Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Rpts./1996/11/20 SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Chula Vista, California 7:00 p,m, Wednesdav. November 20, 1996 Council Chambers Public Services Building 276 Fourth Avenue. Chula Vista CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL/MOTIONS TO EXCUSE 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 three minutes, 1. REPORT: EIR-95-04; Consider certifying the San Miguel Ranch General Plan Amendment (GP A) and General Development Plan Amendment (GDP A) Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR), as complying with the Caliifornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 2, PUBLIC HEARING: Resolutions GPA-96-01, PCM-96-05, FSEIR-95-04; Consideration of a General Plan Amendment, an Amendment to the San Miguel Ranch General Development Plan and a Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for property located southeast of the Sweetwater Reservoir, west and south of San Miguel Mountain and northeast of Proctor Valley Road - Emerald Properties, Inc, 3, PUBLIC HEARING: GPA-96-02, PCZ-96-C; Consideration of a General Plan Amendment and PC Planned Community Pre-zone for approximately 10 acres located adjacent to the north side of the south parcel of the San Miguel Ranch property - Algert/Scott (Mother Miguel Estates) (-more-) Agenda -2- November 20, 1996 4, Review of final conditions and required findings relating to the Open Air Market at 690 'L' Street as recommended by the Planning Commission at their November 13, 1996 meeting (material to be handed out at this meeting) DIRECTOR'S REPORT COMMISSIONER COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT at p,m, to the Regular Business Meeting of December 11, 1996, at 7:00 p,m, in the Council Chambers, COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), requests individuals who may require special accommodations to access, attend, and/or participate in a City meeting, activity. or service to request such accommodation at leastfarty-eight hours in advance for meetings and five days in advance for scheduled services and activities, Please contact Nancy Ripley for specific information at (619) 691-5101 or Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TDD) (619) 585.5647, California Relay Service is available for the hearing impaired, PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT Item: 1 Meeting Date: 11/20/96 ITEM TITLE: Report: EIR-95-04; Consider certifying the San Miguel Ranch General Plan Amendment (GPA) and General Development Plan Amendment (GDPA) Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR), as complying with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) The public hearing on the Draft San Miguel Ranch GPA and GDP SEIR scheduled for September 25, 1996 was continued to October 9, 1996 to allow time for staff to clarify issues raised in the letters of comment. On October 9, 1996, the Planning Commission closed the public hearing and review period and directed staff to prepare the Final SEIR with Response to Comments, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, EIR COMMENTS AND RESPONSES: Comments on the Draft EIR focus on biological resources, traffic, and land use. Adequate responses are provided for all comments, Responses to these comments are included in the Response to Comment Section of the Final SEIR. Additions and deletions to the text have also been made in response to comments as well as changes by staff to various sections of the document, An additional letter of comment from the California Native Plant Society was received subsequent to the close of the public comment period on October 28, 1996, As per CEQA Section 21092,5(c), the Lead Agency is not required to respond to comments not received within the specified time period, The letter from the California Native Plant Society is not included in the FSEIR Response to Comment Section but is attached to this report along with responses (Attachment 1), RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution certifying that the San Miguel Ranch GPA and GDPA FSEIR including Response to Comments, Mitigation Monitoring Program (Attachment 2), Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (Attachment 3) complies with CEQA, BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The October 9, 1996 staff report included recommendations by the Resource Conservation Commission and the San Miguel Ranch Citizens Advisory Committee on the DSEIR. Commissions and Boards typically do not make recommendations on Final EIRs, Page 2, Item: 1 Meeting Date: 11/20/96 DISCUSSION A, Background The Final EIR evaluates environmental impacts of the proposed General Plan Amendment and General Development Plan Amendment, The Final SEIR incorporates by reference the previous GDP and GPA EIR (Final Program Environmental Impact Report (FPEIR-90-02) and the Addendum on the "Modified Concept Plan" and the "Preservation Plan" and the Second Addendum analyzing further the "Modified Concept Plan") focusing on the analysis of impacts that have not been previously analyzed at a program level. The analysis in the Final SEIR is based on the worst case scenario for each impact contained within the report, At the October 9, 1996 meeting, the Planning Commission took public testimony on the Draft SEIR. The project applicant, a representative of the County of San Diego Public Works Department, and two residents of Bonita testified at the hearing. The representative of the County Public Works department summarized concerns that were detailed in their three letters including: the Draft SEIR showed San Miguel Road west of Proctor Valley Road as a four-lane major road rather than a two-lane collector, the SEIR did not include an analysis of "near tenn impacts" of project traffic on the road network, that the traffic volumes used in the document were understated, that the analysis of the impacts on local roads should occur at the GDP level rather than the SPA level. He further stated that this document did not analyze archeology, hydrology and air quality and that the analysis in the previous EIR of these areas was inadequate, Adequate responses to these comments appear in the Response to Comment Section of the FSEIR and in the text responses regarding traffic are summarized in the section of this report under Significant, but Mitigated Concerns, The residents of Bonita stated their concerns with traffic, watershed problems, the proposed proj~ct's density, community compatibility issues, impact on wildlife and on an existing dog boarding business, The project applicant emphasized a key aspect of their project is 78 % of the 2,590 acres are planned for open space for the preservation of endangered species, The Commission closed the public review period and directed staff to prepare response to all comments received, Written comments were received from: U, S, Fish and Wildlife Service California Department of Fish and Game California Department of Transportation County of San Diego, Department of Public Works County of San Diego, Department of Planning & Land Use Local Agency Fonnation Commission Chula Vista Elementary School District Otay Water District Page 3, Item: 1 Meeting Date: 11/20/96 Members of the Sweetwater Community Planning Group Sweetwater Authority Sweetwater Union High School District Sig Johansen Gatzke, Mispagel and Dillon San Diego Gas and Electric Responses to all of these comments have been prepared and are included in the Final EIR for the Planning Commissions's review, If the Commission determines the responses are adequate, they should certify the Final SEIR as complying with CEQA, As indicated in the October 9, 1996 staff report, the fIrm of Tetra Tech was selected through the competitive bid process to prepare the GDPA/GPA Amendments EIR, On August 3, 1995 the City, the project applicant Emerald Properties Corporation (EPC) and Tetra Tech entered into a three-party agreement for the preparation of the EIR. Tetra Tech has continued as the City consultant in the preparation of the Draft and Final EIR, All letters of comment and responses are included in the Final SEIR, B. Analysis Program level and cumulative impacts were identifIed and divided into two categories: signifIcant and unmitigated and signifIcant, but mitigated, The signifIcant and unmitigated program and cumulative impacts require a Statement of Overriding Consideration in order to approve the project. This statement reflects the Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted for the GDP and GPA Program EIR to ensure consistency in the environmental review process, The impacts by category are: 1. Significant and unmitigable program level environmental impacts Land Use The draft SEIR identifIed impacts of increased density on the southern parcel and as a result impacts to community character for both the Proctor Valley and Horseshoe Bend Plans as signifIcant. The GDP/GPA EIR identifIed this impact, as did the Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, Land use impacts associated with locating residential lots adjacent to a large electrical substation can be mitigated to below a level of signifIcance at the SPA level of review by: buffering, providing potential buyers with exhibits and describing future SDG&E Plans, Land use impacts still remain signifIcant due to density and community character concerns , Page 4, Item: 1 Meeting Date: 11/20/96 Air Quality The DSEIR identified that both alignment GDPs will impact air quality almost exclusively through the vehicular traffic generated by the proposed project and that air pollution emissions would exceed significance thresholds for the adopted GDP and both proposed GDPs, Mitigation measures include that the project applicant: (I) prepare an Air Quality Improvement Plan that includes implementation of appropriate traffic control measures and other direct or indirect means of reducing emissions and (2) implements a park and ride facility within the project. These measures do not reduce impacts to below a level of significance, The Findings of Fact discuss this and Overriding Considerations are recommended, Landform/Visual Quality The DSEIR evaluates both the Proctor Valley and the Horseshoe Bend GDPs, Both would require extensive grading and landform reconfiguration, With the Proctor Valley Plan, development on the south parcel would require grading of an estimated 9,9 million cubic yards of earth, Gobblers Knob would be removed and terraced manufactured slopes would step down to Proctor Valley Road, The prominent Horseshoe Bend landform would be retained, With the Horseshoe Bend Plan grading on the south would also be extensive and would reconfigure landforms including razing portions of Horseshoe Bend, primarily as a result of the SR-125 alignment proposed by CALTRANS, The elimination of Gobbler's Knob (in both GDP's) and impacts to scenic roadway views are considered significant. Compliance with hillside development guidelines and City landform grading policies during the SPA Plan review, as well as implementation of landscaping and development planning consistent with General Plan guidelines for scenic roadways are recommended mitigation measures, Parks, Recreation and Open Space The Draft SEIR concluded that impacts to trail systems were significant at the GDP level due to I) portions of the trail system traversing and following SDG&E easements (not accepted under the City's Park and Recreation Guidelines); 2) the bisecting of various routes of existing trails by construction of the project and SR-125, and (3) the lack of onsite Greenbelt trail system implementation, Mitigation measures include movement of proposed trials so they are outside SDG&E easements and the provisions of structures to allow trail users to cross over, under or around SR-125, The applicant has now proposed trails on their property, CalTrans has stated they will provide structures for trail users to cross over, under or around SR-125, Although at the GDP level, Page 5, Item: 1 Meeting Date: 11/20/96 these impacts are significant, specific measures to implement these actions at the SPA level will mitigate impacts to below a level of significance, 2. Significant, but mitigated program level environmental impacts Impacts in the following categories for the GDP/GPA can be mitigated to a level below significance with implementation of mitigation measures, Biology Transportation Noise Public Services and Utilities Mitigation measures are incorporated into the Draft SEIR for the Planning Commission's approval. As two of these areas, biology and transportation, received detailed comments, a brief discussion of the comments, responses, process, and mitigation measures are found below for the Commission's information, Biology The Draft SEIR stated that at the GDP level of development, neither plan includes development on the north, Elimination of development on the north will preserve 1298 acres of Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub, 93 acres of mixed Chaparral, 15 acres of dry marsh/wetland and 90 acres of annual grassland, The mitigation is consistent with an agreement referred to as the "Points of Agreement" between EPC, the U,S, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) executed on May 3, 1996, The Points of Agreement (a copy of which can be found in the Response to Comments section of the FSEIR) discuss the conservation of 146 acres, including a 21-acre preserve for Otay tarplant, on the south parcel as compensation for impacts to other sensitive resources, In addition, mitigation for impacts to coastal sage scrub and gnatcatchers on the southern parcel, 166 acres will be set aside on the north parcel. The initial comment letter received from USFWS dated September 18, 1996, stated that even with the above mitigation and agreements with the resource agencies, "impacts still remain significant and unmitigated." A subsequent letter forwarded by USFWS on October 9, 1996, supersedes that letter, The Service stated their concern with the magnitude of the impacts to sensitive species; however, the Service indicated that they intend to comply with the Points of Agreement. This was confirmed in telephone conversations with Mr. Gail C. Kobetich, Field Office Supervisor, and memorialized in the Planning Department's letter to Mr. Kobetich dated Page 6, Item: 1 Meeting Date: 11/20/96 October 11, 1996, to which no disagreement with the City's understanding of the Resource Agencies' intent to comply with the Points of Agreement was registered, The mitigation is also consistent with the Draft Multiple Species Conservation Program and the City of Chula Vista's Draft Subarea Plan Map, both of which identifies the north parcel of San Miguel Ranch as a key element for preservation, Other comments from USFWS and CDFG included corrections to the number of gnatcatchers and Coastal Barrel Cactus that would be impacted, requirements for analysis of the impacts associated with the Mother Miguel Estates GP A, and clarification regarding mitigation ratios required with California Department of Fish and Game Streambed Alteration Agreement and Army Corps of Engineers 404 pennits, The SEIR text has been revised accordingly, Requirements for infonnation on specific impacts to sensitive species will be addressed at the SPA level. Transportation The Draft SEIR indicated that there would be a decrease in ADT below levels anticipated by the Adopted GDP, Implementation of either Alignment GDP would result in significant impacts to traffic, but would result in an incremental addition of project-related trips to cumulative volumes onto the circulation system, It further stated that an amendment to the County of San Diego's Circulation Element may be required prior to tentative map approval to reclassify sections of Proctor Valley Road and San Miguel Road, Letters commenting on traffic included those from the County of San Diego Department of Planning and Land Use, CalTrans, and members of the Sweetwater Community Planning Group, The County comments included concerns regarding misclassification of San Miguel Road as a "two-lane light collector" rather than a "four-lane collector," desire for a project-plus-existing condition and near tenn analysis, and request that the analysis be based on Series 7 Regional Growth Forecasts, The Draft SEIR has stated the mitigation measure to amend the County Circulation Element prior to SPA level approval to reclassify San Miguel Road as needed, Responses also state that the project plus existing conditions evaluation will occur at the SPA level and that Series 8 is the most up-to-date forecast horizon available for use in regional analysis such as this, The applicant has met with County staff on several occasions to obtain input on traffic, Two meetings were held with City and County, staff and City consultants during the first week in November in a good faith attempt to reach an agreement on traffic as well as other issues raised by the County in their comment letters, Although the County staff seemed appreciative of the Page 7, Item: 1 Meeting Date: 11/20/96 opportunities to discuss traffic and other issues analyzed in the document, consensus was not reached, 3. Significant and Unmitigable Cumulative Impacts The GDP SEIR provides a comprehensive examination of both build out of San Miguel Ranch GDPs and other major projects in the Eastern Territories, Cumulative significant impacts are projected to occur in the areas of: land use, landform visual, biology, traffic, air quality, public services and utilities and parks, recreation and open space, A Statement of Overriding Considerations is attached for the Planning Commission's consideration (Attachment 3), These impacts are included in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, Public Comments Public comments received were distributed at the Planning Commission meeting of October 9, 1996, All the comments received within the public comment period are incorporated in the FSEIR. Attachments 1, Letter from Cindy Burrascano, Chapter President of the California Native Plant Society, October 28, 1996, and responses 2, FSEIR 95-04 (hand delivered to Planning Commissioners on 11/8/96) 3, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 4, Disclosure Statement (pcrpt.smr) ._.._._._--~. _.__..-----~_..__..._---...__._-- -.-- :,,~'" . j! :.::b 'I.~uDI uihk!, NatIve p {-~~;tC Societ,12 San Diego Chapter POBox] 390 San Diego, CA 92 J 12 ATTACHMENT 1 :-:>..:..c::::: Ms, Barbara Reid Planning Department City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista. CA 9 I 910 , Oct'ober 28, 1996 OCT 2 S -~- :~~~- Re: Draft Subsequent EnvirorunentaJ Impact Report for the San Miguel Ranch General Plan Amendment/General Development Plan Amendment EIR. 95-04 SCN No, 96051038 :':.:;J\!;~.; . Ms, Reid: The San Diego Chapter of the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) would like to provide COmments to be considered prior to the certification of the above referenced document. Our chapter did not provide comments during the formal COmment period due to a misunderstanding of the adequacy of the EIR. and prior mitigation obligations. The subsequent ErR. is intended to identiJY and analyze the significance of environrnental effects which would result iTom amendments to the CUlTently approved general development plan (GDP) for Rancho San Miguel (EIR 92-02; SCH No, 90010155), The existing GDP for San Miguel Ranch (approved by the Chula Vista City Council on March 23, 1993) allows for 1,619 dwelling units, 357 on the north and 1,262 on the south, Its implementation would result in direct impacts to coastal sage scrub, southern mixed chaparral. wetlands, and annual ( nonnative) grassJands, as well as Coastal California gnatcatchers, cactus wrens, Otay tarplant, and other sensitive plant taxa, PI It is our understanding that a subsequent EIR is required when proj~ changes are proposed which will require important revisions of the previous ErR. due to the involvement of new significant envirorunentaJ impacts Dot considered in the previous docUment, Emerald Properties CorpOrntion proposes revisions to the existing GDP in response to the State Route J25 South (SR 125) alignment selected by Caltrans, These revisions to the GDP trigger the need for the preparation of the subsequent EIR which discusses three alternatives: Proctor Valley GDP, PrOctor VaHey North Parcel Preservation GDP, and Horseshoe Bend GDP, As part of the Proctor Valley North Parcel Preservation and HorSeshoe Bend GDPs, a mitigation bank would be created on the north parceL The final EIR. for the Rancho San Miguel GDP (ErR. 92-02; SCH No. 90010155) discusses specific mitigation measures for impacts which would result to habitats and species from development on the south parcel. including Diegan coastal sage scrub, wetlands, and waterways, California adolphia (Adolphia Californica), coast barrel cactus (Ferocactus Viridescens), Otay tarplant (Hemizonia conjugms), San Diego marsh elder (Iva hayesiana), spiny rush (Juncus acutus), and cactus wren, Recommendations were ~ Dedicated to the preservation of c.Jilornia natroe F{ora ,., - . 1,. -c"J '\':;i1fiilifJ;iid NatIVe P L :l1t Societ;y! a!so made for project redesign to avoid a population of approximately 10,000 Palmer's grappIingbook (Harpogonella palmen) These were included as a mitigation plan for the south parcel (September 2, 1992, COntained V.~thiIl the Rancho San Miguel General Development Plan, Volume 1: FUJal Environmental Impact Report ErR 90-02) and induded the fol1owing (which are briefly S1l1J1marized): i:.J 019..:::15':::;':::;515 ?;..c:::: PI Preservation and recordation of at least J 86 acres of gnatcatcher occupied Diegan coastal sage scrub (no less than nine pairs of gnatcatchers and three pairs of cactus wren) and no less than J26 acres ofuIloccupied Diegan COastal sage scrub (for a total of312 acres), Avoidance ofwetJands and habitat creation for unavoidable impacts. Preservation of50% of identified California adolphia in open space, as wel1 as habitat euhancemem through transplanting of California adolphia seedlings In situ preservation of no less than 1191 coast barrel cactus in open space, as weII as implementation of a salvage and transplant program, ' , Establishment of a preserve area of no less than 21 acres for Otay tarplant, enhancement of habitat for Otay tarpIant, and formulation of a Memorandum of Agreement with the California Department offish and Game, Transplant program for San Diego marsh elder, Transplant program for spiny rush, The final paragraph of this mitigation program states that its adoption would reduce project impacts to biological resources to a level which is less than significant, with the exception ofi.-npacts to Otay tarpIant and Palmer's grappJinghook, It was Our asswnption th4t measures outlined in this mitigation program would aIsQ be part of the mitigation required for !be re\>jsed GDP as !be fact that they woulcfu't be induded Was not discussed specifically in !be biology section of the subsequent ErR., As P2 a result, we did not feel the need to conunent on this document. It has come to Our attention that these species-SPecific mitigation measures will not be incorporated as conditions of approval for the revised GDP, The existing GDP requirement for preservation of 312 acres of coastal sage scrub preservation Was to mitigate for impacts to coastal sage scrub occupied by gnatcatchers and cactus wrens and distributed as 146 acres on the southern parcel and 166 acres on !be northern parceL It was not intended to mrtigate for significant impacts to individual sensitive plant species Or wetlands, It clearly does not mitigate !bose impacts 110r were these impacts identified in the EIR, If the species-specific mitigation measures are not included, the project will result ill significant, umnitigated impacts to biological resources which should have been ~ Dedicated to tf;e preservation 0{ eaI;fornia native ([ora P3 P4 ::.; l:=:',,:; ~;.;-;o u; .......~iLlit;r Pita L\JatlVe p! .:mt Societ:!] discussed in deta.1l in the subsequent ErR Rather, ,he subsequent EIR oIJ..iy stated that the elimination of development iTom the nOrth parcel would mitigate biological impacts resulting iTom development on the south parcel for the PrOctor ValleycNorth Parcel Preservation Option and Horsesboe Bend GDPs as all development on the north parcel would be eliminated, It a!so stated that impacts resulting iTom the Unplementation of the PrOctor Valley GDP would be significant and UI1m.itigated <'because development on the north parcel would stiI1 be Permitted), \Vhi1e CNPS recognizes that the California EnvU-omnenta1 Quality Act a110ws the City of Chula Vista to approve a project which has signifiC<1IJt, w:un.itigated impacts (based upon a statement of oVerrid.U1g Considerations), the City C<1IJ do SO only after such information has been disclosed to the public, We do not feel that the subsequent EIR aCComplished this task, ?,.:,:;~ In SUInmaIy, the draft subsequent EIR needs to be revised to clearly discuss project impacts aSSOciated with each of the GDP alternatives as they relate to the three SR 125 alignment alternatives. An aCCUrate and Complete discussion of mitigation measu:res also n~s to be provided, We appreciate YOur careful consideration of these Comments which we realize are submitted after the close of the ""Titlen public COmment period, We would also like to be informed of the date and time at which the Planning COmmission and the City Council will make decisions upon the EIR, Please send notice of these hearings to our Chapter President at 771 Lori Lane, Chula Vista, CA 9J910, or Contact US by phone at 824-3236 or 421-5767 Sincerely, ~~ Cindy Burrascano Chapter President cc: William E Tippets, CDFG Nancy Gilben, USFWS ~) DediwteJ tn the p1'eSEroation of California native flam .- p, CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY - OCTOBER 28,1996 PI It is correct that the previous EIR (EIR-92-02) , which is adopted by reference in SEIR-95-04, recommended mitigation measures on a species-by-species and habitat- by-habitat basis, EIR-92-02 also "spoke" to the need for the Scientific Review Panel to complete their work in determining the significance of this site on a regional basis and a need to perform a SPA Level analysis at the time a Specific Plan is submitted by the applicant. Subsequent to the certification of EIR-92-02, the MSCP process was initiated and the analysis of biological impacts in the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, SEIR-95-04 is based on the expected adoption of the MSCP and the Points of Agreement signed by the Resource Agencies and EPC, In the event the MSCP Subarea Plan is not approved and adopted by the City of Chula Vista, subsequent impact analysis and mitigation measures, as well as coordination with the USFWS and the CDFG would be required prior to approval of the SPA for San Miguel Ranch, P2 See response PI above, In accordance with the Points of Agreement, the plan described therein including conservation of 146 acres, a 21-acre preserve for Otay tarplant on the south parcel as compensation for impacts to other sensitive resources and the setting aside of 166 acres on the north parcel is intended to mitigate for multispecies impacts, (See responses to U.S, Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game), P3 In accordance with the mitigation identified in the Points of Agreement, the impacts have been mitigated to below a level of significance, This has been disclosed adequately in the EIR and copies of the Points of Agreement are included in the Letters of Comment. This is in agreement with the U.S, Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game responses. The Proctor Valley GDP does not disclose any development on the North, The "Proctor Valley GDP with development on the north" is not one of the two plans proposed by the applicant or by City staff, The EIR discloses that if the alternative of "Proctor Valley GDP with development on the north" is approved, biological impacts will be significant and unmitigated, The EIR has disclosed the impacts of choosing this alternative and this information has been disclosed to the public as follows, CEQA Guidelines encourage, but do not require, public hearings discussing the DEIR. The City of Chula Vista environmental procedures do require a public hearing on the DEIR. The City of Chula Vista has fOIwarded Notices of the public hearing on the Draft EIR to property owners within 1000 feet of the project in addition to interested individuals and organizations including the California Native Plant Society, Notices of the Public Hearing on the Final EIR at the Planning Commission and Council were also forwarded to the interested organizations and individuals, Copies of both the Draft and Final EIRs have been made available to the public in the Planning Department and at the Chula Vista Public Library on Fourth Avenue, In the event that the City of Chula Vista Council decides to approve the alternative with development on the North, the project would need to be continued and staff directed to prepare amendments to the Overriding Considerations and Findings to include Overriding Considerations and Findings dealing with Biological Impacts, P4 There are two SR 125 alignment alternatives through the San Miguel Ranch property, The impacts have been adequately analyzed and disclosed in the EIR, ATTACHMENT 3 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF CHULA VISTA RE: SAN MIGUEL RANCH SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR-95-04) State Clearinghouse Number 96051038 FINDINGS OF FACT I. INTRODUCTION The Pinal Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) prepared for this project addressed the potential environmental effects of approving a general development plan (GDP) amendment and the general plan amendment (GPA) for San Miguel Ranch. The GDP amendment and GPA submitted by the applicant, Emerald Properties, contains a land use plan and project goals to guide the development of a new community. The GDP amendment proposes a mix of land uses including residential, commercial/retail, school, community and neighborhood parks, circulation, a trail system and open space. The SEIR also evaluated four alternatives to the proposed project. These include the No Project!No Development Alternative; No Project! Adopted General Development Plan; Reduced Density General Development Plan Alternative; and Annexation Alternatives. San Miguel Raneh GPAlGDP Amendment Subsequent EIR - FInol. Findings of Foet-I C/Jy of Chula Vista November 13, 1996 II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The San Miguel Ranch property is situated in the study area for the proposed southerly extension of SR 125 from SR 54 to Interstate 905. Currently, CALTRANS is considering several route alignments for the freeway in a Draft EIRlEnvironmental Impact Statement (EIS). (The Draft EIR/EIS for SR 125 was circulated for public review and comment in July 1996 [SCH No, 89011118]). Two of the SR 125 alignments considered by CALTRANS are: Proctor Valley Alignment and Horseshoe Bend Alignment (referred to as the Horseshoe Bend-CAC Variation Alignment by CALTRANS). The Proctor Valley Alignment is located along the western boundary of San Miguel Ranch while the Horseshoe Bend Alternative is generally aligned through the middle of San Miguel Ranch. Therefore, the project applicant (Emerald Properties) has presented two alternative land use plans for consideration based on these two potential freeway alignments. A description of the alignments and associated land use plans is presented below. No development would be proposed on the north parcel. The GDP includes the full preservation of the entire north parcel under the two separate Amended GDPs for San Miguel Ranch. The City's Draft Subarea Plan (August 1996) recommends preservation of the north parcel to meet the conservation goals of the MSCP/NCCP Program. The North parcel would be designated as open space in the applicant's proposed Amended GDPs, and the entire north parcel would be acquired, protected and included in the City's Subarea Plan (August 1996) in accordance with the assurances, acknowledgments and agreements set forth in the plan. A GP A and prewning approval is also proposed for a lO-acre parcel, Mother Miguel Estates, located contiguous to the San Miguel Ranch south parcel. Mother Miguel