. Consultation 1. Individuals and Orq.anizations City of Chula Vista: Carol Gove, Fire Marshal Shauna Stokes, Dept. of Parks and Recreation Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer Keith Hawkins, Police Department Chula Vista City School District: Kate Shurson, Director of Planninq Otay Water District: Manuel Arroyo, Engineer Sweetwater Union High School District: Thomas Silva, Director of Planning Applicant's Agent: Dan S. Biggs Biggs Engineering Corporation 2245 San Diego Avenue, Suite 121 San Diego, CA 92123 2. Documents The Chula Vista General Plan The Chula Vista ~unicipal Code City of Chula Vista EIR-89-2 Rancho del Rey SPA II Draft Supplemental EIR GEOCON, Inc. Preliminary Soil and Geologic Investigation for Chula Vist~-Olson Site -ll- This determination, that the project will not have any significant environmental impact, is based on the attached Initial Study, any comments on the Initial Study and any comments on this Negative Declaration. Further information regarding the environmental review of the project is available from the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010. ENVIRO~NTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR WPC 6222P city of chula vista planning department CITY environmental review section.dHULA VISTA FUR OFFICE · ' Case No. Fee INITIAL STUDY Receipt Date City of Chula Vista Accepted by Application Form Project A. BACKGROUND 1. PROJECT TITLE WOODCREST SOUTHWESTERN 2. PROJECT LOCATION (Street address or description) NORTH STn~ n~ TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD RETWFFN APACM~ ~ ~k!n RILE5~ ¥~STA Assessors Book, Page & Parcel No. 642-050-06 3. BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION 54 LOT SINGLE FAHILY DEVELOPMENT 4. Name of Applicant WOODCREST DEVELOPMENT OF SAN DIEGO INC. Address 5473 KEARNY VILLA RD., SUIT~ 210 Phone filq_~77_~n City SAN DIEGO State CA Zip q?l?~ 5. Name of Preparer/Agent BIGGS ENGINEERING £OPR. Address 224~ SAN DIEGO AVENUF: ~IJTTF 191 Phone §lq-2qR-SGql City SAN DIEGO State CA Zip 92110 Relation to Applicant PROJECT CIVIL ENGINEER 6. Indicate all permits or approvals and enclosures or documents required by the Environmental Review Coordinator. a. Permits or approvals required: General Plan Revision Design Review Committee Public Project Rezoning/Prezoning ~ Tentative Subd. Map Annexation Precise Plan Grading Permit Design Review Board Specific Plan ~ Tentative Parcel Map Redevelopment Agency Cond. Use Permit - Site Plan & Arch. Review Variance ~ Other~'.~.A . b. Enclosures or documents {as required by the Environmental Revie~ Coordinator). Location Hap Arch. Elevations Erg. Geology Report Landscape Plans ~ Hydrological Study Grading Plan Site Plan Photos of Site & Biological Study Parcel Map ----- Setting Archaeological Survey Precise Plan ~ Tentative Subd. Hap Noise Assessment Specific Plan Improvement Plans Traffic Impact Report Other Agency Permit or ~ Soils Report Other Approvals Required :', (Rev. 12/82) - 2 - B. PROPOSED PROJECT 1.Land Area: sq. footage 835,045 or acreage 19.17 If land area to be dedicated, state acreage and purpose. STREET: 4.22+ AC OPEN SPACE: 4.86+ AC. 2. Complete this section if project is residential. a. Type development: Single family ~4 Two family Multi family Townhouse Condominium b. Number of structures and heights 54 SINGLE FJ~qIL~ DETACHED 2~+ MAX. HEIGHT (2 STORY) c. Number of Units: 1 bedroom ~ 2 bedrooms fl 3 bedrooms 0 4 bedrooms 54 Total units 54 d. Gross density (DU/total acres) 2.82 D.U./AC. e. Net density (DU/total acres minus any dedication) 5.35 D.U./AC. f. Estimated project population 54 X 3.5 = 189 g. Estimated sale or rental.price range $250,000 + h. Square footage of floor area(s) 2150 + - 2600+ SF + 600+SF GARAGE i. Percent of lot coverage by buildings or structures 0.45 MAX (0.36 AVG.) j. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided ~69 (3/IHT) m KTREET PKG. k. Percent of site in road and paved surface 22% 3. Complete this section if project is commercial or industrial. a. Type(s) of land use b. Floor area Height of structure(s) c. Type of construction used in the structure d. Describe major access points to the structures and the orientation to adjoining properties and streets e. Number of on-site parking spaces provided f. Estimated number of employees per shift , Number of shifts Total g. ~stimated number of customers (per day) and basis of estimate - 3 - h. Estimated range of service area and basis of estimate i. Type/extent of operations not in enclosed buildings j. Hours of operation k. Type of exterior lighting 4. If project is other than residential, commercial or industrial complete this section. a. Type of project 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. N/A 2. Is any type of grading or excavation of the property anticipated YES (If yes, complete the following:) a. Excluding trenches to be backfilled, how many cubic yards of earth will be excavated? qO~O00 + c.Y. h. How many cubic yards of fill will be placed? 54,000 ± C.¥. c. How much area (sq. ft. or acres) will be graded? 14.3 ;LAC. d. What will be the - rlaximum d~pth of cut 27' ~ Average depth of cut 9' ~ Maximum depth of fill 35' ~ Average depth of fill 10' ~ - 4 - 3. Describe all energy consuming devices which are part of the proposed project and the type of energy used /air conditioning, electrical appliance, heating equipment, etc.) AIR CONDITIONING~ GAS FURNACE, TYPICAL MODERN ELECTRIC APPLIANCES 4. Indicate the amount of natural open space that is part of the project ~sq. ft. or acres) 4.~6 + AC. S. If the project will result in any employment opportunities describe the nature and type of these jobs. N/A 6. Will highly flammable or potentially explosive materials or substances be used or stored within the project site? NO 7. How many estimated automobile trips, per day, will be generated by the project? 540+ TRIPS/DAY 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: new streets; street widening; extension of gas, electric, and sewer lines; cut and fill slopes; and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. NF-1W ~TRFFTR~ FXTENSION OF GAS~ ELECTRICz AND SEWER LINES. CUT AND FILL RI np~= DRAINAGE FACILITIES (AS REQUIRED) D. DESCRIPTION OF £NVIRONMENTA[ SETTING 1. Geology Has a geology study been conducted on the property? YES {If yes, please attach) Has a Soils Report on the project site been made? YES (If yes, please attach) 2. Hydrology Are any of the following features present ~n or adjacent to the site? (If yes, please e>~plain in detail.) a.Is there any surface evidence of a shallow ground water table? YES(MINOR) SEE SOILS REPORT b. Are there any watercourses or drainage improvements on or adjacent to the si~e? Y~~TRAINAGE CHANNEL ADJACENT TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD. - 5 - c. Does runoff from the project site drain directly into or toward a domestic water supply, lake, reservoir or bay? d. Could drainage from the site cause erosion or siltation to adjacent areas? NO e. Describe all drainage facilities to be provided and their location, tiFF TFNFTATIVF NAP NO_ gq.oR (ATTA£HED~ 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? Nfl 4. Biology a. Is the project ~ite in a natural or-partially natural state? THF pRQ, IFCT gTTF l~ EtIRRFNTI Y IN IT~g NLa, TURAL STATE b. Indicate type, size and quantity of trees on the site and which (if any) will be removed by the project. NO EX]STTNG TREES ON SITE. 5. Past Use of the Land a. Are there any known historical resources located on or near the project site? TO THE BEST OF OUR KNOWLEDGE NO KNOWN HISTORICAL RESOURCES ARE LOCATED ON OR NEAR THE PROJECT SITE. b. Have there been any hazardous materials disposed of or stored on or near the project site? CURRENTLY, TO THE BEST OF OUR KNOWLEDGE~ NO HAZARDOUS HAVE BEEN DISPOSED OF OR STORED ON OR NEAR THE PROJECT SITE. 6. Current Land Use a. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on the project site. LAND IS CURRENTLY VACANT AND IN IT'S NATURAL STATE. - 6 - b. Describe all structures and land uses currently existing on adjacent property. North N/A South N/A East N/A West N/A 7. Social a. Are there any residents on site? IIf so, how many?) NQ 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. - 7 - E. CERTIFICATION or Owner/owner in escrow* Consultant or Agent* HEREBY AFFIRM, that to the best of my belief, the statements and information herein contained are in all respects true and correct and that all known information concerning the project and its setting have been included in Parts B, C and D of this application for an Initial Study of possible environmental impact and any enclosures for attachments thereto. *If /f incl capacity and company name. acting or a corporation, ude -8- Case No.._/~ CITY DATA F. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1. Current Zoning on site: North ~_ / South ~ ~ East West Does the project conform to the current zoning? o 2. General Plan land use ....... desi gnation on .s!te: ~ ~-~t~ North ~ ~ 1~ ~ ~ West ~ ~ ,~ ~. Is the project compatible with the General Plan Land Use Diagram? ( Is ~he project area des~nated for conservation or open spaco or adjacent to an area so,~esignated~ ~ - ~ ~ ~t~P ~ Is the project located adjacent to any scenic routes? ~-~t (If yes, describe the design techniques being used to p or enhance t e.scen~c~ quality of Chula~yV~s~a.), J~ ~/ ~ How many acres of developed parkland are within the Park Service District of this project as shown in ~he Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan? What is the current park acreage requirements in the Park Service District? How many acres of parkland are necessary to serve the proposed project? .(2AC/lO00 pop. ) Does the project site provide access to or have the potential to provide access to any mineral resource? (If so, describe in detail.) -9- 3. Schools If the proposed project is residential, please complete the following: Current Current Students Generated School Attendance Capacity From Project E1 ementary ~ Jr. Hi gh Sr. High 4. Aesthetics Does the project con~:ain fe~Eu~s W~-~-c~ ~)Uid"be ~on~trued to be ata 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) Natural Gas (per year) Water (per day) 6. Remarks: Director ot Planning or Representative Date Case No. G. ~HGIN£ERING DEPART)lENT 1. Drainage a. - Is the~roject site within a flood plain? Ye~.~o~o~ ~e~Te-ur~emPd b. Will the project be subject'~ any existing flooding hazards? c. Will the project create any :flooding hazards? ~a. d. What is the location and description' of existing on-site drainage facilities? e. Are they adequate to serve ihe project? ~a~ W~m~, f. ~hat ~s the location and description of existing drainage facilities? ~ ~s A ~P~ ~ ~OJ~ A~ ~ ~t ~O~ g. Are they adequate to serve the projectt ~. 2. Transportation o~A~. ~T P~aJ~CT ts ~ a. ~at roads provide primary access to the project? b. ffhat is the estimated number of one-way auto trips to be generated by Che project (per day)? ~, I~ : ~q8 ~oomo~c ~. c. What is the ADT and estimated level of service before and after project compl eti on? Before After A.D.T. lTl'/O (11-0,8) L. O.S. ~ d. Ate the primary access roads adequate to serve ~he project? If not, explain b~iefly. ~,x~, e. Ni11-~ be n~essary ~at additional dedication, U~den~ng and/or ~mprovement be made to ex~st~ng streets? If so, spec~f~ the general nature of the aecessar~ " · c.V. 3. Geology a. Is the project site subject' to: Known or suspected fault hazards? Landslide or slippage? ~c~r¢%ec(~ ltl Soils b. Is an engineAring geolo~ report necessary to evaluate the project? ~o. 4. Soils ; a. Are therg any anticipated adverse soil condition~ On the ~roject site? ~(~ ~m- nO ~a;/~ rcno~ b. If yes, what are these adverse soil conditions? c. Is a soils report necessary? ~. 5. Land Form a. l~at is the average natural slope of the site? l':t~t ~ .. b. What is the maximum natural slope of the site? Z~: ~ ~; ~ 6. Noise Are there any traffic-related noise levels impacting the site that are significant enog~h to justify t~t a no~e, analysis ~ reared of the applicant? ~, ~0~'~ ~o~ Case Ho..1~ 7. Air Q~ality If there is any direct or indirect automobile usage associated with this project, complete the following: Total Vehicle Trips Emission Grams of ._{per day) Factor Pollution co x 118.3 : Hydrocarbons tJOx (NO2) X 20.0 Particulates = /~--?~0 .78 : 8. ~{e Generation How much solid and liqu~d.{sewage) waste will be generated by the proposed project per day? S~lid I~1~ Liquid _ J~/ZO I~hat is the location and size of ~i-~: ...... to the site~ ~ ~ ~,~ sewer )~nes o r adjacent Are they adequate to serve the proposed project? -. 9. Public Facilities/Resources Impact 'If the project could exceed the threshold of having any possible significant impact on the environment, please identify the public facilities/resources and/or hazards and describe the adverse impact. {Include any potential to attain and/or exceed the capacity of any public street, sewer, culvert, etc. serving the project area.) Remark s/necessary mi tigation measures - 13 - Case No. H. FIRE DEPARTMENT 1. What is the distance to the nearest fire ~ta~tion and yhat is the Fire Departm~e~t's estimated reaction time? ///~,~J J, , 2. Will the Fire Department be able to provide an adequate level of fire protection for the p~oposed facility without an increase in equipment or personnel? ~ FTre Marshal -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 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 3. Does this project exceed the Parks and Recreation Thresholds established by City Council policies? Parks and Recreation Director or Date Representative C L CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATE~NT IAPPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONSI WHICH WIlL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES. The following information must be disclosed: I. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application. Woodcrest Development of San Diego, Inc. Fullerton Savings & Loan Association List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Same as "1" above 2. If any persoq 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. John Wertin of Woodcrest Development of San Dieqo~ Inc. 3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted With any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes__ No x If yes, please indicate person(s) Person is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association, ~ club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city and county, city, municipality, district or other political subdivision, or '~'r~app/~/"//Y~3~-- 4 ~ ~a any other group or combinat' act' g a unit" Ronal~/J. Van Daele, Vice Preoident ~ UPC 0707? Woodcre~t Development of San Diego, Inc. A-1 lO ~:~';)e name of~T~ City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 9, 1989 Page 1 6. Consideration of Final Environmental Impact Report, EIR-89-6, Salt Creek I A. BACKGROUND On July 26, 1989 the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this Draft Environmental Impact Report. There was no testimony given on the EIR. There were two letters of comment which had been received. No further written comments were presented. These two letters have been incorporated into the Final EIR. However, the page references for these letters is incorrect because of repagination of the document. The modifications to the text in response to the letter from the Chula Vista City School District is on Page 3-72 and the changes in response to the memo from the Police Department is located on Page 3-73. B. RECOMMENDATION Certify that EIR-89-6 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 a decision on the project. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of August 9, 1989 Page 1 7. PUBLIC HEARING: a) PCM-89-9: Consideration of an amendment to the EastLake I General Development Plan for 130 acres at the n~r~heasterly and southeasterly quadrants of East H Street extended and proposed Statu Route 125 - EastLake Development Company b) PCM-89-10: Consideration of an amendment to the EastLake I SPA Plan for 130 acres EastLaku Development Company c) PCS-89-9: Consideration of tentative subdivision map for 130 acres known as Salt Creek I, Chula Vista Tract 89-9 - The Baldwin Company A. BACKGROUND This proposal involves amendments to the EastLake I General Development Plan (GDP) and Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan, and a tentative subdivision map known as Salt Creek I, Chula Vista Tract 89-9, for 130 acres located at the northeasterly and southeasterly quadrants of East "H" Street extended and proposed State Route 125. The Final Environmental Impact Report for the proposal, EIR-89-9, was considered as a preceding item on the agenda. B. RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a motion recommending that the City Council approve the amendments to the EastLake I General Development and SPA Plans, and also the tentative map for Salt Creek I, Chula Vista Tract 89-9, subject to the following conditions: 1. Street-side landscape buffers backed by decorative walls shall be established outside the right-of-way adjacent to East "H" Street, San Miguel Road and Proctor Valley Road. The minimum landscaping depth shall be 20 ft. along East "H" Street and the rear of lots 10-18, and 8 ft. along the remaining portions of San Miguel and Proctor Valley Roads. 2. Landscape buffers shall be level or maximum 5:1 slope (except those along East "H" Street, and the rear of lots lO-18) subject to review and approval of the City Landscape Architect. All landscape buffer areas shall be shown as separate lettered lots and included within an open space maintenance district. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 9, 1989 Page 2 3. All open space lots shall be included in an open space maintenance district. Expand the open space lots to include the areas at the end of cul-de-sacs A, B & F. 4. Decorative walls of solid stucco or slump block subject to review of the Director of Planning and/or Director of Parks and Recreation shall be used adjacent to East "H" Street, San Miguel Road, Proctor Valley Road, SP-125, other open space lots and at exterior sideyards at the entries to the single family area. The program shall include decorative, security, view retaining and sound walls as appropriate. 5. Walls shall be located within the open space maintenance district. The owners of adjoining lots shall sign a statement when purchasing their homes that they are aware that the wall is on City property and that they may not modify or supplement the wall or encroach onto City property. These restrictions shall also be reflected in the CC&P's for each lot. 6. The SR-125 corridor shall be included in an open space maintenance district pending its acceptance by the State. 7. The open space maintenance district for Salt Creek I shall include the subdivider's Salt Creek Ranch property to the east. The subdivider shall not oppose the inclusion of additional areas within the district. 8. Provision shall be made to include a public park site in the first phase of Salt Creek Ranch and in close proximity to the project site. PAD fees shall be deposited in a special account to be used to assist in the construction of this or other park facilities at the recommendation of the Director of Parks and Recreation. 9. Landscape and irrigation plans and a water management program shall be submitted for all Open Space lots and the SR-125 corridor subject to review and approval of the City Landscape Architect. The Grading and Landscaping proposal for the northwest and southwest intersection of East "H" Street and San Miguel Road shall reflect "opening-up" the intersection. 10. The 237 units proposed for Parcel R-17 and the 144 units proposed for Parcel R-18 shall be considered maximums and subject to reduction as a result of review and approval of precise development plans. 11. The Developer shall reach an agreement with the City to devote at least 10% of the project units (approximately 55 units) to low and moderate income housing. 12. Written evidence shall be submitted to the City that agreements have been reached with both school districts regarding the provision of adequate school facilities to serve the project prior to approval of the final map. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 9, 1989 Page 3 13. The approval of all final maps will require compliance with the City's adopted threshold standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. 14. Lot 183 shall be offered for future street dedication to be used in conjunction with a northbound interchange loop ramp. Building permits shall be withheld for 18 units located in the northwest quadrant of the condominium project located adjacent to "H" Street to provide for an alternate recreation area. The Planning Director shall have the authority to release building permits if further traffic studies relating to the Baldwin development to the east eliminates the need for the northbound ramp. 15. The developer shall be responsible for the construction of full street improvements in all the public streets shown on the Tentative Map within the subdivision boundary, with the exception of San Miguel Road, and for the construction of necessary off-site improvements to construct Proctor Valley Road and East "H" Street as shown on the Tentative Map to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The developer shall be responsible for the construction of all street improvements in San Miguel Road lying westerly of the center line and an additional 3 feet easterly of the center line. Said improvements shall include, but not be limited to, asphalt concrete pavement, base, concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk, sewer and water utilities, drainage facilities, street lights, signs, fire hydrants and transitions. Streets A, B, C, D, E, F and portions of Streets G and I shall conform to City standards for residential streets. Streets J and the remaining portions of Streets G and I shall conform to City standards for residential collector streets. East "H" Street shall conform to City standards for six-lane, prime arterial streets. Proctor Valley Road and San Miguel Road shall conform to City standards for Class 3 collector streets and Class 1 collector streets (94 feet of right-of-way minimum), respectively. The developer shall be responsible for paving the temporary connection to Proctor Valley Road easterly of San Miguel Road with asphalt concrete for a distance of 50 feet. The remainder of the road shall be provided with an all-weather surface such as decomposed granite. 16. The developer shall be responsible for providing adequate right-of-way to construct Proctor Valley Road and East "H" Street as shown on the Tentative Map. Said right-of- way shall be dedicated prior to or in conjunction with approval of the Final Subdivision Map. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for ~4eeting of August 9, 1989 Page 4 17. The developer shall be responsible for the grading of SR 125 and all associated ramps at the intersection with East "H" Street to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The developer shall be responsible for offering for dedication adequate right-of-way to construct SR 125 to l0 lanes including required on and off ramps and a truck lane. Said right-of-way shall be offered for dedication to the City. The SR 125/East "H" Street interchange shall conform to CalTrans design standards for interchanges. 18. The developer shall grant to the City street tree planting and maintenance easements along all public streets as shown on the Tentative Map. The width of said easements shall be as outlined in the City's Street Design Standards Policy. 19. Access rights shall be relinquished to East "H" Street, Proctor Valley Road and San Miguel Road from any residential lots which are contiguous to said streets. 20. The developer shall grant easements for all off-site public storm drains and sewers prior to approval of the Final Map. Easements shall be a minimum width of 6 feet greater than pipe size, but in no case, less than l0 feet. 21. All work within the public right-of-way shall be done in accordance with the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, the San Diego Area Regional Standard Drawings and the Design and Construction Standards of the City of Chula Vista. All design shall conform to City of Chula Vista Subdivision Manual, Street Design Standards Policy, Standard Drawings and the State of California requirements. 22. Sewer manholes shall be provided at all changes of alignment and grade. Sewers serving l0 or less lots shall have a minimum grade of 1%. 23. An erosion and sedimentation control plan shall be prepared as part of the grading plans. 24. Cul-de-sacs and knuckles shall be designed and built in accordance with City Standards. 25. Specific methods of handling storm drainage are subject to detailed approval by the City Engineer at the time of submission of improvement and grading plans. Design shall be accomplished on the basis of the requirements of the Subdivision Manual and the Grading Ordinance (No. 1797 as amended). The developer shall submit calculations to demonstrate compliance with all drainage requirements of the Subdivision Manual. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 9, 1989 Page 5 26. The developer shall provide notarized letters of permission for all off-site grading. 27. The gravity sewer system shall be designed to accommodate future upstream sewage flows. 28. Underground traffic signal equipment and traffic signal standards shall be installed at the intersections of East "H" Street with San Miguel Road and Proctor Valley Road with San Miguel Road. 29. Interconnect conduit, pull boxes and pullrope shall be installed to connect the following intersection signal systems: a. East "H" Street/San Miguel Road to Proctor Valley Road/San Miguel Road b. East "H" Street/San Miguel Road to East "H" Street/ EastLake Drive 30. Prior to the approval of any Final Map for subject subdivision or any unit thereof, the subdivider shall obtain all off-site right-of-way necessary for the installation of required improvements for that unit. If the developer requests the City to use its power of eminent domain to acquire said off-site right-of-way, the developer shall pay all costs, both direct and indirect incurred in said acquisition. 31. The developer shall grant to the City 1-foot control lots adjacent to Proctor Valley Road and San Miguel Road. 32. Prior to the approval of any Final Map which includes a portion of the streets listed below, the developer shall submit plans demonstrating the feasibility of the extension of said streets. a. Proctor Valley Road b. San Miguel Road c. East "H" Street 33. The developer shall comply with all relevant Federal,State and Local regulations, including the Clean Water Act. The developer shall be responsible for providing all required testing and documentation to demonstrate said compliance as required by the City Engineer. 34. The location of street entries and major entries for multi-family projects on San Miguel Road shall be approved by the City Engineer. 35. All streets within the multi-family developments shall be private. Detailed horizontal and vertical alignment of the centerline of said streets shall be reflected on the improvement plans for said developments. Design of said streets shall meet the City standards for private streets. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 9, 1989 Page 6 36. The developer shall provide for the costs associated with maintenance of the sewer pump station prior to approval of any Subdivision Maps. 37. The developer shall obtain permission from the City to deposit sewage in a foreign basin prior to approval of any Subdivision Map which shall require any sewage to be transferred from an existing basin into another basin. The permission shall be in the form of an agreement whereby the City shall agree to such transfer, and the developer shall agree to the construction of certain improvements in the system that will accept said sewage and to the circumstances under which said permission may be revoked. 38. The developer shall enter into an agreement whereby the developer agrees that the City may withhold building permits for any units in the subject subdivision if traffic on East "H" Street exceed the levels of service identified in the City's adopted thresholds. 39. The property owner shall agree to not protest formation of a district for the maintenance of landscaped medians and parkways along streets within and adjacent to the subject property. 40. A paved access road with a minimum width of 12 feet shall be provided to all sanitary sewers and cleanouts. 41. Graded access shall be provided to all public storm drain structures including inlet and outlet structures. Paved access shall be provided to drainage structures located in the rear yard of any residential lot. 42. Lot lines shall be located at the top of slopes. Lots shall be so graded as to drain to the street or an approved drainage system. Drainage shall not be permitted to flow over slopes. 43. The boundary of the subdivision shall be tied to the California Coordinate System - Zone VI (1983). 44. All vertical curves and intersection corner sight distance requirements shall conform to the requirements in the CalTrans Highway Design Manual. 45. Preparation of final plans shall be based on the approved City benchmark system. 46. San Miguel Road, at the southerly boundary of the subdivision, shall terminate in a temporary cul-de-sac. 47. The developer shall provide access on an equal basis to and upon individual lots for all franchised cable television companies. 48. Sewer and water facilities shall be a minimum of l0 feet apart. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 9, 1989 Page 7 49. The subject property is within the boundaries of Assessment District 85-2. The developer shall be responsible for all costs associated with reapportionment of assessments as a result of subdivision of lands within the project boundary. 50. The developer shall enter into an agreement with the City wherein he holds the City harmless from any liability for erosion, siltation or increased flow of drainage resulting from this project. The developer shall be responsible for mitigation of drainage impacts due to increases in storm runoff as required in the Environmental Impact Report for this project. Said mitigation shall be approved by the City Engineer. 51. The developer shall be responsible for constructing the sewer in San Miguel Road along an alignment which follows the future alignment of the center line of San Miguel Road. Alternately, if the sewer does not follow said alignment, the sewer shall be relocated at the time that ultimate improvements are constructed in San Mi§uel Road. 52. Specific location of the temporary access shall be approved by the City Engineer. It is recommended that the access be relocated to utilize the future freeway on ramp location to provide access to Street D instead of the configuration shown on the Tentative Map. Said access shall be a private road designed to serve as ingress and egress for the model homes and construction vehicles. 53. The owner shall comply with all applicable sections of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. Preparation of the Final Map and all plans shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and the City of Chula Vista Subdivision Ordinances and Subdivision Manual. The following are map revisions: 1. Show adjacent recorded maps by name, type and number. 2. Show groves and orchards outlined and show any trees of 4"+ diameter. Identify any which are to be removed. 3. Show dimensions for radii on all curves and cul-de-sacs. 4. For proposed sewers, show types, size, and manhole invert and rim elevations. All manholes shall be numbered consecutively. Access to all manholes and connection to existing sewer system should be shown. 5. For proposed drainage improvements, show type of storm drain. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 9, 1989 Page 8 6. Add the following note to all typical sections, except SR 125: Pavement per City requirements. 7. Add Engineer's signature, stamp and expiration date to the Tentative Map. 8. Add a typical section of the temporary access road to Proctor Valley Road. 9. Add owner's signature to the Tentative Map. 10. Add the following note under General Notes: "Substantially conforms to the City of Chula Vista General Plan." ll. Identify all easements on the map. 12. Revise cable TV note under General Notes to read: "Cable TV - Cox Cable, Ultronics." 13. The East "H" Street section shall be revised to show a meandering sidewalk as indicated on the conceptual landscape plan. NOTE: The development is responsible for both PAD and RCT fees currently estimated at $840,180 and $246,452 respectively. C. DISCUSSION The property is triangular in shape with rolling topography which drops in elevation from east to west. The EastLake Hills and EastLake Shores neighborhoods are located directly to the west, across proposed State Route 125. The EastLake Business Center's United Parcel Service facility abuts the south property line, and vacant, unincorporated lands adjoin the site to the north and east. The EastLake I GDP and SPA Plan presently designate the property for employment park uses and open space. The proposal is to redesignate the site for residential uses, and develop the property with a maximum of 550 single and multiple family units. The redesignation is consistent with the General Plan Update, which shows the site as Medium Density Residential (6-11 du/ac). The surrounding unincorporated areas to the northeast (Bonita Meadows), north (Rancho San Miguel), and east (Salt Creek Ranch), are planned for Low to Medium Density Residential uses. The developable portions of the property are defined by the major street and highway improvements which have to be accomplished in order to implement the project. These total over 35 acres and include SR-125 which defines the southwesterly boundary, East "H" Street which bisects the site from west to east, San Miguel Road defines the easterly boundary, and unpaved Proctor Valley Road traverses the northerly boundary. The property is also constrained by a 120 ft.-wide SDG&E easement with two on-site towers bisecting the site from north to south. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 9, 1989 Page 9 The plans call for three residential components and a future urban development parcel: Single family area (Parcel R-16) The single family component involves 169 lots and associated open space on 55.2 acres north of East "H" Street. This area would be shown as Low Density Residential (3-4.9 du/ac) and Open Space on the EastLake I GDP and SPA Plan, and subject to the EastLake I RS-5 Planned Community District regulations. The RS-5 standards call for a minimum lot size of 5,000 sq. ft., sideyards of 10' & 3', maximum lot coverage of 50% (no F.A.R.), and maximum height of 2.5 stories or 35 ft. The single family area would obtain access off Proctor Valley Road via San Miguel Road from East "H" Street. Internal circulation is provided by a loop street and cul-de-sacs. Minimum lot size is 6,000 sq. ft., with 77% of the lots shown at 7,000 sq. ft. or greater. More than ll acres of open space is provided in and around the SDG&E easement, along portions of SR-125 and East "H" Street, and at the northwest corner of the project. Townhomes (Parcel R-17) The townhomes area involves a proposal for 237 units on a total of 26.3 acres directly south of East "H" Street. This area would be shown as Medium High Density Residential (11-19.9 du/ac) and Open Space on the EastLake I GDP and SPA Plan, and subject to the RC-22 Planned Community District regulations. The RC-22 regulations call for site plan and architectural approval. Project access is off San Miguel Road, with a private loop road and short drives serving 6 and 9-unit clusters to the interior and exterior of the loop. Enclosed parking at the units and open parking around and off the loop road provides 514 on-site spaces. Each unit has a private patio/balcony, and an open space-walkway system connects a pool/recreation area near the project entrance with an open space recreation area at the westerly boundary which includes tennis courts, tot lot, and open turfed areas. The overall layout and architecture will require Design Review Committee approval. The recreation area and final unit count will be contingent upon a final decision involving a loop on-ramp for 1-125. Condominiums (Parcel R-18) The condominium area, also shown as Future Urban Development or Project on some of the exhibits, involves a total of 9.6 acres at the southerly boundary of the project, adjacent to the EastLake Business Center. This area would be shown as Medium High Density Residential (11-19.9 du/ac) and Open Space on the EastLake I GDP and SPA Plan, and subject to site plan and architectural approval under the RM-25 Planning Community District Regulations. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 9, 1989 Page l0 This area would also take access off San Miguel Road. The proposal is to establish the yield at a maximum of 144 units, but the product type and design have yet to be determined, and would be submitted at a later date. The interface with the United Parcel Service facility to the south will require special measures to address noise and visual buffering during the design phase. Future urban (Parcel FU-1) This area is a 4.4 acre triangular parcel on the east side of San Miguel Road. The property would be planned at a later date in conjunction with Baldwin's 1,200 acre Salt Creek Ranch holdings which extend easterly from the project site. D. ANALYSIS The following analysis centers on the issues of General Plan conformance, circulation, open space/recreation, and subsequent planning and approvals. General Plan conformance The General Plan Update establishes a baseline, target and maximum density for each residential category. These are 6, 8.5 and ll du/ac respectively for the Medium Density category applicable to Salt Creek I. Projects which exceed the target of 8.5 must be found to provide an extraordinary public benefit and superior site planning based on certain subjective criteria outlined in the Plan. The Plan also provides that density transfers and clustering may occur to the extent that 30% of the total project land area may be devoted to densities which exceed the maximum, which in this case is ll du/ac. The City Council has directed further study and possible revision of several sections of the G.P. Update, particularly those sections which deal with the criteria for approving projects which exceed target densities and which address density transfers from "potential" development areas which result in projects which exceed the 30% clustering guideline. As indicated in the following table, neither of these circumstances apply to the Salt Creek proposal: Dev. Area * Product Type Units (Acres) {%) Density Single family 169 43.8 Ac. 56% 3.9 du/ac Townhomes 237 24.6 32% 9.6 Condominiums 144 9.6 12% 15.0 TOTAL 560 78.0 Ac. 100% 7.1 du/ac · Development Area excludes SR-125, the major streets, the SDG&E easement, and the remaining open space lots in the single family area -- which are considered environmentally sensitive. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 9, 1989 Page ll Since the overall project density is 7.1 du/ac, there is no need to address the criteria for supporting projects above the target density of 8.5 du/ac. Also, there is no proposal to exceed the 30% clustering rule. Only 12% of the developable area -- the condominium project at 15 du/ac -- exceeds the maximum density range of ll du/ac, and the transfer comes from the other residential development areas rather than from "potential" development areas such as golf courses and alike. For these reasons, we believe the project does not present a conflict with the General Plan provisions currently under study. Circulation The redesignation from employment park to residential uses will result in an estimated 2,700 fewer average daily trips for the project area, which is a positive impact in comparison to those analyzed and addressed with the EastLake I SPA and Public Facilities and Financing Plans. The tentative map reflects, or conditions have been included, which require compliance with the street classifications and standards contained in the General Plan Update. East "H" Street is classified as a 128 ft.-wide, 6-lane prime arterial and scenic route. The applicant is proposing a 152 ft.-wide right-of-way in order to provide for 8 lanes if that should be necessary to accommodate future development to the east. For the same reason, areas have been reserved at the northwesterly and southeasterly quadrants of SR-125/East "H" Street in order to accommodate loop on-ramps -- although not without the loss of the townhomes and the recreation area, which is discussed in the Open space/recreation section of the report. The developer has chosen submitted street names for consideration. The prospective names are being reviewed by various City departments. Open space/recreation Landscape buffers and decorative walls shall be established along all of the major street frontages. These areas as well as the easement and open space lots in the single family area will be within an open space maintenance district and subject to landscaping and other special fencing requirements. Conditions have also been included which address the interim landscaping and maintenance of SR-125. As noted, the eventual improvements for the SR-125/East "H" Street interchange may include a loop at the southeasterly quadrant which would supplant the recreation area at the westerly boundary of the townhomes project. The need for a loop should be known in 9-14 months, which is the preliminary schedule for completion of the applicant's Otay Ranch GDP. In order to address this eventuality, we are requesting an offer of dedication on the area and recommending that alternate recreation space be reserved by withholding building permits for the 18 units directly to the east of the present recreation area. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 9, 1989 Page 12 An additional concern is the lack of convenient public park and recreation facilities, particularly for the single family area -- Salt Creek I homeowners will not have access to EastLake's private facilities. In order to address this need as soon as possible, we have included a recommendation that public park facilities be constructed in the first phase of the applicant's Salt Creek Ranch proposal, and in close proximity to the project. Salt Creek I Park Acquisition and Development fees would be placed in a special account to facilitate this construction. Subsequent planning/approvals The townhomes area is subject to review and approval of the Design Review Committee. The higher density condominium area is subject to a separate map and plan with review by both the Commission and Committee. A condition has been recommended which would require that 10% of the total project units (approximately 55 units) be devoted to low and moderate income housing. It is likely these units would be provided in the condominium project. E. FINDINGS Pursuant to Section 66473.5 of the Subdivision Map Act, the tentative subdivision map for Salt Creek I, Chula Vista Tract 89-9, is found to be in conformance with the various elements of the City's General Plan based on the following: 1. The site is physically suitable for residential development and the proposal conforms to all standards established by the City for such projects. 2. The design of the subdivision will not affect the existing improvements, such as streets and sewers, which have been designed to avoid any serious problems. 3. The project is in substantial conformance with the Chula Vista General Plan Elements as follows: a. Land Use - The project density of 7.1 du/ac is consistent with the Medium Density range of 6-11, and less than the target density of 8.5. Clustering to achieve 15 du/ac on 9.6 acres represents 12% of the project area which is within the 30% clustering rule. b. Circulation - The project includes over 35 acres of street improvements and dedications. All streets are designed at or above General Plan standards. c. Housing - The project will provide a variety of housing types including single family detached, townhomes, and condominiums. The developer will provide 10% of the project units for low and moderate income housing. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 9, 1989 Page 13 d. Conservation - Areas containing coastal sage scrub habitat will be preserved both on and off-site, and an on-site area is provided for the Otay Tarplant. e. Park and Recreation, Open Space - The project will be required to pay PAD fees, and establish a public park site in the first phase of the adjoining Salt Creek Ranch property. On-site recreation areas are or will be provided for the multiple-family projects. f. Seismic Safety There are no known active faults within the vicinity. The closest potentially active fault is located approximately two miles to the west of the site. g. Safety - The provision of adequate police protection will be verified by the CVPD prior to the issuance of building permits. A one acre fire station site within the vicinity shall be required prior to final map approval. The project must meet the City's threshold standards. h. Noise - Noise barriers shall be required where necessary along the SR-125 corridor. i. Scenic Highway - Landscape buffers and decorative walls will be established along East "H" Street and the SR-125 corridor. j. Bicycle Routes - East "H" Street and San Miguel Road are designated bike routes and will be designed accordingly. k. Public Buildings No public buildings are proposed on the property. The project will be required to pay RCT fees prior to the issuance of building permits. 4. Pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act, the Commission/Council certifies that it has considered the effect of this approval on the housing needs of the region and has balanced those needs against the public service needs of the residents of the City and the available fiscal and environmental resources. 5. Pursuant to Section 66473.1, lots within the single family area have been tiered to maximize natural and passive heating and cooling opportunities. Buildings in the townhomes area have been oriented to optimize passive solar heating. WPC 6536P SOURCE: CIr, ti & ,~'% 1989. Design Alternat]ve- General Development Plan © 2OOO SOUFICE: CInll & A~ao,~ ~. lgSg. Design Alternative - IJncl Use Districts · ~ ~. ' ./ ~16 D - ~ ~6 ~9 169 ~11 A ~15 ~.0 11.8 ~18 A 1~ &5 16.9 T~ 72.1 a~ 7.6 av& ~15 ~ ~ 1.0 T~d ~17 ~ ~ 1.0 ~18 ~ ~ SOURCE: Clnd & As~-J,,t_,~_. 1989. Design Alternative- SPA Plan CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATE~NT WHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES. The following information must be disclosed: 1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application. THE BALDWIN COMPANY (James Baldwin, A1 Baldwin, Greg Smith) FN PROJECTS, INC. List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. FN PR(kTEC~S, INC. (Subsidiary of First Nationwide Savings, a subsidiary of Ford Motor Corp.) 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 a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes No x If yes, please indicate person(s) IPerson is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association, ~ club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city and county, city? municipality, district or other political subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit." (NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.~'~ S~nature Of ~p~plicant/datd~/ WPC 0701P James M. ~a~ter~ vkce ?~e81Oent & ~o~ect Manage~ A-110 Print or type name of applicant City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of August 9, 1989 Page 1 8. Consideration of CEqA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations EIR-89-6, ~lt Creek I A. BACKGROUND The California Environmental Quality Act requires that no project which could result in one or more significant environmental impacts shall be approved without making one of the following findings regarding that significant environmental impact: 1. The significant impact has been avoided or substantially lessened. 2. Avoidance of the impact is the responsibility of a different public agency, or 3. Specific economic, social, technical or other considerations makes it infeasible to avoid the significant impact. Attached are the "Candidate" CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations drafted for the proposed project. B. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached Candidate CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations. SALT CREEK I SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 89-6 CANDIDATE CEQA FINDINGS STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, ACT (PUB.RES.CODE §21081), THE STATE CEQA GUIDELINES (14 CAL.ADMIN.CODE §§15091, 15093) AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCEDURES OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA August 1989 I. INTRODUCTION The California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the State CEQA Guidelines require that no project shall be approved by a public agency when significant environmental effects have been identified, unless one of the following findings is made and supported by substantial evidence in the record: 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 Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"). 2. Changes or alterations are the responsibility of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. 3. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. The following findings relate to Final Supplemental EIR 89-6 for the proposed Salt Creek I project. The project's discretionary actions include the following: 1. General Plan Amendment (General Development Plan Amendment). 2. Zone Change: Re-zoning from OS-l, 0S-2 and BC-2 to RS-7 (single-family residential), RC-22 (residential condominiums) and RM-25 (multi-family residential), along with open space in the OS-1 and 0S-2 designations. 3. Amendment to the Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan in conformance with the zoning changes. 4. Approval of Tentative Tract Map, TTM 89-9, which includes the entire site. 5. Approval of Precise Plan/Site Plan which addresses the entire site with the exception of two Future Urban areas. Implementation of the proposed project would result in a mixture of residential and open space land uses. The Salt Creek I project proposes to satisfy a demand for a variety of housing in the community of Chula Vista, and, as proposed, consists of 550 (181 detached and 369 attached) dwelling units on 65.9 acres, with 14.9 acres of open space. Project redesign in response to potential impacts to biological and other resources (Alternative D in the EIR) would also provide 550 dwelling units (169 detached and 381 attached), with 18.9 acres of open space. -1- II. PLANNING COMMISSION 1. The Planning Commission, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final Supplemental EIR for the Salt Creek I General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Amendment, Tentative Tract Map 89-9, and Precise Plan/Site Plan and the record, finds that changes have been incorporated into the project which mitigate, avoid, or reduce the level of identified impacts to insignificance by measures identified in the Final Supplemental EIR. 2. The .Planning Commission, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final Supplemental EIR and the record, finds that none of the significant environmental effects anticipated as a result of the proposed project are within the responsibility of another public agency except for air quality and water supply/water quality. 3. The Planning Commission, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final Supplemental EIR and the record, finds that no specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures identified in the EIR. 4. The Planning Commission acknowledges that these recommended CEQA Findings are advisory and do not bind the City Council from adopting findings to the contrary if they are supported by substantial evidence in the record. The City of Chula Vista's Threshold/Standards, adopted November 17, 1987, were developed to assure that the "quality of life" enjoyed by the City's residents is maintained while growth occurs. That quality of life is also important to those who wish to develop within the City. Implementation of the Threshold/Standards program will assure that significant, adverse impacts are avoided or reduced through sound planning and that public services and the quality of the environment will be preserved and enhanced. Based on these threshold/standards, changes have been incorporated into the project to mitigate or avoid environmental effects. III. RELEVANT BACKGROUND A. THE PROJECT The Final Supplemental EIR for Salt Creek I, prepared for the City of Chula Vista, involves the proposed development of 124.2 acres of property located in the EastLake Business Center of the EastLake Planned Community in Chula Vista, California. The property is .approximately 8 miles east of downtown Chula Vista and 8 miles north of the. United States/Mexican border. -2- The project site is roughly triangular in shape, with the EastLake Business.Center to the south, the proposed Salt Creek Ranch residential development to the east and undeveloped hills to the north. EastLake Greens is to the south, and the remainder of Chula Vista and EastLake residential neighborhoods lie farther to the west and south. The southwest boundary of the project is the proposed alignment of the future State. Route ("SR") 125 freeway extension; the site is also bisected by the proposed extension of East "H" Street, which proceeds through the project site toward the Salt Creek Ranch residential development. An SDG&E easement also provides an open space channel running north-south through the site, culminating at a transmission tower north of East "H" Street. The property and surrounding land uses are illustrated in Figure 3-1 of Final Supplemental EIR 89-6. The project applicant proposes to.redesignate the 124.2 acre site from commercial/employment park and open space uses to residential and open space uses, and to subdivide the project for single-family and multi-family development. In addition, the applicant requests that the City consider approval of a Precise Plan/Site Plan for the multi-family portion of the proposed project. The discretionary actions required to be taken by the City to approve the proposed project consists of a General Plan Amendment (General Development Plan Amendment); a Zone Change (Planned Community District Regulations Amendment); a Sectional Planning Area ("SPA") Plan Amendment; Tentative Tract Map {TTM 89-9) approval; and Precise Plan/Site Plan approval. These discretionary actions are analyzed at pages 2-5 through 2-18 of Final Supplemental EIR 89-6. B. RELEVANT HISTORY The project site is encompassed within the EastLake Planned Community {"the EastLake project"). A Master EIR (EIR 81-03) was prepared for the EastLake project, and certified by the City as adequate and complete under CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City's Environmental Review Procedures, on August 24, 1982 (Resolution No. 10995). In 1984, EastLake I was proposed as the initial development phase of the overall EastLake project. Prior to development of EastLake I, the Planned Community regulations required approval of a SPA Plan. The SPA Plan was prepared in 1984 for EastLake I (consisting of 1,268 acres of the overall EastLake project). A Supplemental EIR, SEIR 84-1, was also prepared to analyze the potential significant environmental effects of the EastLake I SPA Plan. The City certified SEIR 84-1 as having been prepared in accordance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City's Environmental Review Procedures on January 29, 1985 (Resolution No. 11918). The EastLake I SPA Plan and EIRs 83-01 and 84-1 constitute relevant regulatory documents for this project. This property site was contemplated in 1984 to be part of the EastLake Business Center, portions of which are now built or under construction. In 1988, due primarily to geographic orientation and traffic circulation configurations, the property site was redesigned from commercial/employment park and open space uses to residential and open space uses. At approximately that time, the City initiated preparation of a General Plan Update. Scenario IV of the General Plan Update reflects a residential and open space configuration for the Salt Creek I project site. The General Plan Update was adopted on July ll, 1989. Although Scenario IV is now in effect, it was not yet an official document of the City at the time of circulation of Draft SEIR 89-6, and is therefore referred to as the "proposed" Scenario IV in Draft SEIR 89-6. During preparation of Draft SEIR 89-6, an alternative to the Salt Creek I project was created due to potential significant effects of the project. The alternative is identified in Section V of the Supplemental EIR as the "Design Alternative: Increased Open Space" ("the Design Alternative"). The Design Alternative minimizes the original project's significant effects while attaining the project objectives. The Design Alternative is determined to be environmentally superior to the original proposed project, and is identified in the Supplemental EIR as the "preferred alternative." Section 15150 of the State CEQA Guidelines permits an EIR to incorporate by reference all or part of other relevant documents. The following EIRs have provided pertinent data for Supplemental EIR 89-6 and have been incorporated by reference: Final Master EIR (EIR 83-01) certified by City Council Resolution No. 10995 on August 24, 1982. Final Supplemental EIR (SEIR 84-1) certified by City Council Resolution No. 11918 on January 29, 1985. IV. POTENTIAL IMPACTS MITIGATED TO INSIGNIFICANT LEVELS A. GEOLOGY/SOILS POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS: 1. The existence of expansive soils onsite. 2. The existence of minor, shallow landsliding characteristics in the northern area of the project. 3. The potential for groundshaking in the event of slippage of the Coronado Banks fault. MITIGATION MEASURES: The following specific types of mitigation measures have been identified in Final Supplemental EIR 89-6: A site specific earthwork package shall be prepared in accordance with recommendations of the March 1989 GeoSoils report, indicating the approximate amount of earthwork removal necessary and addressing and mitigating any other geotechnical constraints. Onsite excavation of the formational units shall be quantified and shall define favorable select material for structural fills. Select fill soils may be mixed with the topsoil, alluvial and colluvial soils for deep canyon fills. Any export material must have an approved spoil site identified and procedures defined. The investigation and earthwork package shall be subject to approval by the City Engineer, prior to issuance of grading permits. Concerning seismicity, the effects of groundshaking on the project site shall be mitigated by adhering to the State 1976 Uniform Building Code or state-of-the-art seismic design parameters of the Structural Engineers Association of California. Cut-and-fill slopes constructed with erosion prone materials (i.e., granular sands of the Otay Formation) shall be provided with appropriate surface drainage features subject to approval by the City, and shall be landscaped immediately following grading to minimize any erosional damage from surface waters. Drainage features shall be installed in accordance with City requirements to avoid erosion during grading subject to onsite inspection and approval by City staff. Expansive soils shall be removed and used in accordance with recommendations of the March 1989 GeoSoils report. Areas requiring removal and replacement of expansive soils shall be evaluated {for special foundation design, etc.) by the geotechnical engineer during the site specific tentative grading plan geotechnical investigations in accordance with City grading procedures and monitoring. Alluvial and/or colluvial soils encountered in areas that will receive fill or other surface improvements shall be removed and recompacted in order to mitigate the potential for settlement. Procedures shall be dictated precisely on plans which show where onsite this shall occur. Verification shall occur through onsite approval by a qualified expert. Cut slopes requiring special drainage or stabilization (i.e., northeast side of SR-125, southeast of "H" Street, the power tower in open space lot B), shall be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant and mitigated appropriately during site grading. Evaluation shall be verified and signed in written form at appropriate phases of grading. Foundations and slabs shall be designed in accordance with recommendations of the March 1989 GeoSoils report. Design shall be approved by the City, based on the type of soils encountered onsite and subsequent expansion testing, in accordance with City Code requirements. -5- Prior to issuance of grading permits, outcrops shall be assessed for rippability and quality for fill material. Any additional mitigation shall be defined and may be included in the earthwork investigation, subject to approval by the City. Stabilization fills shall be constructed in accordance with slope height as dictated in the GeoSoils March 1989 report, page 26. Further, fill slopes shall be constructed at gradients of 2:1 or flatter, and in accordance with City of Chula Vista codes, the Uniform Building Code ("UBC") and Grading Guidelines of the GeoSoils March 1989 report (Appendix D of GeoSoils report). Landslide corrective grading required in an around Open Space Lot "A" shall be conducted specifically in accordance with methodology dictated in the March 1989 GeoSoils report, plans subject to the approval of the City prior to issuance of grading permits. Lots 62 and 72 shall be overexcavated and reconstructed as shown in Appendix D of the GeoSoils March 1989 report. All slopes shall be designed and constructed in accordance with requirements of the City of Chula Vista codes, the UBC and recommendations of the GeoSoils March 1989 report (specifically Appendix A and pages 29-30 of that report). Specific grading plans shall be reviewed by a qualified geotechnical expert and approved by the City prior to issuance of grading permits. FINDINGS: All significant impacts will be avoided or eliminated by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final Supplemental EIR and changes incorporated into the project as set forth above. Based on preliminary and supplemental geotechnical reports, the proposed project is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. There appear to be no significant geotechnical constraints onsite that cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance by proper planning, design and sound construction practices. The implementation of the recommended mitigation measures and adherence to City regulations and project documents will ensure that all potential geotechnical effects of the project will be mitigated to an insignificant level. No unmitigable cumulative impacts are anticipated. B. HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS: 1. A potential cumulative water quality effect of the project and other development has been identified in the SEIR. -6- 2. As with any development, urban land uses generate pollutants in drainage and runoff. MITIGATION MEASURES: The following specific types of mitigation measures have been identified in Final Supplemental EIR 89-6: The project shall comply with all applicable City flood control regulations. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the proponent shall verify (on drainage plans) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer/Public Works Department that project peak discharges offsite to the west and northwest will be mitigated (by limiting the increase in existing flows, participation in a flood control district, flood routing, or installation of downstream improvements), and will not impact the Proctor Valley Drainage Basin. Drainage plans for the project (required above) will incorporate facilities to provide for long-term erosion, sedimentation and pollutant control in project runoff. Said plans shall be subject to approval by the City Engineer or Public Works Department, prior to issuance of grading permits. Subsequent to project completion (Certificates of Use and Occupancy), these facilities shall be inspected for adequacy by a qualified expert approved by the City (inspection cost to be at the applicant's expense) to ensure adequate water quality control in project drainage facilities. The project shall be in conformance with applicable water and reclaimed water regulations of the Otay Water District and State Regional Water Quality Control Board. Construction sedimentation.will be controlled by adherence to City erosion control measures. Sedimentation basins and other mechanisms shall be installed as deemed necessary by the Ci~v Engineer or Public Works Department, to control scouring and increased sediment loads. Monitoring during grading shall be conducted at the applicant's expense to verify adequate erosion control. FINDINGS: All significant impacts will be avoided or eliminated by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final Supplemental EIR and changes incorporated into the project as set forth above. Implementation of proposed mitigation measures will ensure that potential project-specific and cumulative adverse hydrology and water quality effects are mitigated to a level of insignificance. -7- C. CULTURAL RESOURCES POTENTIAL PALEONTOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS: 1. The project area contains one prehistoric archaeological site which will be impacted by project development. 2. Although Museum records do not document any recorded fossils within the project site, development of the project could potentially result in impacts to possible paleontological resources. MITIGATION MEASURES: The following mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project to avoid potential impacts to cultural resources: The data recovery program shall 1) address important research questions as proposed in the test report (on file at the City of Chula Vista Planning Department); and 2) include a phased data recovery program. This phased approach employs a random sample in conjunction with a focused inventory for features and intact midden areas. The data recovery program shall be conducted in accordance with a regional approach to the prehistoric sites within Salt Creek Ranch and the EastLake III/Olympic Training Center Projects, thereby allowing for a comprehensive understanding of these Early Period sites. For Lucus E, site boundary needs to be determined for both the prehistoric and historic components before the sample size is determined. Prior to issuance of a mass-grading permit the developer shall present a letter to the City of Chula Vista indicating that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to carry out the resource mitigation. (A qualified paleontologist is defined as an individual with an MS or PhD in paleontology or geology who is familiar with paleontological procedures and techniques). A qualified paleontologist and archaeologist shall be at the pre-grade meeting to consult with the grading and excavation contractors. A paleontological monitor shall be onsite at all times during the original cutting or previously undisturbed sediments of the Otay Formation to inspect cuts for contained fossils (the Otay Formation occurs generally above 680 feet elevation). The Sweetwater Formation shall be monitored on a half-time basis. Periodic inspections of cuts involving the Santiago Peak Volcanics shall be conducted in accordance with recommendations of the qualified paleontologist. (A paleontological monitor is defined as an individual who has experience in the collection and salvage of fossil materials. The paleontological monitor should work under the direction of a qualified paleontologist). -8- In the event that well-preserved fossils are discovered, the paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) shall 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. 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. FINDINGS: All significant impacts will be avoided or eliminated by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final Supplemental EIR and changes incorporated into the project as set forth above. Mitigation of impacts for important archaeological and paleontological resources can be achieved through either avoidance or by conducting the data recovery program. D. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS: Without mitigation, the project would have a cumulative effect on traffic and circulation in the surrounding areas. MITIGATION MEASURES: The traffic and circulation improvements and mitigation measures identified in the Final Supplemental EIR will mitigate all project and cumulative traffic effects to an insignificant level. The potential traffic and circulation effects of the project have been mitigated in the following ways: The project shall adhere to project phasing/transportation improvements required in the EastLake I Development Agreement and Public Facilities Financing Plan (1985) and mitigation measures cited in EIR 84-1 Section 3.2. Improvements pertaining to the project site involve the following roadways, constructed in accordance with speculations, schedules and financing approved by the City Traffic Engineer and Planning Director. SR-125: East "H" Street: 6 lane Prime Arterial; 4-lane Major Street San Miguel Road: 4-lane Class I Collector -9- Proctor Valley Road: as determined by City Internal Roadways: as determined by City Associated interchanges, land dedications and intersection improvements and amenities The project shall comply with provisions established in the General Plan Update Circulation Element and any programs established therein which are applicable to the project area (i.e., fee programs, subsequent traffic analysis). Mitigation measures in EIR 88-2 (Section 3.14) and the General Plan Update Circulation Element Policies/Guidelines and Roadway Standards (Sections 4 and 5) are hereby incorporated by reference; future actions on the project site shall adhere to these provisions for adequate circulation. In addition, the project shall comply with any applicable traffic threshold criteria as deemed appropriate by the City Engineer. FINDINGS: All significant impacts will be avoided or eliminated by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final Supplemental EIR and changes incorporated into the project as set forth above. The project generally involves an amendment to various regulatory documents to redesignate the property site from commercial/employment park and open space uses to residential and open space uses. As a result of the proposed redesignation, the project will generate less traffic than the previously approved commercial/employment park and open space uses; thus, the project will result in a less significant traffic increase than the previously approved SPA Plan, constituting a comparatively positive impact of the project. For example, the approved SPA Plan provides that the 37.4 acre commercial/employment park would generate 7,480 average daily trips ("ADT"). The proposed residential uses (181 single-family and 369 multi-family units) would generate 4,762 ADT, resulting in a trip reduction of 2,718 ADT. As a result, no project-specific adverse effects will result beyond those analyzed and mitigated in previously certified EIR 84-1. From a cumulative standpoint, the project has been incorporated into traffic/land use projections of the General Plan Update. In addition, proposed roadways identified as critical to serve projected City development (in the General Plan Update traffic projections) are now included in the project site design. Specifically, San Miguel Road and Proctor Valley Road have been added to the proposed site design pursuant to City direction (note that these roads were not incorporated in the previously approved SPA Plan). -10- E. NOISE. POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS: Without mitigation, noise modeling indicates that future noise levels at all of the single-family homes and the multi-family units in the first row along SR-125, and some of the single-family homes and multi-family units along East "H" Street would be exposed to noise levels in excess of 65 dB(A) CNEL, the City's exterior noise standard. If unmitigated, these noise levels would represent significant noise impacts associated with the project. The project also has the potential for significant interior noise impacts. MITIGATION MEASURES: The following mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project which avoid or eliminate the significant effects associated with exterior and interior noise impacts as identified in the Final Supplemental EIR: Noise Barriers for the single-family houses shall be provided as delineated in Table 3-5 and illustrated in Figure 3-10. Barriers shall be located at the top of slope along the edge of the roadway from Lot 27 to Lot 77 and at the top of slope along the edge of the rear yard for the rest of the lots (from Lot 77 to Lot 141). The 9 foot high parking structure barrier separating MF lots 1-5 from SR-125 (Figure 3-11) shall be continuous with no opening between the separate parking blocks. This should serve as an adequate noise barrier for multi-family Lots 1-5. If the parking structures do not provide sufficient attenuation, then additional barrier modeling will be required for these lots. The barriers for an additional 13 multiple-family units requiring mitigation should be located at the pad elevation for patio barriers and at the 2nd floor finished floor elevation for balcony barriers. The barrier heights to attenuate noise at these 13 multiple-family units shall be provided as presented in Table 3-5 and located in Figure 3-11. The proposed noise barriers for the single- and multiple-family units shall have a surface density of at least 3.5 pounds per square foot, and shall have no openings or cracks. It may be constructed of 1/4 inch plate glass, 5/8 inch plexiglass, any masonry material, or a combination of these materials. Wood and other materials would also be acceptable if properly designed as a noise barrier. Implementation of adequate noise barriers shielding single- and multiple-family outdoor living areas would reduce potential noise impacts to below a level of significance. -ll- Detailed engineering calculations shall be conducted to demonstrate the noise reduction levels are achieved by the buildings for residential building attenuation requirements of greater than 20 dB(A) CNEL. The actual noise attenuation supplied by the buildings as well as the building upgrades required shall be calculated when architectural plans become available. Adequate attenuation must be approved prior to issuance of building permits. In order to assume that windows can remain closed to achieve required attenuation, adequate ventilation with windows closed must be provided per the Uniform Building Code. All the lots along SR-125, East "H" Street, and San Miguel Road will require mechanical ventilation. Air conditioning would fulfill this requirement. Recommendations for the design of the ventilation system to :attenuate noise levels are provided in Appendix C. If exterior noise levels exceed 60 dB(A) CNEL, the project shall comply with State of California's Title 24 requiring an interior noise analysis to confirm that noise levels do not exceed 45 dB(A) CNEL. Detailed engineering calculations will also be required to confirm adequate interior noise levels (pursuant to the City's standard) after detailed barriers locations and heights have been established. Barriers to mitigate exterior noise levels and potentially upgraded building materials (as required) would reduce potential interior noise impacts to below a level of significance. FINDINGS: All significant impacts will be avoided or eliminated by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final Supplemental EIR and changes incorporated into the project as set forth above. The Salt Creek I project would amend the existing regulatory documents with respect to the project site. The previously approved SPA Plan designates the property site for commercial/employment park uses. Traffic generation resulting under this designation would be 7,480 ADT, as discussed in the Traffic and Circulation Section of this SEIR. The proposed 550 residential units (as allowed under the General Plan Update) would generate 4,762 ADT, which is 2,718 ADT less than the previously approved SPA Plan. Thus, implementation of the proposed project and the General Plan Update would generate less traffic and, therefore, less noise contribution than implementation of the existing General Plan land uses. In other words, implementation of the proposed project and the General Plan Update would not be anticipated to generate additional noise over that estimated from implementation of the previously approved SPA Plan. -12- F. PARKS, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS: The northern area of the project has been found to have site-specific land use and aesthetic/visual effects with respect to the redesignation of the site from commercial/employment and open space uses to residential and open space uses. Without mitigation or application of project alternatives, the project as originally proposed will also result in a project-specific and cumulative effect to the area's supply of permanent open space. If unmitigated, and if additional open space is not provided (onsite, offsite or via payment of in-lieu fees), then project and cumulative open space impacts would result. MITIGATION MEASURES: The following mitigation measures have been identified in the Final Supplemental EIR: The Tentative Tract Map and subsequent applicable plans shall provide for a bike lane on East "H" Street, in accordance with City requirements. The proponent shall provide additional open space to the satisfaction of the City Parks and Recreation Department and City Planning Director, prior to final Site Plan approval. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project proponent shall pay a parkland development in-lieu fee of $842,820 as shown in Table 3-11 (payable to the City Parks and Recreation Department), or satisfy City parkland requirements to the satisfaction of the City Parks and Recreation Department. Final Site Plans shall incorporate bikeways, trails and trail connections to adjacent areas such as Salt Creek Ranch and EastLake Business Park. Bikeways and trails shall be identified on the tentative map and site plans. Configurations shall respect all natural open space/conservation areas, and shall be subject to review and approval of City Planning and Parks and Recreation Departments. A view fence shall be constructed adjacent to homes fronting on open space, in order to enhance awareness of the boundary between residential property and natural open space preservation areas. Fencing design shall be approved by the City Open Space Coordinator prior to issuance of grading permits. -13- Slopes in open areas shall be maintained by an open space maintenance district and maintained in a natural state. Where grading must occur on slopes adjacent to housing, 30 feet of succulent or other acceptable width and plant material shall be planted, followed by a 15-foot DG trail to act as a firebreak. Planting of native, drought tolerant low fuel plant material shall be provided closer to the natural open space areas, in accordance with Fire Marshall and City Open Space Coordinator standards. FINDINGS: All significant impacts will be avoided or eliminated by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final Supplemental EIR and changes incorporated into.the project as set forth above. The project applicant proposes approval and implementation of the Design Alternative. The Design Alternative increases onsite open space by 4 acres, in locations critical for biological resource preservation. The Design Alternative also reduces open space impacts, in combination with mitigation measures, to a level of insignificance. The applicant has also proposed to satisfy local parkland requirements (4.68 acres) by payment of in-lieu fees, as no public parkland is proposed onsite. The in-lieu fees would amount to $842,820. Recreational areas are proposed within the single-family and multi-family areas of the project. Although these recreational amenities are primarily for the benefit of residents of the project, they constitute additional private open space. G. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS: An increased demand exists for elementary, junior high and high school facilities, police and fire protection, water supplies and facilities, waste water facilities, non-renewable energy resources and library facilities. The identified effects to all public services and utilities can be mitigated by adherence to applicable City policies and implementation of mitigation measures identified in the Final Supplemental EIR, with the exception of two unmitigable cumulative effects. The project's resulting unavoidable increase in the demand for water and non-renewable energy resources represents a contribution to cumulative effects on the region's limited water supply and energy resources, in combination with other ongoing development in the region. MITIGATION MEASURES: The following specific types of mitigation measures have been identified in the Final Supplemental EIR: -14- Schools: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project ~nt will obtain written verification from the. Chula Vista City School District and the Sweetwater Union High School District that students proposed to.reside in Salt Creek I will be adequately served in the districts' schools. Implementation of this mitigation measure will mitigate project and cumulative effects to school facilities and services to an insignificant level. Police Protection: Prior to issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall obtain written verification from the Chula Vista Police Department that adequate police protection services will be available to service the Salt Creek I project. The adherence to the City of Chula Vista's threshold standards for police service and this mitigation measure will ensure that potential project and cumulative effects to police protection services will be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Fire Protection: Prior to final tract map approval, a 1-acre site location for fire station CV #4 shall be determined to the satisfaction of the Chula Vista Fire Department ("CVFD"), City Director of Planning, and the Baldwin Company. It appears at this time that the site will be located on the Salt Creek Ranch property (M. Chase, May 1989). If so, a pro rata share of financing shall be established for Salt Creek I payable prior to issuance of building permits. The project proponent shall obtain verification from the CVFD prior to Certificates of Use and Occupancy, that adequate fire protection service will be provided to the project on an interim short-term basis and a long-term basis. This includes adequate water pressure onsite, emergency access, adherence to building fire codes of the City, and other relevant criteria. Fee payments may be required in accordance with City impact fees. Implementation of these mitigation measures will ensure that potential effects to fire protection services will be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Water: Prior to the recordation of final maps, the proponent shall obtain will-serve letters, verifying that water facilities proposed shall adequately service the project, via approval by the Otay Water District ("OWD") of all plans and specifications. Recommendations of the Master Plan of Water for Salt Creek I (Wilson Engineering, March 1989) shall be followed and utilized as a guideline, in consultation with OWD. If the EastLake Greens development precedes Salt Creek I, a third pump will be added to the proposed pump capacity, in accordance with the March 1989 Master Plan of Water (Wilson Engineering), subject to approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permits. -15- Water conservation measures for onsite landscaping and for maintenance of roadside vegetation shall be created and implemented by the project proponent, in coordination with the City Public Works Department and in consultation with OWD or other qualified water agency/organization. Appropriate conservation measures include but are not limited to planting of drought tolerant vegetation and the use of irrigation systems which minimize runoff and evaporation loss. The following water conservation measures shall be adhered to; implementation shall be approved prior to issuance of Certificates of Use and Occupancy: Low-flush toilets (Section 17921.3, Health and Safety Code) Low-flush showers and faucets (California Administrative Code, Title 24, Part 6, Article 1, T20-1406F). Insulation of hot water lines in water recirculating systems (California Energy Commission) The implementation of these mitigation measures and adherence to proposed plans and standard regulations will ensure that all potential project and cumulative water service impacts are mitigated to a level of insignificance. The project, as with any development, will unavoidably contribute to a cumulative demand and effect on the limited water supply for the San Diego region However, specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the SEIR. There are no known mitigation measures or project alternatives which could substantially reduce water supply impacts. The remaining unavoidable significant water supply impacts are acceptable when balanced against facts set forth above and in the "Statement of Overriding Considerations." Wastewater Services: Interim wastewater facility plans recommended in the March 1989 Wilson report shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to any final map approval onsite. Approval may involve an agreement reached between the developer and City which will dictate how and where sewage is accommodated on an interim basis, and facility financing. Ultimate wastewater facility plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. Implementation of the ultimate system shall be installed in a manner and at the time dictated by the City Engineer. Approval may involve an agreement reached between the developer and City which will dictate how and where sewage is accommodated and facility financing and implementation phasing. The implementation of these mitigation measures and proposed related plans will mitigate potential wastewater project and cumulative effects to an insignificant level. -16- Gas Electric/Energy Conservation: The project shall, to the extent feasible and to the satisfaction of the City, provide the following: Encourage the use of public transit by providing bus loading zones at key locations onsite Implement efficient circulation systems including phased traffic control devices Adhere to updated Title 24 building construction and design standards. Install landscaping that provides afternoon shade, reduces glare, encourages summer breezes, discourages winter breezes Minimize reflective and heat absorbing landscapes Reserve sol ar access and implement passive sol ar systems Develop dwellings on small lots to decrease indoor and outdoor heating and lighting requirements Install energy efficient appliances in residential developments Limit strict lighting and install energy efficient lights Demonstrate energy conservation practices. With implementation of these mitigation measures, potential project impacts to energy resources will be mitigated to a level of insignificance. The project, as with any development, will contribute to a cumulative demand and impact on non-renewable energy resources in the San Diego region. However, specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the SEIR. The remaining unavoidable significant effects are acceptable when balanced against the facts set forth above and in the "Statement of Overriding Considerations." Public Transit: Prior to final site plan approval, the developer shall consult with City Planning staff regarding location of transit facilities (i.e., bus stops onsite). Should there be a need for such faci[~-~-es, site design shall provide for said facilities, subject to review and approval by the City. Any potential impacts to public transit services will be mitigated by this mitigation measure to a level of insignificance. Library Facilities: The project applicant shall participate in any funding programs created for financing of a library facility to serve the vicinity, as deemed appropriate by the City. Any library facilities effects associated with the project will be mitigated to a level of insignificance by implementation of this mitigation measure. -17- FINDINGS: Mitigation measures or changes have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or eliminate the significant environmental effects identified in the Final Supplemental EIR. The project applicant is requesting that the City approve and implement the Design Alternative which will reduce significant impacts on public services and utilities identified in the Final Supplemental EIR by project design, financing programs and other measures identified in the EIR, with the exception of cumulative water supply and energy resource impacts. Limit strict lighting and install energy efficient lights. Demonstrate energy conservation practices. With implementation of these mitigation measures, potential project impacts to energy resources will be mitigated to a level of insignificance. The project, as with any development, will contribute to a cumulative demand and impact on non-renewable energy resources in the San Diego region. However, specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the SEIR. The remaining unavoidable significant effects are acceptable when balanced against the facts set forth above and in the "Statement of Overriding Considerations." Public Transit: Prior to final site plan approval, the developer shall consult with City Planning staff regarding location of transit facilities (i.e., bus stops onsite). Should there be a need for such facil-{~Tes, site design shall provide for said facilities, subject to review and approval by the City. Any potential impacts to public transit services will be mitigated by this mitigation measure to a level of insignificance. Library Facilities: The project applicant shall participate in any funding programs created for financing of a library facility to serve the vicinity, as deemed appropriate by the City. Any library facilities effects associated with the project will be mitigated to a level of insignificance by implementation of this mitigation measure. FINDINGS: Mitigation measures or changes have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or eliminate the significant environmental effects identified in the Final Supplemental EIR. -18- The project applicant is requesting that the City approve and implement the Design Alternative which will reduce significant impacts on public services and utilities identified in the Final Supplemental EIR by project design, financing programs and other measures identified in the EIR, with the exception of cumulative water supply and energy resource impacts. V. IMPACTS FOUND INFEASIBLE TO MITIGATE TO AN INSIGNIFICANT LEVEL A. LAND USE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS: As originally proposed, the project is partially: inconsistent with the existing EastLake ! SPA Plan and the General Plan Update. Specifically, the northern area of the