 |
 |
 |
The Official Town Council and Planning Group of Tierrasanta
|
For PDF printable version of this report click HERE.
August 12, 2003
Commander, Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command 1220 Pacific Highway San Diego, CA 92132-5190 Attn: Ms. Sheila Donovan, Code 05GPE.SD.
Dear Commander:
Subject: Response to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Military Family Housing in the San Diego Region
The City of San Diego appreciates the opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the proposed Military Family Housing (MFH) in the San Diego Region project. As a result of this review, the City offers the following comments which are a compilation of those from the City’s Development Services Department, Planning Department, Park and Recreation Department and Multiple Species Conservation Program.
Traffic/Circulation
The following comments are based on review of the Traffic/Circulation section of the DEIS and the Traffic Impact Analysis report prepared for the DEIS.
C The above documents should follow the standard Congestion Management Program (CMP) Enhanced California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review for large projects in the San Diego region and use the Traffic Impact Studies Guidelines included as Appendix D to SANDAG’s 2002 Congestion Management Program update. This includes all the standard level-of-service analysis for all traffic scenarios and the review of ramp meters, freeway interchanges, freeway mainline segments and CMP arterials. The study area was determined based on the 1994 CMP Guidelines, but the larger study area defined by the 2002 CMP update should be used.
C The above documents must address on-site circulation including the access road for the preferred alternative.
Page 2 Commander, Southwest Division August 12, 2003
C The above documents should include a Transportation Demand Management Plan.
C The above documents should include a private Transit Shuttle Plan for work and non-work trips.
C The above documents should include mitigation measures for all impacted intersections, roadway segments, freeway interchanges and freeway mainline segments due to the proposed project.
C The above documents recommend “fair share” contributions to mitigate the proposed project’s direct traffic impacts to the roadway network. This is not an acceptable transportation mitigation measure; the project must construct the needed roadway improvements in order to maintain acceptable levels-of-service on the facilities.
C The proposed roadway improvements within the City of San Diego right-of-way should be designed and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
C Since the SR-52/Santo Road interchange is proposed to provide access to the project under the preferred alternative, the traffic study should recommend the upgrade of this interchange in one phase to accommodate the project’s traffic demand in the near-term and horizon year traffic scenarios.
C The above documents should provide an explanation for the substantial increase in the traffic volume on Tierrasanta Boulevard without the proposed project in the horizon year traffic scenario.
C All intersection analysis should be done using the methodology of the year 2000 update to the Highway Capacity Manual.
C Existing Conditions traffic scenario used 1999 and older traffic counts; please update the traffic counts within the study area which has changed, especially on SR-52.
General Comments
C Please consider any opportunities to provide “mass-transit” to further minimize traffic impacts to community and regional circulation systems (i.e. scheduled buses that travel to military installations or transit centers).
Page 3 Commander, Southwest Division August 12, 2003
C Scripps Ranch in the context of “the community” should be referred to as Scripps Miramar Ranch. Scripps Ranch may be used if including Miramar Ranch North and Scripps Miramar Ranch.
C The DEIS does not include reference to the approved and developing community of Rancho Encantada. This new community is located directly north of MFH Alternative Site 2. Rancho Encantada is a 2,658-acre community with a proposed 935 homes and just under 2000 acres of open space. Chapter 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT and Chapter 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES need to reference the Rancho Encantada Precise Plan (August 7, 2002) in order to determine what impacts MFH Alternative Site 2 may have on this new community (such as traffic, noise and visual quality).
C It appears that several figures within the DEIS show the proposed project footprint and/or grading from MFH Alternative Site 2 fall within the boundaries of Rancho Encantada. These figures include 3.1-1, 3.1-3, 3.4-1, 3.4-2, 3.7-2, 3.7-5, 3.8-1, 3.8-23, 9-2, 4.5-1, and 4.14-1. There is also a newly constructed residential project consisting of 27 single-family homes located at the southeast corner of Pomerado Road and Spring Canyon Road which the proposed project footprint and/or grading would encroach upon. The project footprint for Site 2 would need to be altered to reflect this existing development.
C While the proposed MFH is not located within the Tierrasanta Community Plan area, the Community Plan does make some recommendations regarding the Navy and the Tierrasanta Community. They are listed on page 106 of the Community Plan, as follows:
C 14. The Navy should be encouraged to provide additional social services to the residents of Murphy Canyon including child care, counseling and a chapel.