Estates is not part of the San Miguel Ranch; however, CEQA mandates that projects should not be piece-mealed. Because the parcel is proposing a GPA, at the same time that the San Miguel Ranch is being evaluated, the direct and cumulative impacts of modifying the General Plan for those additional 10 acres are discussed within the SEIR, State Route 125 - Proctor Valley Ali~nment General Development Plan (GDP) The proposed project consists of a new land use plan for the master planned community of San Miguel Ranch. The proposed land use plan would amend the approved GDP for the site adopted in 1993 and incorporates the SR 125 alignment contained in the City's General Plan. For the purposes of the SEIR, this land use proposal is referred to as the Proctor Valley Alignment GDP. Overall, the proposed Proctor Valley Alignment GDP would reduce the total dwelling units approved on site by 124 homes. The GDP proposes a wider variety of residential categories than is currently provided on the south parcel: Low (0-3 du/acre), Low Medium (3-6 du/acre), Medium (6-11 du/acre), and High (18-27 du/acre). Nonresidential land uses are proposed on the south parcel, including a 13.6-acre elementary school, 29.5-acre community park, 5.6-acre neighborhood park, 7.5-acre community San Miguel Ranch GPAlGDP Amendment Subsequent EI R - Fl1II1l Findings 01 Ftu:/-2 CIiy 01 Chula VIsta November 13, 1996 service site, and 13.9 acres of retail commercial. Utility easements, open space, and roadways comprise the balance of the site acreage. The conference center/retreat development previously approved on the north parcel would be removed from the GDP under this alternative. The balance of the north and south parcels, approximately 1,745 and 217 acres, respectively, would be retained as natural open space (totaling 1,961.9 acres of the 2,590 acres). Buildout of San Miguel Ranch would add up to 4,440 new residents in eastern Chula Vista (assuming SANDAG's population generation rate of 2.97 persons per du). In contrast to the adopted GDP, the Proctor Valley Alignment GDP would decrease the total permitted unit count on San Miguel Ranch by 124 homes. Proposed General Plan Amendment The Chula Vista General Plan presently designates nearly the entire residential portion of the property as Low (0-3 du/ac). Approximately 20 acres located at the southeast comer of the residential south parcel are designated Low-Medium (3-6 du/ac). Non-residential land uses include a conference center site in the north parcel, and designated an elementary school, park, and neighborhood shopping center on the south parcel. The remaining area, approximately 70 percent of the site, is designated Open Space, In addition to the proposed GDP amendment, the applicant (Emerald Properties) is seeking a General Plan Amendment (GPA) for the south parcel of San Miguel Ranch. The proposed GPA would apply to the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the City's General Plan. This GPA would provide the new residential land use classifications with which to implement the required amendments to the GDP discussed above. The proposed GDP amendment does not reflect any development on the north parcel; however, the GPA for the north parcel would be limited to a maximum of 50 residential units on 107 acres if not retained as open space, and a wider variety of General Plan residential categories for the south parcel. Proposed Circulation Network Development of the Proctor Valley Alignment GDP would also entail the extension of several roads within the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan: East H Street (six-lane prime arterial) and Mt. Miguel Road (four-lane Class I collector with raised median). The project's circulation system also includes the provision of right-of-way for the SR 125 freeway, which would parallel the western edge of the south parcel and intersect with Mt. Miguel Road. The proposed alignment for SR 125 is referred to as the Proctor Valley Alignment and is consistent with the City's General Plan. All circulation elements (roads, transit routes, and bikeways) within San Miguel Ranch have been assigned classifications consistenl with or greater than the General Plan's Circulation Element. In addition, an amendment to the County of San Diego's Circulation Element may be required to designate San Miguel Road as a four-lane Class I collector road prior to SPA approval. San Miguel Raneh GPAlGDP Amendment Subsequent EIR - F/nQ1 Findings of FfM:t-3 City of Chula Vista November 13, 1996 State Route 125 - Horseshoe Bend Alil1'nment GDP As part of the alignment selection process for SR 125, CALTRANS formed a committee of property owners and interested parties to assist in defining alternative routes through the study area. The committee, referred to as the Citizen's Advisory Committee (CAe), proposed several route alignments, including the routes evaluated in the SEIR. The Horseshoe Bend alignment (or Horseshoe Bend-CAC Variation Alignment) traverses across the San Miguel Ranch property and bisects the south parcel in a north-south direction. This alignment is named for its proposed grading of the Horseshoe Bend Landform on the south parcel. The variation in the alignment recommended by the CAC occurs north of San Miguel Ranch. Should CALTRANS adopt this alignment, the newly constructed freeway would physically separate the south parcel into two distinct parts, each with separate land use planning issues. In response to the alternative route, the applicant prepared an alternative land use plan in the event that CALTRANS ultimately adopts the Horseshoe Bend Alignment for SR 125. The Horseshoe Bend Alignment GDP changes the residential land use densities adjacent to the freeway and incorporates the SR 125 Horseshoe Bend alignment. As noted earlier, the Horseshoe Bend alignment is currently under study in the Draft EIR/EIS for the SR 125 project, Adoption of the Horseshoe Bend Alignment and proposed GDP would require amendment of the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the City's General Plan, Proposed Land Use Categories The acreage and types of land uses in the Horseshoe Bend Alignment GDP would be similar to those proposed in the Proctor Valley Alignment GDP. However, residential densities and unit yields would increase near the freeway under this alternative. Uses near the interchange would consist of Low (0 to 3 du/ac), Medium (6-11 du/ac) and Open Space land use categories. The locations of the school, community park, neighborhood park and community service sites are essentially the same as the Proctor Valley Alignment. Acreages for the elementary school site (12.7 acres) and community park (28.2 acres) are slightly smaller than the Proctor Valley Alignment GDP. The entire 1,852-acre north parcel would be designated as an ecological reserve under the Amended GDPs for San Miguel Ranch in accordance with the terms and conditions of the City's Subarea Plan (August 1996). Adoption of the Horseshoe Bend Alignment GDP would allow for up to 1,498 du for an average gross density of 0.58 dulacre (i.e., 1,498 units across 2,590 acres). The alternative could produce approximately 4,449 new residents (assuming 2,97 persons per unit). The Horseshoe Bend Alignment GDP would decrease the maximum permitted unit count (under the approved GDP) on San Miguel Ranch by 121 duo This alternative would allow about the same number of units as the Proctor Valley Alignment GDP. San Miguel Raneh GPAIGDP AmendmenJ SubsequenJ EIR - FInol Findings of Fact-4 City of Chula VIsta November 13, 1996 Proposed General Plan Amendment Similar to the Proctor Valley Alignment GDP, the applicant (Emerald Properties) is seeking a GP A for the south parcel of San Miguel Ranch as part of the approvals for the Horseshoe Bend Alignment GDP. Amendment of the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the City's General Plan would incorporate the proposed land use categories described above on the south parcel, and be limited to a maximum of 50 residential units on 107 acres, if not retained as open space, on the north parcel. In addition, a new alignment for SR 125 will be selected. Proposed Circulation Network Similar to the Proctor Valley Alignment GDP, development of the Horseshoe Bend Alignment GDP would also require the extension of several roads: East H Street (six-lane prime arterial) and Mt. Miguel Road (four-lane collector road with a raised median). The SR 125 interchange with Mt. Miguel Road would shift east under this alternative, requiring a GPA of the City's Circulation Element. In addition, an amendment to the County of San Diego's Circulation Element may be required to designate San Miguel Road as a four-lane Class I collector road prior to SPA approval. Mother Mil~uel R'itates General Plan Amendment Mother Miguel Estates (consists of two parcels totaling 10,14 acres) are located adjacent to the south parcel of San Miguel Ranch. This area is presently located within the City of Chula Vista Sphere of Influence and is designated as Low Residential, The parcel would change land use designation from Low to Low-Medium residential, increasing the maximum development yield from 30 units under the low classification to 60 units under the low-medium classification potential. San Miguel Ranch GPAlGDP Amendment Subsequent EIR - Find FIndings 01 Foet-S Cily 01 ChuJo Vista November 13, 1996 m. DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS The discretionary actions taken by the decision makers in approving this Project are: . Amendment (GPA) of the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the City's General Plan to adopt the following proposed changes: Redesignation for low, low-medium, medium, and high residential, retail commercial, institutional and open space/park uses, Relocation of retail commercial, community park and elementary school sites to proposed locations, Reconfiguration of the Circulation Element map to reflect the GDP circulation plan, Realignment eastward of SR 125 right-of-way (Horseshoe Bend Alignment for SR 125). . Amendment and adoption of General Development Plan. . Prezoning Mother Miguel Estates to .Planned Community'. . Annexation to the City of Chula Vista will be considered after all of the other above actions have occurred. Other actions that are the responsibility of another public agency are: . Amendment to the County of San Diego Circulation Element to designate San Miguel Road and Class I collector road with a raised median. . Annexation of all, or portions of San Miguel Ranch and Mother Miguel Estates into the City of Chula Vista as approved by the San Diego County Loca1 Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). Subsequent environmental review of the project will consist of review and approval of the San Miguel Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan and future Tentative Maps. A Public Facilities Financing Plan will be prepared and processed concurrently with the San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan. Water and sewer master plans and conceptual drainage plans will be prepared in conjunction with the SPA Plan, The future San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan will establish development standards, site utilization plan and urban design guidelines and provide specific community facility development plans. San Miguel Raneh GPAlGDP Amendmelll Subsequelll EIR - FIIUll Findings of Faet-6 City of ChulD Vista November 13, 1996 IV. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS For the purposes of CEQA and the findings set forth below, and pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21167,6, the administrative record of the City Council decision on the environmenlal analysis of this Project shall consist of the following: . The Draft and Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the Project, including appendices and technical reports; . The Draft, Final, and Supplemental San Miguel Ranch General Development Plan EIR 90- 02, including appendices and technical reports; . The Sphere of Influence Update Study and Final Program EIR for the proposed City of Chula Vista Sphere of Influence Update; . The Draft EIR/EIS for the Route Location, Adoption, and Construction of State Route 125 between State Route 905 on Otay Mesa to State Route 54 in Spring Valley, prepared by CALTRANS, including appendices and technical reports; . All reports, applications, memoranda, maps, letters and other planning documents prepared by the Applicant, the planning and environmenlal consultants, and the City that are before the decision makers as determined by the City Clerk; . All documents submitted by members of the public and public agencies to the decision makers in connection with the SEIR on the Project; . Minutes and verbatim transcripts of all workshops, public meetings and public hearings held by the City of Chula Vista, or video tapes where transcripts are not available or adequate; . Any documentary or other evidence submitted at public meetings and public hearings; and . Matters of common knowledge to the City of Chula Vista which they consider, including but not limited to, the following: · Chula Vista General Plan (Update) - 2010 . Chula Vista Zoning Ordinance . ChuJa Vista Threshold/Standards Policy For purposes of the City's environmenlal analysis of the Project, the record of proceedings shall be limited to the documents considered by the City of Chula Vista at the time of its decision on the Project (Western St~tes Petroleum Association v. Sljperior Court, (1995) 9 Cal.4th 559, 565 [38 Cal.Rptr.2d 139].) San Miguel Rand GPAIGDP Amendmelll Subsequelll E/R - FInal Findings 01 Fod-7 City 01 Chula VIsta November /3, /996 V. TERMINOLOGY/THE PURPOSE OF FINDINGS UNDER CEQA Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that, for each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a Project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or more of the three allowable conclusions. The first is that "[c]hanges or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which aYoi.d or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR." (Emphasis added.) The second potential finding is that "[s]uch changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency." The third permissible conclusion is that "[s]pecific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or Project alternatives identified in the final EIR. " Regarding the first of three potential findings, the CEQA Guidelines do not define the difference between "avoiding" a significant environmental effect and merely "substantially lessening" such an effect. The meaning of these terms, therefore, must be gleaned from other contexts in which they are used. Public Resources Code Section 21081, on which CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 is based, uses the term "mitigate" rather than "substantially lessen." The CEQA Guidelines, therefore, equate "mitigating" with "substantially lessening." Such an understanding of the statutory term is consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21001, which declares the Legislature's policy disfavoring the approval of projects with significant environmental effects where there are feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that could "avoid or substantially lessen" such significant effects. For purposes of these findings, the term "avoid" shall refer to the ability of one or more mitigation measures to reduce an otherwise significant effect to a less-than-si~ificant level. In contrast, the term "substantially lessen" shall refer to the ability of such measures to substantially reduce the severity of a significant effect, but not to reduce the effect to a level of insignificance. Although CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 requires only that approving agencies specify that a particular effect is "avoid[ed] QI substantially lessen[ed], " these findings, for purposes of clarity, will specify whether the effect in question has been fully avoided (and thus reduced to a level of insignificance) or has been substantially lessened (and thus remains significant). The purpose of these findings is to systematically restate the significant effects of the Project on the environment identified in the Final EIR, and determine the feasibility of mitigation measures and Project alternatives identified in the Final EIR which would avoid or substantially lessen those significant effects. These Findings also assure that performance standards adopted in connection with the San Miguel Ranch GDP are achieved. Once the City has adopted sufficient measures to avoid a significant impact, the City does not need to adopt every mitigation measure brought to its attention or identified in the Final ErR. It is the policy of the State of California and the City of Chula Vista to not approve a Project if there is available feasible mitigation measures or project alternatives which would substantially San Miguel Ranch GPAlGDP AmendmenJ SubsequenJ EIR - FlnoI Findings 01 Faet-8 City of Chula Vi.!ta November 13, 1996 lessen that Project's significant environmental effects, Only when such mitigation measures or Project alternatives are found to be infeasible because of specific comment, social, or other conditions set forth in these findings may the City approve a Project in spite of its significant effects. Another purpose of these findings is to focus on Project alternatives in the ultimate decision maker's decision whether to approve or disapprove the Project. If, after application of all feasible mitigation measures to the Project, significant impacts remain, Project alternatives identified in the FPEIR must be reviewed and determined to be feasible or infeasible. The findings set forth the reasons, based on substantial evidence in the record, that the decision makers conclude any such Project alternatives are infeasible (see further discussion in Feasibility of Alternatives Section). VI. LEGAL EFFECT OF FINDINGS To the extent that these findings conclude that proposed mitigation measures outlined in the Final SEIR are feasible and have not been modified, superseded or withdrawn, the City of ChuIa Vista ("City" or "decision makers") hereby binds itself and any other responsible parties, including the Applicant and its successors in interest (hereinafter referred to as "Applicant"), to implement those measures. These findings, in other words, are not merely information or suggestions, but constitute a binding set of obligations or conditions that will come into effect when the City adopts the resolution(s) approving the Project. The adopted mitigation measures are express conditions of approval. Other requirements are referenced in the mitigation monitoring program adopted concurrently with these findings, and will be effectuated through the process of implementing the Project. VIT. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM As required by the Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, in adopting these findings, also adopts a mitigation monitoring and reporting program as prepared by the environmental consultant under the direction of the City. The program is designed to ensure that, during Project implementation, the Applicant and any other responsible parties comply with the feasible mitigation measures, The program is described in the SEIR, Section 6.0, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. San Miguel Ranch GPAlGDP AmendmenJ SubsequenJ EIR - Final Findings of Fact-9 City of ChuJa Vista November 13, 1996 vm. EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT The following summary briefly describes effects determined to be less than significant in the preparation of the EIR. Tram;portation No significant impacts to transportation are anticipated. [SEIR, Section 3.4] Findin&: Both Alignment GDPs would require the extension of several roads: East H Street (six-lane prime arterial) and Mt. Miguel Road (four-lane collector road with a raised median), With the Horseshoe Bend Alignment GDP, the SR 125 interchange with Mt. Miguel Road would shift east under this alternative, requiring a GPA of the City's Circulation Element. Both Alignment GDPs would require an amendmenl to the County of San Diego's Circulation Element to designate San Miguel Road as a four-lane Class I collector road prior to SPA approval. Public Services and Utilities No significant impacts to emergency medical service protection [SEIR, Section 3.7.5]. No significant impacts to gas and electric services [SEIR, Section 3.7.7]. No significant impacts to solid waste disposal services [SEIR, Section 3.7.8]. San Miguel Ranch GPAlGDP Amendment Subsequent EIR - FiIlll1 Findings of FfJJ;t-l0 City of ChuJa Vista November 13, 1996 IX. DIRECT SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS, MITIGATION MEASURES AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE GDP FINDINGS The San Miguel Ranch GDP/GPA SEIR and attendant Findings of Fact impose numerous requirements which must be addressed at the SPA level of planning. The previous Final EIR and Supplemental EIR prepared for San Miguel Ranch imposed planning requirements. To ensure compliance with requirements set forth in the previous Final EIR, and Supplemental EIR, this section sets forth the applicable requirements from the GDP Findings for each resource area. In addition, the SEIR identified those issues which require complete analysis at the SPA level of planning. To ensure compliance with requirements set forth in the GDP/GPA SEIR, this section sets forth the applicable requirements for each resource area to be addressed at the SPA level. The SEIR identified a number of direct significant environmental effects (or impacts) that the Project will cause; some can be fully avoided through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures, while others cannot be avoided. A. LAND USE Compliance with GDP Findings of Fact adopted March 17, 1993 Signiti....nt Effect: The location of residential units adjacent to the SDG&E Miguel substation is considered a significant impact with respect to land use compatibility. The utility may expand the facility in the future and potential conflicts could arise with residents adjacent to the expanded facility. Findil1~: The GDP Findings adopted by the City of Chula Vista on March 17, 1993, found that implementation of the GDP would result in significant environmental effects on land use. As regards these impacts, the GDP Findings found the mitigation measures below to be feasible and required that they be implemented by the Applicant as conditions of approval for the GDP, Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(I) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in Final EIR 90-02. Mitia:ation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the Applicant through these Findings. These measures are required at the GDP program level and the SPA level: . Provide potential buyers considering lots north of the proposed alignment of San Miguel Road with a white paper and exhibits describing future SDG&E expansion plans, to the extent feasible. Provide buyers of these lots with a Grant Deed containing a provision describing and exhibiting future SDG&E expansion plans, to the extent feasible. This requirement will ensure that information regarding SDG&E's future San Miguel Ranch GPAlGDP Amendment Subsequent EIR - FIIWl Findings 0/ Fad-ll City 0/ Chum Vista November 13, 1996 expansion plans are disclosed to all subsequent home buyers. The San Miguel Ranch CC&Rs shall also contain information regarding the expansion plans for the SDG&E substation to provide disclosure to subsequent home buyers, . Achieve general visual separation through a comprehensive buffer plan at the SPA plan level of analysis which includes measures such as landscaping, significant topography variation (including use of natural topography as well as berming), and homesite orientation for houses near the SDG&E property, Specific measures proposed by SDG&E are as follows: a, Establishment of separation of development setback incorporating landscaped greenbelt or residential collector street; b, Achievement of visual separation through landscaping, topographic variation, homesite orientation, and height and lot setback restrictions for houses near the substation property; c. Utilization of graded materials to construct view screening landscaped mounds; d. Provision for SDG&E to view the final plans so that visual impacts can be better determined and, at that time, additional landscaping and screening may be necessary to mitigate visual impacts. . Provide grading site plans and other information to SDG&E to assist them in their efforts to develop future improvement on their site and corresponding landscape or other screening programs that will minimize visual impacts to adjacent residential development to below a level of significance. . Continue to coordinate with SDG&E throughout the processing of SPA Plans for this proj ecL . Obtain the applicant's commitment to not oppose SDG&E's decision to process its expansion plans through the City provided that: (1) this project's processing time is not delayed as a result of SDG&E's processing; (2) the City treats the two projects as separate processes, with separate hearing schedules, and (3) SDG&E's processing is not conducted at the applicant's expense. Implementation of these measures will reduce the land use impacts of this project to the SDG&E substation facility to a level below significance at the GDP level; however, this issue will be analyzed anew at the SPA plan level of analysis, which is the next regulatory planning level required by the City of Chula Vista, to determine the significance of this impact after the applicant San Miguel Raru:h GPAIGDP Amendment Subsequent EI R - Flnol Findings of Faet-12 City of Chula Vista November 13, 1996 has complied with the mitigation measures contained within this GDP EIR. * * * * Si&nificant Effect: The San Miguel Ranch GDP proposes an affordable housing element; however, a detailed program to achieve compliance with the City's provisions related to affordable housing has not been determined at this time, Finilille: The GDP Findings adopted by the City of Chula Vista on March 17, 1993, found that implementation of the GDP would result in significant environmental effects on land use. As regards these impacts, the GDP Findings found the mitigation measures below to be feasible and required that they be implemented by the Applicant as conditions of approval for the GDP. Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in Final EIR 90-02. Mititration Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the Applicant through these Findings. These measures are required at the GDP program level and the SPA project level: . Consistency with the General Plan's affordable housing provisions shall be achieved upon satisfying the City's performance criteria at the SPA Plan level. Ensuring consistency with the Housing Element of the City's General Plan will require that the project applicant explore, in an affordable housing program, methods to devote 10 percent of the dwelling units to low and moderate income housing, provide equivalent offsite mitigation, or pay fees as determined through the submission of a proposal as part of the SPA Plan processing, subject to approval of the City, This proposal shall be responsive to the City policies concerning affordable housing that may be in effect at the time of the SPA Plan processing. * * * * Sienitirant Effect: The San Miguel Ranch GDP proposes a trail system which includes trails that are within SDG&E power transmission easements. The City's Parks and Recreation Department discourages the placement of trails in these easements. This is a potentially significant impact. Finiline: The GDP Findings adopted by the City of Chula Vista on March 17, 1993, found that implementation of the GDP would result in significant environmental effects on land use. As regards these impacts, the GDP Findings found the mitigation measures below to be feasible and required that they be implemented by the Applicant as conditions of approval for the GDP. Pursuant to Section 1509I(a)(I) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the significant environmental effect San Miguel Rand GPAlGDP Amendment Subsequent EI R - Final Findings 01 Fact-I3 CUy 01 Chula VIsta November 13, 1996 as identified in Final EIR 90-02. Mitigation Mp..",u"es: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the Applicant through these Findings. These measures are required at the GDP program level and will be implemented at the SPA level. Upon implementation, the following measures will reduce the significant land use-related impact to below a level of significance: . To mitigate the impacts associated with the provision of trails on SDG&E easements, more specific development plans will be reviewed at the SPA Plan level to ensure that the proposed locations are consistent with City policies to minimize use of trails within SDG&E easements. General Development Plan (GDP) Amendment/General Plan Amendment Significant Effect: Implementation of the Proctor Valley Alignment GDP or Horseshoe Bend Alignment GDP would result in the conversion of the south parcel from a non-urban use to an intensive residential development. Both Alignment GDPs would result in an increase in the density on the south parcel from the Adopted GDP. If CALTRANS selects the Horseshoe Bend Alignment for SR 125, this freeway/tollway would bisect the south parcel and would develop residences on the west and east sides of SR 125 with San Miguel Ranch Road providing the major transportation crossing over SR 125. Findings: Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081, subdivision (a)(l), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(l) changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR, including adherence to land use policies of the City of Chula Vista including the General Plan. Adherence to these policies, however, would not reduce the impact to below a level of significance. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subd. (a)(3), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision(a)(3), there are no feasible measures that would mitigate the impact below a level of significance. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City Council has determined that this impact is acceptable because of specific overriding considerations. B. LANDFORM/VISUAL QUALITY Compliance with GDP Findings of Fact adopted March 17, 1993 Significant Effect: Two topographic features in the south parcel would be extensively graded (Horseshoe Bend would be significantly changed and Gobbler's Knob would be entirely removed), This impact has a significant visual component as well, because these features are highly visible from adjacent public areas and neighborhoods. San Miguel Ranch GPAlGDP AnrendnrenJ SubsequenJ EIR - Final Findings 01 FoeI-14 CiJy 01 Chaw Vista November 13, 1996 Findinlf: A major project redesign would be required to avoid the identified significant landform/visual quality effects associated with the grading of Horseshoe Bend and Gobbler's Knob. A project redesign is not feasible because if these features are preserved, it would create a barrier to the cohesion and continuity of the south parcel. Pursuant to Section 1509I(a)(3), there are no feasible measures that would mitigate the landform/visual quality impacts to below a level of significance. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City has determined that these impacts are acceptable because of specific overriding considerations. * * * * Significant Effect: A limited number of lots on the south parcel will be orientated toward the existing and proposed future SDG&E facilities with potential adverse visual impacts. Findin&: Pursuant to Section 1509(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR 90-02, Mitia:ation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the Applicant through these Findings: General Development Plan (GDP) Amendment/General Plan Amendment Sia:nificant Effect: Implementation of the Proctor Valley Alignment GDP or Horseshoe Bend Alignment GDP would result in extensive grading in the south parcel. Both Alignment GDPs would result in a significant impact to landform on the south parcel with the elimination of Gobbler's Knob (with both Alignment GDPs) and Horseshoe Bend (Horseshoe Bend Alignment GDP only). To reduce general grading impacts, the applicant must demonstrate compliance with hillside development guidelines and City landform grading policies during the SPA Plan review to the satisfaction of city planning staff. In the event that CALTRANS selects the Horseshoe Bend Alignment, SR 125 would bisect the south parcel which would result in the landform features identified as Gobbler's Knob and Horseshoe Bend to be graded and removed for the development of SR 125. Landform impacts would be a significant, unmitigated impact which would require a major redesign of the proposed project to avoid, Findinlfs: Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081, subdivision (a)(l), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(1) changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR, including adherence to policies of the City of Chula Vista including the General Plan. Adherence to these policies, however, would not reduce the impact to below a level of significance. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subd. (a)(3), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision(a)(3), there are no feasible measures that would mitigate the impact below a level of significance, As described in the Statement of Overriding San Miguel Raru:h GPAIGDP AmendmenJ SubsequenJ EIR - F/nQl FIndings of Fact-15 City of Chula Vista November 13, 1996 Considerations, the City Council has detennined that this impact is acceptable because of specific overriding considerations. * * * * Sienificant Effect: Visual impacts to the portion of East H Street that passes through the proposed site would be result in a significant impact to visual quality. Visual impacts associated with locating residences along the north border of the south parcel close to the SDG&E Miguel substation are not significant because of existing landscaping planted and maintained by SDG&E which is expected to effectively screen the existing electrical substation. It is anticipated that likely future visual impacts to lots placed near the planned expansion areas for the SDG&E substation are mitigable with a commitment to the mitigation measures incorporated by reference from the Final EIR-90-02. However, the significance of this issue would be further reviewed after implementation of the mitigation measures outlined in this document at the SPA Plan level. Findin&: Pursuant to Section 1509(a)(I) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final SEIR. Mitilration Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the Applicant through these Findings: . The proposed grading and development in the south parcel of the site would impact views to Mother Miguel and San Miguel Mountains from a short portion of East H Street that extends through the project site. These impacts can be mitigated to below a level of significance by the implementation of landscaping and development planning consistent with General Plan guidelines for scenic roadways. Mitigation measures to reduce potential visual impacts associated with residential lots located adjacent to the SDG&E property to below a level of significance at the General Development Plan level of review, the applicant shall implement the mitigation measures referenced in the Final EIR- 90-02. It is anticipated that implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the visual impacts of the SDG&E facility on this project to a level below significant. C. BIOWGICAL RESOURCES Si2nificant Effect: Both Alignment GDPs would result in significant environmental effects to multiple biological resources, including habitats and species on the south parcel. Both Alignment GDPs would result in significant effects to three sensitive vegetation communities: Diegan coastal sage scrub, dry marsh/wetland, and annual grassland. In addition, significant effects to seven sensitive plant species, such as the Otay tarplant, and two sensitive wildlife species would occur under this proposed alternative. Impacts of this project alternative upon overall biodiversity for San MlgUi!l Rand GPAlGDP AmendmenJ SubseqUi!nJ EI R . FlIUll Findings of Fact-16 City of Chuia Vista November 13. 1996 the San Miguel Ranch Property are significant. These significanl effects would be mitigated to a level below significant with the preservation of the north parcel and the adoption of the north parcel in the City's Subarea Plan, Findin~: Pursuant to Section l509(a)(I) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final SEIR. Miti~ation Mea..mres: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the Applicant through these Findings: At the GDP level of development, the Proctor Valley GDP and Horseshoe Bend Alternative would eliminate impacts to sensitive species in the north parcel and reduce impacts to sensitive species in the south parcel to below a level of significance. The SEIR is a .program" level document and the location of a 2l-acre Otay tarplant preserve has been identified consistent with the previous environmental documentation (Final and Supplement EIR 90-02). The 21-acre Otay tarplant preserve will be confirmed in the south parcel at the SPA level of processing. The USFWS, the CDFG, and Emerald Properties have entered into an agreement which indicates that the dedication of 146 acres of open space on the south parcel, including a 2l-acre Otay tarplant preserve, and 166 acres of the north parcel, is sufficient mitigation for total biological impacts as long as the north parcel is not developed, but dedicated as a permanent ecological reserve and the City completes its Subarea Plan. In the event that the MSCP Subarea Plan is not approved and adopted by the City of Chula Vista, subsequent impact analysis and mitigation measures, as well as coordination with the USFWS and the CDFG, would be required prior to approval of the SPA for San Miguel Ranch. The Points of Agreement calls for a combination of acquisition and the establishment of a conservation bank on the north parcel, in addition to the dedicating of 166 acres of mitigation land. The fee title to the 166 acre of mitigation land will be transferred to the CDFG or the USFWS (or to an organization approved by them) following the City's authorization of the project based upon an approved MSCP Subarea Plan for Chula Vista. Elimination of development in the north parcel will permanently preserve 1,298 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub, 93 acres of mixed chaparral, 15 acres of dry marsh/wetland, and 90 acres of annual grassland (see following table). Dedication of the north parcel as a permanent ecological reserve will also protect important wildlife corridors in the area. San Miguel Raneh GPAIGDP Amendment Subsequent EIR - FlIUll Findings 01 Fact-17 CIIy 01 Chula VIsta November 13, 1996 Acres of Sensitive Plant Communities Preserved by ElimiTUltion of Development in the North Parcel 15 acres In addition, the degradation of wetland habitat in the southern parcel will still require permits from several regulatory agencies. Any filling of wetlands would require a 1603 Agreement between the project applicant and the CDFG. A pre-discharge Notification would have to be submitted to the USACOE if statutory thresholds are exceeded, and a 404 permit may be required. A no net loss of wetland habitat is required by CDFG and ACOE. Impacts must be avoided to the extent practicable. Impacts within the southern portion of the project will be mitigated for by preservation of the north parcel. However, impacts to wetlands within the southern parcel should still be avoided as much as practicable. Impacts can be reduced by placement of wetlands occurring within proposed residential lots in open space easements and providing adequate buffers, Where impacts cannot be avoided, every effort should be made to minimize these impacts. If necessary, minimization of impacts could be accomplished with a comprehensive program to replace and enhance wetland habitat under a wetland revegetation plan created by a wetland revegetation specialist and approved by CDFG, ACOE, and the City of Chula Vista. Total created wetland would have to be at a minimum replacement ratio of 1:1 (and may be 2:1 or 3:1), depending upon the habitat quality. The final mitigation required for project impacts to wetlands will be determined during the CDFG's Streambed Alteration Agreement and USACOE 404 permitting process. In addition, the mitigation plan at the SPA level shall incorporate the following general mitigation measures to further reduce impacts to the identified biological resources. Graded areas along roadways shall be hydroseeded with native plant species consistent with surrounding natural vegetation. This would help to minimize erosion and runoff, as well as improve the area aesthetically by making it visually compatible with adjacent natural areas, As part of this effort, a revegetation plan shall be developed with the help of a revegetation specialist with experience in coastal sage scrub and similar habitats. The revegetation plan shall be prepared by the applicant and a qualified biologist. The use of non-invasive plants in landscaping areas adjacent to open space will be required for all areas outside of actual lot boundaries. Additionally, homeowners will be encouraged to use non- invasive species in their landscaping adjacent to open space. Iceplant shall not be used in lieu of fire-resistant native revegetation due to associated slope failures and the invasive nature of the San Miguel Raneh GPAlGDP Amendment Subsequent EIR - FlIIIIl Findings of FOJ:/-18 City of Chula VIsIa November 13, 1996 species. Grading activities within 200 feet of areas of identified coastal California gnatcatcher pairs, or their associated coastal sage scrub habitat, shall not be conducted during the breeding or nesting season (February 15 through August 15). This will also help in avoiding the breeding season of many other species of birds. Grading activities shall be supervised by a qualified biologist. Site preparation activities, especially staging area operations and maintenance rows for heavy machinery, shall be restricted to areas not being placed in open space, Areas adjacent to open space shall be fenced. A debris fence shall be installed prior to excavation in areas where grading is upslope of sensitive biological habitats. D. AIR QUALITY Compliance with GDP Findings of Fact adopted March 17, 1993 Sivlifirant Effect: Short-term pollutant emissions will occur during the construction phase of San Miguel Ranch. The air quality impacts are considered significant short-term impacts. F1ndil1~: The GDP Findings adopted by the City of Chula Vista on March 17, 1993, found that implementation of the GDP would result in significant environmental effects to air quality, As regards these impacts, the GDP Findings found the mitigation measures below to be feasible and required that they be implemented by the Applicant as conditions of approval for the GDP. Pursuant to Section l509l(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the significanl environmental effect as identified in Final EIR 90-02. Mitigation Mea.<mres: To reduce short-term pollutant emissions to below a level of significance, the following mitigation measures, which are found to be feasible and are required as conditions of approval, shall be incorporated into the analysis at the SPA level to be implemented during the construction phase of the project: 1. Heavy-duty construction equipment with modified combustion/fuel injection systems for emissions control shall be utilized during grading and construction. 2. Disturbed areas shall be hydroseeded, landscaped, or developed as soon as possible and as directed by the City to reduce dust generation. 3, Trucks hauling fill material shall be covered. 4. A 20 mile-per-hour speed limit shall be enforced on unpaved surfaces, San Miguel Ranch GPAIGDP Amendment Subsequent EIR - Fltwl Findings 01 Fact-19 City 01 ChuJa VIsta November 13, 1996 5. To control dust raised by grading activities, the graded area shall be watered twice a day, unless the County's current state of limited water supplies still exists at the time of construction. In this case, other mitigation measures shall be considered and implemented upon City approval. Such measures may include minimizing grading by designing development to follow natural topography, phasing grading so relatively smaller areas are exposed, and re-vegetating graded areas as rapidly as possible. * * * * Sivtifil'lmt Effect: Stationary sources, such as residential fireplaces, water heaters, and furnaces, would contribute to San Diego's inability to meet owne and PM-lO standards, which is considered a significant impact to air quality. Findillf: The GDP Findings adopted by the City of Chula Vista on March 17, 1993, found that implementation of the GDP would result in significant environmental effects to air quality. San Diego County currently exceeds ambient air quality standards for a number of criteria air pollutants. Emissions from stationary sources within the project will exacerbate the violation of these standards. The mitigation measures described below will not reduce emissions to the point where there is no net increase in ambient air pollutant concentrations. Although the mitigation measures noted below would minimize the impacts on air quality, these impacts would remain significant. Pursuant to Section 1509I(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, there are no feasible measures that would mitigate the impacts to below a level of significance. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City has determined that this impact is acceptable because of specific overriding considerations. Miti&lltion Mf'HSlIl'eS: To reduce pollutant emissions from stationary operations, but not to below a level of significance, the following mitigation measures, which are found to be feasible and are required as conditions of approval, shall be incorporated into development design at the SPA level to reduce ROG, NOx, and PM-lO emissions during the implementation and construction phase of the project: 6. All swimming pools shall use solar energy with back-up 10w-NOx water heaters. 7. Low-NOx commercial-size water heaters shall be installed in all the larger on-site facilities. 8. Residential and larger facility gas-fired furnaces shall be outfitted with heat transfer modules providing a 70 percent reduction in No. emissions. 9. Incorporate in the landscape design low natural hydrocarbon (NHC) producing plant species (also requiring little water). San Miguel Ranch GPAIGDP Amendment Subsequent EIR - FlIWl Findings 01 Fact-20 Cily 01 Chula Vista November 13, 1996 * * * * Significant Effect: Vehicular emission associated with the Project will result in a significant impact to the total vehicular air pollutant emissions burden in the San Diego Air Basin. The proposed project will result in increased vehicle emissions in the region which include carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and reactive hydrocarbons, which is considered a significant impact to air quality. Finding: The GDP Findings adopted by the City of Chula Vista on March 17, 1993, found that implementation of the GDP would result in significant environmental effects to air quality. San Diego County currently exceeds ambient air quality standards for a number of criteria air pollutants. Vehicular emissions generated by the project will exacerbate the violation of these standards. The mitigation measures described below will not reduce vehicular emissions to the point where there is no net increase in ambient air pollutant concentrations. Although the mitigation measures noted below would minimize the impacts on air quality, these impacts would remain significant. Pursuant to Section 15091 (a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, there are no feasible measures that would mitigate the impacts to below a level of significance. As described in the Statement of Overriding considerations, however, the city has determined that this impact is acceptable because of specific overriding considerations. Mitigation Measures: To mitigate potential impacts associated with vehicular emissions, but not to below a level of significance, the following measures, which are found to be feasible, are required as conditions of approval, shall be implemented: 10. The project applicant shall prepare an Air Quality Improvement Plan (AQIP) that: a. Provides an analysis of air pollution impacts that would result from the project, b. Demonstrates the best available design to reduce vehicle trips, maintain or improve traffic flow, reduce vehicle miles traveled, c. Includes implementation of appropriate traffic control measures and other direct or indirect means of reducing emissions, and d. Establishes a monitoring program. 11. The AQIP shall be subject to: a. Review and comment by the Resource Conservation Commission, San Miguel Ranch GPAIGDP Amendment Subsequent EI R - FlIWl Findings 01 Fact-21 Cily 01 Chula VIsta November 13, 1996 b. Review and comment by the Planning Commission, c. Approval by the City Engineer, and d. Approval and adoption by the City Council. The applicant shall obtain these approvals prior to approval of the SPA Plan. 12. A park and ride facility shall be implemented within the project in proximity to SR 125. 13. The applicant shall provide facilities such as turnouts, shelters and other amenities to support increased bus service in the vicinity of the project. 14. The project shall incorporate bicycle lanes along designated roads within the project. 15. The project shall incorporate all feasible, relevant and appropriate mitigation measures developed in the RAQS. 16. Garages shall be wired for 220 volts to accommodate charging of electric vehicles when such vehicles become commercially available in the next decade. E. NOISE SiVlificJmt F.1fect: Both Alignment GDPs would result in significant impacts to noise in the south parcel. Traffic noise levels would exceed 65 dBA (decibel A-weighted sound level) Ldn (day- night level) standards due to traffic noise along proposed SR 125 and several major roads proposed within the Alignment GDPs. Findillg,~: Pursuant to Section 1509I(a)(I) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final SEIR. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are found to be feasible and are required as conditions of approval. Upon implementation, these measure will reduce the noise- related impacts to below a level of significance: 1. Noise walls shall be of solid masonry construction with a material weight of at least 3.5 pounds per square foot and which would not allow any air space along their entire length. San Miguel Ranch GPAlGDP Amendment Subsequent EIR - FlIWl Findings 01 Fact-22 Cily 01 Chuia Vista November 13, 1996 2. Each noise wall or wall/berm combination shall be placed on the building pad at the top of the slope between the residences and the adjacent impacting roadway, which reduces noise levels to 65 dBA levels. The required wall or wall/berm combination height may range from 8 to 10 feet for residences adjacent to SR-125 or East H Street; and from 5 to 6 feet for residences adjacent to San Miguel Road. Because City regulations do not permit walls over 6 feet in height, only the wall/berm combination along SR-I25 and East H Street would be acceptable. F. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES - WATER SiVlitirant FReet: Both Alignment GDPs would result in water consumption within the project which will require implementation of water conservation strategies. Additional impacts to water demand will need to be analyzed at the SPA level when the project applicant's Water Master Plan and Water Conservation Plan is reviewed and approved by the Otay Water District (OWD) prior to City approval. Finding: Pursuant to Section 1509I(a)(I) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final SEIR. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the Applicant through these Findings: . Prior to approval of any SPA Plan within San Miguel Ranch, a Water Master Plan shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer and OWD. This plan shall delineate the plans for San Miguel Ranch and identify the location and sizing of specific facilities and implementation/phasing of the plan. . To reduce water consumption within the development, the project applicant will prepare a Water Conservation Plan to be submitted with the SPA Plan application, for approval by the City. This plan must provide an analysis of water usage requirements of the proposed project, a detailed plan of proposed measures for water conservation, use of reclaimed water, and other means of reducing per capita water consumption for the proposed project, as well as defining a program to monitor compliance. This plan shall be reviewed by the Resource Conservation Commission and Planning Commission, prior to final review and adoption by the City Council (Growth Management Program) City of Chula Vista, April 23, 1991, Resolution No. 16101. The plan must include the following: . Reclaimed water shall be used wherever possible, as planned. The project applicant shall begin negotiations with the OWD and Sweetwater Authority to ensure distribution of reclaimed water to the site. San Miguel Ranch GPAlGDP Amendment Subsequent EIR - FlIWl Findings 01 Fact-23 Cily 01 Chuia VIsta November 13, 1996 . Water conservation measures for onsite landscaping and roadside maintenance shall include, but not be limited to planting of drought tolerant vegetation and the use of irrigation systems which minimize runoff and evaporation loss. . Installation of low flush toilets. . Installation of low flow showers and faucets. . Insulation of hot water lines in water recirculating systems. G. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES - SEWAGE Compliance with GDP Findings of Fact adopted March 17, 1993 Significant Effect: Both Alignment GDPs would generate sewage which be accommodated by existing sewage treatment facilities and existing infrastructure as identified in the Final SEIR. However, the GDP Findings of Fact adopted March 17, 1993 identified significant impacts associated with offsite transport of San Miguel Ranch wastewater which would be considered significant. Finding: Pursuant to Section 1509I(a)(I) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final SEIR. Miti&ation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the Applicant through these Findings: . Prior to approval of the SPA Plan within San Miguel Ranch, a Wastewater Master Plan shall be prepared subject to approval by the City Engineer. The Wastewater Master Plan shall identify the location and sizing of onsite and offsite sewage facilities, implementation/phasing, and funding. This report shall include a discussion of potential impacts to the Sweetwater Reservoir in the event of a break in the sewer line or sewage spill in the portion of the project within the Sweetwater drainage basin. The Sweetwater Authority will require that 18 hours of emergency storage and full redundancy be designed into the sewage pump stations. In addition, the Sweetwater Authority will require that all gravity sewer mains be upstream of the proposed urban runoff diversion system. . The project shall be subject to payment of wastewater development fees (to fund trunk sewer and other upgrades) or equivalent proportionate facility financing mechanism necessary to provide service to this project as identified by the City, when adopted. Payment shall occur prior to issuance of building permits or earlier. San Miguel Ranch GPAlGDP Amendment Subsequent EIR - FlIWl Findings 01 Fact-24 Cily 01 Chuia Vista November 13, 1996 H. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES - POLICE PROTECTION SERVICES Si~ifirjJnt F.1fect: Both Alignment GDPs would result in an increased permanent population in an area that is presently undeveloped which would place new demands on the Chula Vista Police Department. The proposed San Miguel Ranch project would require additional patrol officers and support staff to provide the City's threshold/standards policy objectives. The funding of these new personnel would result in a significant impact to police protection services. Findin&: Pursuant to Section 1509I(a)(l) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final SEIR. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the Applicant through these Findings: . The City has adopted supplemental development impact fees to ensure funding for police protection facilities. Under any new development scenarios, the project will be required to pay their proportionate share of the funding requirements. The City's Police Department will determine when facilities are needed to ensure that the response times are met. This determination shall be made during approval process of the San Miguel Ranch SPA Plan. I. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES - FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES Significant Effect: Both Alignment GDPs would result in response times which are in conformance with the City's threshold/standards policy objectives. Impacts to dwelling units located near hillsides and open spaces from brush fires represent potentially significant impacts due to fire hazard. The financial impact of constructing a new fire station and the increase in personnel will result in a significant impact. Finding: Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(I) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final SEIR. Mitigation Mpa"ures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the Applicant through these Findings: . Partial funding shall be required in the form of a development fee, but this will not be adequate to cover the entire cost. Another means of funding must be developed at the SPA level. . Implement an acceptable brush management plan, as proposed by the applicant. This will be dealt with in further detail at the SPA level of analysis. San Miguel Ranch GPAlGDP Amendment Subsequent EIR - FlIWl Findings 01 Fact-25 Cily 01 Chuia Vista November 13, 1996 J. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES - SCHOOLS SiVlifirant Effect: Both Alignment GDPs would result in an increase in 467 students for Chula Vista Elementary School District and 452 students for the Sweetwater Union High School District. At the time of completion for San Miguel Ranch, the Eastlake High School and the Bonita Vista Middle School are projected to exceed their capacities which would result in a significant impact. Finding: Pursuant to Section 1509I(a)(I) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final SEIR. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the Applicant through these Findings: . As required by state law, the developer must pay school fees of $1.84 per square-foot of habitable space for residential development and $0.30 per square-foot of commercial development. . Funding for the school shall be in compliance with Chula Vista Elementary School District procedures and shall be satisfied through the Mello-Roos Community Facilities District financing method or other means acceptable to the District. . Prior to SPA approval, the project proponent shall provide documentation to the City confirming satisfaction of Sweetwater Union High School District facility funding requirements to offset student generation impacts. Funding shall be satisfied through the Mello-Roos Community facilities District financing method or other means acceptable to the District. . Prior to issuance of any building permits for Ranch San Miguel, the project proponent shall obtain written verification ITom Chula Vista Elementary School District and Sweetwater Union High School District that adequate school facilities and associated financing will be provided for students generated ITom the project. K. PARKS, RECREATION, AND OPEN SPACE Sienitirant EtTeet: Both Alignment GDPs include a trail system with portions of the trails which traverse and follow the SDG&E easements, which are not consistent with the policies of the City's Parks and Recreation Department. In addition, the Horseshoe Bend Alignment GDP would result in SR 125 bisecting the south parcel and creating a barrier to the San Miguel Ranch trail system which would interrupt hiking/equestrian trails. The Horseshoe Bend Alignment GDP would result in SR 125 creating a barrier which would result in a significant impact to the trail system. San Miguel Ranch GPAIGDP Amendment Subsequent EIR - FlIWl Findings 01 Fact-26 Cily 01 Chula VIsta November 13, 1996 Findillf: Pursuant to Section 1509I(a)(I) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final SEIR. Miti&ation Mea.~res: The following mitigation measures are feasible and are required as a condition of approval and are made binding on the Applicant through these Findings: Proctor VallI:)' and Horseshoe Bend Alifnment ODPs In the event that portions of the trail systems traverse SDG&E easements, the impacts of the trails in the easements can be mitigated by the movement of the proposed trails so that they are outside the SDG&E easements. This will need to be analyzed at the SPA level. Horseshoe Bend Alignment ODP Only This alignment will bisect the trail system in numerous places. These impacts can be mitigated by creating trails that intersect with the greenbelt in other areas or by creating or utilizing planned structures (such as Mt. Miguel Road which would cross SR 125) that allow trail users to cross over SR 125. The Horseshoe Bend Alignment GDP will include a trail crossing on the same bridge structure as Mt. Miguel Road to cross SR 125. This will need to be analyzed at the SPA level. San Miguel Raneh GPAlGDP Amendment Subsequent EIR - FlIWl Findings 01 Fact-27 Cily 01 Chula Vista November 13, 1996 X. SIGNIFICANT CUMULATIVE EFFECTS Cumulative impacts are those which "are considered when viewed in connections with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. . (Public Resources Code Section 21082.2b). Several development proposal have been submitted for consideration or have been recently approved by the City of Chula Vista in proximity to San Miguel Ranch. These current or probable future development proposal would affect many of the same natural resources and public infrastructure as San Miguel Ranch. Several potentially significant cumulative impacts are associated with development of San Miguel Ranch in conjunction with these surrounding development projects. The proposed project along with other related project will result in the following cumulative environmental effects: Land Use (Conversion of Undeveloped Land), Landform/Visual Quality, Biological Resources, Transportation and Air Quality. These cumulative impacts are discussed in the Final SEIR, Section 5.5. The cumulative impacts cannot be substantially lessened or avoided. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City has determined that these cumulative impacts have been reduced to an acceptable level when balanced against specific overriding considerations. The sections below, define each of the cumulative impact issues, and proved the reasons why they are significant and unavoidable, the mitigation measures adopted to substantially lessen or avoid them, or the reasons why proposed mitigation measures are infeasible due to specific, economic, social, or other considerations. A. LAND USE/CONVERSION OF OPEN SPACE SiVlitirJlnt Effect: Development of the both Alignment GDPs would contribute to an incremental increase in the area's conversion of open space to urban land uses. The City's General Plan designates the proposed project as a developable area. Preservation of the entire north parcel and a portion of the south parcel as permanent natural open space into the project design would offset t some of the impacts related to conversion of undeveloped, open space to urban uses. Despite these general mitigation measures, the project would contribute to a significant, unmitigated cumulative land use impact. Findine: Pursuant to Section 15091 (a)(3), there are no feasible measures that would mitigate this cumulative impact to below a level of significance. As described in the State of Overriding Considerations, however, the City has determined that these impacts are acceptable because of specific overriding considerations. B. LANDFORM/VISUAL QUALITY Significant Effect: Both Alignment GDPs, in combination with the projected development San Miguel Ranch GPAlGDP Amendment Subsequent EIR - FlIWl Findings 01 Fact-28 Cily 01 Chula Vl.sta November 13, 1996 projects in the area, would contribute unavoidably to a significant cumulative effect on the existing natural landforms due to extensive grading and the area's visual quality. Findillf: Although the mitigation measures below would minimize cumulative impacts to landforms, these impacts would remain cumulatively significant. Pursuant to Section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, there are no feasible measures that would mitigate the impacts to below a level of significance. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City has determined that these impacts are acceptable because of specific overriding considerations. Mitia:ation Mea~llres: General mitigation measures being incorporated into both Alignment GDPs and other projected development projects in the area would serve to offset some of the identified landform/visual quality impacts. These mitigation measures include a review of grading plans by licensed civil engineers, adherence to city grading ordinances, and hillside development guidelines, contour grading, slope revegetation, and restrictive grading to building pads. C. BIOWGICAL RESOURCES Sienificant Effect: Both Alignment GDPs, in combination with the projected development projects in the area, would result in an incremental cumulative loss of quality biological habitat in the region. Findine: The north parcel of San Miguel Ranch would be preserved according to the City's Subarea Preserve Plan and the MSCP. However, the incremental loss of biological resources with this project and in other development projects would impact sensitive species and habitat and is cumulative and significant. Pursuant to Section 1509I(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, there are no feasible measures that would mitigate the impacts to below a level of significance. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City has determined that these impacts are acceptable because of specific overriding considerations. Miti2ation Mea.~llres: Preservation of the north parcel and other areas as natural open space, habitat restoration and revegetation, onsite and offsite habitat recreation and offsite habitat preservation programs would partially mitigate the identified cumulative impact to biological resources. D. TRANSPORTATION Significant Effect: Both Alignment GDPs, together with other planned or approved projects in the area, will result in an overall increase in traffic volumes in the City. Certain elements of the circulation system are projected to operate below acceptable levels due to the cumulative increase in traffic. Findina:: Pursuant to Section 1509I(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations have San Miguel Ranch GPAIGDP Amendment Subsequent EI R - FlIWl Findings 01 Fact-29 Cily 01 Chula Vista November 13, 1996 been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final SEIR. Miti&lltion Measures: To mitigate potential cumulative impacts associated with transportation to below a level of significance, the following measures, which are found to be feasible and are required as conditions of approval, shall be implemented: . The project shall be implemented, together with the measures relating to transportation for other approved or probable projects. . The issue of transportation will be considered further at the SPA plan level, when more specific development plans are available for review. E. AIR QUALITY Significant Effect: Both Alignment GDPs would contribute to an unmitigated cumulative air quality impact on regional air quality because the proposed development will result in emissions of NOx, reactive organic gases (ROG) and PMlO from vehicle and stationary sources which will add to the San Diego Air Basin which presently exceeds state and federal ambient air quality standards. Because the San Diego Air Basin presently exceeds air quality standards for several pollutants, any additional emissions will contribute to San Diego's inability to meet these standards. Therefore, these air quality impacts are considered to be cumulatively significant. Finding: Pursuant to Section 1509I(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final SEIR. Impacts to air quality will, however, remain cumulatively significant. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15091(a)(3), there are no feasible measures that would mitigate these impacts to below a level of significance. As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the City has determined that these impacts are acceptable because of specific overriding considerations. M"digation Mf'H~Ire<i: To mitigate cumulative impacts to air quality, but not to below a level of significance, the following measures, which are found to be feasible and are required as conditions of approval, shall be implemented: . The project-specific mitigation measures related to air quality shall be implemented, together with the measures relating to air quality for other approved or probable projects. . The air qualiIy impacts will be considered further at the SPA Plan level, when more specific development plans are available for review. San Miguel Ranch GPAlGDP Amendment Subsequent EIR - FlIWl Findings 01 Fact-30 Cily 01 Chula Vl.sta November 13, 1996 xu. FEASmILITY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES Because the Project will cause some unavoidable significant environmental effects, as outlined above, the City must consider the feasibility of any environmentally superior alternative to the Project, as finally approved. The City must evaluate whether on or more of these alternatives could avoid or substantially lessen the unavoidable significant environmental effects. Citizens for Q,,~1ity Growth v City of Mount Sh~sta (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 433 [243 Cal.Rptr.727]; see also Public Resources Code, Section 21002. In general, in preparing and adopting findings, a lead agency need not necessarily address the feasibility of both mitigation measures and environmentally superior alternatives when contemplating the approval of a project with significant impacts. Where the significant impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level solely by the adoption of mitigation measures, the agency, in drafting its findings has no obligation to consider the feasibility of environmentally superior alternatives, even if their impacts would be less severe than those of the Project as mitigated. Laurel Heil:hts Improvement Association v. Rel:ents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376 [253 Cal Rptr. 426]; I.3urel Hills Homeowners Association v City Council (19768) 83 Cal.App.3d 515 [147 Cal.Rptr. 842] see also Kini:s County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692 [270 Cal. Rptr. 650]. Accordingly, for this Project, in adopting the fmdings concerning Project alternatives, the City Council considers only those environmental impacts, that for the finally approved Project, are significant and cannot be avoided or substantially lessened through mitigation. Significant environmental effects would remain with both Alignment GDPs even after application of all feasible mitigation measures identified in the Final SEIR. Therefore, the decision makers must evaluate the project alternatives identified in the Final SEIR. Under these circumstances, CEQA requires findings on the feasibility of project alternatives. "Feasible" means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable time, taking economic, environmental, legal, social and technological factors into account (Guidelines Section 15364). If no project alternatives are feasible, the decision makers will have to determine whether to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations with regard to the project. If there is a feasible project alternative, the decision makers must decide whether it is environmentally superior to the project. (All project alternatives considered must be ones which "could feasibly attain the basic objective of the project" [Guidelines Section 15126(d))). These findings contrast and compare the alternatives where appropriate in order to demonstrate that the selection of the project as revised, while still resulting in significant environmental impacts, has superior environmental and other benefits. In rejecting certain alternatives, the decision makers have examined the project objectives and San Miguel Ranch GPAlGDP Amendment Subsequent EIR - FIIWl Findings 01 Fact-31 Cily 01 Chuia Vista November 13, 1996 weighed the ability of the various alternatives to meet the objectives. The decision makers believe that the project as revised best meets the project objectives with the least environmental impact. The objectives considered by the decision makers are: 1. Creation of a high-quality master-planned residential development consistent with the policies of the Chula Vista General Plan to provide a variety of Low, Low-Medium, Medium, and High residential densities. 2. Provision of a commercial/retail center, community and neighborhood parks, elementary school to serve the needs of San Miguel Ranch. 3. Preserve the north parcel of San Miguel Ranch as permanent undeveloped, natural open space. 4. Implementation of significant elements of the City's General Plan as follows: a. Preservation of open space corridors and extension of the greenbelt system proposed for the periphery of the city through the provision of approximately permanent open space as depicted in the General Plan; b. Preservation of Mother Miguel Mountain which is designated as a significant landform by the City's General Plan; c. Implement regional and local circulation facilities by providing for the extension of SR 125, the designation of San Miguel Road as a major four-lane collector, and connection from East H Street to Bonita Road; d. Provide necessary public utilities and services to the are including water, sewage, police, fire, emergency medical, parks, recreation, and open space; e. Provide connecting links to schools, parks, and shopping centers through the use of bicycle and pedestrian trails as an alternative to the automobile; f. Provide affordable housing opportunities to be integrated into the residential community. A. ALTERNATIVES The decision makers have considered whether any of the project alternatives discussed in the SEIR could substantially lessen or avoid the identified significant effects. As explained below, the decision makers conclude that none of the project alternatives could both meet the objectives of the project and lessen or avoid the identified significant effects. 1. No Project/No Development Alternative The No Project/No Development alternative assumes that no development would occur on the project site. The project site would remain in its current undeveloped condition. Because the project site would remain undeveloped under the No Project/No Development alternative, all of San Miguel Ranch GPAIGDP Amendment Subsequent EIR - FlIWl Findings 01 Fact-32 Cily 01 Chuia VIsta November 13, 1996 the unmitigated impacts of the project as revised would be avoided. However, the no project alternative is considered infeasible for the following reasons: a. Inconsistent with City's General Plan The Chula Vista General Plan designates the project site primarily as Low Residential (0-3 dwelling units/acre) which includes commercial school, park, and open space uses. Both Alignment GDPs would provide for such development and uses. In addition, a GPA would reassign the land uses on the south parcel to provide for a variety of Low, Low-Medium, Medium, and High Residential land uses. The No Project/No Development alternative contemplates no development at the project site, and is not consistent with the City's General Plan designation for the project site. In addition, the Eastern Territories Element of the City's General Plan contains objectives which call for the creation of a balanced community of residential, commercial, industrial, and open space uses. Both Alignment GDPs would provide for a balanced community. The No Project/No Development alternative, however, does not provide this benefit, as it does not contemplate development of the project site for urban development, including residential school, park, commercial and open space uses. b. Eliminates Fiscal Benefits to City As vacant, undeveloped land, the project site generates no revenue for the City of Chula Vista; however, the city incurs very few costs from the site in its undeveloped condition. This fiscal situation would continue under the no project alternative. However, both Alignment GDPs would provide a potential source of revenue once buildout is completed. The fiscal benefits would not be realized under the no project alternative. c. Inconsistent with Project Goals and Objectives The No Project/No Development alternative would not achieve the objectives of either Alignment GDP. For example, the objectives considered by the City, which would not be realized under the No Project/No Development alternative include: 1) creation of a high- quality master-planned residential development consistent with the General Plan Amendment designation; 2) provision of a commercial/retail center, community park, and elementary school to serve the needs of the project site; 3) implementation of regional and local circulation facilities by providing for the extension of SR 125, the designation of San Miguel Road as a major four-lane collector, and connection from East H Street to Bonita Road; 4) the implementation of necessary public utilities and services to the area including water, sewage, police, fire, emergency medical, parks, recreation, and open space; and 5) a linkage to schools, parks, and shopping centers through the use of bicycle and pedestrian trails as an alternative to the automobile. San Miguel Ranch GPAlGDP Amendment Subsequent EIR - FlIWl Findings 01 Fact-33 Cily 01 Chuia VIsta November 13, 1996 2. No Project/Adopted General Development Plan The No Project/Adopted General Development Plan would propose development on both the north and south parcels with low residential land uses. This alternative would result in greater impacts to landform/visual quality and biological resources and is considered infeasible for the following reasons: a. Greater Significant Impacts The Adopted General Development Plan would result in greater significant impacts as the Adopted GDP had a greater number of residential units and a greater number of acres disturbed. This would result in greater significant impacts, as identified in Pinal EIR 90-02 and the Supplemental EIR, to land use, landform/visual quality, biological resources, transportation, air quality, noise, public services and utilities. b. Eliminates the Preservation of the North Parcel The Adopted General Development Plan would result in development of Low density residential dwelling units, roads and utility infrastructure, and a conference/visitor facility on portions of the north parcel. This would result in greater impacts to biological resources on the north parcel and would not allow the preservation of the entire north parcel within the City's Draft Subarea Plan. 3. Proctor Valley Alignment GDP - Development on the North Parcel The Proctor Valley Alignment GDP - Development on the North Parcel alternative would propose development of 107 acres on the north parcel with 50 dwelling units designated as Low Residential (0.5 du/acre). The alternative would result in impacts to transportation and public services and utilities (police, fire, emergency medical access to north parcel). a. Greater Significant Impacts Remain The Proctor Valley Alignment GDP - Development on the North Parcel alternative would result in greater significant impacts as this alternative had a greater number of residential units and a greater number of acres disturbed. This would result in greater significant impacts, as identified in the Final SEIR, to land use, landform/visual quality, biological resources, transportation, air quality, noise, public services and utilities. b. Eliminates the Preservation of the North Parcel The Proctor Valley Alignment GDP - Development on the North Parcel would result in development of Low density residential dwelling units, roads and utility infrastructure. This San Miguel Ranch GPAlGDP Amendment Subsequent E1R - FlIWl Findings 01 Fact-34 Cily 01 Chuia Vista November 13, 1996 would result in greater impacts to biological resources on the north parcel and would not allow the preservation of the entire north parcel within the City's Draft Subarea Plan. 4. Reduced Density GDP (Environmentally Preferred) The Reduced Density GDP would propose a GDP with a reduced residential density which would result in the condition that 50 percent of the units on the south parcel would be estate residential with a minimum of 555 units on the south parcel. a. Significant Impacts Lessened The Reduced Density GDP would result in some significant impacts, but would lessen the impacts on land use, landform/visual quality, public services and utilities. b. Inconsistent with Project Objectives The Reduced Density GDP would not adhere with the project objectives to provide a variety of high-quality housing and a range of affordable housing. 5. Annexation Alternatives The annexation alternatives include four annexation scenarios to address the orderly annexation of connecting land uses. The four alternative annexation scenarios as 1) SDG&E Parcel; 2) limited SDG&E corridor; 3) Otay Water District; and 4) No North Parcel. The annexation alternatives relate to requirements of the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to approve annexation to the City of Chula Vista and are not directly related to the feasibility of selecting a particular alternative as all of the previously discussed alternatives may be combined with the aforementioned annexation alternatives. For example, the No Project/No Development Alternative may be annexed in the same manner as the Existing Adopted GDP which would have differing impacts under the same annexation alternative. San Miguel Ranch GPAIGDP Amendment Subsequent EIR - FIIWl Findings 01 Fact-35 Cily 01 Chuia Vista November 13, 1996 XII. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION On November 20, 1996, at a properly-noticed public hearing, the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista certified the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for San Miguel Ranch General Development Plan Amendment and General Plan Amendment, Resolution 96-XX, recommending certification of the Final SEIR to the City Council [See City of Chula Vista Planning Commission Resolution 96-XX (November 20, 1996)] xm. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS BACKGROUND The CEQA and 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 1509I(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 (CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal.CodeRegs. Section 15093). THE STATEMENT The Project would have significant, unavoidable impacts on the following areas, described in detail in Section IX of these Findings of Fact (Significant Effects and Mitigation Measures): . Land Use (project Specific and Cumulative Impacts) . Landform/Visual Quality (project Specific and Cumulative Impacts) . Biological Resources (Project Specific and Cumulative Impacts) . Transportation (Cumulative Impacts) . Air Quality (Cumulative Impacts) San Miguel Ranch GPAlGDP Amendment Subsequent EI R - FlIWl Findings 01 Fact-36 Cily 01 Chuia VIsta November 13, 1996 The City has adopted all feasible mitigation measures with respect to these impacts. Although in some instances these mitigation measures may substantially lessen these significant impacts, adoption of the measures will not fully avoid the impacts. The City has examined a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project. Based on this examination, the City has determined that none of these alternatives both 1) meets Project objectives; and 2) is environmentally preferable to the finally approved Project. As a result, to approve the Project, the City must adopt a "statement of overriding considerations" pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15042 and 15093. This statement allows a lead agency to cit a project's general economic, social, or other benefits as a justification for choosing to allow the occurrence of specified significant environmental effects that have not been avoided. The statement explains why, in the agency's judgement, the Project's benefits outweigh the unavoided significant effects. CEQA does not require lead agencies to analyze "beneficial impacts" in an EIR. Rather, EIRs are to focus on potential "significant effects on the environment," defined to be "adverse" (public Resources Code, Section 21068). The Legislature amended the definition to focus on "adverse" impacts after the California Supreme Court had held that beneficial impacts must also be addressed. (See Wildlife Alive v. Chickering (1976) 18 Cal.3d 190, 206 [Cal.Rptr.377].) Decision makers benefit from information about Project benefits. These benefits can be cited, if necessary, in a statement of overriding considerations (See CEQA Guidelines, Section 15093). The City finds that the mitigation measures found in the CEQA findings, when implemented, avoid or substantially lessen most of the significant effects identified in the Final SEIR. Certain significant effects of the San Miguel Ranch project are unavoidable even after incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures. In approving the project, the City has balanced the benefits of the San Miguel Ranch project against these unavoidable environmental effects. In this regard the City fmds that all feasible mitigation measures identified in the CEQA findings, have been or will be implemented with the project, and any significant remaining unavoidable effects are acceptable due to the following substantial social, environmental and economic or other considerations, all of which are based upon the facts set forth in the CEQA findings, Final SEIR and the record of the proceedings for this project. Environmental Protection and Preservation The Project would eliminate impacts to sensitive species in the north parcel and reduce impacts to sensitive species in the south parcel to below a level of significance. The USFWS, the CDFG, and Emerald Properties have entered into an agreement which indicates the dedication of 146 acres of open space on the south parcel (including a 21-acre Otay tarplant preserve) and 166 acres of the north parcel, as mitigation for total biological impacts as long as the north parcel is not developed, but dedicated as a permanent ecological reserve and the City completes its Subarea San Miguel Ranch GPAIGDP Amendment Subsequent EIR - FlIWl Findings 01 Fact-37 City 01 Chala Vista November 13, 1996 Plan. The Points of Agreement calls for a combination of acquisition and the establishment of a conservation bank on the north parcel, in addition to the dedicating of 166 acres of mitigation land. The fee title to the 166 acre of mitigation land will be transferred to the CDFG or the USFWS (or to an organization approved by them) following the City's authorization of the project based upon an approved MSCP Subarea Plan for Chula Vista. Elimination of development in the north parcel will permanently preserve 1,298 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub, 93 acres of mixed chaparral, 15 acres of dry marsh/wetland, and 90 acres of annual grassland. Dedication of the north parcel as a permanent ecological reserve will also protect important wildlife corridors. Hij1h QjlalHy Residential Development . Master planned community with Low, Low Medium, Medium and High residential and retaillcommercialland uses. . Community facilities including an elementary school, community facility, neighborhood and community parks, and trail system. . Transportation and circulation facilities including SR 125, connection of H Street to Bonita Road, and the construction of San Miguel Road as a four-lane collector. . Regional housing needs with a variety of residential densities and housing types. Rej1ional Housing Needs The San Miguel Ranch GDP Project would help meet a projected long-term regional need for housing by providing a variety of housing types and prices. Recent SANDAG housing capacity studies indicate a significant shortfall of housing will occur in the Project area within the next 20 years. For example, the SANDAG Series VII population growth forecast, published in January 1987, estimates that within the South Suburban MSA, in which the Project site lies, employment will grow more substantially than housing or population (South County Land Use Analysis, Alfred Gobar & Associates, 1990, Exhibit E). In recent years, the cost of housing compared to other uses has residential disproportionate to the cost of other uses in the Project area (e.g., commercial, industrial), reflecting a shortfall in residentially zoned land. The Project will help reduce the cost of housing by designating an adequate supply of suitable land for residential development. The San Miguel Ranch GDP provides a mixture of housing types in proximity to one another, responding to needs of singles, families, students, and seniors. With a variety of single-family and multi-family designations, a broad range of housing types and costs are anticipated. The classification of a portion of the San Miguel Ranch housing product type as attached will assist in providing more affordable housing, since it is recognized that the key contributing element of the cost of housing is the price of land. This range of housing types and prices will promote socio-economic diversity, which the City finds both important and desirable. For the foregoing reasons, the City finds that the Project's adverse, unavoidable environmental impacts are outweighed by these considerable benefits. San Miguel Ranch GPAlGDP Amendment Subsequent EIR - FlIWl Findings 01 Fact-38 Cily 01 Chula Vista November 13, 1996 ATTACHMENT 4 You arc required to file a Statement of Disclosure of certain ownership or financial interests, payments, or campaign contrioutions, on all matters which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all other official bodies. The following information must be disclosed: THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT i. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the property which is the subject of the application or the contract, e.g., owner, applicant, contractor, subcontractor, material supplier. (';nhwIJ ?tJf",irt-5 ..DJ c... 2-W ?"1fZ-/L /fv-c 2'5 tt/e-S (- ft{v2> Yo ,Ie .N Y /00/7 I 2. If any person' identified pursuant to (I) 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 (I) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees, and Council within the past twelve months? Yes_ Nof'. If yes, please indicate person(s): _ 5. Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants. or independent contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter. .i'JfdYlD..- /tu~':,fJ.-hC. I 1/".fr0b...i:J, n rYlHel:.E n","{(c~ I r . ~ 6. Have you and/or your officers Of agents, in the aggregate, contributed mOfe than $1,000 to a Councilmember in the current or preceding election period? Yes_ No_ If yes, state which Councilmember(s): /'J.'1/; \_0 0 0 (N""" /' 'gnat of contractor/applicant /if~ E: ~/~-y' Print or type name of contractor/applicant Date: . f!!!!!!! is defillcd as: "AllY individual, ftnn, co-partJIership, jainl VCUUT', QSStXiQlioll, social club, fra,mUJI orgoltUotiolt, corporation. atal~ D'ILft, receiver, .syndicate, this mui allY other cowlly, cily a,ui cDunDy, city municipality, district. or other political subdi\'isioll. or allY other group or combinDtiotl oculig tU II WJiL tt PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT Item 2 Meeting Date 11/20/96 ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: Resolutions GPA-96-0I, PCM-96-0S, FSEIR-9S-04 - Consideration of a General Plan Amendment, an Amendment to the San Miguel Ranch General Development Plan and a Pinal Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for Property Located Southeast of the Sweetwater Reservoir, West and South of San Miguel Mountain and Northeast of Proctor Valley Road - Emerald Properties, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Certify Pinal Subsequent Environmental Impact Report-9S-04. 2. Based on the findings in Sections C and D of the Draft City Council Resolution, recommend that the Council approve the General Plan Amendment as requested by the applicant and approve the San Miguel Ranch General Development Plan Amendment, as amended by Staff, subject to the conditions listed on the Draft City Council Resolution. 3. Make CEQA Pindings of Pact and adopt Statement of Overriding Considerations. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS: At its August IS, 1996 meeting, by a 4-0 vote with 3 absent, the San Miguel Ranch Citizens' Advisory Committee recommended that certain land uses and densities be changed as indicated in their minutes (Attachment 3) and as discussed below. The Committee further recommended that no development be permitted on the North Parcel of the project and that the General Plan be amended to reflect that recommendation. At its September 9, 1996 meeting, the Resource Conservation Commission, by a 5-0 vote, recommended that the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for the San Miguel Ranch project be found adequate under the California Environmental Quality Act and further recommended that no development be permitted on the North Parcel of the project. (Minutes - Attachment 4) Page 2, Item ...1.- Meeting Date 11/20/96 DISCUSSION: Primary Issues The primary issues identified in the processing of this project (discussed in the analysis section of this report) include: . General Plan compliance . Residential densities and distribution - staff and applicant differences on Horseshoe Bend Plan (staff--1394 units, applicant--I498 units) . Compatibility/interface with adjacent communities . Traffic circulation . Loss of estate housing . Disposition of southerly adjacent parcels 1. Site Characteristics The project site consists of two parcels of undeveloped land composed of steeply sloping hillsides and valleys, including Mother Miguel Mountain. The North Parcel, containing 1852 acres, is separated from the 738-acre South Parcel by property owned by San Diego Gas and Electric. 2. Existing Zoning and Land Use Except for a caretaker's house and appurtenant structures located on the north parcel, the property is vacant and has not yet been annexed to the City. The County's Sweetwater Community Plan designates the property SPA 0.28 (Specific Plan Area, 0.28 dwelling units per acre) and zoned S88 Specific Plan Area. Upon annexation to the City, development of the property would be regulated by the San Miguel Ranch General Development Plan (GDP), approved in 1993, and the PC (Planned Community) Zone regulations. The approved GDP would permit a maximum of 357 estate lots and a conference center/retreat on the North Parcel and 1262 lots ranging in size from 7,000 square feet to over one-half acre on the South Parcel. Also approved were 96 multiple family dwelling units and a 14 acre shopping center along with an elementary school, community park and two community facility sites, all on the South Parcel. The remainder of the two parcels, containing about 1630 acres, is designated open space. The zoning and land use of areas adjacent to the proposed development area of the project (South Parcel) follow: North: The San Diego Gas and Electric Company's electric transmissIOn facilities, County zoned S87 Limited Control, and a portion of the County community of Sunnyside zoned RRI Rural Residential and improved with single family dwellings on Page 3, Item ...1..... Meeting Date 11/20/96 lots of one acre or larger, a kennel and horse training and boarding facilities. Adjacent to the north end of the North Parcel is the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge. South: A portion of the vacant Buie Bonita Meadows property County zoned S88 Specific Plan Area; approximately 52 vacant lots, County zoned A70 Agricultural (referred to elsewhere in this report as the southern out-parcels); the Salt Creek I development, zoned PC Planned Community and improved with single family dwellings and condominiums; and a portion of the presently undeveloped Salt Creek Ranch, also zoned PC and approved for a variety of residential housing. East: The westerly portion of Salt Creek Ranch and property owned by the Otay Water District which is County zoned S87 and partially improved with sewage treatment facilities. West: A portion of the Buie Bonita Meadows property. 