project site proposes single-family residential use in comparison to that area's designated employment park and open space uses. Implementation of the project as originally proposed would result in less onsite publicly accessible open space acreage than designated on existing approved plans, specifically in the northern project area. The difference in open space acreage would contribute to a potential cumulative effect on the amount of permanent open space acreage in the project area, in combination with other ongoing development projects. MITIGATION MEASURES: The project's compatibility with adjacent land uses can be enhanced by implementation of mitigation measures, specifically adherence to regulatory documents and sensitive design and edge treatment. The following mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the specified potential significant environmental effects of the project: The northern area of the project's single-family residential tract shall be redesigned to the satisfaction of the City Planning Director prior to tentative map approval to provide open space in the site's northern area to the satisfaction of the City. The intent of the redesign is to ensure project consistency with regulating documents and to provide onsite open space and buffer at project edges. (Note: See Alternatives Section V, Alternative D. The Design Alternative will reduce and partially mitigate this impact.) Precise/Site Plan and landscape plans for the condominium project's southern boundary shall provide for buffering and from and transition to employment park development to the south/southeast. This may include slopes, setbacks, landscaping techniques, subject to the approval of the City Planning Director. -19- Subsequent project approvals (i.e., precise plans, architectural review, grading permits, etc.) ~ be consistent with applicable EastLake I PC Regulations (1982) and standards established in the 1984 SPA Plan. Consistency shall be verified by City approval of each plan. FINDINGS: Mitigation measures and changes to the project have been incorporated which substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the Final Supplemental EIR. The impact has been reduced to an acceptable level. During preparation of Draft SEIR 89-6, the project applicant proposed the Design Alternative. The Design Alternative was developed to avoid, reduce or otherwise lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the Draft SEIR, including, among others, the open space issues associated with the project. Final Supplemental EIR 89-6 confirms that inconsistency with open space designations can be mitigated by two methods: (al Increasing open space acreage in the northern project area; or (bi Implementation of the Design Alternative. The Design Alternative increases open space acreage (14.9 to 18.9 acres), and redistributes open space from the central portion of the project area to the northern area of the project. As reflected in written comments to Draft SEIR 89-6, the project applicant also emphasized that, in addition to the proposed designated open space, the Design Alternative provides for both public and private open space in contrast to the designated employment uses which only provided natural open space. The "private" open space in the residential areas of the project will be utilized by residents for recreational purposes Taking into account the public and private open space associated with implementation of the Design Alternative, over 59 acres of property (or 48% of the project areal constitutes open space uses. These open space calculations should be compared to the 58.3 acres of open space under the designated employment uses for the project. The public and private open space also provide a visual and functional buffer from building structures within the project area, and from residential development in the area to the north of the project site. Regarding compatibility of the proposed project with surrounding land use designations, the City finds that the residential uses proposed by Salt Creek I are compatible with surrounding areas. Surrounding parcels to the south, southwest and southeast are developed or approved for development; land to the east is currently being considered for development as the 1200-acre Salt Creek Ranch Planned Community; land to the north is being considered as the San Miguel Ranch development; and properties to the west generally are made up of existing Chula Vista residential neighborhoods. The area has been planned in the eastern portion of the area at a General Plan level. As a result, the roadways, open space and infrastructure have been assessed in that area as well. -20- The land use incompatibility associated with open space in the northern area of the project can be partially mitigated by the mitigation measures as set forth above, and by approval of the Design Alternative. Although significant impacts are reduced by adoption of the Design Alternative, project and cumulative effects attributable to the northern area of the project are not reduced to a level of insignificance. However, specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible other mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final Supplemental EIR. For example, none of the alternatives, with the exception of the No Project Alternative, would reduce the project's open space inconsistency in the northern area to an insignificant level. The No Project Alternative also fails to account for the proposed San Miguel Road and Proctor Valley Road alignments (in the northeast area). The remaining unavoidable significant effects are acceptable when balanced against the facts set forth above and in the "Statement of Overriding Considerations." B. AESTHETIC/VISUAL RESOURCES SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS: Significant aesthetic and visual impacts.of the proposed project have been identified as a result of proposed residential development in the northern area of the project due to that area's current open space designation. The project will, therefore, create unavoidable aesthetic and visual effects, previously unanticipated, due to that proposed residential development. The proposed project will also add to the cumulative aesthetic and visual effects resulting from ongoing development in the area surrounding the proposed project MITIGATION MEASURES: The Design Alternative, as explained, substantially reduces the aesthetic and visual effects from those originally proposed. In addition, the following specific types of mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects as identified in the Final Supplemental EIR: The project's single-family residential northern area shall be redesigned to incorporate open space to the south section of the City (refer to Section V, Alternative D). The redesign shall be subject to the approval by the City Planning Director, prior to any tentative map approval. The site plan and landscape plan encompassing the site's southeast border (condominium project) shall delineate special edge treatment adjacent to the employment park uses to the southeast. The plans shall be subject to the acceptance of the. City prior to site plan approval. -21- The project shall comply with PC Regulations/Standards, and design criteria and requirements set forth in the 1984 SPA Plan (specifically Section V.C.3, page 21), compliance subject to City review prior to final site plan approval Project grading shall be contoured to blend with natural land forms. Techniques shall include rounding vertical and horizontal intersections of graded lanes, incorporating variable slope ratios for larger slope banks, use of landscaping for erosion control and obscuring drainage structures and other measures. Slope banks shall generally not exceed a 2:1 slope ratio, and shall conform to Section 15.04.040 and other relevant sections of the City Grading Ordinance. Low-pressure sodium vapor lamps for outdoor illumination shall be utilized throughout the site. Mercury vapor lamps are presently being converted to low-pressure sodium vapor to standardize outdoor illumination within the City of Chula Vista. Outdoor lighting shall be filtered, directed and shielded so as to minimize excess light and restrict upward and reflecting light. Also, outdoor lights not necessary for safety shall be turned off between ll p.m. and 5 a.m., to the extent feasible. (Detailed recommendations are provided in EIR 84-1, page 3-58, 59.) FINDINGS: During preparation of Draft SEIR 89-6, the Design Alternative (Design Alternative D, Section V) was developed to take into account some of the significant effects of the proposed project. Implementation of the Design Alternative will result in additional open space in the northern project area, partially reducing aesthetic and visual effects. It should be noted that a component of the aesthetic and visual effect is attributable to the proposed San Miguel Road and Proctor Valley Road alignments, as requested by the City in Scenario IV of the General Plan Update. These road alignments, the proposed SR-125 freeway alignment and the proposed extension of East "H" Street will require grading, resulting in aesthetic and visual effects anticipated by the City, but not attributable to the Salt Creek I project. Landscaping and design could, in any case, minimize these proposed roadway aesthetic and visual impacts. Landscaping and design would also serve to "soften" the aesthetic and visual effects resulting from proposed residential development. In addition, the type and design of the proposed development should be compared with the existing approved SPA Plan (residential v. employment uses). Residential development presents an entirely different aesthetic appearance than commercial/industrial development. From a grading standpoint, the proposed project would result in smaller, varied pads which generally follow existing slopes, as compared with the four or five large commercial pads shown on the approved SPA Plan (1984 Grading Plan). Commercial pads -22- would result in a more severe aesthetic impact which is also more difficult to mitigate. In the northern site area, the aesthetic grading effect is slightly greater for the Salt Creek I project due again to the difference in acreage retained as open space,in the northern area. This could be minimized by retention of some open space in that area, as proposed by the Design Alternative. The proposed project is also compatible with surrounding land uses. The project provides adequate open space buffer on the west, southwest and southern border areas, and open space areas interior to the site. The project is also compatible with City approved circulation plans which impact upon the aesthetic appearance of the property (all of which is beyond the control of the project applicant). Implementation of the mitigation measures as set forth above will reduce aesthetic and visual effects to the extent feasible, however, project development and City roadway construction will result in a permanent aesthetic alteration of the project site and views from surrounding properties. These impacts have been generally anticipated as the site has been previously approved for urban development (EIR 84-1 and General Plan Update). However, the project will, in the northern area, create unavoidable aesthetic and visual effects previously unanticipated, due to proposed residential development in the northern project area. These impacts can be minimized by approval and implementation of the Design Alternative (Alternative D, Section V), which provides more open space located in the northern area of the project, and by additional setback requirements for SR-125. Despite the foregoing mitigation measures, and approval and implementation of the Design Alternative, project and cumulative effects from proposed residential development (in the site's northern area) and City proposed roadway alignments are not reduced to a level of insignificance. However, specific economic, social, and other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final Supplemental EIR. None of the alternatives, with the exception of the No Project Alternative, would reduce the aesthetic and visual impacts associated with the northern area of the project to an insignificant level. The No Project Alternative has been rejected because it does not provide for San Miguel Road and Proctor Valley Road alignments, currently identified in the City's General Plan Update. The No Project Alternative also does not address the need for housing adjacent to employment uses. The remaining unavoidable, significant effects are acceptable when balanced against facts as set forth above and in the "Statement of Overriding Cons~deratlo . C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS: As originally proposed, the project would impact various onsite biological resources. These biological resources and an analysis of their impact are illustrated in Figure 3-7 and Table 3-2 of the Final Supplemental -23- EIR. The loss of sage scrub habitat as open space which supports populations of sensitive plants and animals is also determined to be a significant cumulative effect of the proposed project. Additional loss of habitat could occur during the construction phase of the project. As such, the project will, in combination with other development in the area, unavoidably contribute to a cumulative, significant incremental loss of biological habitat in the region. MITIGATION MEASURES: Mitigation measures involve coastal sage scrub habitat preservation, onsite revegetation, landscaping and retention of permanent onsite open space in the northern area of the project. These mitigation measures, and approval and implementation of the Design Alternative (which proposes additional open space in the northwest area of the project) will mitigate project-specific impacts to a level of insignificance. The specific mitigation measures are presented below, followed by general recommendations regarding construction practices and open space preservation: The Design Alternative's open space in the northwest corner (Lot A, 6.45 acres) will provide for preservation of coastal sage scrub habitat. Manufactured slopes and disturbed grassland onsite shall be revegetated with native scrub species found in the area. Revegetation of these areas would eventually provide some suitable habitat for the California black-tailed gnatcatcher and reduce the potential for non-native landscaping materials invading natural habitats. Species suitable for revegetation include the following: Artemisia californica California Sagebrush Eriogonum fasciculatum Flat-topped Buckwheat Lotus scoparius Deerweed Salvia mellifera Black Sage Salvia apiana White Sage Haplopappus venetus Goldenbush Eshscholzia californica California Poppy Lupinus spp. Lupine Coastal sage scrub revegetation areas shall be effectively hydroseeded, followed by a tackified straw mulch. Materials and seed mixes may be changed only with the approval of the project biologist, who shall oversee revegetation procedures at the expense of the applicant. The coastal sage scrub habitat shall be irrigated as needed for the first year to accelerate establishment and coverage. The hydroseeding should be completed in the summer, if possible, so as to establish cover prior to the rainy season. A number of annual species are included in the hydroseed mixture to provide color to the slopes. The species should reseed themselves each year. -24- The Design Alternative's open space in the north-central corner (Lot B, 1.08 acres) will adequately protect the endangered Hemizonia conjugens (Otay Tarplant). The following general recommendations will buffer and protect sensitive wetland and upland habitats and the wildlife therein, and to prevent further degradation of the habitat during and after the construction process. Construction Practices. Additional loss of habitat could occur from the use of heavy equipment in wetland areas, on and offsite. Nonsensitive construction practices resulting in additional impacts to wetland vegetation would increase the total wetland impact acreage, and ultimately, the amount of mitigation required. Impacts to wetland vegetation adjacent to the grading areas would be reduced by adherence to certain construction practices, as outlined below. Heavy equipment and construction activities shall be restricted to the grading areas to the greatest degree possible in order to reduce direct impacts to wetland habitat. Construction of cut and fill slopes, and equipment used for this construction, will be kept within the limits of grading. Prohibited activities in the wetland habitat include staging areas, equipment access, and disposal or temporary placement of excess fill. Construction limits and wetland habitat shall be flagged by a qualified biologist. Construction activities shall be monitored by an onsite inspector (approved by the City) to ensure that grading activities do not affect additional acreage. Any unauthorized impacts caused by construction operations will require that the contractor replace all habitat to its original condition, with wetland habitat potentially being restored at greater than a l:l ration, as deemed appropriate by the City and project biologist. Fueling of equipment shall not occur in any portion of the site near the intermittent stream. Areas designated as open space shall not be grubbed, cleared, or graded, but left in their natural state. To ensure that contractors are fully aware of specific restrictions of the project, such as staging areas, limits of fill, no vehicle zones, and other appropriate regulations, information shall be clearly shown on the construction plans and further identified in the field onsite prior to commencement of grading. Contractors should be fully aware of the sensitivities and restrictions prior to bidding. Ten Space. The primary means of mitigating significant impacts to biological resources is the preservation of a system of open space which encompasses the most valuable habitat or sensitive species onsite. Designation of open space is only an initial step in preservation of the -25- sensitive resources therein. The integrity of open space must also be preserved through adherence to responsible construction practices, as outlined above, and the exclusion of certain activities. The following recommendations are provided in an attempt to minimize the effects of the. development in open space areas subsequent to construction activities: In the event that a fire or fuel break is deemed necessary, plant species used in this area shall be noninvasive, so as to reduce impacts to remaining native vegetation. Suitable species from a biological standpoint are low growing, moderately fire-retardant, native species such as prostrate coyote busy (Baccharis pilularis var. pilularis). No clearing of brush shall be allowed outside the fire or fuelbreak, and no fuelbreak clearing will be allowed in sensitive habitat areas. In general, the limits of the fuelbreak will be measured from the building pads. The width of the fuelbreak may be reduced by the use of low-growing, fire-retardant species (see #1). Plants in riparian and/or natural areas within the project's boundaries shall not be trimmed or cleared for aesthetic purposes. Revegetation of cut slopes shall be accomplished with native plant species which presently occur onsite or are typical for the area. Suitable species include California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), flat-top buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum ssp. fasciculatum), black sage (Salvia mellifera), and San Diego sunflower (Viguiera laciniata). If this area is hydroseeded, measures shall be taken to ensure the exclusion of nonnative, weedy species from the mixture. A fence or other effective means shall be provided around the natural open space are to prevent adverse impacts to biological resources from domestic pets and human activity An alternative would be the planting of barrier plant species that would discourage pedestrian activity into open space areas. A suitable species for barrier plantings is Dudleya variegata. Normative species would not be acceptable as barrier plantings within open space areas. No active uses shall be planned in the open space easements, including building structures or construction of trails through this area. Landscaping around buildings shall utilize noninvasive exotic species or preferably, native plant species found in the area. Species present onsite, such as desert elderberry (Sambucus mexicana) and California buckwheat, would be suitable for planting. The City of Chula Vista shall assure the long-term conservation of remaining native habitat onsite (wetlands and uplands) by dedicating these areas as part of a permanent natural pen space -26- easement. The City shall place an open space easement in this acreage which would eliminate further building activity and, in effect, permanently set this area aside for the preservation of wildlife. Additional facilities which would promote pedestrian activity in open space areas at the expense of wildlife should not be constructed. FINDINGS: Implementation of the mitigation measures as set forth above, and changes incorporated into the project, will mitigate project-specific impacts to an insignificant level. The project will, nevertheless, contribute to an unavoidable, incremental, cumulative loss of biological habitat in the region. Specific economic, social, and other considerations make infeasible any other mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final Supplemental EIR. None of the alternatives, with the exception of the No Project Alternative, would reduce these incremental cumulative effects to an insignificant level. The No Project Alternative also does not account for the City's proposed alignment for San Miguel Road and Proctor Valley Road, recently identified in the General Plan Update. The biological habitat in the northeast area of the project will be impacted by these General Plan road alignments, in combination with the residential development proposed in that area. As a result, some impact will necessarily be caused by the road alignments which is outside of the control of the project applicant. The remaining unavoidable significant effects are acceptable when balanced against the facts set forth above and in the "Statement of Overriding Considerations." D. AIR QUALITY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS: The San Diego Air Pollution Control.District ("APCD") is responsible for ensuring that state and national air quality, standards are achieved. APCD's current air quality plan is based on the 1982 State Implementation Plan, which documents the necessary overall strategy and individual tactics by which the San Diego air basin can meet its attainment goal. In the San Diego area, a project is considered, by definition, to have a significant, cumulative air quality impact if the project has not been included in the SANDAG Series V and VI growth forecasts. These forecasts are the basis for the air quality attainment strategies, contained, in the 1982 State Implementation Plan. Since this project was not incorporated into the adopted air quality attainment growth forecasts (SANDAG Series V and VI) for the San Diego region, it represents growth that was not considered when the growth forecasts were formu- lated. As such, the project is currently a non-conforming use and therefore is considered to contribute to a cumulative impact on the region's air quality, even after implementation of mitigation measures. In addition, during the proposed construction phase of the project, short-term emissions of several criteria air pollutants will occur. -27- MITIGATION MEASURES: The following mitigation measures have been identified in the Final Supplemental EIR to reduce short-term pollutant emissions: Use watering or other dust palliatives to reduce fugitive dust; emissions reductions of about 50 percent can be realized by implementation of these measures. Disturbed areas shall be hydroseeded, landscaped, or developed as soon as possible and as directed by the City to reduce dust generation. Trucks hauling fill material shall be properly covered. A 20 mile-per-hour speed limit shall be enforced on unpaved surfaces. Heavy-duty construction equipment with modified combus- tion/fuel injection systems for emissions control shall be utilized during grading and construction. FINDINGS: In comparison to the previously approved SPA Plan, the proposed project (redesignation of uses from commercial/employment and open space to residential and open space uses) will generate less air pollutants due to lower traffic volumes. However, the project was not incorporated into the previously adopted air quality attainment growth forecasts for the San Diego region. As a result, a finding of project inconsistency must be made. No mitigation is readily available to offset this definitional air quality impact, despite the actual reduction in air quality impacts, because the land use assumptions for the attainment plan will be different until updated. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible other mitigation measures or project alternatives. The remaining unavoidable significant cumulative impacts are acceptable when balanced against the facts set forth above and in the "Statement of Overriding Considerations." E. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES (WATER AND ENERGY) Significant impacts to all public services and utilities will be avoided or eliminated by implementation of mitigation measures provided in the Final Supplemental EIR, with the exception of unmitigable cumulative impacts on water demand and non-renewable energy resources. (See Section IV, above, for a discussion of the City's findings regarding all public services utilities and their impacts, mitigation measures and findings.) -28- documents. However, the No Project Alternative does not provide for the City's proposed road alignments, San Miguel Road and Proctor Valley Road (these roads were not incorporated into the previous- ly approved SPA Plan). These proposed road alignments are identified as critical for projected City development under the General Plan Update. In addition, the project will generate less traffic than the designated employment park uses, thus the project will result in a less significant traffic increase than the existing SPA Plan, constituting a positive project impact. From a cumulative standpoint, the proposed project has been incorporated into the traffic and land use projections of the General Plan Update. With regard to noise impacts, approval and implementation of the project would generate less traffic and, therefore, less noise than implementation of the existing SPA Plan. Regarding aesthetics and visual impacts, the grading proposed for residential uses presents a different approach and would result in smaller, varied pads.which generally follow existing slopes, as compared with large commercial pads. The commercial pads generally result in a more severe aesthetic impact which is also more difficult to mitigate. The No Project Alternative is also considered by the project applicant to be economically infeasible. For all of these reasons, the No Project Alternative is required. 2. LOWER DENSITY ALTERNATIVE: This Alternative would have project impacts very similar to the No Project Alternative, with the exception that slightly lesser project effects may be created for biological resources and traffic (less trips). There may also be a slight reduction in noise and air quality effects, but not significantly. A fire station site could potentially be located in the southern area under this Alternative. However, mitigation measures have been required, and incorporated into, the project to mitigate or avoid significant concern relating to fire protection services. In addition, low-density residential may not be entirely suitable in the southern area because of its proximity to major roadways and high intensity uses to the south and southeast. Finally, this Alternative does not satisfy the objectives of lessening the project's overall environmental consequences. For these reasons, the Lower Density Alternative is rejected. 3. HIGHER DENSITY ALTERNATIVE: Higher density residential designations in any or all areas of the property site would not serve to reduce or avoid potential significant environmental effects beyond those identified in Final Supplemental EIR 89-6. Indeed, impacts relating to aesthetics, land use consistency, water quality, biological resources, traffic and demand on public services and utilities would be greater under this Alternative. For these reasons, the Higher Density Alternative is rejected. 4. THE DESIGN ALTERNATIVE: During preparation of Draft Supplemental EIR 89-6, the Design Alternative was created, after identification of potential significant effects to the project, to minimize the project's potential significant effects while still attaining the project objectives. The Design Alternative provides additional acreage of open space in the northern area of the property site. Final Supplemental EIR 89-6 provides that the Design Alternative is environmentally superior to the project as originally proposed and that it should be considered the "preferred alternative." - 30 ~ With regard to land use consistency, the Design Alternative slightly increased open space (14.9 to 18.9 acres) and redistributes open space from the central portion of the single-family residential tract to the northwest corner and north central edge. Project and cumulative impacts attributed to the northern area of the site are not reduced to a level of insignificance. However, all of the mitigation measures identified in the EIR have been required in, and incorporated into, the project. Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible other unknown mitigation measures or project alternatives. With regard to aesthetics and visual resources, the Design Alternative will reduce those impacts by providing more open space located in the northern area of the property site, and by an additional setback from SR-125. The aesthetic and visual effects will not, however, be reduced to a level of insignificance. However, all of the mitigation measures identified in the Final Supplemental EIR for such impacts have been required in, and incorporated into, the project. Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible other unknown mitigation measures or project alternatives. With regard to biological resources, the Design Alternative was, created to minimize the identified biological resource effects. The Design Alternative provides for mitigation of project-specific adverse impacts to a level of insignificance. The project's contribution to cumulative adverse biological resource effects has been reduced, but not to a level of insignificance. Mitigation measures have been required, and incorporated into, the proposed project. In addition, specific economic, social and other considerations make infeasible other unknown mitigation measures or project alternatives. With regard to noise effects, the Design Alternative further reduces onsite noise impacts by additional development setback requirements along SR-125. The mitigation results in reducing onsite noise effects to a level of insignificance. The air quality effects of the proposed project are unchanged by adoption of the Design Alternative. With regard to parks, recreation and open space effects, the Design Alternative increases onsite open space by four acres, in locations critical for biological resource preservation. The adoption of the Design Alternative reduces open space impacts, in combination with identified mitigation measures to a level of insignificance. With regard to impacts on public services and utilities, the Design Alternative mitigates such impacts by project design, financing programs and other mitigation measures identified in the Final Supplemental EIR, with the exception of cumulative water supply and non-renewable energy resources. Specific economic, social and other considerations make infeasible other mitigation measures with respect to those remaining cumulative effects. On balance, the Design Alternative is feasible and appropriate. 5. ALTERNATIVE SITE ANALYSIS: This alternative analyzes the potential significant environmental effects if the project were to be built at another location. Numerous locations are suitable for residential development in the region. Each proposed site would have its own unique environmental conditions and consequences. Construction of the site at another location would result in some similar impacts and some impacts unique to another location. Impacts to noise, geology, biology, land forms and visual quality would be specific to the alternative site selected. Since there are numerous sites which could be suitable for development of this project, evaluation of a specific alternative site is not feasible or reasonable at this time. Therefore, this alternative should be dismissed from further consideration because the project site is appropriate for the development proposed, it is generally consistent with policies and with land use designations in the General Plan Update, and it represents logical residential development for the City of Chula Vista. VII. THE RECORD For purposes of CEQA and these findings, the record of the Planning Commission and City Council relating to approval of the Salt Creek I project includes, but is not limited to: 1. Final Supplemental EIR 89-6, and all that is comprised in that document. 2. Final Master EIR (EIR 83-01) certified by City Council Resolution No. 10995 on August 24, 1982. 3. Final Supplemental EIR (SEIR 84-1) certified by City Council Resolution No. 11918 on January 29, 1985. 4. City of Chula Vista General Plan Update {July 1989) and related Final EIR No. 88-2. 5. Documentary and oral evidence presented to the Planning Commission and the City Council during public hearings on Supplemental EIR 89-6 and the Salt Creek I project. 6. Matters of common knowledge to the Planning Commission and City Council, such as: The City of Chula Vista General Plan (1970) The City of Chula Vista General Plan Update {adopted, July 1989) The Zoning Ordinance of the City of Chula Vista, as amended The Municipal Code of the City of Chula Vista, as amended All other formally adopted policies and ordinances -32 - 7. American Ornithologists' Union. 1983. Checklist of North American Birds. 6th Edition. American Ornithological Union, [Washington, D.C.]. 8. Atwood, J. 1980. The United States distribution of the California black-tailed gnatcatcher. Western Birds 11:65-78. 9. Atwood J.L. 1988. Speciation and geographic variation in black-tailed gnatcatchers. Ornithological Monograph 42. 74 pp. 10. Beauchamp, R.M. 1986. A flora of San Diego County. Sweetwater River Press. 241 pp. ll. California Department of Fish and Game. 1985. Designated endangered or rare plants. The Resources Agency, June 19. 12. Chula Vista, City of, 1988. Noise Element of General Plan. 13. Chula Vista, City of, 1988-89. City of Chula Vista Proposed Budget. 14. City of Chula Vista. 1974. Scenic Highway Element of the Chula Vista General Plan. 15. City of Chula Vista. 1982. Chula Vista General Plan, EastLake Policy Plan, City Council Resolution No. 10996, September 7. 16. City of Chula Vista. 1982. Housing Element. 17. City of Chula Vista. 1989. Draft Fire Station Master Plan (March). 18. County of San Diego. 1980. Conservation element (Part X) of the County general plan. Planning Department, GPA-80-61. 19. Demere, T. A. 1986. EastLake: A new chapter in the geologic history of San Diego County. Environment Southwest 515:9-13. 20. Demere, T. A. 1988. Early Arikareean (Late Oligocene) vertebrate fossils and biostratigraphic correlations of the Otay Formation at EastLake, San Diego County, California. In Filewicz, M. V. and Squires, R. L. (eds.), Paleogene Stratigrap-h-~, West Coast of North America, Pacific Section S.E.P.M., West Cast Paleogene Symposium Vol. 58, p. 35-43. 21. Everett, W.T. 1979. Threatened, declining and sensitive bird species in San Diego County. San Diego Audubon Society, Sketches, June. 22. Federal Highway Administration. 1978. Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108), December. -33- 23. Grinnell, J. and A.H. Miller. 1944. The distribution of the birds of California. Pacific Coast Avifauna 27. 24. HBW Associates Inc. 1986. Master Plan for the Chula Vista Public Library Draft, December. 25. Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of California. State of California, The Resources Agency. 26. Jennings, M.R. 1983. An annotated checklist of the amphibians and reptiles of California. California Department of Fish and Game 69(3):151-171. 27. John McTighe & Associates. 1989. City of Chula Vista Salt Creek One Fiscal Impact Analysis. April. 28. Jones, J.K., Jr., D.C. Carter, H.H. Genoways, R.S. Hoffman, and D.W. Rice. 1982. Revised checklist of North American mammals north of Mexico. Occasional Papers of the Museum Texas Tech. University 80:1-22. 29. Kuper T. H. 1977. Reconnaissance of the marine sedimentary rocks of southwestern San Diego County, Plates I-4; in G. T. Farrand (ed.) Geology of southwestern San Diego County~nd northwestern Baja California. Guidebook, San Diego Association of Geologists. 30. Mestre Grene Associates. 1989. Noise Analysis for Salt Creek l, March. 31. Munz, P.A. 1974. A flora of southern California. University of California Press, Berkeley. 1086 pp. 32. Oberbauer, T.A. 1979a. Distribution and dynamics of San Diego County grasslands. Unpublished M.A. thesis, San Diego State University, San Diego. 33. P&D Technologies. 1988. Traffic Analysis for EastLake I, (ADT volumes), December. 34. P&D Technologies. 1989. Draft EIR City of Chula Vista General Plan Update, March. 35. Rea, A.M. 1986. Cactus Wren. In A.R. Philips (ed.) Known Birds of North Middle America. Part 1. Denver Museum of Natural History. p 119. 36. RECON 1987. Home range, nest site, and territory parameters of the black-tailed gnatcatcher population on the Rancho Santa Fe Highlands study area. September - 34- 37. Remsen, V. 1978. The species of special concern list: an annotated list of declining or vulnerable birds in California. Western Field Ornithologist, Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley. 38. SANDAG. 1985. Final Series 6 Regional Growth Forecasts, 1980-2000. 39. SANDAG. 1987. Draft Series 7 Regional Growth Forecasts. 40. SANDAG. 1988. Traffic Generators Manual, July. 41. SDHS {San Diego Herpetological Society). 1980. Survey and status of endangered and threatened species of reptiles natively occurring in San Diego County. Prepared for Fish and Wildlife Committee, San Diego Department of Agriculture, 33 pp. 42. Smith, J.P. and K. Berg. 1988. Inventory of rare and endangered vascular plants of California. California Native Plant Society, Special Publication No. 1, 4th edition. 43. Smith, J.P., Jr. and R. York. 1984. Inventory of rare and endangered vascular plants of California. California Native Plant Society, special publication no. 1 (3rd Edition). 44. Tate, J. Jr., and D. J. Tate. 1982. The Blue List for 1982. American Birds 35(1):3-10. 45. Tate, J. Jr. 1986. The Blue List for 1986. American Birds 40:227-236. 46. United States Fish and Wildlife Service: 1985a. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: Review of plant taxa for listing as endangered or threatened species; Notice of review; Federal Register, 50(188):39526-39527, September 27. 47. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors, AP-42, Supplement 7. 48. Weaver K. 1989. Personal communication to Patrick Mock, April. 49. WESTEC Services, Inc. 1979. Environmental Assessment:Miguel to Tijuana Interconnection Project 230 KV Transmission Line. Prepared for San Diego Gas and Electric Co. September. 50. WESTEC Services, Inc. 1980. Jamacha Basin Waste Water Reclamation Project: Phase II Expansion. Prepared for Otay Municipal Water District. May. 51. WESTEC Services, Inc. 1981. EastLake EIR, Appendix A. Biological survey report. Prepared for City of Chula Vista. 52. Wier, H.A. 1986. Biological survey report of the Singing Hills Specific Plan, McGinty Mountain, San Diego, California. Prepared for McGinty Ranch General Plan Partnership, San Diego California. -35- WPC 6568P STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS BACKGROUND The State CEQA Guidelines provide: "(a) CEQA requires the decision-maker to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable." (b) Where the decision of the public agency allows the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not at least substantially mitigated, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record. This statement may be necessary if the agency also makes a finding under Section 15091(a)(2) or (a)(3). (c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the Notice of Determination." (Guidelines §15093.) THE STATEMENT The City finds that the mitigation measures discussed in the CEQA findings, when implemented, avoid or substantially lessen most of the significant effects identified in Final Supplemental EIR-89-6. Nonetheless, certain significant effects of the project are unavoidable even after incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures. These include: land use consistency, aesthetic and visual resources and cumulative impacts on permanent open space, biological resources, air quality, water supplies and non-renewable energy resources. With regard to these impacts, the City has balanced the benefits of the project against the unavoidable environmental risks in approving the Salt Creek I project. In this regard, the City finds that all feasible mitigation measures identified in the CEQA findings, have been and will be implemented with the project, and any significant remaining unavoidable effects are acceptable due to the following specific economic, social or other considerations, based upon the facts set forth below, in the CEQA findings, in Final Supplemental EIR-89-6 and in the record of the consideration of this project, as follows: 1. The City finds that the project is consistent with the demand for housing in the growing community of Chula Vista. With the adoption of the Design Alternative as the project, the City believes that the appropriate balance has been struck between environmental issues and the need for balanced, logical residential development in the Chula Vista community. The mix of single and multi-family uses in close proximity to surrounding commercial/employment park uses in the EastLake Business Center, portions of which are now built or under construction, provide opportunities for persons to reside in areas adjacent to planned emplo~q~ent facilities and, thus, reduce related traffic, noise and air quality impacts. In addition, the project will provide 55 residential units of low and moderate income housing. The project will therefore address increasing demand for housing in the project area and region. 2. The proposed redesignation of the property to residential uses is also considered to have an insignificant impact on surrounding properties, because the area has been planned and evaluated in the General Plan Update. Surrounding properties to the south, southwest and southeast are developed or approved for development; land to the east is currently being considered for development as the 1200 acre Salt Creek Ranch Planned Community; land to the north is being considered as the San Miguel Ranch development; and properties to the west generally are made up of existing Chula Vista residential neighborhoods. Even the area planned in the Eastern Territories Area Plan contemplates roadways, open space and infrastructure in consideration of cumulative future land uses. Further, although the project commits the area to long-term residential use, the site has been planned and previously approved for urban development. 3. Since the project provides logical community land uses, enhances opportunities for the long-term productivity of the City and the surrounding region, and maintains and conserves valuable resources, the City further finds that the project is in conformance with the long-term planning goals of the City of Chula Vista. 4. With regard to land use consistency, the project incorporates proposed road alignments such as San Miguel Road and Proctor Valley Road that are pursuant to City direction and reflected in the General Plan Circulation Element Update. Other roadway improvements include: (a) the extension of East "H" Street, which is classified as a 4-lane major street and 6-lane prime arterial traversing through the project site; and (b) the dedication as right-of-way for the proposed State Route ("SR") 125 freeway extension forming the southwest boundary of the project site. Proposed roadways onsite account for approximately 38 acres, as opposed to only about 30 acres on the previously approved SPA Plan. 5. With regard to aesthetics and visual resources, the grading of the project presents a positive impact due to smaller, varied pads that generally follow existing slopes, as compared with large commercial pads. Commercial pads also result in a more severe aesthetic impact which is more difficult to mitigate. From a planning standpoint, therefore, residential grading is a less severe impact on the overall environment. -2- 6. With regard to biological resources, the Design Alternative provides for mitigation of project-specific adverse biological effects to a level of insignificance. For example, the Design Alternative proposes increased open space in the northwestern area of the project site which provides for preservation of coastal sage scrub habitat. The only remaining adverse impact is the project's contribution to cumulative biological resource impacts. 