C 16. The community and the Navy should aid Navy families in becoming a viable part of the Tierrasanta community. Common use of programs and facilities within each segment of the community should be increased. For example, the Navy housing sector should increase participation in the Tierrasanta Community Council, so that both the needs and activities of the entire community can be known and supported.
C The DEIS needs to identify that the MFH Alternative Site 8B would require an interchange at SR-52 that would be located within Mission Trails Regional Park and the City’s Multi-Habitat Planning Area (MHPA). Also, the City would not Page 4 Commander, Southwest Division August 12, 2003
prefer the MFH Alternative Site 8B which would result in adverse impacts to sensitive biological habitat within the Park/MHPA and potentially to archaeological resources as well.
C Please provide an analysis within the DEIS with the Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan, including Section 1.4.1 (Compatible Land Uses), area specific and adjacency guidelines, and loss of land within the MPHA.
C Please provide a discussion within the DEIS of the biological impacts and mitigation that would occur within the City’s MHPA, including an analysis of the wildlife movement and wildlife corridor/undercrossing beneath SR-52 referenced on page 3.7-33. The DEIS should also discuss if there is enough buffer between the proposed project and the undercrossing to maintain viable usage by wildlife, because the integrity of the wildlife corridor needs to be maintained.
Recommended Corrections
C Page 3.1-15, 2nd sentence should read, “The area north of Pomerado Road directly east of I-15 is designated Industrial Park and Commercial.” 4th sentence should read “The area south of Pomerado Road between Avendia Magnifica and Fairbrook Road is also designated residential with a density of zero to three dwelling units per acre.”
C Page 3.4-2, 3rd paragraph, 4th sentence should read, “A properly sized middle school at the western edge of Alliant International University is currently being planned.”
C Page 3.5-5, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence should read, “To the north is the newly approved community of Rancho Encantada in which the first phase of construction has begun. Beyond Rancho Encantada to the north is Beeler Canyon.”
C Page 3.13-7, Site 2 should include the future homes located within the community of Rancho Encantada and the 27 single-family dwelling unit development on the southeast corner of Pomerado Road and Spring Canyon Road.
C Page 4.1-5, Surrounding Land Use, include the adjacent land use and appropriate densities within the adjacent community of Rancho Encantada.
Page 5 Commander, Southwest Division August 12, 2003
C Page 4.5-14 Site 2, Impacts, 2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence, include, “Would residents of Rancho Encantada be considered sensitive since future housing in that community may have direct views of MFH on Site 2?”
C Page 4.5-23, Figure 4.5-10, caption should read “Looking southeast from Rue Chantemar.”
C Page 4.13-5, Construction Noise, 1st sentence, should include the 27 newly constructed homes on southeast corner of Pomerado Road and Spring Canyon Road and future homes within the community of Rancho Encantada. The access road to Site 2 off of Pomerado is directly south of the 27 single-family homes.
C Page 4.13-6, Acknowledging the close proximity of the 27 single-family homes to the access road and future homes in Rancho Encantada to Site 2, would hours of construction between 7 am to 5 pm appear more feasible and sensitive?
C Page 5-7, Noise, the Rancho Encantada Precise Plan was approved by San Diego City Council August 7, 2002.
Again, the City of San Diego appreciates the opportunity to review this environmental document. Should you require clarification on the above or have any other questions, please call Anne Lowry, Senior Planner, at (619) 446-5368. Also, for specific questions regarding the City’s comments on traffic/circulation, please contact Labib Qasem, Senior Traffic Engineer, at (619) 446-5358. We would also like to receive at least two copies of the final EIS when available. Please send these copies to me at City of San Diego, Development Services Department, 1222 First Avenue, MS 501, San Diego, CA 92101.
Sincerely,
Cathy Cibit Assistant Deputy Director (Acting)
CC/ael
cc: Councilmember Madaffer, District 7 (MS 10A) Councilmember Maienschein, Distict 5 (MS 10A) Labib Qasem, Transportation Development Section (MS 501) David Monroe, Long Range Planning Division (MS 4A) Robin Stribley, Open Space Division (MS 35A) Jeanne Krosch, Multiple Species Conservation Program (MS 5A)
C |