3. ProDosed Proiect a. General Plan Amendment (GPA) Emerald Properties Corporation (EPC) proposes to amend the City's General Plan for both the North Parcel and the South Parcel of San Miguel Ranch. The North Parcel would retain a land use designation which permits consideration for development of up to 50 units on 107 acres, with the remaining 1,745 acres to be designated as "Open Space." For the South Parcel, two amendments are proposed which correspond to the Proctor Valley and Horseshoe Bend GDP proposals. The Proctor Valley GPA proposes to designate the westerly portion of the South Parcel as Residential Low (0-3 du/ac), the easterly portion as Residential Low Medium (3-6 du/ac), Public/Quasi-Public, Commercial Retail, Residential Medium High (11-18 du/ac), Community Park, Elementary School and Open Space. Please see General Plan diagram to follow. The Horseshoe Bend GPA proposes to designate the property west of the proposed SR 125 as Residential Low (0-3 du/ac), similar to the Proctor Valley GPA, and the property east of SR 125 similar to the Proctor Valley GPA proposal described above and on the General Plan diagram to follow. b. General Development Plan (GDP) Amendments EPC proposes to amend the GDP Rancho San Miguel (renamed San Miguel Ranch) General Development Plan for the North Parcel from 357 units to the conservation of the entire property as open space, consistent with the proposed Multiple Species Conservation Program. Page 4, Item ...l..... Meeting Date 11/20/96 The South Parcel is proposed to be amended from Low Residential and small areas of Low- Medium Residential and Neighborhood Commercial, with a residential unit yield of 1,262 units to Low (.5-3 dwelling units per acre), Low-Medium (3-6 du/ac), Medium (6-11 du/ac) and Medium-High (11-18 du/ac) Residential and Retail Commercial yielding 1,432 units on the Proctor Valley GDP and 1,498 units on the Horseshoe Bend GDP. See reason stated below for why two GDP Amendments. Both the approved GDP and the originally proposed GDP Amendments reflected an aligmnent of State Route 125 which skirts the west side of the South Parcel along a portion of the Proctor Valley Road right-of-way. In recent months, it became clear that a second SR-125 aligmnent, which bisects the San Miguel Ranch, was gaining favor as a viable alternative aligmnent. This aligmnent is referred to as the Horseshoe Bend aligmnent because it traverses the center of the U-shaped ridge known as Horseshoe Bend. On September 10, 1996, the City Council endorsed this alternative aJigmnent. As a consequence, EPC has prepared two GDP amendments, each reflecting a proposed aligmnent of SR-I25. These plans are referred to in this report as the Proctor Valley Plan and the Horseshoe Bend Plan. Because a preferred aligmnent of SR-125 will not have been chosen by the time this project goes to hearing, EPC is requesting that both GDP alternatives be approved, and the plan which reflects the chosen aligmnent will be the one which goes forward to the next levels of planning, the Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan and the Master Tentative Map. 2 :~g~CD - c - -- - => NCO"-~ ~ m m ~CI:!UPI:J" m . 0 ~ !2;ra"':~ .. "'..... ~U ct o""~co CJ<{ '" "':!ys! muilnai - __COat 00 NN CD '" :! ( ~8 . - - 8 ~ _ z 8 : ~ anv ~ r;~ ~ "' '" . :'3 "0 c: j .. ..............0 ... . . ~.... ~btu- .....~<~~ 5;:) ~o:> Ii co :!i! C')CD-CO: I I ~~ II: ~!:!!eE .. '0 ... I- ~ ~ & ~J I~! ~G VI VI" , ; VI ~ <( ... ~ c w_ . ~. c :! Ii .!:! 1i e:;o .2 0 "E H -S11V1 ~f- j I~ ~ Ii :;0 . 5 :~io1.i i'S.B"! -.~:~ :::)a:::Juw :J Ii-~ eT- ~ ~ ,..I-! ~ :> Z ~ Iii ~ . ~ ct 1i UI~~cnUl in. ~~ ..uw I'~.uw:g ,5: 2 C => "ii ~ o f- ~ ~ .. 50 ~ E ; . ~ii ~ jj:!:! :0 C -: ~ ..J3:J~ =;g ~ @I- !QiIi @) d o -" E '" OJ I ,.. w a: ::) CJ - u. 1>> \QJ b @~.!J..ca .""",@15' 0:;:: @ool!db C ~ 6 _ 0 (QL @j) ~ tV e- =@@J)a:O =g: ~ u ~ @j) @. OJ @ I~ Q) ~ ~6@J) "- <0 @ ~ :J ~ db @j) C) e Q ._ c.. \QJ ~"tJ @j)=""::::::- 'lQJ I1&J ~ ~ ~ c ~ @j)~ mW ~~cn I I I ~ o ..; < ~ " ~ o " / ~~ ~15 ..,u itlj 't:I!o ",~ ca':=: CI-..!~ 2 j:J I" Ig '? { __~--i_ C\I w a: ::) " - u. .. <DiiiNco)N N ~ glO~;::~ C '" :::J ~ ... f--- """ .. In ""10 Q) It) m on..m 0....0... "'ION N 0 pj~N"':.n I'i ,..:~~ m!2ig~ gr)~ d ~ \1)_"'- CD U - '" < o~ m N'" It) f--- N ] ] .. .. 0 ...........~ 0 ;; ;; '" l- I- I- 0 ti ! f IJ- .. . c 0 .:!! oC( u U..c . ~ .....OC(cc.....'E c u . U C .. . . :;:).........:;:). E< :::J c55a~ :a . U> t!\_ MID;::!!:: .. ... . c .. OJ iii&il -!! . C~ ~ , , , , ~ ~o .. 0 0 .- ..I-- I-- ~~!!.:; .. u 0 '- . 0 ~! ~-E(I) "5 .. ~ . u ~ :::J ~ ~ . u>U> ~ ; ~ . 3=.0 E I~I ~ ." '" E . . 0" 0 ~~~ :! ",. c: . U c- O "iQj .. .~.I~ II . ~ - ; - on'" .J . . ] . . c !'l. ~ . . . . ~ I 0 . o 0 . . . . . :> o!!ii :> ...JJ::E::E :> II:::) oW U:>Z ~ 5i:J @) ~ . .. J!I- ~I- u 5'" IQJi) .. . ~ ~ c . .. U> ..~ @!) "0 . ~ .. ..J3::E~ ~ U c .! 0 ..J -" .. U>u> "- on . '" E . 0'" .. uw t owo :>, '" U .. 0 ... on It) U !'l ~ ]) ~~~ y ~i @)== '@@j fQl. b~_ fQl. ~ b @ =@rc: CIij _ IS; b ttJ) @" @J @ @ o(Q):1 "\9)@ @)~ "\9)= ~ ~ I ~ C 4 ~ as ~@CJ) ~ ..c. o c as a: c o :;:; 10 L. o c.. L. o U en - Q) (J)t: ::J8. me ._ a. ~3! 10 L. Q) E w ~ " '0 ~ " " ~ " ~~ e!~ ctl~ 'b!g ~:~ ij= '"is i 13 1 Ie: - > ~~-. Page 5, Item..L Meeting Date 11/20/96 The following table reflects the adopted GDP and the proposed GDP's as recently amended. TABLE 1 Land Use Category Adopted GDP Proctor Valley GDP Horseshoe Bend GDP Residential Acres Units Acres Units Acres Units Low (0-3 dul ac) 933.5 1523 153.5 306 132.3 264 Low-Medium (3-6 du/ac) 6.0 96 151.4 581 165.8 632 Medium (6-11 du/ac) -- -- 72.8 432 67.5 489 High (18-27 du/ac) -- -- 7.8 113 7.8 113 Residential Totals 939.5 1619 385.5 1432 373.4 1498 Commercial Neighborhood 14.0 13.9 13.9 Visitor 6.7 -- -- Commercial Totals 20.7 13.9 13.9 Institutional Elementary School 11.9 12.4 12.4 Community Public Service 8.5 7.5 7.5 Institutional Totals 20.4 19.9 19.9 ParkslODen SDace Community Park 20.7 19.0 19.0 Open Space 1630.0 2108.7 2099.6 4. Recent Changes to the General Development Plan The planning of the San Miguel Ranch project has been an evolving process with changes occurring along the way resulting from discussions between City staff, the Chula Vista Elementary School district and the applicant. The latest amendments occurred after the Planning Commission hearing on the SEIR. These changes are indicated on the attached figure and are reflected on the table above. The changes were prompted by (I) the relocation of the elementary school site at the request of the Chula Vista Elementary School District, (2) the relocation of the Community Park site at the request of the Parks and Recreation Department, (3) the deletion by the applicant of the neighborhood park previously indicated on both plans, (4) the assignment of residential land uses on parcels formerly designated for school and park uses and the deletion of residential uses where the school and park were relocated and (5) staff's desire to work within the parameters of the General Plan as it exists today wherever possible rather than advocating wholesale amendments to accommodate development proposals. Page 6, Item -L Meeting Date 11/20/96 The change in the school location was required by the District to avoid the necessity for elementary students to cross SR-I25 to get to school. The change in the Community Park location was the result of the proposed east-to-west timing of the development of the project and the necessity of providing park facilities sooner than previously planned concurrent with anticipated demand. In addition, the location of the park on the City Greenbelt connected to a Greenbelt trail system is a requirement of the General Plan. The applicant deleted the neighborhood park because (1) it was not a requirement of the General Plan, (2) was not indicated on the previously approved GDP and (3) the Community Park was relocated near the previous location for the neighborhood park. A result of these changes is that residential land uses formerly planned for the new school and park locations are now proposed for the vacated sites. The relocation of the elementary school and community park sites results in the separation of these two facilities; the approved GDP and several previous draft amendments located them next to each other. A recommended condition of approval requires that a trail/sidewalk linkage between the community park and the elementary school be provided. 5. Public and Agencv Innut a. San Miguel Ranch Citizen's Advisory Committee On February 13, 1996, the City Council appointed a seven-person committee to provide citizen input into the planning process for this project. After eight meetings, the Committee made the recommendations indicated below. It should be noted that the changes to the Plan described in Section 4 above occurred after the Committee made its recommendations, but since these changes occurred late in the planning process, there was not adequate time to convene a meeting of the Committee to discuss them. The only changes to the Proctor Valley Plan recommended by the Committee would occur in Area LM2 . The Committee recommended that 40% of this area be redesignated Low Residential. Since the easterly 15 acres of LM2 is now the location of the Community Park, this is not considered an appropriate alternative. Regarding the Horseshoe Bend Plan, the Committee recommended several amendments as follows: Area Lb (now OS)--Change from Low to Low-Medium - this has not been done because this area has been changed to Open Space. Area LMl (now L-b)--Change from Low-Medium to Low - this has been done. Area LM4 (now L-M2)--Change 40% of area from Low-Medium to Low - this has not been done because the community park has been relocated to a portion of this area. Area ES--Relocate ES (Elementary School) east of SR-125 - this has been done. Area NP--Relocate Neighborhood Park adjacent to ES - the latest plan deleted the park. Page 7, Item ...1.... Meeting Date 11/20/96 Note: The development areas noted above correspond to the areas indicated on the draft GDP the Committee was working with at the time their recommendations were made. Some of the numbering has since been changed. Regarding the SEIR, the Committee recommended that, except for air quality and grading/visual quality, aJI enviromnental impacts be mitigated to a level of insignificance rather than providing findings of overriding considerations. b. Public Forums During the course of the processing of this project, staff made presentations to the Sweetwater Community Planning Group and the Sweetwater VaJIey Civic Association and held separate community forums with the Sunnyside Community, the Salt Creek I development and the southerly adjacent County parcels. Invitations were mailed to owners of about 767 parcels but the three forums were sparsely attended. The eight persons who attended the Sunnyside forum, the Planning Group and the Civic Association aJI expressed concerns regarding traffic on the Bonita/Sunnyside road system, drainage from existing and proposed projects, residential densities and impacts from SR-I25. The primary concern of the six Salt Creek I residents in attendance centered on the present lack of park facilities in their neighborhood and compatibility of planned uses with their development. Concerns of four of the owners of the adjacent southerly County properties centered on the impacts to their properties by the proposed SR-125 aligmnents, annexation possibilities and future provision of services to this presently undeveloped area. c. County Department of Planning and Land Use (DPLU) In response to a request by City Staff for comments regarding the project, DPLU's letter dated October 30, 1996 (Attachment 5), centered on two issues: (I) conformance to the Eastern Bonita Specific Planning Area as indicated in the County Sweetwater Community Plan, and (2) neighborhood compatibility. Regarding Community Plan conformance, while that Plan aJIocates a maximum of 759 dwelling units to the San Miguel Ranch property, the proposed amendment provides for fewer units than the existing San Miguel Ranch plan, provides more open space by deleting aJI development from the high habitat value North Parcel, conforms to the sub-area plan of the MSCP for this region and provides residential densities below the mid-point density range of the Chula Vista General Plan, which will govern the development of the property upon annexation to the City. The GDP does conform with several conditions of the Community Plan relative to clustering on flatter portions of the property, development phasing, sensitivity to SR-I25, compatibility with SDG&E facilities, provision of adequate commercial uses to serve the area, provision of recreation areas and trails, protection of the Sweetwater Reservoir, habitat protection and provision and phasing of public facilities. Page 8, Item ...1.... Meeting Date 11/20/96 Regarding neighborhood compatibility, this topic is addressed elsewhere in this staff report. d. County Department of Public Works The Public Works Department responded to a request for comments relative to the draft SEIR and stated that they believe that first tier traffic report prepared for the draft was inadequate. The Department of Planning and Land Use concurred with that view. The response to comments section of the SEIR addresses these and other concerns noted in their letter. 7. Analysis General Plan Compliance The General Plan Amendments (GPA) described in the "Proposed Project" section above would permit a density range of from 758 units (baseline) up to 1,981 units (high) with a midpoint of 1,432 units for the Proctor Valley GPA; and, a density range of from 739 units (baseline) up to 1,928 units (high) with a midpoint of 1,394 units for the Horseshoe Bend GPA (Please see following GP "midpoint" analysis Tables 2 & 3). An evaluation by staff to determine the appropriate density for the project can be found below. The proposed General Development Plan Amendments parallel the General Plan (GP) land use designations described above with the following exceptions: one subarea on the western side of the project reflects a Low-Medium designation under the Low (0-3 du/ac) category of the GP, and one subarea on the east side of the project would be designated Medium under the Low Medium (3-6 du/ac) category of the GP. Through the clustering provisions of Section 6.3 of the GP a project may aggregate dwelling units onto a reduced land area in order to achieve a more sensitive response to the site. In the western side of both GDPs, under the proposed Low density GP category, the clustering policies will permit a minimum lot size of 7,000 sq. ft. (net), not to exceed 4.5 units per net acre, which is consistent with the project Low Medium GDP designation in the west for each proposed GDP. However, the overall character of the Low density area is required by the GP to be predominantly estate, similar to the Sweetwater Valley. Staff interprets this to mean that 50% of the lots in the Low density area shall be [/2 acre or larger. Under the policies of the GP for the Low Medium category located on the east side of the project, densities may be shifted to provide a variety of housing types, consistent with those defined in the GP for the Low Medium category. Both GDPs propose a Medium designation, which is intended to permit density shifts to this area from other residential areas of the project. However, the character and product types of this area must still must still be consistent with GP policies. Page 9, Item...1.... Meeting Date 11/20/96 Section 6.3 of the GP contains criteria in which to evaluate whether a project should be permitted to go from the "baseline" density to "midpoint" or above. The following criteria is used to evaluate whether a project can achieve "midpoint": 1. Compatibility with existing and proposed surrounding land use patterns, both urban and rural, natural and manmade, in order to achieve an overall reduction in land use friction. 2. Sensitive response to the physical characteristics of the site having to do with: a. Landform grading, Surrounding and/or internal existing and proposed circulation patterns as shown in the Circulation Element. b. Relationship to open space/greenbelt systems as shown on the Plan Diagram. c. Environmental considerations and natural amenities. d. Visual and functional quality. 3. Achievement of a variety of housing types permissible within the character of the "range" and responsive to the improvement of the townscape, sophistication, and livability of the area. It may be determined that the appropriate density for a project should be above the midpoint of the range. In such instance, the project shall contain features which provide exceptional and extraordinary benefits to the residents of the City of Chula Vista, as interpreted by the City Council after review by the Planning Commission. The project applicant proposes to not exceed the midpoint density of 1,432 units for the Proctor Valley GDP. Staff has evaluated the criteria cited above and has determined that the Proctor Valley GDP is in substantial conformance and that the project warrants development at the midpoint density. The project applicant proposes to exceed the midpoint density of 1,394 units for the Horseshoe Bend GDP with a proposal for a maximum of 1,498 units, 104 units above the midpoint, but not exceeding the high end of the density range (1,928 units). Staff has determined that the Horseshoe Bend GDP is in substantial conformance with the above criteria; however, does not concur with the applicant's proposal to exceed the midpoint density of 1,394 units citing a failure to demonstrate that the project "contains features which provide exceptional and extraordinary benefits to the residents of the City of Chula Vista." Table 2 Amended General Plan "Midpoint" Residential Density Analysis Horseshoe Bend Plan S mbol Acres Land Use L LM MH Medium 11 -18 DU/Acre South Parcel Residential Total Average Gross Density Over 738.2 Acres South Parcel ani 241.1 177.4 7.8 426.3 Table 3 121 532 86 739 1.00 du/ac o 739 0.29 du/ac 482 798 113 1394 1.89 du/ac o 1'394'... 0.54 du/ac 723 1,064 140 1928 2.61 du/ac o 1$Z8 0.74 du/ac Amended General Plan "Midpoint" Residential Density Analysis Proctor Vallev Plan Densitv Ram e Symbol Land Use Acres Baseline I Midpoint High ........................ ..... ... ....... i..... ... ......... ....<.. ..i .... <.... ...... < ........ )i ..... ... L Low (.5 - 3 DU/Acre) 248.4 124 497 745 LM Low Medium (3 - 6 DU/Acre) 182.6 548 822 1,096 MH Medium (11 - 18 DU/Acre) 7.8 86 113 140 South Parcel Residential Total 438.8 758 1,432 1,981 Average Gross Density Over 738.2 Acres 1.03 1.94 2.68 (South Parcel Onlv) du/ac dU~ du/ac i.i........ ii. ii O.S. Open Space 1,852.0 0 0 0 Entire..Ptoject.... 2.290:8 >758< 1;432 1;981 Average Gross Density Over 2,590.2 Acres 0.29 0.55 0.76 (Entire Proiect) du/ac du/ac du/ac General Plan Midpoint Density Assumptions: L 2.0 du/ac LM 4.5 du/ac M 8.5 du/ac MH 14.5 du/ac H 22.0 du/ac ..---..-..--.--.----..-...-- - ._-.-----_._...~_._~. .._-- .--. Page 10, Item ...1.... Meeting Date 11/20/96 It should be noted that the Proctor Valley GDP midpoint exceeds that of the Horseshoe Bend GDP primarily because of the loss of approximately 21 acres of SR-I25 right-of-way. Staff understands the applicant's desire to recoup units that might have been gained but for the loss of SR-I25 right-of-way with the Horseshoe Bend GDP proposal, but we believe that this should not come at the expense of the character of development in that area. The General Plan shows an illustrative and conceptual alignment for SR-I25 and the GDP was based on the same illustrative alignment. Each alignment has a different impact on the overall amount of developable land with the Horseshoe Bend alignment being the more impactive of the two. However, staff does not believe this should be a reason for increasing density on the Horseshoe Bend Plan. While the applicant will ultimately be required to dedicate the right-of-way for SR-125 to the City of Chula Vista, monetary compensation could also be expected for land in excess of City standards for an expressway or prime arterial. This compensation could come from the City Development Impact Fee Fund, the State or CTV, the developer of the tollway, or a combination thereof. The applicant would, therefore, gain a return on a portion of the land exclusive of additional residential development. Land Use Issues As previously listed, in addition to the environmental issues discussed in the SEIR, there are several land use issues associated with this proposed project. These include land use densities and distributions, compatibility/interface with adjacent communities, traffic, loss of estate housing and the disposition of the southerly adjacent parcels. Discussion of each of these issues follows. a. Land use Densities/Distribution As discussed above, with the exception of the Medium Residential area in the Horseshoe Bend GDP, the GPA's and GDP's now under consideration represent a joint planning effort which staff believes reflects a satisfactory response to the concerns regarding previously submitted draft GDP's. In addition, even though the residential densities on the South Parcel are higher than previously approved, the plan represents a more realistic approach to the development of the property and gives the region the opportunity to retain the entire North Parcel in open space. This results in an overall reduction in potential dwelling units by 121 for the Horseshoe Bend Plan and 187 for the Proctor Valley Plan over the entire 2590 acres compared with the approved 1993 plan. Both plans provide a total of about 2100 acres of open space, an increase of approximately 470 acres. The Medium Residential area in the east side of the Horseshoe Bend GDP contains 67.5 acres on which 489 units are proposed, a gross density of 7.2 du/ac. A portion of this acreage is in Page 11, Item...1.... Meeting Date 11/20/96 the form a 300-foot-wide by 800-foot-long panhandle between the school site and the SDG&E right-of-way which reduces the primary developable area to about 62 acres. While the introduction of some units characteristic of higher density types is permitted by the General Plan, Staff believes that in order to develop 489 units on this acreage, many attached products will be introduced into what is planned as a predominantly single family area with a variety of single family product types. In this regard, Staff has included a recommended condition in the draft City Council Resolution which limits the density within the Medium Residential area to 6 dulac, the maximum permitted in the Low-Medium General Plan category which underlies the Medium designation of the GDP. b. North Parcel Issues The original draft GDP amendment, which reflected only the Proctor Valley alignment of SR- 125, did not propose any development on the North Parcel. The accompanying General Plan Amendment application reflected the draft GDP. Subsequently, preliminary comments received from some members of the City Council at the time the Council considered the goals and objectives for the project indicated some sentiment for at least a limited number of estate lots on the North Parcel. In response, the second and third iterations of the draft GDP provided 50 one-acre lots on that parcel. When it became apparent that the Horseshoe Bend alignment of SR- 125 was a viable alternative tollway route, the applicant prepared a second draft GDP reflecting that alignment. That plan did not provide any North Parcel lots. Subsequently, EPC amended its GDP application to exclude any development on the North Parcel for either alternative draft GDP. The applicant's reasons for this action follows: 1. EPC has opted to enter into a conservation agreement with the Wildlife Agencies. Among other things, this agreement requires that, in order for EPC to obtain any "take authorizations" for the South Parcel from the aforementioned agencies, eg, permission to develop in areas which contain sensitive biological species, no development of the North Parcel would be permitted. The City is not a party to this agreement. 2. Eliminating North Parcel development would be in conformance with one alternative of the City's draft MSCP Subarea Plan and the Multiple Habitat Planning Area map prepared by staff for the Subarea Plan. 3. The draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report indicates that any development of the North Parcel would result in unmitigable biological impacts. 4. Regarding the Horseshoe Bend Plan, the proximity of SR-I25 with its attendant noise and emissions and the requirement for crossing this tollway to access the estate lot area on the North Parcel would, in EPC's opinion, render the property undesirable for estate lots from a marketing perspective. Page 12, Item -L Meeting Date 11/20/96 As previously mentioned, EPC has unilaterally entered into a conservation agreement with the Wildlife Agencies which, among other provisions, requires the Agencies to purchase approximately 500 acres on the westerly portion of the North Parcel within a two year timeframe. Staff recognizes EPC's desire to retain its development options for the North Parcel in the event the Agencies fail to consummate the purchase, per the agreement. To accomplish this goal, staff believes that caveats are needed in the General Plan to ensure that, while Open Space is the primary General Plan designation for the North Parcel, there be a secondary land use designation that should acquisition not occur, some estate residential development may be considered in the future. In this regard, staff recommends identifying the North Parcel as "Open Space" on the General Plan Land Use Diagram with a footnote referencing text language which explains when and how a secondary residential land use, amounting to no more than 50 estate units on 107 acres (as analyzed in a SEIR alternative), would go into effect. The project applicant (EPC) concurs with this approach. The diagram and recommended General Plan text follow. ... _."__." ~___'_.""__'.'____""'__ d._ .__'_,. .__ "' ',_ _.......__. _.__ u - = ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .<, - = -0 = - .., ~ ~ > E E m m- ~ ~ ~~ -0 -0 -" .~~ 0"> ~ ~ ~ ~ E E ~ ~ -< :::E :::Eo> ~ ~ -< ::' ;3 ~ ~ ~ ,;, , m '--" -" ~.- -< ~ ~= -0 -00"> U m -E >- ~ 0"> -:;:; 0 ::'-0 :z: 0 0 0,- ~.- Co< -" "'" ~ ~ ~ ~>- :::E :::E:J:: :J:: ~ Co< f- >- ~-< f- a :::E ~ ! O~ I I I :::E I I 10 =0 ~ a ~ 0 :z: "'" - u ~- ~ ~~\\W z ce .... D. Q Z w m w c :c en w ...... en <J") III: :::> C :c a :z: en -< D. ---' - :c en Z C - l- ce .... W III: W en ::::t Q Z ce .... m ~ 1 u ~ -'=' u ~ m ..,~ c.. 0 ~ ~ ~= ~ U._ m U .- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -< ::em ~ ~ U .., ~ ~ ~ c.. - m m~ U ~ ~O 0 ~"'" ~ ~ :z: I I I - = ~ =0 ~ ~ 0 ;; ~ ;;; v C - ~:; ';:A..~e ~Vv >-0"<;1 - ~~~~: ::> - c:: ..... e 0_::::< = S~ '0 ~ c: 4.1 Q =c:-.....::: (.)"4> _Q:..... . z: ::""'ii:i_ "'''''....=.J::j~O ~~~~~~~ ~..;:.=:5.c:;~~ 0..= ::: . .... Z W ::; '" o z w ::; '" Z '" -' "- -' '" c: w z w " o w '" o "- o c: "- -< ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ o u :z: o I- <: -' => U "" .~ ~ v.. c"'- V"> ~ '- ;; 2 --' ~~~ tU~ ......."'-- ;;i:; - -- nl! ~ , :::;; ~ l- V"> >- V"> ]-g ! v~ _ _.....~_ 0 0"':;; '" 0::::= ~~~~ ~a .:;:-- cU ~v;- -<=EE~~ ~ CTlc::.... >...c ~ ... =.=~U~;:;:~ - - 2: --' ~ -< ~ Co< -< :z: -< ~ ~ ~ -< U ~ ~ ~ >- -0 ~ ~ >- ~ .. ~ v - v ;;~ I- . i I CW) .I: u c ro- e::- W Q) - U Q) - a: ~ 5~ ::) ~.I: _ 'C t::: ~ --' , ro 0 <1) " (I)~ - ~ <U - ~ $ 0 LL > 0; ~ .... <1) <1) UJ $ <1) , , C/J I!: --' \, .\ '.--.... '. - C m -'=' - =0 >- -0 => ~ o u :: ~ > ~ =0 . . . ~ ~ - ~ m~ ~U ~ 0"> m -::: ~ U ~~ c..~ ~U :;: o ~ ~ Co< u ~ c.. ~ II ml u "{ \\1./// (f) o z j;'.~ 5 8"5 a"a ~h~ ~-g"y- "ii~'a b'...: ~~.:.Jj! : -0 0 u Ii :s ~ ~.5E: !:!~~lI- .... --=.- a :\I a .!:! c :I ~ E!2,o ~~S-g~ E-C.", I'" .. so 1:1 ~ 0 ~i~~ _~ z,....o;I).::; c....... -' v ~ ;:-<~.;; ~ 3: .... 0:: ... '" ... E~ .~= ..:: ~~~8 u <: u.. u * I II -' = => c.. ~~~~......~~ 0"> ~ .., => -" - ~-c ~ m~- cu=:::I ~e~ ~:::;~ m ~.:: ~~ ~=> ~-o <.:>-= o I (f) o z ct .... D. > w .... .... ct > 0=: C ~ u C 0=: D. en D. - :c en Z C - ~ ct .... W 0=: W en ::;) Q Z ct .... u = ~ -'" -<;' ~ '";- ~ " '7 ~ M ~ := = " = .., '" '" > E E = =- L.J...J " " " ~ <.r> " " 0-, .~-~ => ~ '" ~ ~ E E ~ " ::>' ::>'0-, " " -< 0 .3 - " ~ -< , = :.c..: .<= "'.- ::: >- '" '" '"= " en U ~ 0 -E 0 :z 0 0 0-- '" Q..1.~ ~ ~ .<= ::" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~> ::>' ::>':I: :I: ~ .~ >- > ~-< >- Z ::>' ~ 0 :::0 D I I I ::>' I I I <C ~ ~ 0 0 ~ ,. :z ---' ~ ,- u ~'-- ~' ~/I'\\\\\I /III\\\\~ <:3 c w~ 0::-'; - 0 '" ~ " '" .gJ 0.. :;;.c rt:: ~iii~ (fJ_ ~ lJ z = '" -< ~ u " ~ ~ -< ~ ~ -< :z -< ~ ~ ~ " " ~ ::' o u ~ " ~ o U - '" > '" en = -= u~ ~ " - '" ';;-u > o ~ -< u ~ ~ ~ " :::0 . . . II II '" ~ ~ w a: ::) ~ - u. 1 ;:; ~~i t~~~ ..~-:;;- ~~~ ~ ""'-u ;~[; -.~ >;-= ~"- ~ ~:c~ ijl~ L ~ t- V> >- V> -< " = -E' :::0 ~ -C " ~ :z o t- -< ~ :::> u "" " ~ :u C1J ra " = ~ ~u u '" c- ~ \\1/..' CfJ o &. ~.;! a 0; 3] 2~] . ~'25::! i\i.!!::2~-, :~~~~ :]8011 ~ ~ ~.5 ~ ~ .~.2~ !It ij .2 c:: 3 t; ~ 8.0 ~ ~ 5-3 ~ ~-;:.g!~ M~8~ 0 ~~~] C4::i ~ 11> iO ~ o :> ~ '" '" 11> C!: ~ ~ >-- 7 W ~ <( o z w ~ <( z <( --' "- --' <( c:: w z w " o w '" o "- o c:: "- ~ ~ ;; " ~ - - ';:<>-=Qe ~~~ .~]~~~ = ... c:: ... Ej;--=< ~ ~~;~;::;~ uq;;",=;;;:;;:; . z: <:.I 41_ .... ~~~..~~~~ :::>::;1 =_::: c::'" ~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~ V> ~ gc ~ _ 0 ~~ -= - ......... ~ O~ ~ Q 0'> >-- ._~ -5=E~ ..... c:: U :;0..._ _ ;; c.J ... ~~~6~~2 -<; -~ t- ~- ::: ;:-< ~ ~ :; e-= ;; ~ .... - ... 0 ~~::::;;:u ~ u -< ~ u u *1 II ~ = :::> c.. ~~:::::t:-,~~ C>.. < '- en " .., - " .