7. With regard to traffic effects, the project actually represents a positive impact by generating less traffic than the previously approved employment park uses. Further, from a cumulative standpoint, the project has been incorporated into the traffic and land use projections of the General Plan Update. Additional proposed roadways identified as critical to serve projected City development (in the General Plan Update traffic projections) are now included in the project design. Specifically, San Miguel Road and Proctor Valley Road have been added to the proposed site design pursuant to City direction. These proposed road alignments were not incorporated in the previously approved SPA Plan. Related noise and air quality impacts are also less significant because of the generation of less traffic from residential uses, as compared with the previously approved employment park uses. 8. Regarding open space uses, the Design Alternative increases onsite open space by four acres, in the northern area of the project site. The Design Alternative also provides for private open space in the residential areas of the project that will be used by residents for recreational purposes. Taking into account the public and private open space uses, over 59 acres of property /or 48% of the project area) constitutes open space uses. The public and private open space also provide a visual and functional buffer from buildings within the project area, and from surrounding area residential development. 9. The Salt Creek I project also contains a number of other overriding public benefits. The project provides 55 units of low and moderate income housing. The project provides over 23 acres of property dedicated as right-of-way for the alignment of SR- 125, a proposed freeway extension of significance to the vicinity and the San Diego region. The project will also result in the extension @f East "H" Street in the project area, which is regionally significant due-to its classification as a major street and prime arterial, and its eventual connection to the proposed SR-125 freeway extension. Other project benefits include a commitment from the project applicant for a one acre offsite location for a new fire station; a standby commitment to participate in a funding program to create a new library facility; and a commitment at the site plan-level to incorporate bikeways, trails and trail connections to adjacent areas such as Salt Creek Ranch and EastLake Business Park. For these reasons, on balance, this City finds that there are planning, social and economic considerations resulting from this project that serve to override and outweigh the project's unavoidable significant environmental effects. WPC 6571 P -3- City Planning Commission Agenda Items for MEeting of August 9, 1989 Page i 9. Consideration of Miti§ation Monitoring Program for EIR-89-6, Salt Creek I A. BACKGROUND Recent State Legislation (AB 3180) required that public agencies adopt Mitigation Monitoring Programs to insure the implementation of Mitigation Measures identified in an EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration. Attached is the Mitigation Monitoring Program prepared by ERC Environmental and Energy Services Company for the Salt Creek I project. B. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached Mitigation Monitoring Program. AUG 04 *09 12=5E~ ~ERCE~< MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM The mitigation monitoring program is prepared for the City of Chula Vista for the Salt Creek I project to comply with AB 3150, which requires public agencies to adopt such programs to ensure effective implementation of mitigation measures. The following program is a fratnework for a fully developed mitigation monitoring plan that will allow ~e City of Chula Vista to accurately evaluate the proposed project. The program includes: · Monitoring learn qualifications · Specific monitoring activities · Reporting system . Criteria for evaluating the success of the mitigation measures The project involves the development of 124.2 acres of residential and open space uses. It is located in the northern portion of the EastLake I Sectional Planning Area (SPA) in thc rolling hills of eastern Chula Vista. The property lies approximately 8 miles east of downtown Chula Vista and 8 miles north of the US/Mexican border. Thc site is roughly triangular in shape, with the East.Lake Business Center bordering to the south, the proposed Salt Creek Ranch site to the east, and undeveloped hills to the north. The East. Lake Greens SPA is farther to the south, and the remainder of Chula Vista and EastLake residential neighborhoods lie farther to the west and south, The property is within City of Chula Vista incorporated boundaries, County of San Diego jurisdiction borders to the site's north and east; these areas are within Chula Vista's Sphere of Influence, The site's southwest boundary is the proposed alignment of the future Stale Route (SR) 125 Freeway extension; the site is bisected by the proposed extension of East "H' Street which runs in a southwest to east/northeast direction through the site towards the Salt Creek Ranch property. AB 3180 requires monitoring of only those impacts identified as significant or potentially significant; the monitoring program for Salt Creek I therefore addresses the following impacts: . Land Use · Aesthetics/Visual Quality AUG 04 * ~eolo S ' , Hyd~lo~/Wate~ ~u~lity · Cult~l Resoles * ~~a~on :: * NOiSe' : :' P~. Relation ~ ~ Space . ~blic $~ice~ and A monito~g team should be identified once ~e mitigation mc~su~s have been ~opled as conditions ~ app~val by ~c Ci~ decision-m~ers. Managing th~ team would be the ~s~n~b~ty of the ~figa~on Cool.ce C~ator (MCC), The moni~ng will be accomplished by the cnvi~nmentd monitors, cnv~onmentE specialis~s, ~d MCC W~le ~ifi~ qu~ca~ons s~utd ~cl~cd in the ~ mo~dng ~c moE~ing ~ shou~ ~sse~i the follo~ng capabi~es: . In~ersonal, dccision-m~ing, and management skills with demonstrated exp~ence in wor~g under ~ing field c~cu~ces; . Knowl~ge of and appreciation for the general environmental at.butts and s~ciE fcatu~ found m the ~ojea ~a, . ~owl~g~ of ~e typc~ of cnviwnm~nt~ impacts as~cialed with cons~uction of cos~-effec~ve mifiga~on op~ons; and . ]Excellent communication The responsibilities of the MCC throughout the monitoring effort include the following: · Overall implementation and management of the monitoring program · Quality control of the site-development monitoring team. · Administration and preparation of daily logs, status reports, compliance reports and the final construction monitoring report, · Liaison between the City, the applicant, and the applicant's contractors. · Monitoring of onsite, day-to-day construction activities, including the direction of environmental monitors (EMs) and environmental specialist (ESs) in the understanding of all permit conditions, site-specific project requirements, construction schedules and environmental quality control effort. 2 · Ensurance of contractor knowledge of and compliance with all appropriate permit conditions. · I~cvic_w,.o~,.all .construction impact mitigations and, if need be, propose additional mitigation. · Empowermant to require correction of activities observed that violate project environmental conditions or that represent unsafe or dangerous conditions. · Maintenance of prompt and regular communication with the onsite EMs and ESs, and Salt Creek I personnel responsible for contractor performance and pezmit compliance. The prima.w role of the Environmental Monitors is to serve as an extension of the MCC in ' ' Their responsibilities and performing the quality control funcuons atthe construction s~tes. functions are to: ~ a) Maintain a working knowledge of the Salt Creek I permit conditions, contract documents, construction schedules and progress and any special mitigation requirements for his or her assigned construction area; b) Assist the MCC and Salt Creek I construction contractors in coordinating City of Chula Vista compliance activities; c) Observe construction activities for compliance with the City of Chula Vista permit conditions; and d) Provide frequent verbal briefings to the MCC and Salt Creek I, and assist the MCC as necessary in preparing status reports. The primary role of the Environmental Specialists is to provide expertise when environmentally sensitive issues occur, and to provide direction for mitigation. Prior to any construction activities, meetings should take place between all the parties involved to initiate the monitoring program and establish thc responsibility and authority of the participants. An effective reporting system must be established prior to any monitoring efforts. All parties involved must have a clear understanding of the mitigation measures as adopted and these mitigations must be distributed to the participants of the monitoring effort. Those that would have a complete list of all the mitigation measure adopted by the City would include the City o£.(:hula Vis. la Environmental: Resources Coordinator, the MCC and the construction crew supervisor. The MCC would dis~ihute to each environmental specialist and environmental monitor a specific list of mitigation measures that pertain to his or her monitoring task~ and the appropriate time frame that these mitigations are anticipated to be implemented.: In addition to the list of mitigations, the monitors will have compliance report forms with each mitigation written out on the top of the form. Below thc stated mitigation measure, the form will have a series of questions addressing the effectiveness of the mitigation measure. The monitors shall complete the report form and file it with the MCC following their monitoring activity. The MCC will then include the conclusions of these forms into an interim and final comprehenslvc construction report to be submitted to the City of Chula Vista. This report will dcscribc the major accomplishments of the monitoring program, summarize problems encountered in achieving the goals of the program, evaluate solutions developed to overcome problems and provide a list of recommendations for future monitoring programs. In addition, each monitor will be required to fill out and submit a daily log report. The daily log report will be used to record and account for thc monitoring activities of the monitor. Weekly/monthly status reports will bc gencrated from the daily logs and compliance repons and will include supplemental material (i.e., memoranda, telephone logs, letters). The following text includes a summary of the project impacts, a list of all associated mitigation measures and the monitoring efforts needcd to cnsurc that the measures arc adequately implemented. In most cases, the language of the mitigations incorporates methods for monitoring. LAND USE Potcntially significant land use impacts involve project consistency with existing land usc plans; consistcncy with the City General Plan Update; and land use compatibility with surrounding existing and proposed uses. The project as proposed is found to bc partially inconsistent with the existing SPA Plan and General Plan Update, specifically the northern project area which now proposes single-family residential use in comparison to that area's designated employment park and open space 9ses. 4 The northern:area of the project s single-family residenual Iract has been redesigned to the satisfaction':of the City Planning Director and thc project now provides open space in the site's nm-them azea'to the satisfaction ~f ,~e City. - 1. ~.. Precise/site plan and landscape plans for the condominium project's-southern .boundary shall provide for buffering from and t~ansltion to employment p~k :~.~.: -:development to ~hg south/southeast, This may include slopes, setbacks, and landscaping techniques, subject to the approval of the City Planning Director. 2. Subsequent project approvals (i.e., precise plans, architectural review, grading permits, etc.) shall be consistent with applicable EastLake I PC Regulations (1982) stablished m the 1984 SPA Plan. Consistency shall be verified by and standards e ' · . City approval of each plan. Compliance with the design changes per Alternative D will be ensured by the City Planning Director. Periodic field monitoring shall be conducted to ensure that the approved plans are being implemented and the EastLake I PC Regulations and Standkrds are incorporated in to project construction, Once compliance is achieved, the City Planning Director shall be notified in writing by the field Environmental Monitor. AESTI~TICS/VISUAL RESOURCES The proposed Salt Creek I development would change the appearance of the project site as the pastoral character of the existing landscape would be replaced by urban development. This conversion has been previously analyzed and approved (EIR 81:3; EIR 84-1). The proposed amendment's visual impacts can be partially mitigated through senskive grading, e~_treatment, landscaping and compliance with design standards. Grading proposed for thc residential uses may bc more sensitive to existing topography than previously designatedcommcmial p~s. Onsite and adjacent roadways now required and incorporated into the project (not in the existing SPA Plan) will require extensive grading which will result, in visual impacts.: It should be noted that these roads are included in the General Plan Update and hence have City approval. A significant project-related aesthetic impact has been identified in the northern project area due to its current open space designation. Development proposed in that area woi~ld create aesthetic/~isual impacts previously unanticipated. Other potential impacts regarding City- designated scenic resources and development llgh~ing arc mitigated by project design and measures herein to a level of insignificance. Discussion The project's single-family residential northern area has been redesigned to incorporate open space to the satisfaction of thc City (refer to the EIR, Section V, Alternative D). Mitigtition 3, The site plan and landscape plan encompassing the site's southeast border (condominium project) shall delineate special edge u~eatment adjacent to the employment park uses to the southeast. The plans shall be subject to the acceptance of the City prior to site plan approval. 4. The project shall comply with all PC Regulations/Standards and design criteria and requirements set forth in the 1984 SPA Plan (specifically Section V.C.3, page 21), compliance is subject to City review prior to Final Site Plan approval. 5. Project grading shall be contoured to blend with natural landforms. Techniques shall include rounding vertical and horizontal intersections of graded lanes, incorporating variable slope ratios for larger slope banks, use of landscaping for erosion control and obscuring drainage structures, and other measures. Slope hanks shall generally not exceed a 2:1 slope ratio, and shall conform to Section 15.0~,.0,~0 and other relevant sections of the City Grading Ordinance. Mqnitorin~ ' l%r miti§ation~mcasures - ' 4 monitorin,, will be identical to the Land Use monitoring efforts in that the Planning Director will review design changes and ~-Ms will monitor the measures in the field, Mitigation wiil require that thc ~-ading techniques discussed shall b~ conditions of the final map. Compliance is required pric~ to approval of the final map. An environmental specialist will be responsible for ensuring that mitigation is properly implemented at both the preconstrucfion and site preparation phases. Landscaping measures could be monitored by an env/ronmental monitor. C~OLOG¥/SOILS ~ Geologic constraints onsite include minor landslides, soil expansion and settlement, slope stability and seismicity. These conditions and potential impacts can he mitigated to a level of insignificance by mitigation measures proposed herein, including subsequent site- specific earthwork analysis, sensitive grading and standard grading/site preparation procedures. 6. A site-specific earthwork package shall be prepared in accordance with recommendations of the March 1989 G¢o$oils report, indicating the approximate amount of earthwork removal necessary and addressing and mitigating any other geotechnical constraints. Onsite excavation of the formational units shall be quantified and shall define favorable select material for structural fills. Select fill soils may be mixed with the topsoil, alluvial and colluvial soils for deep canyon fills, Any export material must have an approved spoil site identified and procedures defined, The investigation and earthwork package shall be subject to approval by the City t~ngineer, prior to issuance of grading permits. ?. Concerning scismicity, the effects of groundshaking on the project site shall be mitigated by adhering to the State 1975 Uniform Building Code or state-of-the-an seismic design parameters of the Structural En~/neers Association of Cali£ornia. ~Ug 0~ '89 13:01 ~, ~ _Cut-and-fill slopes constructed with erosion prone matcrlais (i,e,, granular sands of thc Otay Formation) shall be provided with appropriate surface drainage features subject'to approval by the City, and shall be landscaped immediately following · grading to minimize any erosional damage from surface waters. Drainage features - :..~ shall be installed in accordance with City requirements to avoid erosion during grading subjectto onsite inspection and approval by City staff. '9. Expansive soils shall be removed and used in accordance with recommendations of the March 1989 OeoSoils report. Areas requiring removal and replacement of expansive soils shall be evaluated (for special foundation design, etc,) by the .... geotechnical engineer during the site specific tentative grading plan geotechnical investigations in accordance with City grading procedures and monitoring. 10. Alluvial and/or colluviai soils encountered in areas that will receive fill or other .... surface improvements shall be removed and recompacted in order to mitigate the potential for settlement· Procedures shall be dictated precisely on plans which show where onsite this shall occur. Verification shall occur through onsite approval by a qualified expert. 11. Cut slopes requiring special drainage or stabilization (i,e., northeast side of SR-125, southeast of "It" Street, the power tower in open space lot B), shall be evaluated by the geot¢chnical consultant and mitigated appropriately during site grading. Evaluation shall be verified and signed in written form at appropriate phases of grading. 12, Foundations and slabs shall be designed in accordance with recommendations of the March 1989 Geo$oils report. Design shall be approved by the City, based on the type of soils encountered onsite and subsequent expansion testing, in accordance with City Code requirements, 13, Prior to issuance of grading permits, outcrops shall be assessed for rippability and quality for fill material, Any additional mitigation shall be defined and may he included in the earthwork investigation, subject to approval by the City. 14. Stabilization f'flls shall be conswacted in accordance with slope height as dictated in the OeoSoils March 1989 report, page 26. Further, fill slopes shall be constructed at gradients of 2:1 or flatter, and in aeeontance with City of Chula Vista codes, the Uniform Building Code (UBC) and Grading Guidelines of the GeoSoils March 1989 report (Appendix D of GeoSoils report). 15. Landslide corrective grading required in and around Open Space Lot "A" shall be conducted specifically in accordance with methodology dictated in the March 1989 GeoSoils report, plans subject to the approval of the City prior to issuance of gr~ling permits. 16. Lots~ 62 through 72 shall be overexeavated ~nd reconstructed as shown in Appendix D of the GeoSoils March 1989 report. 17. All slopes shall be designed and constructed in accordance with requirements of the City of Chula Vista codes, the UBC and recommendations of the Geosoils March 1989 report (specifically Appendix A and pages 29-30 of that report). 18. Specific grading plans shall be reviewed by a qualified geotechnical expert and approved by the City prior to issuance of grading permits. Mgnitorin~ A qualified geologist/environmental specialist shall be responsible for monitorMg the implementation of these mitigation measures. In addition, the geologist/environmental specialist shall be onsite throughout the entire grading phase of the project to ensuring proper implementation and to be available to make decisions on issues not originally anticipated. HYDROLOOY/%VATER QUALITY Project development will increase drainage exiting the site at the nor*.h and west boundaries. Since the site is at the drainage headwaters, the project's increased runoff will constitute a contributaon to a cumulattve increase m flows. Although aceommodauon of these increased AUG 0~ '~9 13:~2 ~ERC£* F'.11 flows has not yet been approved, this impact is mitigable by installation of flood control devices and provision of drainage plans (required as mitigation). Project and cumulative water quality: impacts.from u~han land uses proposed can also bc mitigated to a level of insignificance:by adherence to state regulations and sedimentation/pollution runoff control devices. Mitigation 19. The project shall comply with all applicable City flood control regulations. 20. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the proponent shall verify (on drainage plans) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer/Public Works Department that project peak discharges offsite to thc west and northwest will be mitigated (by limiting the increase in existing flows, panlcipation in a flood control district, flood routing, or installation of downstream improvements), and will not impact the Proctor Valley Drainage Basin, ~ 1. Drainage plans for thc project (required above) will incorporate facilities to provide for long-term erosion, sedimentation and pollutant control in project runoff. Said plans shall be subject to approval by the City Engineer or Public Works Department, prior to issuance of grading permits. Subsequent to project completion (Certificates of Use and Occupancy), these facilities shall be inspected for adequacy by a qualified expert approved by the City (inspection cost to bc at the applicant's expense) to ensure adequate water quality control in project drainage facilities. The project shall bc in conformance with applicable water and reclaimed water regulations of the Otay Water District and State Regional Water Quality Control Board. Construction sedimentation will be controlled by adherence to City erosion control measures. Sedimentation basins and other mechanisros shall be installed as deemed necessary by the City Eh§Sneer or Public Works Department, to control scouring and increased sediment loads. Monitoring during grading shall be conducted at the applicant's expense to verify adequate erosion control. 