<= - U-c ~ -~- ~= :::J - E" ~::3::E = u '" .:> u " = ..," c- o ~ ~ .., - ~ u__ = U -- - " - ~ ~ -< :<;= ~ ~ u .., ~ " " c- '" = = u ~ ~O 0 ~~ 30 :::; :z I I I = ~ :::0 ~ ~ 0 -;;;- ~ - ~- ,," ~-c '-"-= l I . ~ f, Page 14, Item-L Meeting Date 11/20/96 PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO THE EASTERN TERRITORIES AREA PLAN (CHAPTER 14 OF THE GENERAL PLAN) Add the following text to Chapter 14, Section 5.10: San Milruel Ranch The 2.590-acre San Miguel Ranch orooerty is located on the south side of the Sweetwater Reservoir. The site is comorised of two seoarate land areas: the 1.852-acre North Parcel and the 738-acre South Parcel. These land areas are seoarated from one another bv land owned bv San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E). which ooerates a substation and transformer vard on the intervening land and which contains associated transmission lines. The North Parcel. which is adiacent to the Reservoir. is comoosed orimarilv of vallevs and steeolv slooing hillsides. including Mother Miguel Mountain. However. more gentle terrain is isolated in the westernmost portion of the North Parcel overlooking the Reservoir. The South Parcel contains moderatelv steeo terrain. Land use designations for the San Miguel Ranch have been established through the consideration of a varietv of factors, including comoatibilitv with the adioining communities of Sunnvside/Bonita and EastLake. landform and biological considerations. and the siting of future SR-I25. The North Parcel is oIanned to be included in the oronosed Multiole Soecies Conservation Program (MSCP) Plan preserve and the proposed San Diego National Wildlife Refuge (SDNWR). subiect to policies contained within the Citv's Draft MSCP Subarea Plan. As a result. Ooen Soace has been identified as the primarv land use designation for the North Parcel. which serves as a biological linkage between ooen soace in the Sweetwater Vallev to the Miguel Mountains and into Proctor Vallev and Jamul Mountain to the east. The conservation of the entire North Parcel is considered a significant benefit to the communitv and has been considered in the establishment of aoorooriate residential densities on the South Parcel. The densities on the South Parcel also provide for a transition of the Residential Low densitv categorv adiacent to Sunnvside/Bonita. to Residential Low-Medium densitv designations within EastLake and Salt Creek Ranch. Policies contained in the Citv's Draft MSCP Subarea Plan call for the conservation of the entire North Parcel of San Miguel Ranch as an ecological oreserve. However. pursuant to policies of the Draft Subarea Plan. if conservation of the North Parcel does not occur within timeframe soecified therein, then develooment ootentiaI for uo to 50 large lot residential estate homes under a Residential Low densitv designation will be considered as a secondarv land use for aooroximatelv 107 acres in the westerlv oortion of the North Parcel. Remaining oortions of the North Parcel would continue to be designated as Ooen Soace. If the MSCP and the Citv's Subarea Plan are not adooted. then the Citv mav reconsider land use designations on the North Parcel. Page 15, Item ...1..... Meeting Date 11/20/96 Annexation of the North Parcel of San Miguel Ranch mav or mav not be deemed necessarv or desirable bv the City. If annexation does not occur. the Countv of San Die\!0 would continue to assume iurisdictionaI control over the land uses on the North Parcel. As it applies to the North Parcel, the City's draft Subarea Plan of the MSCP provides two alternative preserve designs: (1) the Existing GDP Alternative reflecting land uses indicated on the GDP approved in 1993 and the corresponding land uses presently depicted on the General Plan, and (2) the Modified GDP Alternative which is similar to (1) except that it would preclude any North Parcel development. The Wildlife Agencies consider the North Parcel the key component of the MSCP for this region because if its extensive and diverse biological habitat. As a result of the value of the North Parcel, as previously stated, EPC's conservation agreement with the Wildlife Agencies precludes any development on that parcel. This agreement is in accord with the Modified GDP Alternative which also indicates no development on the North Parcel. The wording of this agreement confirms that no take authorizations would be permitted by the Wildlife Agencies on the South Parcel without it. A companion issue to the development or non-development of the North Parcel is the potential loss of estate lot opportunities on the property. While the GDP would provide for some large lots in the one-half to two-thirds acre range on the South Parcel, estate lots in excess of one acre may be inappropriate there. Staff believes that the rationale behind the removal of the lots from the North Parcel previously discussed is valid. The issue of providing the opportunity for estate lot housing is not confined to the subject property but, rather, is a matter which has City-wide implications. This topic is the subject of the attached issue discussion (Attachment 6). c. Interface-Compatibility with Surrounding Communities Community areas located adjacent to San Miguel Ranch, which will be impacted to varying degrees by the project, are the County community of Sunnyside and the Salt Creek I and Salt Creek Ranch projects, both in the City. Attached to this staff report is an issue discussion (Attachment 7) which examines how the San Miguel Ranch property may be developed in a manner which is as compatible as possible with these adjacent existing and planned community areas. In the case of the Sunnyside area, the conclusions reached were that the transition between semi- rural Sunnyside and the suburban San Miguel Ranch will result in some degree of incompatibility, but the provision of larger and deeper adjacent lots and elevation differential combined with contoured slopes, enhanced slope landscaping and other design elements adjacent to Sunnyside should assist in softening the impact between the two community types. As is also the case with the adjacent Salt Creek I and Salt Creek Ranch developments, careful planning at the SPA and TM levels will be required to insure compatibility. Page 16, Item ....L. Meeting Date 11/20/96 d. Traffic An important issue discussed in the SEIR is traffic impacts on the area resulting from this project. The SEIR concluded that traffic from the project would have a minimal impact on the regional roadway system and that the project would produce less traffic than the previously approved GDP. This does not mean that there are no traffic problems in this area. There are several road segments which are projected to operate at unacceptable levels of service, with or without this project. Stated in another way, the project would provide an insignificant amount of traffic to some roads which are already operating at levels of service considered higher than optimum. Traffic associated with the project, as well as other future developments, is dependent upon the construction of SR-125 for a majority of project trips in order to maintain acceptable levels of service on area roadways. Future SPA level traffic and transportation phasing analyses will evaluate the ability of the Southbay transportation network to accommodate future growth should SR-I25 not be constructed as scheduled. On a local level, projected traffic on San Miguel Road, a County two-lane collector, and a small portion of Proctor Valley Road, a local street, are cause for concern. The Horseshoe Bend Plan would introduce traffic from the project onto these two streets mostly from Mt. Miguel Road. A condition of the previously approved plan required that the applicant receive an amendment to the Circulation Element of the County General Plan or other action acceptable to the County which provides for off-site access to the west of the project into the Sweetwater Valley. This access was to be in the form of a by-pass road connecting Proctor Valley Road and the westerly end of San Miguel Road where its right-of-way is widest. The SPA level traffic report will evaluate whether a by-pass road is still a viable mitigation measure. Two conditions have been suggested to respond to this topic. One requires that a SPA plan traffic analysis be prepared which determines the ultimate capacity and levels of service for existing streets serving the project, formulates a phasing plan for additional on- and off-site street facilities, determines the level of interim facilities required should construction of SR-I25 be delayed, determines requirements for off-site access to the Sweetwater Valley and determine whether an amendment to the County Circulation Element is necessary to provide this access. The second condition requires the formation of a technical committee composed of staff from the County Departments of Public Works and Planning and Land Use and the City Departments of Engineering and Planning to provide input into the study of area-wide transportation planning concerns and foster better communication between the two jurisdictions regarding mutual regional traffic concerns. Page 17, Item...l.... Meeting Date 11/20/96 e. Southern Out-Parcels There are approximately 38 acres divided into 52 vacant parcels ranging in area between 10,000 square feet and 3.25 acres. This area is identified as Map 1286-Haley's Addition and is bounded on three sides by the South Parcel of San Miguel Ranch. These lots take access from 20-foot- wide paper streets emanating from Proctor Valley Road in a grid pattern which does not take into account the difficult topography of the area. The implementation of the Proctor Valley alignment of SR-125 would result the loss of about 10 of these lots while the Horseshoe Bend alignment would delete up to 25 of them. Staff has prepared an issue discussion (Attachment 8) which concludes that this area would neither impact nor be specifically impacted by the San Miguel Ranch project. It further concludes that until an alignment of SR-I25 is chosen and a development proposal is presented by the owners of the adjacent Buie Bonita Meadows property, any action relative to these parcels, such as annexation, would be premature. However, consideration of service and infrastructure needs for the out -parcel area should be accomplished in conjunction with the Public Facilities Financing Plan for the San Miguel Ranch SPA plan. 8. Conclusion As is evident from the foregoing discussion, associated with the project are several outstanding issues, some just project-related and some having ramifications which transcend the project. While some of these issues may be resolved at the broad-brush General Plan and General Development Plan levels, others will require the fine analysis and environmental review associated with the SPA plan and Tentative Map processes. Staff believes that both proposed GPA/GDP's, as amended through recommended conditions, represent reasonable land use alternatives to the existing GP A/GDP to regulate the development of this strategically located and habitat-rich property. Attachments 1 . Draft Planning Commission Resolution 2. Draft City Council Resolution 3. San Miguel Ranch Citizens' Advisory Committee minutes 4. Resource Conservation Commission minutes 5. Letter from County Department of Planning and Land Use 6. Estate Housing Report 7. Interface-Compatibility Issue Discussion 8. Southern Out -parcels Issue Discussion (m: \home\planning\paul\gpa96-0 1 \pcm-96-05. rep) --. ~_.._- ....-..--.-- '--'---'---'~'-"'---- .-- A TT ACHMENT 1 DRAFT SAN MIGUEL RANCH PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA THAT IT APPROVE A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND A GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE SAN MIGUEL RANCH PROPERTY WHEREAS, Emerald Properties Corporation, hereafter referred to as "applicant", has submitted an application for a General Plan Amendment (Case # GPA-96-01) to be approved on the 738 acre South Parcel of the 2590 acre San Miguel Ranch generally located north and east of Proctor Valley Road, south and east of the community of Sunnyside and southwest of San Miguel Mountain; and WHEREAS, the City staff has added certain recommended changes to the General Plan Amendment application which amends the General Plan Text and Diagram for the entire property, to which the applicant has agreed, said amendments being attached to and made a part of this Resolution, and WHEREAS, the applicant has also submitted an application for an amendment to the San Miguel Ranch General Development Plan (Case # PCM-96-05) for the entire San Miguel Ranch property (North and South Parcels) which generally reflects the proposed amendments to the General Plan for the South Parcel and other amendments for the North Parcel; and WHEREAS, a Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (Case # SEIR-95-04), dated August, 1996, was prepared for the proposed project; and WHEREAS, the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report indicated that the following issues were significant and not mitigable for the proposed project: Land Use Landform/Visual Quality Parks, Recreation and Open Space Air Quality; and WHEREAS, the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report was transmitted to the City of Chula Vista, as lead agency, to all concerned parties for review and comment; and WHEREAS, notice of the availability of the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report was given as required by law; and WHEREAS, written comments from the public on the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report were accepted from August 11, 1996 to October 9, 1996; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the property in the field on August 21, 1996; and WHEREAS, City Planning Commission held a public hearing and accepted public testimony on the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report on October 9, 1996; and WHEREAS, agency and public comments have been addressed in the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed General Plan Amendment and amendments to the San Miguel Ranch General Development Plan on November 20, 1996; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION certifies Subsequent Environmental Impact Report SEIR-95-04. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Draft City Council Resolution approving the General Plan Amendment and the General Development Plan Amendment in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the City Council. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 20th day of November, 1996 by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: Frank A. Tarantino, Chairman Nancy Ripley, Secretary (m: \home\planning\paul\gpa96-Ol \pcm96-05 . pc) ATTACHMENT 2 DRAFT SAN MIGUEL RANCH CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CERTIFYING THE FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FSEIR 95-04) FOR THE SAN MIGUEL RANCH PROJECT; AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA FOR THE SAN MIGUEL RANCH PROPERTY (GPA-96-01); APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE SAN MIGUEL RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PCM-96-05); MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS OF FACT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT; ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM; AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS WHEREAS, Emerald Properties Corporation, hereafter referred to as "applicant", has submitted an application for a General Plan Amendment (Case # GPA-96-01) to be approved on the 2590.2 acre San Miguel Ranch property generally located north and east of Proctor Valley Road, south and east of the community of Sunnyside and southwest of San Miguel Mountain; and WHEREAS, the City staff has added certain recommended changes to the General Plan Amendment application which amends the General Plan Text and General Plan Diagram for the property, to which the applicant has agreed, said amendments being attached and made a part of this Resolution, and WHEREAS, the applicant has also submitted an application for an amendment to the San Miguel Ranch General Development Plan (Case # PCM-96-05) for the San Miguel Ranch property which generally reflects the proposed amendments to the General Plan; and WHEREAS, a Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (Case # SEIR-95-04), dated August, 1996, was prepared for the proposed project; and WHEREAS, the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report indicated that the following issues were significant and not mitigable for the proposed project: Land Use Landform/Visual Quality Parks, Recreation and Open Space Air Quality; and WHEREAS, the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report was transmitted to the City of Chula Vista, as lead agency, to all concerned parties for review and comment; and WHEREAS, notice of the availability of the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report was given as required by law; and WHEREAS, written comments from the public on the Draft Subsequent Enviromnental Impact Report were accepted from August 11, 1996 to October 9, 1996; and WHEREAS, City Planning Commission held a duly caned and noticed public hearing, accepted public testimony and closed the public comment period on the Draft Final Subsequent Enviromnentallmpact Report on October 9, 1996; and WHEREAS, agency and public comments have been addressed in the Final Subsequent Enviromnental Impact Report; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly caned and noticed public hearing on the Subsequent Enviromnental Impact Report, the General Plan Amendment and the General Development Plan Amendment on November 20, 1996, and made certain recommendations regarding the project; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly caned and noticed public hearing on December 17, 1996, regarding the Final Subsequent Enviromnental Impact Report, the General Plan Amendment and the General Development Plan Amendment; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: A. FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1. The Final Subsequent Enviromnental Impact Report, San Miguel Ranch General Plan Amendment/General Development Plan Amendment (SEIR-95-04), dated August, 1996, consists of: a. Final Subsequent Enviromnental Impact Report (EIR-95-04, SCH #96051038) dated August, 1996, which contains 1) the Draft Subsequent Enviromnental Impact Report, and 2) Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR. b. Appendices A through D to the Subsequent EnviromnentaI Impact Report dated August 1996. 2. The Final Subsequent Enviromnental Impact Report has been reviewed and considered by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista. 3. The Final Subsequent Enviromnental Impact Report reflects the independent judgement of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista. 4. The Final Subsequent Enviromnental Impact Report is hereby certified by the City -2- Council to have been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and all applicable guidelines. B. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The City Council hereby approves an amendment to the San Miguel Ranch General Development Plan GDP) subject to the conditions enumerated below, which shall be complied with prior to the approval of any Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan for this project. Since the applicant has chosen to prepare two plans, one reflecting each alternative location of the proposed SR-I25 Tollway, the plan which reflects the alternative route location chosen by the State of California shall be the plan on which SPA plans may be prepared. 1. The alternative GDP which reflects the route of SR-I25 rejected by the State shall be null and void. 2. The applicant shall: a. Design a trail system to the satisfaction of the Directors of Parks and Recreation and Planning which is consistent with the policies of the Chula Vista General Plan, which is in substantial conformance with the trail system indicated on the GDP figure providing project-associated trails to be located within the San Miguel Ranch property and which links to existing and planned trails in the area. b. Link the Community Park and the Elementary School by a trail/sidewalk system in a manner approved by the Directors of Parks and Recreation and Planning. c. Prepare a comprehensive buffer plan for the visual separation of the project and the existing and planned facilities of the San Diego Gas and Electric Company's Miguel Substation through measures such as landscaping, significant topographic variation, homesite orientation and other appropriate methods. d. Prepare a brush management plan which analyzes and reduces impacts related to placing homes in close proximity to large areas of natural vegetation. e. Prepare a Sectional Planning Area plan traffic analysis which: (1) Determines the existing and ultimate capacity and levels of service for the existing road network serving the project area. (2) Formulates a project phasing plan which is consistent with the phasing and financing of on- and off-site public street facilities as a component of the Public Facilities Financing Plan as required by the SPA regulations. (3) Determines the types and phasing of interim on-site and off-site street facilities should SR-I25 not be constructed before or concurrent with the -3- proposed construction of the project. (4) Determines the types and locations of off-site street facilities required to provide appropriate access to the Sweetwater Valley. f. Receive approval of an amendment to the County of San Diego General Plan Circulation Element, or other action acceptable to the County, which provides for off-site access to the Sweetwater Valley from the project. 3. A technical committee consisting of appropriate staff from the City Engineering and Planning Departments and the County Departments of Public Works and Planning and Land Use shall be established to provide input to the SPA-level study of area-wide transportation planning concerns. 4. The dwelling unit totals of 1432 units for the Proctor Valley Plan and 1394 units for the Horseshoe Bend Plan are approved in principle. The ultimate total, resulting from more specific SPA and Tentative Map planning and site analysis, may require a reduction in these numbers. Actual development entitlements shall also be predicated upon the availability of public services and sufficient capacity of the area road network as determined by the traffic analysis required in Condition 2e. 5. The density of the area designated Medium Residential shall not exceed six dwelling units per gross acre. 6. The minimum net lot size in the area designated LM-l shall be 7,000 square feet in conformance with the clustering provisions of Section 6.3 of the General Plan. 7. Enviromnental review shall be accomplished for annexation of any lands which will be annexed to the City in conjunction with the annexation of the San Miguel Ranch property. This condition may be waived only if (1) the Subarea Plan of the Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) precludes any development of the North Parcel, or (2) the Wildlife Agencies purchase the area of the North Parcel on which the General Plan designates that development may occur or (3) it is determined by the Chula Vista City Council that given the eventual disposition of the North Parcel for ownership and maintenance purposes, either though the MSCP or other means, it is not in the best interest of the City of Chula Vista to annex the North Parcel into its corporate boundaries. 8. A minimum of 50 percent of the lots west of the proposed SR-I25 aligmnent on the Horseshoe Bend Plan or a minimum of 50 percent of the lots west of the diagonal SDG&E right-of-way on the Proctor Valley Plan shall be improved with lots a minimum of 20,000 square feet in order to maintain a balance of at least 50 percent of all lots in the western area of the project as estate-sized lots in the vicinity of the Bonita/Sunnyside community. -4- 9. The SPA plan shall define criteria by which the design of the project in the vicinity of Bonita/Sunnyside provides, to the extent feasible, the highest possible degree of compatibility between this community and the project. 10. The San Miguel Ranch Citizen's Advisory Committee, presently appointed and serving, shall continue to provide citizen input into the SPA plan and subsequent Tentative Map processes required by the previous resolution of approval (Resolution 17057). C. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT FINDINGS Land Use Element The amendments to the General Plan and General Development Plan provide a broader range of densities and housing opportunities in the easterly portion of the subject property adjacent to the Salt Creek developments, which have similar residential densities, while retaining the lower density areas presently indicated Low Residential on the General Plan near the semi-rural areas of the community of Sunnyside. The amendment more precisely locates the Neighborhood Commercial area, Elementary School and the Community Park, all of which are presently designated in "floating" locations on the General Plan diagram. Circulation Element The Circulation system design included in the San Miguel Ranch General Development Plan provides for a four-lane collector road slightly to the south of the location depicted on the General Plan diagram and the Circulation Element. This more advantageous location removes it as a direct alignment with existing San Miguel Road in the unincorporated area to the north. In this manner, the interchange of San Miguel Road and State Route-l25 shifts to the south and diminishes impacts to San Miguel Road between the interchange and Bonita Road. Trails and bicycle lanes required by the Circulation Element will be provided via the General Development Plan and subsequent Sectional Planning Area plan and Tentative Map. Public Facilities Element The General Development Plan and implementing future Sectional Planning Area plan will provide the framework for the provision of master plans for water, wastewater, drainage/flood control, sewer and other systems as appropriate. Amendments to the General Plan and General Development Plan will not impact the provision and implementation of these plans. -5- Housing Element The Goals and Objectives of the San Miguel Ranch General Development Plan include the provision of a variety of housing types and low- and moderate-income housing for the project to implement the Housing Element of the General Plan. Growth Management Element The Goals and Objectives of the San Miguel Ranch General Development Plan relative to the provision of public facilities and the phasing of development subject to their availability implement the Growth Management Element of the General Plan. Before any construction may occur as a result of this General Plan Amendment and General Development Plan Amendment, a Public Facilities Financing Plan, a part of the Sectional Planning Area process, must first be prepared to insure that all public facilities are available concurrent with need as required by the General Plan. Parks and Recreation Element The General Development Plan provides the Community Park, recreational trails and open space required by the General Plan for the subject property. Safety Element No geologic hazards have been identified for the subject property although all development resulting from this General Plan Amendment and General Development Plan Amendment must conform with recommendations of a qualified engineering geologist. The implementing Sectional Planning Area plan will provide brush management and fuel modification requirements for fire safety. Noise Element The Noise Element of the General Plan requires that the City enforce regulations related to noise from traffic and conflicting land uses. The General Development Plan and future implementing Sectional Planning Area plan will mitigate noise as required by the measures indicated in the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report. D. CEQA Findings, Mitigation Monitoring Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations 1. Adoption of Findings. The City Council does hereby approve, accept as its own, incorporate as if set forth in full herein, and make each and every one of the findings contained in the -6- "Candidate Findings of Fact" (Document Number ). 2. Certain Mitigation Measures Feasible and Adopted. As more fully identified and set forth in SEIR 95-04 and in the Candidate Findings of Fact, the Council hereby finds pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 that the mitigation measures described as feasible in the above referenced documents, are feasible, and will become binding upon the entity (such as the project proponent, the City, or the School district) assigned thereby to implement same. 3. Infeasibility of Alternatives As is also noted in the above referenced environmental documents described in the above subparagraph 2, each of the alternatives to the project which were identified as potentially feasible in SEIR-95-04 are found not to be feasible since they could not meet both the objectives of the Project and avoid the identified significant environmental effects through implementation of feasible mitigation measures for the reasons set forth in said Candidate Findings of Fact. 4. Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program As required by the Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("Program") incorporated in the SEIR Section 6.0. The Council hereby finds that the Program is designed to ensure that during project implementation the permittee/project applicant and any other responsible parties implement the project components and comply with the feasible mitigation measures identified in the Candidate Findings if Fact and the Program. 5. Statement of Overriding Considerations Even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures and any feasible alternatives, certain significant or potentially significant environmental effects caused by the project, or cumulatively, will remain. Therefore, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista hereby issues, pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15093, a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Document No. ), identifying the specific economic, social, and other considerations that render the unavoidable significant adverse effects acceptable. E. Notice of Determination The Environmental Review Coordinator of the City of Chula Vista is directed, after City -7- Council approval of this project, to insure that a Notice of Determination is filed with the County Clerk of the County of San Diego. F. Invalidity: Automatic Revocation It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Resolution is dependent upon the enforceability of each and every term, provision and condition herein stated; and that in the event that anyone or more terms, provisions or conditions are determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, this resolution shall be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no further force and effect ab initio. G. One General Plan Amendment It is the intention of the City Council that its action on the San Miguel Ranch by this Resolution and its action on the General Plan Amendment for the companion item Mother Miguel Estates be and is one General Plan Amendment for the purposes of the State Law limitation on the number of allowable General Plan Amendments in one year. Presented by Approved as to form by Ann Y. Moore City Attorney (Acting) Robert A. Leiter Director of Planning -8- ATTACHMENT 3 MINUTES SAN MIGUEL RANCH CITIZEN'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE AUGUST 15, 1996 MEETING NO.7 PRESENT: Barbara Gilman, Chairperson Jim Algert Steve Gilles Ray Yrnzon STAFF: Paul Manganelli ABSENT: Craig Adams Michael Beck Michael Roark The minutes of the July 18, 1996 meeting were approved as submitted. Staff briefed the Committee on the recent occurrences affecting the proposed project. Items discussed by the Committee were: . SR-I25 draft EIR is out for public review until September 16th. The City Council will hear a report from staff on September 10th. . The applicant has revised the project to exclude development on the north parcel from both versions of the proposed amendment to the General Development Plan. The applicant has not, however, requested deletion of the Low Residential from the north parcel in the General Plan Amendment. . The schedule for the processing of the General Plan Amendment and the GDP has been modified slightly as follows: Aug.--Sept. SEIR public review period September 18 SEIR public hearing by Planning Commission November 13 GPA and GDP hearing and SEIR certification by Planning Commission December 10 GPA and GDP hearing and SEIR certification by City Council. . The Committee discussed the SEIR for the project, copies of which were provided at the meeting. The Committee decided to meet on September 5, 1996, to give the Committee time to read the document and provide imput into the public review process. Copies to be mailed to the absent members. Since the staff member scheduled to make a presentation on the SEIR was ill, the presentation will be made at the September 5th meeting. ccmin.815 . After considerable discussion, the Committee took the following actions relative to the land uses indicated on both draft General Development Plans: Proctor Valley Alignment Alternative GDP (Re: Figure 16) L2 No change LMI No change CP No change ES No change--LM if relocated LM2 No change LM3 No change LM4 Minimum 40% Low, 60% LM (LM near Mt. Miguel Road) MI No change NP No change RC No change H No change CS No change Horseshoe Bend Alignment Alternative GDP (Re: Figure 15) La No change Lb Change to LM CP No change LMl Change to Low (permit clustering) LM2 No change LM3 No change LM4 Minimum 40% Low, 60% LM (LM near Mt. Miguel Road) LM5 No change M No change ES Relocate to east side of SR-125 at appropriate location in LM5; if relocated, change to LM. NP Relocate adjacent to ES RC No change H No change CS No change These recommendations are to be forwarded to the Planning Commission and the City Council. The meeting was adjourned to the September 5, 1996, meeting at 8:28 PM. Minutes prepared by Paul Manganelli (691-5256) ccmin.815 ~ E....-'=~ SEO<ETF'f<IR... 931 F'02 5EP 26 '96 12:19 A TT ACHMENT 4 ~ OF A SCHEDULED RBGULAllkt:.t:.uriG Resouroe Comcrvation C-""'(\If!;.tiOD CJwIa VIIta, c-,;r"'l:lia 6:30 P.M. Monday. September 9. 1996 Council Ccmf'erence B.oom City Hall Building CAU..kt:.t:.urilGTO OlU)ElVAOLLCAlL: M-ti"iwas caDed to ordent 6:37P.M. by ChaIr Burrucano. Praent: Barbara:Reid, P~ Departmeat ataff; eom"';.'lionen Bum..."O, Hall, 'Ibom_, Marquez, Fuber, aDd y'....d' JJso preICIIt; 10hn Roju. Chu1a VISta Bistorical Society; 1effHowanl, Batrada Lane! PI,..,,;"'; and Batty DeHone. San Miguel project. APPR.OV ItJ. OF MINUTES: It was MSUC (MarquWHaJl) to Ipprove the minutes of the meetin& of August 26, 1996, with the CoUowiIIa c:omctiom: ~ · Pase 2, paragraph 7. "CommIssioner HaIl questioned whether this project conformed to the J'II."tj..o of CEQA DOt to carry out arowth-Jnducina development." . PISC 3, add to paragraph 1. "A COlt ...nm... was nquested and Ms. Glugow laid she will provide the WOrmatiOD to !lCC." . Para. S, correct the ~'"" to "P0Dd Turtles" in the ceDter ofpangraph. · Under Commissioner'. Com"le'1t1 on Pase S, change to "(:Qm..,Juioner HaD was concerned that Fuller Ford, u the respoJIsibJe party fbr the toxic material c:ontaminatin& the lOil of their fOrmer business location 01\ Broadway. should be required to cltaII it up, rather than the City having to usume the additional cost of disposing the material" . Paie 6, "Commissioner Marquez wanted to DOte her discouraaement of the pl.cement or the Cbu1a VIStI MariDa aDCIlab'. Restaurant In I redevelopment area . . . " Vote ~, motion wried. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: lohn 1lo.iu. ChuJa VISta Historical Society, pmemed his most recent1y published book, Chula J1Ista:r 1nu. this will be avai1ab1e for sale to the pub1ic. NEW BUSINESS: 1. llmcw orBm MipeI RanchEDl.leffHowud, Senior PJarmcr oC&trada LInd PWmin& presented m overview of the project Il'eI. Betty DeHone, u IUthor oCthe cJocI'''''''''. also was present to IIISWW detailed questiODl on the project. She stated that the CO!IStrIiDts ceDtered mostly around SR.125aoma throup the area, with the maiD IIIIIyaIs IUIJOUDdina Iud ute II'OWId Bonita aDCI aJona the iu",., COIIIIICtOrI. She stated the lower raldemial deIIsity wou.1d be I1'OUIId Bom., with the peU deIIsity through the Salt Creek.... M.. Jleid DOted thIt the lUbuea plan draft cmrBdly c:im,,~ ahowIno deve10plDellt within tlie IIOrth pugeI. The !lope is that the resource .,encies will purchase the land uuJ \lie It U mitiptiOI1 b-wq 4~ EXPRESS SECRET~l~ 931 P03 5EP 26'96 12:20 Resource ConsetVation Commission Paae2 Ma. DeHone Rated the SlU25 aligamCllt through HoI1CIhoe Bend was DOt pc&tied because it splits the community one-third and two-thinb, and most of the landform ~" obllteratec1 An attempt was made to tie the project topthcr via Mount Miguel Road, . by element for comteCtivity. Commissioner BUtt'I$CIIIO \VA ~..ed about the IIpIflcant trafBc IDd air pollution ;...p...u They are already ~i below level of tervice and JIO plw have been made for a trolley to relieve thae impacts. MI. DeHone pointed out that they'J'O already ~,.....ItiJ>>1o an4 ref.""""'" page 3....8 tor the studie.s. She pointed out some diacretiODaZy actioIIa they looked at iadudiDs AII.........tion to Chula VISta for phyIica1 =DDeCtivity,1and use and development impact&, an4 amendment ii"om prezoning to planned eoor-1mity. They also Ioolced at the impicta of Proctor VaDey GDPlHol1e.lhoe Bend GDP, north &lid IOUthIno project GDP. and roduced density GnP, all bued on 50% of the land being estate lots. Page 2.15, siva I JUIJIIrIII)' ofunit. per acre. She explained that the land form alteration is less than sianificant at the OOP leveIlDd could DOt be reduced to below LOS. Each of the e1tematives m DOt tftitip1>1e.. BioJosy \VA not evaluated In the ame fbtm u the altcmatives. They Ioolced to aha u.S. FilII & Wildlife for PJ'Oservation of multispocies. Commissioner Hall asked whether development \VA required to keep 166 KJ'OI preserved on the north tor =MectMty to the south. Ms. DeHone Rated it \VA not, pJua, in c:oDjuDc:tion with the MSCP, dedic:ated land for grosa acreage II 1500 units on 500 acres or 3 units pet acre in the Proctor VaDey area. She a1so Itated that the appUc;ant requests DO deve10pmeat to the Dorth parcel. . Ms.lleid pointed out that the EI1l a1tematives Ihow I Ylriety of die'erent plans baled on the propoled alignment ofSIU2S. Cnrmmc~oner Fisher reiterated that the RCC had already rceommended the No Pro,ject Alternative, u voted on at the ~aust 26, 1996. meetiDB; fUrther, that if the City CouneiIIIIUIt approve the SR.125 project, that Ahenll!ive tI6 be the rec;ol...._..tfed aIip"'- & added dIat blologista have found Silky Pocket Mice adjacent to the south lites. Bljl c-1if'.... Racer 1bund in the QwIa VISta bgment adjacent to the south lite, IDd the Chel-Irv-lpOUed Butterfly fouDcI around C>ayMountaln (dOle enough to the projoc:tlite). He requested that these be addreaed and adequately JUrveyed. Ma. DeHone wiD refer this to her ltIffand ~ report to llCC. (CcommiJ';oner F1Iber left the mectina at 7:S2 P.M.] Ma. DeHone live I traffic overview """"I that the cxistIng COIIditiODl are aJready ....p-cted at below level of aervice. The circulmon eJem""'fl that exist are lignific:ant IDd unmitIpble over.n. She Rated that the project created three criteria to bue its fiDdinp: L LOS thresbolcl D or worse . to be Ii&nificant b. LOS for roadway JIIII$t Iessa1 by one filii LOS leJII1eDt c. Sisnific:ant trafIic: volume by this project be over 5% to wamnt aipific:ant wm..:" .- -_.~._--- 4B206a2 ~'<'RESS 5ECRET~IR.. 931 P04 5EP 26 '96 12:21 1lesource Conaervation Commission PaRe 3 She stated that molt K8"'~..I. were aIreacIy low aDd that this proj~ may or may DOt be impacted iuther. The reglolll1 ~ ia let by CIlTrw and MIDB. and these are out of the ICOpe ofthiJ project. However, ~ mitismon -MIl be made to raoJve 1illliSc:ant ~ according to CEQA. Mr. Howard Itated that die ~ 1ft""" to SRl25 at VIrioua points are ItiIl below LOS and SlU25 dOOl Dot btiDi III)' kind ofimproYlment. Commissioner Tbcmw bad a IDI,}or COIICCm about the d~p'" respoJIII'biIity to plan fbr JDUltj.. mod.lities. The transportation element, Ihould aJlow for emers-")' provisions (fire and police) and public transportation to improve the level oflervice &omP in IODIO places. She a1Io abd why buildina a heway would not ~Ooo'C the traffic Dow to an acceptable IcveJ of 1CI'Vkc. Ms..DeHone stated that the GDP does address public tr'anJportation and wiD be part of the improvements for the projert IDf'ormation on this Issue Is Iotated in the Air Quality _on for an improvement plan to reduce tramc. No light rail is plo"qed at tbia time, but a Park and Ride &dIity will be available. A motion was made (BurrucaDaIThom) to reiterate the Ree', arlicr motion to approYB the No Project I1temative or the Proctor Valley aliJ""""M aItemative, if'MOflllry. further diJculsion foUowed.. . (:otmntssioner Marquez questioned whether the 1I0pes and terrain were developable land. Ya DcHone stated it was not, that it was Iteep terrain. The area Is leva around HoneIhoe Bend. c:omes to a ridge point, then drops off lteeply. eo-m":l)Der Marquez was QODCeIDed that the DUmber of'~herI and Cactus Wr=s, located 110111 the nonh pmeI, would be impacted M the focused on habitat acrage on parcels and didn't look at incIivichW IIU!IIberI, ahe stated that the north option will reduce Cactus Wrw down frozu thIrteeD pain to IOVtII. Ally other altel1ll.tM could impact up to 36 pain of' Cactus Wren. CoDllDislioner Thomu DOted that diff'erent studies were inconsistent on the Cactus Wren and that the DeW data b DOt updated into these tables. The RCC was assured that tiIDIJIa on sradini wDl be restricted cIuriDi ~ IIISOD, u already JIWIdated by the U.S. FISh a: Wildlife. It Is noted that ODe pair ofClctu' Wren ia located in the 'YtI')' nortbenlmoat part of the project and the rat illIOt in die proj~ area. CommissioDer HI1I questioned how Bonita VJSta Middle School and ~...T ..1.-, Bish SQhool wiD be m,pacted and how the would "...die the capacity. Mr. Howard ""q)lon-t that 1CbooI_ will be assessed with the project in liw of a site, with additiolll1lo1r1Mt"i done by the cIiscreIIoA of the PIIDniDi Depattmcnt. The project c:umntly bas planned only for an e.I._ol)' tchoot The cIift'cRDt {;1)oqclt1i Deeds of the diItrict will be met by the project. C--;oo1oner HaD qucstionecJ hcnri the IlIvject Would handle poJFbI. water poDudon orthe Sw...a..04\!t 1leserYoIr. Altboush tbia II an SlU1S problem and not in the IC:ope of1he project. Ms. DeHone stated that the north pan:elllopes wDl be QIt 10 It draIDs to the IOUth. Mr. BowIrd CODfirmed that the lOuth parcel wiIlllOt ~tct the Sweetwater b..v:.. 1be aoaJ of the GDP is to eliminate any flow to the river. This proj~ wm also use the water RC1amation plant aDd have a separate pipe I)'Item for reclaimed water. This is already pan of the proj~ roquiremeDt. 4620&"7 EXPRESS 5ECRET~IR.. 931 PBS 5EP 26 '96 12:21 Resource Conservation CommiJslon Paae .. Also, the infI'astnIcture II already there at the cat JevcllD4 thiI II dellIled at till SPA 1eYe1. The motioD was restated (BurrucanolThomu) to rcItcrate ita eadier motion (Aupit 26, 1996) for. No Project Ahcmative or the AJtemative #16 at SlU25. ec-.ri.tioner Muquez revised and adeled to the motion (seconded by Tbomu): that the llCC WIDtI City CoIJncil to recopize that even If there II no developmCDt on the north, the dm...c;t.t1toog impacts to biolosical raourcea to the south sti1l exist, and the]lCC rec:ommendI DO development oa the DOrtb pan:c1 atthe San Miguel Ranell; in the event that there II In SRI25 and in the evCDt that al'l<N.III"-.tation tor alignment must be JiveD, the llCC lCOOlI II ,.en6- the Proctor VaD'1 alipmCDt of'SlU25; wtc 5-0, motiOD curled. It is noted that the Specific Plan will address IOlutiODJ and waya these impacta will be mitipted. Commissioner Bunascano requested that IIDII1 .....""",1 trlppiDp be roquired for the SPA level analysis. A motion was made (BurrucanclYamada) that the Draft Subsequent BDviroIImCDtaJ Impact lteport for the San Miguel Ranch II adequate under the California EDviroDmCDtIl Quality Act; vote 5.0, motion curled. . Commissioner ~urrascano mentioned that the resource c.I~ fOr the MSa propam were IIOt available in the libra:y IS requested by resource apncies. Staff to c:beck on the avaDability of said documents. 2. Review of Planning Cof"'~.IiOD Apnda Cor September II, 1996: L VarimceZAV-96-13: RequesttoCltceecl...m~.'" Iotooverap 1341 PartDriw; Public hearing; 110 Ktlon by !lCC, b. PCM-97.o2: Request to dfmolish and rec=struct project at 219 MadroDa S1.; Public hearln& 110 action by llCC. ~. SUPS-96-06; llequest Cor CUP at 2400 FaMe Street; Public: bearizIa. CommIsPODeI' HaD commented that the company be rtIpO"$I"I, for c:1eIII-up of' oil or toxic ........;aI that escapes from the tNcb. STAFFRBPOllT: None. CHAIRMAN'S COMMENTS: Com""~oner Bum~'1O requested ccnmdI fiB the YICIIICJ' on the llCC. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS: Co-nlsslcmer BUI'J'N"*1IO nII1ed eo.-vNioroer Fubcr'. comment: In a construction lite IteI o1fEast B Street MIl' Tom NOVI, wo%brs have thrown a lignificant &mOI1IIt of trash into the opeD apace preserve area. He requestid they be made to clean it up and Ray out of the pracrvc. 4S2e662 EXPRESS 5ECRET~I>L 932 Pel 5EP 26 '96 12:23 Resource Conservation Commission PllleS Commissioner Marqu=. Commiasionm wve encouraged to attend the eouDd1 mee1ina to apea1c on the SlU2S a1tematives. She also requated Barbara Bamburpr come bdbre the commission to update them 011 her c:umnt projects. . CommiIsionerYamada RqlJested. pCnonfrom the Traffic Dey<"tu-4.peUon trl8ic ~ctI in the taStern tenitories. bow TnnsNer money Is worldns towanh fUture uppada II1II DeW c!eve1opment, and update on SR.12S, AD10URNMENT: The meeting wu adjourned by awr Bumscano at 9:17 P.M. Respect1WIy submitted, ~s $ECRErARIAL SERVICES ~~ . .- .- - ~., ~ - - -.., -, - , _~ ~~LG ~.~- ,...:.::: e. ATTACHMENT 5 Q1~ of J&au ~iegn GARY L. PRYOR 01P.EC:TOfl (e1i'169-4-'29IH DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND LAND USE .~OI RUFFIN RO~~, .UITE B. S4N DIEGO. C~lIFORNI. 92123-'868 INj:ORMAnON (619) 0'i4-2080 October 30, 1996 Robert A. Leiter, Director City of Chula Vista Planning Department 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, California 91910 RE: COMMENTS REGARDING THE SAN MIGUEL RANCH AMENDED GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS Dear Mr. Leiter: Staff of the Department of Pla(ln:ing and Lancl Use have completed their review of the San Miguel Ranch ~nded General Development Plan, dated June 28, 1996, and Amended Horseshoe Bend General Development Plan, dated August 27, 1996. San Miguel Ranch is divided intO two large tracts of land; a northerly tract mainly devoted to open space-and a southerly tract proposed for the majority of the development, The project area is located in the unincorporated area of San Diego County, within the Sweetwater community Plan area. The site is located outside the County's Current Urban Development Area (CUDA) Regional Category, but within the Chula Vista Sphere of Influence. The site has a (21) Specific Plan Area County General Plan Designation with a 0.28 Density Designator. Although we understand that the: project will be annexed to the City of Chula Vista and subject to the C~ty's-General Plan. we feel that the project's proximity and interrelationship-with the communities of Bonita and Sunnyside necessitate a discussion addres~ing the project's consistency with the County's General Plan. We also-recommend I discussion of the project's land use compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. 1. General Plan ConsistencY The San Miguel Ranch project and a portion of the surrounding area are identified on the Sw&etwater Community Plan as the Eastern Bonita Specific Planning Area, Both General Development Plans propose densities of 0.57 dwelling unit per-acre, twice the density currently adopted by the County of San Diego for this area. The General Development Plans should justify the increase in density in relationship to the County's .., . , _ _ _'- .. l:.._ - - -.- '-'-.... .-' __ ~~LLi ,_'~_ u.,.) Robert A. Leiter. Director - 2 - October 30, 1996 existing density of 0.28 ~l1ing unit per acre. In addition, the Community Plan for this at~e"envisions a d,velo~nt which maintains the overall semi-rural character: of the Planning Area with estate densities. Furthermore, the Plan utillzt$ slope criteria to regulate densities and limit grading while protecting steep slope areas. Criteria and . conditions havII bllen pl&cfI!1'within the sw.ttwater CORIIIIInity Plan text to ensure comprehensive plJ1'1ntll9and develoPllll"t of this area (see attachment). We rec~,tb.t the General Development Plans include a discussion on the projett's ability to meet and conform to these criteria and conditions. 2. Neiohborhood Comoat1bil1tv The San Miguel Ranch project. proposes Low-MediuM (LH 1) and (LH Z) density areas of 4.3 ,~1l{AQ units per acre and 2 dwelling units per acre with lot sizes of ~,OQf,lquare feet and 6,000 square feet, respectively. These densities are located adjacent to the existing rural neighborhoods of Sunnyslde_nd Bonita, currently developed and planned at one dwelling unit per acre. 'With the constraint:> of the site, it is assumed that some fora of c'ustering will be utllized. W1th this assumption, we believec that attention should be given to neighborhood compatibl1ity and cotll1lUnttyc:haracter issues. The discussion should be expanded to address p~ the,project's urban lot sizes and land use patterns will be compatible with the surrounding 1 arge estate lots to the north and northeast.' If you have any questions t:'89'rdjllg this matter, please contact Steve Wragg, Associate Planner, at (51i} 5f4~3013. Sincerely, W~)r(J:d4. DENNIS J. VERRILLI. Chief Advance Planning DJV:SW:dld Attachment AUTHOR\APLTRSWl.I06 " " . .~,~;%,' , , ~ '_, i _~.:. _ _ J~ 1 L: _ ~ :=,:...-,:,:i.: =--' =,:-'~L ,;"';'.;::. ['4 SPECIFIC PLANNING AREAS EASTERN BONITA SPE~IFIC PLANNING AREA -- SPA (0.281 DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA The Eastern Bonita Specific Planning Area comprises approximatelY 3,282 acres to the east of Proctor Valley Road, south of the Sweetwater Reservoir and north of Eastlake Development in Chula Vista. The site has varied terrain, with some areas in excess of 501 and includes Mother Miguel Mountain. The area is currently undeveloped with no roads or services, Two existing Resource Conservation Areas cover large portions of the northeast and southeast quadrants of the Specific Plan Area. The area is outside the ~ounty's Current Urban Development Area (CUDA) Regional Category, however, it is partially within the Chula Vista sphere-of-influence. The purpose of the SPA is to ensure comprehensive planning and development of this large undeveloped tract of land. If the land is allowed to develop piecemeal, opportunities for preserving and enhancing significant topographic features and resource areaS would be lost. Moreover, the cost of providing roads, sewers and other services and facilities would be reduced through a cooperative effort. , PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Eastern Bonita Specific Plan Area allows an overall residential density of ~ 0.28 dwelling units/acre with a maximum of 904 dwelling units for the entire ~ SPA. This density is based on the County's (17) Estate (1 dwelling unit/2, 4 acres) and (18) Multiple Rural Use (1 dwelling unit/4, 8, 20 acres) land use designations which were in effect prior to the 1988 Update of the Sweetwater Community Phn. Due to the steep slopes on some portions of the property it is anticipated that dwelling units will be clustered. It is also anticipated that commercial, recreational and civic uses will be I part of the SPA. Studies needed prior to development approvals should include an analysis of physiographic characteristics, visual resources, biological resources, cultural resources and infrastructure needs. All property owners within the general vicinity of the SPA should be Informed about the evolving plan, and review and comment shall also be solicited fro~ the Sweetwater Planning Group. Because there are multiple owners within this SPA it is anticipated that there may be some disagreement on the scope and timing of the Specific Plan development. The following options Ire sug~tsted to deal with these potential problems: The Specific Plan may be prepared either by the property owners or the County at the expense of the property owners. t - 1Z - .. \ ~ ~~ t If a portion of the Specific Plan area annexes to the City of Chula Vista, the County will reconsider the validity of the remaining Specific Plan Area. Because of the difficulties that may be encountered with multiple owners reaching agreement, it is recommended that the property owners share the cost of the required planning studies and all participate in such planning. After five years have elapsed. the County Planning Commission shall evaluate the SPA designation to recommend whether such designation should remain or be removed. In the event that any of the smaller contiguous property owners desire to cooperate in the SPA they may if the SPA owners agree to it. CONDITIONS The Specific Plan shall be developed under the following Conditions: General 1. The average overall density shall not exceed .28 dwelling units per acre within the residential portion of the Specific Plan Area with an overall total of 904 dwellings. 2. Based on slope criteria, tbe dwelling units associated with individual parcels and ownerships in the SPA are as follows: Owner/Parcel ~ 585-160-05, 11, 12, 19 (General Telephone) 28 5B5-140-14, 21; 5B5-160-20, 595-040-01. 03. 04, OS. OS (Otay Water District) 117 585-030-03; 585-070-01; 585-080-01; 585-113-23, 24 585-111-03; 585-120-06; 585-130-02. 03, 17; 585-131-02; 5B5-140-20; 585-160-06, 07; 595-010-05, 07; 595-030-05. 06 (Unoeal Investment) ~ 904 - 13 - ~2j~1 l~~~ l~:~~ --~ ---- 0':''';-':':; I.:; '~G,...;~,i;' '-=~, :J?LU ,;....:..;::.. ~5 3. Clustering of structures on the flatter portions of the SPA is encouraged. 4. The project shall generally create a semi-rural residential community with an identity consistent ~ith the community character of Sweetwater as described in the Sweetwater Community Plan Text. However, this shall not be done at the expense of the flexibility in project design which is afforded by the Specific Plan Designation and procedure. 5. The significant adverse visual impact of all hillside development shall be minimized. , 6. The Specific Plan shall include a phasing section that describes the timing, location and phasing of the proposed development. 7. The location and design of different types of land uses shall be sensitive to the proposed location of Route 125 and Its interchanges. 8. The SPA design should complJll\ent but not duplicate existing and proposed large scale development to .the south which includes Eastlake and United Enterprises. 9. The Specific Plan shall investigate the need for designation of a telecolM1unications overhyzone. 10. land uses which are compatible ~ith the San Diego Gas and Electric t substation and other propoJed utility uses need to be identified for adjacent land 'l/lthln the SPA. 11. Compatible secondary uses may be identified for the transmission line corridors in this SPA. Residential 12. The following density fo~la is i guideline established to limit grading and destruction of steep slopes. It is intended as an upper limit. Analysis of individual slopes may determine that a lesser density is required. No more than 1 dwelling unit/Z acres for acreage within the 15-25% slope category. No more than 1 dwelling unit/4 acres for acreage within the 25-S~ slope category. No more than 1 dwell;.ng unit/8 acres for acreage over 5~ slope. . - 14 . :.j;".. ..<:.' ...... 'I ! l i i I I , - ,~,' ~- ;:: '= ~, --= -:: -:: -:: '- -..... -'-'- _l:: C~ ~~ ..)~,-:~ c...c~ e7 -'~::- ' - ~ --' 13. For land with less than lS~ slope. clustering of units may occur with densities greater than those sited above. 14. It should only be allowed impact on adjacent Ridgeline development should be discouraged. if a viewshed analysis can show only minimal properties and scenic features. 15. Any multi-family resldentla' should be considered for its potential for meeting some of the fair share, low-Income housing goals of the Sweetwater Community Plan. Commercial 15. Commercial uses adequate to serve the needs of the SPA shall be permitted. The residential density on land used for commercial purposes may not be transferred to other land. Recreation 17. The SPA shall Include recreation facilities which utilize and preserve the steep terrain and natural beauty of the area. t A system of riding and hiKing trails shall be provided for, which utilize the natural beauty of the area wherever possible. These trails shall be continuous and shall connect into existing and proposed adjacent trails in the County and the City of Chula Vista. 19. The recreation potential of Mother Miguel Mountain and the land adjacent to the Sweetwater Reservoir shall be studied. 18. Conservation 20. The watershed area for the Sweetwater Reservoir shall be protected from pollution by the SPA development. This shall be achieved either by restricting development within the drainage basin. or by other pollution control measures. 21. The SPA shall provide for protection of various habitats in the Sweetwater River and Reservoir areas by MeanS of open space easements as buffers and/or any other appropriate technique. - 15 - _ "_,,, ;; ~,. _ _ ~" 1 L:. ~ ~ :::...-;;;; - ~,,_.~,., " -~ _..~ ,---.~ . ......~_ '''::J Public F~cilities 22. Design shall be such that implementation of public facilities including roads, sewers, and water shall be provided as necessary with a minimum of grading unless an adverse impact to public health and safety can be demonstrated. , 23. A phased development plan shall be prepared based on the ability to provide adequate public facilities and services. The Specific Plan shall include the means by which .11 necessary public facilities shall be financed and provided including: a. Liquid and solid waste collection, treatment and disposal; b. water; c. transportation access, including roads and their drainage improvements; d. fire protection; e. park.s; and f. any other public facilities and services necessary to fulfill the requirements of publiC agencies affected by the Specific Plan. t Implementation 24. Zoning Implementation Shill be accomplished with implementing discretionary permits. 25. Clustering, lot size averaging and planned development design techniques shall be encouraged. 26. large open space areas established for recreational purposes or environmental protection shall be maintained and operated by a Homeowners' Association or other pUblic/private entity that is satisfactory to the Depart~nt of Planning and Land Use. . . 16 . JI ATTACHMENT 6 ESTATE HOUSING ISSUE DISCUSSION The following report has been prepared to address the question of whether the current General Plan policies and Land Use Diagram will provide an adequate amount and variety of estate or low density housing within the City of Chula Vista's planning area. This has become as issue as a result of the consideration recently of various proposals that would reduce the available planned low density acreage within master planned communities in the City's Eastern Territories Area of the General Plan, essentially the only available land for this type of development. The "Residential Low" General Plan land use category depicted on the City's Land Use Diagram typically provides for two types of estate housing opportunities: Country Estate and Executive Estate. DEFINITIONS The following definitions are intended to describe the range of housing types that commonly characterize "estate housing." These definitions are not found in the City's General Plan; however, they are consistent with the low density residential character described in the "Residential Low" land use category contained in the Land Use Element. Country Estate - Country Estate housing consists of homes that are typically built on lots well in excess of one acre and are served by septic systems rather than sewer. These housing areas may not have fully improved streets, lack sidewalks and often occur in rural back-country areas or in enclaves separated from suburban areas. Executive Estate - Executive Estate housing consists of homes that are typically built on one- half acre or larger lots and are served by sewers. This housing is also served by fully improved streets and is typically located on the fringe of suburban communities, and may be adjacent to large open space areas. The City's Residential Estate (R - E) zone typically will permit up to 25% oflots to be developed below one-half acre in size (15,000 sq. ft. minimum); however, for purposes of defining Executive Estate housing, one-half acre minimum will be used. EXISTING SETTING The evolution of low density residential housing within the Chula Vista planning area over the past 40 or more years has consisted primarily of Country Estate homes within the Sweetwater Valley and Executive Estate homes constructed mostly within master planned communities east of Interstate 805 as well as in the Sweetwater Valley. Presently there are approximately 27 ,675 single family homes constructed or final mapped for construction within the City's General Plan area. Of these single family homes, a total of 2,003 are located on lots of one-half acre or more in size (approximately 7% of the total single family homes). A total of 467 of these 2,003 homes/lots are one acre or larger in size. Given these facts, it is recognized that approximately 2 % of all single family homes/lots in the Chula Vista planning area are on lots of one acre or larger in size. This amounts to almost one quarter of the existing estate size homes/lots. FUTURE ESTATE HOUSING POTENTIAL IN THE CHULA VISTA PLANNING AREA Several master planned development projects have been approved in recent years in the Eastern Territories Area which contain land use designations and/or zoning that could result in additional estate housing. The net result of the approval of these projects would be approximately 3,490 homes of over one-half acre in size, of which 1,459 are anticipated to be over one acre in size. If buildout of these areas occurs with no modification from the present General Plan designations, approximately 11 % of the homes in the planning area will meet the definition of estate homes (over one-half acre in size). This will increase the percentage of estate housing within the entire planning area by 4% over present levels. Table A identifies the approximate number of undeveloped estate homes approved for projects within the Eastern Territories Area. Several areas are envisioned for higher end estate housing in the City's General Plan and within approved General Development Plans. These areas would include both Executive and Country Estate housing opportunities. These areas include the North Parcel of San Miguel Ranch, south of the Lower Otay Reservoir, north Proctor Valley and eastern Otay Ranch near Dulzura. POTENTIAL REVISIONS TO PLANNED ESTATE HOUSING AREAS Otav Ranch As a result of a tentative agreements between the Wildlife Agencies and two property owners of the Otay Ranch property, and in conjunction with the proposed Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) planning, modifications are being proposed to the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) that would result in the loss of approximately 703 future estate homes located within Proctor Valley and south/east of the Lower Otay Reservoir in exchange for the preservation of this land as open space preserve. This action would totally eliminate development south and east of Lower Otay Reservoir, a site envisioned as a higher-end estate housing enclave. A total of 1,383 one-half acre (or larger) lots will remain within all three of the major parcels of the Otay Ranch. San Mil!uel Ranch The property owner for the San Miguel Ranch, Emerald Properties, is processing a proposal to amend the City's General Plan and the previously approved GDP for the project site. This General Plan Amendment (GPA) proposes the preservation of the North Parcel of San Miguel Ranch as open space in conjunction with multiple species conservation planning efforts, resulting in a net loss of 330 one-half acre or larger lots from the original GDP approval. Estate Housing Issue Paper 2 OJ) = or;; ~ = OJ o .. =~ OJ OJ) -;s .= ~~~ ""~iS: ::::: ~ eu _0.... -" Q. '" "G.< Q'_ E-<~~ o(!"S OJ)..c: =u ~ = '" .. .. ~ ~ ...... ~:.a u 0 <.t:::;s -i:l, t;d ...~ o ~ * "'...... t}~ <.t: 0 N::;S $i:l, t;d ...~ o ~ * * * >> = ~ ro * i:l, ;:;.* ~ ~ fj015* ~>>~ gdu~ ~~o<:! ~?"".g ..c:::~~:::= IJ.)C~~ >! _ ::::=o.'~ ;; ~ ~ ~ ~.!:!' g. ";; "" ~U..c:jo::;S",o!S ~ ~ g tn ~ ~ ~ ~ 'S o~~J1a~~~S ~ '" 00 "" , ~ t-t-ooo ~- ~ N o t- , ~ "'- 0000 "':,- - t-"'o _t- '" ~ u <.t: - '" "" "" t-ooo - .... '" ... o - * '" .... u <.t: * * '" 00 o N * * (:'0 '" ~ -t- OO_ - .... '" ... o en - o ....:i ~o\Or---oo ~;..: 0 DO M N ... ~ ....-.4 ....-.4 00 ....... NN''''';-.i'''': - = r;) I 0001 . ~ o '" '" , ~ ~ 3:31 0001 * * * * * * _ '" t- _ '" - "'\0 NN v:.", - :31 ~I ~ '" 00 "" , ~ "" t- Q\ ~ '" '" C> - , ~ 00 IT) "" N Q\ IT) ~ .... o Q\ ~ "" .... <'1 00 '" <'1 '" -; '0 .... ..c: = 00 ~I ~ ~I ~ ~ .... = OJ e Q. o ~ OJ ... OJ ~ OJ) = .. .... '" .. ~ ~ en _ '" """ ca .~ ..8 o ;> c=: en 11) 8 Q.) ~ t-.. ~"tj I-; u ~.- 0 . ~ro;a::r:~ ~ ~__O,) - - of:! ~ = .. o s a ~"'tj11) 0=- '" '" 0 ~ . ~_ s-S! ~~-<;;> -.9,....., 0 .g.....""""'c::..... gJd~"" ~ ooooCl. '" N";;;::j =........ "'d "-' (1) .- c:: = ; "" [:; s 5 ~ ~ l5. 0..... v 0. 0 rg .8 = ro OJ .9 VJVJoO\;>..... -+->..... ~ (1) ro O .. "" 0 ,.., -= ......C::Q..)[-.I--I Q.)=r.I:I......._~ I-;bE~~ro ~ d ~ U .......~~OtUd) o cd '';:::::c.:> CI) ='-'1oo..a......~ cd ~ 0 Q) '"0 VJ~o~CI)C':I .ga.....Q::;o~ .a~.a~g.~ .9~::J&::A:~ ~ '" 00 "" , ~ .... .., .., .... ~ N '" C> - , ~ .... -e .., ..; .,.; .... en ",.. 00:>< .... '" ro - -e <'1 Q\ .... i:l, ",Q oDd a 0 ~z "" Q\ .., IT) -e Q\ ~ .... IT) en - eu .... o E-< = '" is: JI*' ~ ~ - '" .. OJ = OJ '" en 1:1 en g o N ~ ~ o - - u '" E' = en ~ ro en - '" e ro . o.