10 - - AUG ~4 '89 13:03 *ERCE* F'.iZ Monitorin~ . A,Clu~ified hyekologlst, working with the Cify En~ineer/P~bli¢ Works Department, will ensure that the mitigation measures are effectively implemented, It will be the responsibility of the City to ensure conforn~nce with all applicable City flood control, Otay Water District and State Regional Water Quality Control Board regulations prior to issuance of grading permits. BIOLOGICAL RE$OURCI~$ The proj.ec3,.aS proposed, will directly impact various biological resources (including coastal sage scrub and Hemizonta cor~ugens) onsite identified as significant (sec Figure 3-7 and Table 3-2 of thc EIR)~ Mitigation proposes offsite coastal sage scrub habitat preservation, onsite revegetation, landscaping and retention of permanent onsite open space in a portion of the northern site area. Thc project will, in combination with other development in the area, unavoidably contribute to a cumulatively significant incremental loss of valuable biological habitat in the region. 24. Manufactured slopes and disturbed grassland onsitc sh~ll be revegctated with naive scrub species found in the area. Revegetadon of these areas may eventually provide some suitable habitat for the California black-tailed gnatcatcher and reduce the potential for non-naive landscaping materials invading natural habitats. Species suitable for revegetation include the following: Artemisia cal~fornica California Sagebrush Eriogonurnfasclculatum Flat-topped Buckwheat Lotu~ $coparius Deerweed Salvia mell~fera Black Sage Salvia ~iana White Sage Haplopapptts venetus Goldenbush EshschoIzia californica California Poppy Lupinus spp. Lupine 1l AU~ 0~ ~89 13:03 ~ERCE~ P.i~ 25. Coastal sage scrub revegetation areas shall be effectively hydroseeded, followed by . c ~:,-. :: · ta~kified, smiw mulch. Materials and seed mixes may be changed only with the .... approval of the project biologist, who shall oversee r~vegetation procedures at the expense of the applicant 26. The coastal sage scrub habitat shall be irrigated as needed for the first year to accelerate establishment and coverage. The hydroseeding should be completed in the summer, if possible, so as to establish cover prior to the rainy season. A number of annual species are included in the hydroseed mixture to provide color to .... the slopes. The species should reseed themselves each year. 27, The mitigation sites shall be monitored for a period of $ years, during which a weed-control program sh~ll be implemented to prevent competition from weedy annual and perennial species. All phases of the mitigation program shall be supervised by a qualified biologist or native plant horticnlturalist at the expense of the project applicant. The monitoring program shall include both quantitative and subject measures to determine the success of the mitigation effort. These performance criteria may include vigor, reproduction success, survivorship, and change in population size through time. Other factors, such as erosion, weed control, and herbivory, which may affect the success of the mitigation program shall be closely documented as determined necessary by thc City and project biologist. Remedial measures (c.g., reseeding) shall be implemented if these performance criteria are not attained, Project redesign (Alternative D) has resolved the issue of coastal sage scrub habitat and Hemizonla conjugens pr~s~nwadon. MQnitoring A specific revegetation plan must be implemented, and procedures monitored, by a qualified biologist. 12 AUG ~4 'S9 13:04 ~ERCE~ P.14 CLrLTURAL RESOURCES Two loci of one prehistoric archaeological site will be impacted by project development, Paleontological resources have a high potential to exist onsite within the Otay and Sweetwater formations. These impacts can be mitigated to an insignificant level by mitigation provided herein, Discussion The applicant has contracted for a data recovery program for cultural resources, This cultural resources data recovery program is designed to 1) address iraportam research questions as proposed in the test repor~ (on file at the City of Chula Vista Planning Depam~ent); ~md 2) include a phased data recovery program. This phased approach employs a random sample in conjunction with a focused iuveutory for features and intact midden areas, The data recovery program will be conducted in accordance with a regional approach to the prehistoric sites within Salt Creek Ranch and the EastLake III/Olympic Training Center Projects, thereby allowing for a comprehensive understanding of these t~arly Period sites. For Locus E, establishment of the site boundary needs to be determined for both thc prehistoric and historic components before the sample size is determined. 28. Prior to issuance of a mass-grading permit the developer shall present a letter to the City of Chula Vista indicating that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to carry out the resource mitigation. (A qualified paleontologist is defined as an individual with an MS or PhD in paleontology or geology who is familiar with p~leontological procedures and techniques). 29. A qualified paleontologist and archaeologist shall be at the pre-grade meeting to consult with thc grading and excavation contractors. 30. A paleontological monitor shall be onsltc at all times during the original cutting or previously undisturbed sediments of the Otay Formation to inspect cuts for contained fossils (the Otay Formation occurs generally above 680 feet elevation). 13 ~' ~UG 04 '89 13:85 ~[RC£~ F'.i~ The gweetwater Formation shall be monitored on a half-time basis, Periodic inspections of cuts involving the Santiago Peak Volcanics shall be conducted in .~;~-': accordance with recommendations of the qualified paleontologist. (A paleontological monitor is defined as an individual who has experience in the collection and salvage of fossil materials. The paleontological monitor should work under the dkection of a qualified paleontologist). 31. In the event that w¢ll-prcsezved fossils are discovered, the paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) shall be allowed to temporarily direct, divert, or halt grading to allow recovery of fossil remains in a timely manner. Because of the potential for thc recovering of small fossil remains such as isolated mammal teeth, it may be necessary to set up a screen-washing operation on the site. 32. Fossil r~rnsins collected during any salvage program shall be cleaned, sorted, and cataloged and then with the owner's pcnaxission, deposited in a scientific institution with paleontological collections such as thc San Diego Natural History Museum. Monitoring is described in thc mitigation measures listed above. '~C AND CIRCL1LA'I'ION The project amendment will generate less traffic than employment park uses previously approved, thus the project will result in a less significant traft'~c increase than the existing SPA Plan. constituting a comparatively positive project impact. From a cumulative standpoint, the proposed project has been incorporated into traffic/land use projections of the General Plan (GP) Update. Further, additional roadways identifi~ as critical to serve projected City development (in the GP Update traffic projections) are now included in project site design, Specifically, Sm Miguel Road and Proctor Valley Road have been added to thc proposed site design pursuant to City direction (note that thes~ roads were not incorporated in the existing SPA Plan), The circulation improvements and 14 mitigation measures in the Salt Creek I SEIR will mitigate all project and cumulative ~raffic impacts to an insignificant level. 33. The project shall adhere to project phasing/transportation improvements required in thc EastLake I Development Agreement and Public Facilities Financing Plan (1985), and mitigation measures cited in EIR 84-1 Section 3.2, Improvements pertaining to the project site involve the following roadways, constructod in accordance with speculations, schedules and financing approved by the City Traffic Engineer and Planning Director. * SR-125:6 lane Expressway plus right-of-way for 8 lanes , East "H" Street: 6 lane Prime Arterial; 4-lane Major Street .San Miguel Road: ~-lane Class I Collect.or. _ . Proctor Valley Road: as det~,a-,ined by City * Internal Roadways: as det¢i-inined by City , Associated interchanges, land dedications and intersection improvements and amenities The project shall comply with provisions established in the General Plan Update Cimulation Element and any programs established therein which are applicable to the project area (i.e., fee programs, subsequent traffic analysis). Mitigation measures in EIR 88-2 (Section 3.14) and the (]cneral Plan Update Circulation Element Policies/Guidelines and Roadway Standards (Sections 4 and 5) arc hereby incorporated by reference; future actions on the project site shall adhere to these provisions for adequate circulation, In addition, the project shall comply with any applicable tra/fic threshold criteria as deemed appropriate by the City I~ngineer. The City Engineer/Public Works Department will be reposnsible for ensuring that the final project design incorporates mitigations 33 and 34 and that these measures are properly enforced in the field where applicable, AUG ~4 ~9 13:~6 *ERCE~ P.17 ~oise impacts identified include unacceptable onslte noise attributed to future cumulative traffic volumes on East "H" Street and $t/-125. Exterior noise barriers and interior noise attenuation measures (for residential areas exceeding acceptable noise levels) are proposed as mitigation for onsite noise impacts. These measures will ensure noise impacts are mitigated to an insignificant level. Mifiaafion 35. Noise barriers for the single-family houses shall be provided as delineated in Table 3-5 and illustrated in Figure 3-10 of the Salt Creek BIR. Barriers shall be located at. the top of slope along the edge of the roadway from Lot 27 to Lot 77 and at the top of slope along thc edge of the rear yard for the rest of the lots (from Lot 77 to Lot 141). 36. The 9-foot high parking structure barrier separating MI: lots 1-5 from SR-125 (Figure 3-11 of the Salt Creek I EIR) shall be continuous, with no opening between the separate parking blocks. This should serve as an adequate noise barrier for multi.family Lots 1-5. If the parking structures do not provide sufficient attenuation, then additional barrier modeling will be required for these lots. The barriers for an additional 13 multiple-family units requiring mitigation should be located at the pad elevation for patio bawlers and at the 2nd floor finished floor elevation for balcony barriers. The barrier heights to attenmate noise at these 13 multiple-family units shall be provided as presented in Table 3-5 and located in Figure 3-11 of the EIR. 37. The proposed noise barriers for the single- and multiple-family units shall have a surface density of at least 3.5 pounds per square foot, and shall have no openings or cracks. It may be constructed of 1/4 inch plate glass, 5/8 inch plexiglass, any masonry material, or a combination of these materials. Wood and other materials would also be acceptable fi`properly designed as a noise barrier. Implementation of adequate noise barriers shielding single- and multiple-family outdoor living areas would reduce potential noise impacts to below a level of significance. 16 ~.18 38. Detailed engineering calculations shall be conducted to demonstrate thc noise ,~...xeduction levels are achieved by the buildings for residential building attenuation requirements of §mater than 20 dB(A) CNEL, The actual ndise attenuation . supplied by the buildings as well as the building upgrades required shall be ': :-. calculated when architectural plans become available. Adequate attenuation must be approved prior to issuance of building permits. In order to assume that windows can remain closed tn ~chteve required attenuation, adequate ventilation with windows closed must be provided per the-Uniform ___ Building Code. All the lots along $R-12f, East "H" Street, and San Miguel Road will requke mechanical ventilation. Air conditioning would fulfill this requirement. Recommendations for the design of the ventilation system to attenuate noise levels are provided in Appendix C, 40. If exterior noise levels exceed 60 dB(A) CNEL, the project shall comply with State of California's Title li requiting an interior noise analysis to confirm that noise levels do not exceed 15 dB(A) CNEL. Detailed engineering calculations will also be required to confirm adequate interior noise levels (pursuant to the City's standard) after detailed barriers locations and heights have been established. Barriers to mitigate exterior noise levels and potentially up~raded building materials (as required) would reduce potemial interior noise impacts to below a level of significance. The specific noise design features shall bc incorporated into the final project design and verified by City staff. Field compliance sl~all be monitored by City Engineering staff to ensure that thc mitigations are implemented, A follow-up acoustical analysis should determine whether the mitigation is effective; if not, additional mitigation shall be developed per the acoustical engineer's studies. F'.19 · AUG 04 '89 13:07 mERCEm In comparison to the previously approved existing SPA Plan, the proposed amendment w~ll generate fewer air pollutants due to lower traffic volumes, However, because project development was not incorporated into adopted SANDAG air quality attainment growth projections for the San Diego region, a finding of project inconsistency must be made for which there ts cun~ntly no rmt~gauon. The project will thexefore contribute to a cumulative impact on ~e region's air quali~y, Constructions-related alt quali~y impacts include short-term emissions of several critexia air pollutants snd.gcneration of fugitive dust. Implementation of u~nsportation mitigation measures will reduce regional adverse quality imp~ts, but not to a level of insignificance. The project will become in con-rpliance with the state and local ~ir quality management plans upon inclusion in the SANDAG series· ~ 1. Use watering or other dust palliatives to reduce fugitive dust; emissions reductions of about 50 percent can be realized by implementation of these measures. 42. Disturbed areas shall be hydroseeded, landscaped, or developed as soon as possible · n and as directed by the City to reduce dust generauo . Trucks hauling fill material shall be properly covered, 44. A 20 mile-per-hour speed limit shall be enforced on unpaved surfaces. Heavy-duty construction equipment with modified combustion/fuel injection systems for crnissions control shall be utilized during grading and consu'uction. P.£0 AU~ 04 '89 13:~8 ~ERCE* ~-~ A/t~o, ualitymitigation will require an environmental monitor to be onsite to ensure compliance with these miti§ations for short-term impacts. pARKI~;',RECREATION AND OPIIN SPACE The project wo~ld result in a project-specific and cumulative impact to the area's dedicated open spa~e. In consideration of the identified need for preservation of community open space, this impact is. significant. ........ :. - :-:~ -- Project redesign (Alternative D) provides additional open spacc to the satisfaction of the City Parks and Rec~,,afion Dcpaxti~lent and City Planning Director. 46. The Tentative Tract Map and subsequent applicable plans shall provide for a bike lane on East "H" Street, in accordance with City r~quirements. 4?. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project proponent shall pay a parkland development in-lieu fee of $842,820 as shown in Table 3-11 (.payable to the City Parks and Recreation Department), or satisfy City parkland requirements to the satisfaction of the City Parks and Recreation Department. 4§. Final Site Plans shall incorporate bikeways, trails and trail connections to adjacent areas such as Salt Creek Ranch and EastLake Business Park. Bikeways and trails shall be identified on the tentative map and site plans. Configurations shall respect all natural open space/conservation' areas, and shall be subject to review and approval of City Plannin§ and Parks and Recreation Departments. 49. A view fence shall be constructed adjacent to homes fronting on open space, in order to enhance awareness of the boundary between residential property and 19 P.£1 AUG 04 '89 lB:D8 ~ERCE~ ~ --~, ..... natural open space preservation areas. Peacing design shall be approved by the City Open Space Coordinator prior to issuance of grading permits. Slopes in open areas shall be maintained as much as possible (subject to City review) in a natural state. Where grading must occur on slopes adjacent to housing, 30 feet of succulent or other acceptable width and plant material shall be planted, followed by a 15-foot DG t~all to act as a firebreak. Planting of native, drought tolerant low fucl plant mate'hal shall be provided closer to the natural open space areas, in accordance with l:ire Marshall and City Open Space Coordinator standards. Prior to Tentalive 'Ikact Map Approval, the above mitigations shall be incorporated into the design of the project subject to ~he approval of the City. Most of the mitigations will require an Environmental Monitor in the field to ensure proper implementation of the approved &sign features, and the last mitigation measure will reqmm a quahficd biologist and/~ honicultorist/environmental specialist to effectively implement the mitigated traffic site approval by the Fire Marshal in Open Space Coordinator will be necessary. PUBLIC S~RVICES AND UTILI'I'I.8.$ PgIcntial Imnacts Identified impacts to all public services and utilities can be mitigated by adherence to the City's threshold policies, with the exception of two unmitigable cumulative impacts. The project's resulting unavoidable increase in demand for water and non-renewable energy resources represents a contribution to cumulative impacts on the region's limited water supply and energy resources, in combination with other ongoing development in the region. Mitigation measures for water demand will reduce the impact but not to a level of insignificance, 51. Prior to the recordation of final maps, the proponent shall obtain will-serve letters, verifying that water facilities proposed shall adequately service the project, via approval by the OW'D of all plans and specifications. Recommendations of thc · Master Plan of Water for Salt Creek I (Wilson Engineering, March 1989) shall bc followed and utilized as a guideline, in consultation with OWD. 52. If the EastLake Greens development precedes Salt Creek I, a third pump shall be added to the proposed pump capacity, in accordance with the March 1989 Master Plan of'Water (Wilson Engineering), subject to approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permits. 53, Water conservation measures for onsiste landscaping and for maintenance of roadside vegetation shall be created and implemented by the project pioponent, in coordination with the City Public Works DepazUc~ent and in consultation with OWD or other qualified water agency/organization. Appropriate conservation measures include but are not limited to planting of drought tolerant vegetation and the use of irrigation systems which minimize runoff and evaporation loss. · 52~. Sta~e of Califcrrnia water conservation measures shall be adhered to; implementation shall be approved prior to issuance of certificates of use and occupancy. 55. Interim wastewater facility plans recommended in the March 1989 Wilson report shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to any final map approval onsite. Approval may involve an agreement to be reached between the developer and the City dictating how and where sewage is to be accommodated on .... an interim basis, and facility financing. 56. Ultimate wastewater facility plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. Implementation of the system shall be installed in a manner and at the time dictated by the City Engineer. Approval may involve an agreement between the developer and City which will dictate how and where sewage is accommodated, and facility financing and implementation phasing. 57. The project shall, to the extent feasible and to the satisfaction of the City, provide the following in an effort to reduce the impact to energy resources: · Encourage the use of public transit by providing bus loading zones at key locations onsite. Prior to final site plan approval, the developer shall consult 21 with City planning staff regarding location of transit facilities (i.e., bus stops) onsite. Should there be a need for such facilities, site design shall provide for said facilities, subject to review and approval by the City. · Implement efficient circulation systems including phased traffic control devices. · Adhere to updated Title 24 building construction and design standards. * Install landscaping that provides afternoon shade, reduces glare, encourages summer breezes, discourages winter breezes. , Minimize reflective and heat absorbing landscapes. , Reserve solar access and implement passive solar systems. · Develop dwellings on small lots to decrease indoor and outdoor heating and lighting requirements. · Install energy efficient appliances in residential developments. · Limit strict lighting and install energy efficient lights. · Demonstrate energy conservation practices. The developer shall consult with thc Engineer/Public Works Department to satisfy and incorporate these mitigations into the final project design, Field monitoring shall also be conducted by environmental monitors to ensure thc proper implementation of the final design features. OTt-IER MITIGATION Additional conditions of approval placed on the project by the City of Chula Vista shall be subject to momtonng at the dzrecnon of the C~ty, HEDENKAMP & ASSOCIATES · ARCHITECTURE ° PLANNING 1331 INDIA STREET, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101 619-232-3034 July 29, 1989 Chairman Joann Carson City of chula Vista Planning Commission RE: I-L Zone Recently we were involved in the rezoning of a property in the Montgomery area from County C-37 to Chula Vista I-L. The I-L zoning was the most appropriate and compatible zone that existed in cula Vista that was in accordance with the newly adopted Montgomery Plan. At the time of our rezone we also received a master conditional use permit to allow certain retail uses in our project. Subsequently it has become apparent that there are problems with the strict interpretation of the I-L zone provisions. These problems have also become apparent on other properties that we are designing in the Motgomery area. We request that the commission ask the staff to consider an amendment to the I-1 zone that would allow retail uses normally permitted in the C-C zone, limited to 15% to 20% of the floor area, where the developer has made adequate parking provisions for such uses. This amendment would permit many of the uses already allowed in the County C-37 zoning to continue in opera- tion when such zoning is converted to existing City of Chula Vista I-L zoning. In addition it would allow a better and more equitable retail mix and eliminate staff and applicant confusion about permitted retail uses and the conflict/enforce- ment of retail versus wholesale establishments. We request an immediate study and action on this matter as the underlying problems are affecting our ability to make clear decisions and lease the premises. Thank you for your assistance with this matter. Sincerely, William B. Hedenkamp Architect A.I.A.