~ "" ~ B ',0 ro ro = EJ .::!J~ en_ ~<.t: '"" ~ = j~ ~ . * * However, it should be noted that while the existing GDP for San Miguel Ranch allows for consideration of up to 357 estate homes on the North Parcel, as a result of significant biological impacts this number may have been difficult to attain. Nevertheless, a total of 241 one-half acre (or larger) lots are now being proposed on the South Parcel. These proposed amendments would amount to a reduction from 571 potential estate-size lots to approximately 241 future estate-size lots, a reduction of 330 estate-size lots. CONCLUSIONS The net effect to the overall number and percentage of estate lots anticipated in the master planned communities in the Eastern Territories Area would be an increase in the City-wide ratio of estate homes from an existing 7 % to 11 % of the single family homes. There are two current requests for the modification of approved master planned communities that, if approved, will result in the reduction of estate housing opportunities, the Otay Ranch and San Miguel Ranch. Each of these requests are the result of preserve planning efforts with the Multiple Species Conservation Program. If proposed reductions in potential estate lots in these two projects are approved, there will be a reduction from a potential of 3,490 estate-size lots down to 2,458 estate size lots. This would amount to a reduction of the anticipated percentage of estate lots in the Chula Vista planning area down to 9%. Even with these potential reductions, there are currently significant opportunities to provide estate housing throughout the General Plan area. However, if there are additional requests to reduce estate housing lots where low density designations exist, the City should evaluate the effect that each reduction would have on the overall stock of estate housing and what affect this would have on the balance of housing types in the City. Determining the appropriate amount of estate housing is a significant policy issue. Staff will keep decision-makers appraised of this issue when and if additional requests to modify the amount of estate housing are presented in the future. (m: \home\planning\pau!\cstatd .hsg) Estate Housing Issue Paper 4 ATTACHMENT 7 PROJECT INTERFACE/COMPATIBILITY ISSUE DISCUSSION Community areas located adjacent to the proposed San Miguel Ranch development project and that may be impacted by this project consist of Sunnyside, Salt Creek I, and Salt Creek Ranch. The focus of this issue paper is to examine how the San Miguel Ranch (SMR) property may be developed in a manner which is as compatible as possible with these adjacent existing and proposed community areas. Sunnvside The community area that will be most significantly impacted by the San Miguel Ranch development is Sunnyside, an unincorporated area of the County. The Sunnyside community area most impacted by the proposed SMR development is bounded by San Miguel Road to the north, the S.D.G.&E. Substation to the east, the eastern edge of the Bonita Highlands residential subdivision to the west, and the SMR project boundaries to the east and south. Land Use This portion of Sunnyside is divided into lots ranging in size from I acre to more than 3 acres, except for one large abutting hillside parcel which contains about 20 acres. Most of the subdivided lots are improved with single family dwellings, although a kennel, an Immigration Service parking lot and an equestrian training and boarding facility are also located within this enclave. Equestrian activity, including the boarding of horses, is prevalent throughout Sunnyside. General Plan and Zoning The County General Plan (Sweetwater Community Plan) designates the property Residential 1 which limits lot sizes to a minimum of 1, 2 or 4 acres, depending upon slope gradient. The County zoning is RRI, which permits minimum lot sizes of I acre. The Chula Vista General Plan designates both Sunnyside and SMR Low Residential (0-3 dwelling units per acre). SMR was prezoned PC (Planned Community) in 1993. The draft Proctor Valley Alignment Alternative (PV A) of the GDP, does not propose a change to the General Plan designation on property abutting Sunnyside. However, the draft Horseshoe Bend Alignment Alternative (HBA) of the GDP proposes to amend the General Plan land use designation on that portion of the property abutting the east end of Sunnyside from Low Residential (0-3 du/ac) to Low Medium Residential (3-6 du/ac). The portion of the SMR property abutting the south end of Sunnyside would remain in the Low Residential category. Proposed SMR Lot Sizes The applicant has requested only a General Plan Amendment and a General Development Plan amendment at this time; therefore, lot sizes would be required to be consistent with the character defined in Chapter 1 (Land Use Element) of the City's General Plan. Since an amendment to the General Plan is not proposed for this area under the PV A, the Low Residential category, which permits 0-3 dwelling units per acre, will continue to apply for this alternative. Mid-range density for this category is 2 du/acre. The Zoning Ordinance typically implements this designation through the application of the R-E (Residential Estate) Zone standards which require a minimum average lot size of 20,000 square feet. With the proposed HBA, the above discussion is also pertinent for the area of the plan which abuts the south side of Sunnyside but not at its common boundary with the project's northwest side. This area is proposed for Low-Medium Residential which permits 3-6 dwelling units per acre. The question of appropriate lot sizes in specific project areas will be studied when applications for the next phase, the SPA Plan, are filed. Access This part of Sunnyside is served by a system of private streets and easements (20 to 40 feet in width) with access from Proctor Valley Road (a public street), and Jonel Way (a private street). No access to this area from the SMR project is planned. Phvsical Separation In the immediate vicinity of SMR, the adjacent Sunnyside area slopes upward toward the project area from northwest to southeast approximately 140 feet in elevation. The preliminary grading plan, provided by the applicant, indicates the development area abutting the southerly Sunnyside parcels would average approximately 40 feet higher in elevation than these adjacent parcels. Houses would be separated horizontally from existing nearby dwellings by 140-200 feet. However, at least two existing houses in Sunnyside would be located about 40 feet from the base of a proposed manufactured slope. On the east end, only a 20-acre hillside parcel and one single family dwelling are directly impacted by the proposed development. Development on the 20-acre parcel is concentrated on its west side while the area adjacent to the dwelling is proposed for a detention basin. Conclusions According to the limited project-level information available at this stage in the development review process, it appears that some incompatibility between the proposed project and the adjacent Sunnyside community area may occur. The differences between the two adjacent development types, suburban vs semi-rural, primarily concern lot sizes and community character. The degree to which this incompatibility may occur is arguably a subjective assessment. Nonetheless, the proposed project densities would provide a transition from the 1 to 3 acre lots existing in the Sunnyside area to more suburban mid-size lots (ranging generally from 5,000 to 8,000 sq. ft.) by providing a relatively narrow band of '/2 acre lots. This band of V2 acre lots will transition between the two areas using a combination of larger and deeper lots and elevation differential to provide a land use buffer. However, whether this transition of elevated estate-size lots will provide a sufficient transition from the semi-rural setting that exists in the area now to the suburban residential character that is proposed is a matter of degree. While the transition to higher densities may be softened by the proposed buffer and large lots there will still be a significant change from the large lot character envisioned for the Sweetwater Valley, as described for the Residential Low land use category in Chapter One of the General Plan. If the General Plan Amendment and GDP are approved with the proposed densities, subsequent project design during the SPA plan/tentative map phase should consider the provision of wider lots and contoured slopes with enhanced landscaping adjacent to Sunnyside to further improve the project's interface with this community. Salt Creek I This project contains 550 dwelling units, all of which have been constructed, composed of 169 detached single family dwellings, 237 townhomes and 144 condominiums. This development abuts SMR on two sides. The north side of Salt Creek I contains single family detached dwellings on lot averaging 6,000 square feet; the proposed SMR plan indicates single family dwellings on lots ranging in average size from about 4,700 square feet to 7,900 square feet in this area. An improved portion of Proctor Valley Road separates the two projects at this point. The houses along Proctor Valley Road, but within Salt Creek I, back up to this road as will any dwellings in SMR. The south side of Salt Creek I is separated from SMR by Mt. Miguel Road and contains single family dwellings and townhomes. The proposed SMR plan indicates a public facilities site across Mt. Miguel Road from the single family dwellings and retail commercial across from the townhomes. Salt Creek I ranges from 5 feet to 35 feet in elevation below SMR along the north property line and is at grade along the east boundary. The precise horizontal separation between structures in each project cannot be determined at the GDP level but careful planning at the SPA, tentative map and design review levels will be required to insure compatibility. Salt Creek Ranch A portion of the Salt Creek Ranch development project (approved for about 2,600 dwelling units) abuts only a small portion of SMR at its southeast corner where commercial and high density residential uses are proposed. The applicant proposes that this high density area constitute a portion of the affordable housing required for SMR. Adjacent to the south side of SMR's proposed commercial and high density residential sites, and within Salt Creek Ranch, are proposed: a fire station, a neighborhood park and an elementary school. The remaining Salt Creek Ranch area abutting the high density area contains nine single family lots, each averaging about 5,500 square feet. The vertical separation between these two disparate residential areas ranges between 15 feet and 45 feet, the high density site of SMR being the higher of the two adjacent locations. Similar to the interface with Sunnyside and Salt Creek I, the land uses approved for Salt Creek Ranch and proposed for SMR will require careful site planning at the subsequent SPA, tentative map and design review stages. (M: \HOME\PLANNING\PAUL\ISSPAPE2.I-C) Proctor Valley Out-Parcels Issue Discussion ATTACHMENT 8 1. Background There are approximately 38 acres of undeveloped land adjacent on three sides to the south- central portion of San Miguel Ranch. The fourth (south) side abuts the Buie property, approximately 231 acres located along the southwest side of Proctor Valley Road. The study area is divided into approximately 52 lots ranging in size from about 10,000 square feet to 3.25 acres. The majority of the lots is just under an acre in size. The aforementioned area is known, for reference purposes, as the Proctor Valley out-parcel area. The adjacency of the out-parcel area to the San Miguel Ranch and Buie properties, as well as the potential SR-I25 tollway alignment impacts to the subject area, raise a number of planning issues that necessitate analysis of land use data, development impacts and evaluation of options for the long-range planning of the area. 2. General Plan, Zoning and Land Use The County General Plan designation for the subject parcels is (17) Estate which allows residential development on 2 or 4 acre (minimum) lots depending upon slope gradient. The City of Chula Vista General Plan designation for the same area is Open Space. Typical uses for the Open Space category are open space, limited recreational uses, rural residential (10 acre minimum lot sizes) and agricultural uses such as farms, orchards, pastures and livestock raising. The out-parcel area is currently undeveloped, under County jurisdiction and zoned A70(2) Limited Agriculture. The A70 Zone and applicable regulations are intended to create and preserve areas for agricultural crop production, thus the primary permitted uses in the out-parcel area are of an agricultural nature even though the lot sizes and topography make agriculture inappropriate. Residential uses within said zone are permitted on lots of two acres or more. 3. Access Access to and through the general out -parcel area is currently provided via Proctor Valley Road, a partially improved County thoroughfare which bisects the study area. Access to the majority of the individual parcels within the area could potentially be attained by 20-foot-wide mapped but nonexisting road easements. These easements run perpendicular to Proctor Valley Road in a straight grid pattern with no regard for the topography over which they pass. If the out-parcel area remains under County jurisdiction, these easements would not necessarily be required to be paved unless so required by the serving fire district; however, said easements would need to be improved to comply with minimum City fire protection accessibility requirements should the subject area be annexed to the City and development permitted. The San Miguel Ranch General Development Plan provides continued access to the out-parcel area via a paved connection to an unimproved portion of Proctor Valley Road which traverses this area. 4. Available Services The Otay Water District anticipates completing installation of a new water main along Proctor Valley Road which could serve the out-parcels by the end of 1996. Regarding available sewer service, a Chula Vista sewer line which generally follows the alignment of Proctor Valley Road is already in place. Access to the sewer line at this time is predicated upon annexation of the out-parcels to the City of Chula Vista. Electrical power to serve residential development in the vicinity is available via a SDG&E substation just west of the out-parcels. Fire protection is provided by the Bonita-Sunnyside Fire Protection District station located on Bonita Road approximately four miles to the northwest. If the property were annexed to the City, the serving fire station would ultimately be the Salt Creek Ranch station to be located about a half mile to the southeast. Police protection is presently provided by the San Diego County Sheriff from patrols emanating from the Lemon Grove substation but would be provided by Chula Vista Police patrols if the property were annexed to the City. 5. Development Potential/Constraints An environmental assessment for the parcels has not been conducted, however, it appears the rugged topography and potential sensitive biological habitat could inhibit development within the subject area. In addition, depending on the selected alignment of SR-125, the tollway may significantly impact development of the site. The SR-I25 Proctor Valley alignment would be the less detrimental of the two alternative alignments under consideration by Caltrans, resulting in a loss of all or portions of approximately 10 lots on about 4 acres (:1:: 10 % of the out-parcel area). The Horseshoe Bend alignment could claim all or portions of up to 25 lots on approximately 20 acres (:1::55% of the out-parcel area). As discussed above, the access to most of the parcels renders the properties extremely difficult to develop in their present state. The multiplicity of ownership of these 38 acres would inhibit the comprehensive planning of the area required to provide appropriate access to the parcels and justify any development of the area. At the present time, only one 3.25 acre parcel conforms to the County minimum lot area standard of two acres; all the others are considered legal non-conforming lots if it can be verified that these lots were created legally. While the Chula Vista General Plan's Open Space designation for this area only permits lots of 10 acres or more, as with the County, these existing legal lots of record could potentially be developable in the City, if appropriate access and services were available. To accomplish this, it is likely that a specific plan for the area would need to be prepared to address and correct the problems identified above. 6. Annexation Options The out-parcels are somewhat isolated by topography from the San Miguel Ranch project area. Potential inclusion of the out-parcels in the San Miguel Ranch project area, or consideration of annexing and prezoning the subject site as a separate planned development area for the purpose of avoiding the creation of an unincorporated "island", does not appear to be an urgent planning issue at this point given the fact no development of the adjacent Buie property is presently proposed. The issue of creating an unincorporated "island" would only arise if and when the Buie property were proposed to be annexed to the City. Moreover, it appears that it would be logical, due to the out-parcels' adjacency and geographic/topographic and potential sensitive biological resource relationship with the Buie project, to further analyze, address and consider any potential annexation action for the out -parcel area at the time development of the Buie property were proposed. 7. Property Owners' Forum On August 13, 1996, staff conducted a forum to give all the out-parcel area property owners the opportunity to be informed about the development proposed for the San Miguel Ranch and the manner in which this development might impact them. Of the 40 property owners invited, four owners, representing 14 properties, attended the forum. Another owner contacted staff by telephone. Staff presented both San Miguel Ranch alternative development proposals and discussed the potential impacts of these proposals and the alternative alignments of SR-I25 on the out-parcels. Also discussed were annexation to the City, development possibilities and the provision of City services. Those present were advised to attend the Caltrans forum regarding SR-I25 held on August 15, 1996. 8. Conclusion Currently, the out-parcels neither impact nor would be specifically impacted by the San Miguel Ranch project. Given the facts that the SR-I25 alignment has not yet been chosen and that development plans pertaining to the Buie property are not currently available and may not be available for some time, it appears that considering annexation of the out-parcel area to the City at this point would be premature. However, consideration of service and infrastructure needs for the out-parcel area, should the area be considered for annexation at a future date, could be accomplished in the near future in conjunction with the Public Facilities Financing Plan for the Sectional Planning Area plan for the San Miguel Ranch project. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT Item 3 Meeting Date 11/20/96 ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: GPA-96-02, PCZ 96-C; Consideration of a General Plan Amendment and PC Planned Community Pre-zone for approximately 10 acres located adjacent to the north side of the south parcel of the San Miguel Ranch property--Algert/Scott (Mother Miguel Estates) RECOMMENDATION: 1. Certify that the final SEIR for the San Miguel Ranch, which also analyzes potential impacts from the development of the subject property, has been prepared in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the environmental review procedures of the City of Chula Vista; 2. Based on the findings in Section C and D of the Draft City Council Resolution recommend that the City Council approve the General Plan Amendment from Low Residential to Low-Medium Residential. 3. Recommend to the City Council the adoption of an Ordinance establishing the PC Planned Community Prezone with an underlying R-I-7 Prezone for the property. 4. Make CEQA findings of Fact and adopt Statement of Overriding Considerations. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: At its September 9, 1996 meeting, the Resource Conservation Commission, by a 5-0 vote, recommended that the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for the San Miguel Ranch project, which includes the subject property, be found adequate under the California Environmental Quality Act. DISCUSSION: Site Characteristics The project site consists of two 5-acre parcels on moderate to steeply sloping terrain located between the north boundary of the south parcel of the San Miguel Ranch property and the San Diego Gas and Electric Company property. Page 2, Item 3 Meeting Date 11/20/96 Zoning and Land Use The parcels are vacant, County zoned S87 (Limited Control) and designated Estate (1 du/2 or 4 acres depending upon slope) on the Sweetwater Community Plan. The Chula Vista General Plan designates the parcels Low Residential (0-3 du/ac). Proposal The applicants request a General Plan Amendment from existing Low Residential (0-3 du/ac) to Low-Medium Residential (3-6 du/ac) in conformance with the requested designation for the adjacent portion of the San Miguel Ranch property. The applicants also request prezoning to PC Planned Community to conform to the existing prezoning on the San Miguel Ranch. Analvsis For their properties, the applicants have requested whichever General Plan category and zone is proposed for the adjacent portion of the San Miguel Ranch, in this case, Low-Medium Residential and the PC Zone respectively. Since the development of these 10 acres is dependent upon the development of San Miguel Ranch for access, the applicants believe it appropriate to request the same land use designation and zone assigned to the Ranch. Under normal circumstances, the PC Zone would require that a SPA plan be submitted before the property could be subdivided. Since the property contains only 10 acres, this requirement would be impractical. However, staff believes that, for uniformity and compatibility, the future San Miguel Ranch SPA, with its PC Regulations and design guidelines, would be the more appropriate document by which the development of subject property should be regulated. Section 19.48.160 of the Zoning Ordinance permits such an exception in the circumstance previously described. In lieu of a SPA plan, the applicant may file for a precise plan for the development of the property in accordance with Title 19 of the Municipal Code and subject to the approval of the City Council. It is anticipated that any Sectional Planning Area plan proposed for the San Miguel Ranch will be written to apply to the subject property as well. Therefore, no application for the development of the property may be filed until a SPA plan is approved on the San Miguel Ranch property in accordance with the San Miguel Ranch General Development Plan. One additional Zoning Ordinance requirement is the assignment of an underlying zone classification to the property where the adoption of a General Development Plan has not occurred. In accordance with the Low-Medium General Plan designation proposed for the property, the R-I-? Zone should be applied as the property's underlying zone. Conclusion Based on the above discussion, Staff believes that the proposed General Plan Land Use designation and the existing PC prezoning on the adjacent portion of the San Miguel Ranch property would be most appropriate for the subject 10 acres. Since Staff is recommending the Low-Medium General Plan designation on the adjacent portion of the San Miguel Ranch and the Page 3, Item 3 Meeting Date 11/20/96 Ranch has been previously been prezoned PC, the subject parcels should also bear the same categories. Attachments 1. Draft Planning Commission Resolution 2. Draft City Council Ordinance 3. Draft City Council Resolution (m: \home\planning\paul\a1g-sct. rep) ATTACHMENT 1 DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA THAT IT APPROVE A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND A PREZONE FOR MOTHER MIGUEL ESTATES WHEREAS, James Algert and William Scott, hereafter referred to as "applicants", have submitted an application for a General Plan Amendment (Case # GPA-96-02) from Low Residential to Low-Medium Residential on approximately 10 acres located adjacent to the north side of the South Parcel of the San Miguel Ranch and the south side of the San Diego Gas and Electric Company transmission facility southwest of Mother Miguel Mountain; and WHEREAS, the applicant has also submitted an application for prezoning of the property to PC Planned Community (Case # PCZ-96-C) in accordance with the prezoning previously established for the adjacent Miguel Ranch property; and WHEREAS, because of the property's small size, its development will be regulated by the PC Planned Community regulations to be established for the San Miguel Ranch project, and WHEREAS, a Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (Case # SEIR-95-04), dated August, 1996, was prepared for the San Miguel Ranch which also included the proposed project; and WHEREAS, the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report indicated that the following issues were significant and not mitigable for the proposed San Miguel Ranch project which included the proposed project: Land Use Landform/Visual Quality Parks, Recreation and Open Space Air Quality; and WHEREAS, the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report was transmitted to the City of Chula Vista, as lead agency, to all concerned parties for review and comment; and WHEREAS, notice of the availability of the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report was given as required by law; and WHEREAS, written comments from the public on the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report were accepted from August 11, 1996 to October 9, 1996; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the property in the field on August 21, 1996; and WHEREAS, City Planning Commission held a public hearing and accepted public testimony on the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report on October 9, 1996; and WHEREAS, agency and public comments have been addressed in the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed General Plan Amendment and Prezone on November 20, 1996; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION certifies Subsequent Environmental Impact Report SEIR-95-Q4 which includes the subject property. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Draft City Council Resolution approving the General Plan Amendment to Low-Medium Residential and the Prezone to PC Planned Community in accordance with the findings contained therein. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the City Council. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 20th day of November, 1996 by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: Frank A. Tarantino, Chairman Nancy Ripley, Secretary (m:\homc\planning\paul\gpa%-Ol \pcm96-05 .pc) ATTACHMENT 2 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA TO APPROVE THE PREZONING OF APPROXIMATELY 10.1 ACRES TO THE PC ZONE (PCZ-96-C) WHEREAS, an application for prezoning of two parcels containing approximately 10.1 acres of presently unincorporated land were filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning Department on June 12, 1996 by James Algert and William Scott ("Applicant"), and; WHEREAS, LAFCO policy requires that prior to a city annexing property, said property must be prezoned. Thus, the proposed prezoning has been requested in order to bring said parcels, which are to be annexed to the City, into conformance with LAFCO policy ("Project"), and; WHEREAS, those parcels to be prezoned PC are identified by their Assessor Parcel Numbers as: 585-130-16 and 585-130-18, as shown on Exhibit I, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for hearings on said Project and notice of said hearings, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City and its mailing to property owners and tenants within 1,000 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least 10 days prior to the hearing, and; WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised on November 20, 1996, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission, and; WHEREAS, a Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (Case # SEIR-95-04), dated August 1996, was prepared for the San Miguel Ranch, which also included the Mother Miguel Estates project, and; WHEREAS, the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report indicated that the following issues were significant and not mitigable for the proposed project: Land Use Landform/Visual Quality Parks, Recreation and Open Space Air Quality; and WHEREAS, the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report was transmitted to the City of Chula Vista, as lead agency, to all concerned parties for review and comment, and; WHEREAS, notice of the availability of the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report was given as required by law, and; Ordinance No. Page 2 WHEREAS, written comments from the public on the Draft Subsequent Enviromnental Impact Report were accepted from August 11, 1996 to October 9, 1996, and; WHEREAS, City Planning Commission held a duly called and noticed public hearing and accepted public testimony on the Draft Subsequent Enviromnental Impact Report on October 9, 1996, and; WHEREAS, agency and public comments have been addressed in the Final Subsequent Enviromnental Impact Report, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called and noticed public hearing on the Subsequent Enviromnental Impact Report, the General Plan Amendment and the Prezoning on November 20, 1996, and made certain recommendations regarding the project, and; WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly called and noticed public hearing on December 17, 1996, regarding the Subsequent Enviromnental Impact Report, the General Plan Amendment and the Prezone; WHEREAS, to the extent that these findings conclude that proposed mitigation measures outlined in the Final EIR and Addendum are feasible and have not been modified, superseded or withdrawn, the City of Chula Vista hereby binds itself and the Applicant and its successors in interest, to implement those measures. These findings are not merely informational or advisory, but constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into effect when the City adopts the ordinance approving the Project. The adopted mitigation measures are express conditions of approval. Other requirements are referenced in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted concurrently with these Findings and will be effectuated through the process of implementing the Project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Chula Vista does hereby find, determine, resolve and order as follows: I. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their public hearing on the Draft SEIR held on October 9, 1996, their public hearing held on this Project on November 20, 1996, and minutes and resolutions resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding. These documents, along with any documents submitted to the decision makers, shall comprise the entire record of the proceedings for any California Enviromnental Quality Act (CEQA) claims. Ordinance No. Page 3 II. ACTION The City Council hereby approves the prezoning of 10.1 acres to the PC Zone, identified by their Assessor Parcel Numbers as: 585-130-16 and 585-130-18 finding that the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice supports the prezoning of said parcels. III. PREZONING That the property with Assessor Parcel Numbers 585-130-16 and 585-130-18, consisting of approximately 10.1 acres, generally located between the north boundary of the south parcel of the San Miguel Ranch property and the San Diego Gas and Electric Company property, as diagrammatically presented on the area map attached hereto as Exhibit I, be prezoned Planned Community with an underlying prezone of R-I-7. IV. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA That the City Council does hereby find that FSEIR-96-02, the Findings of Fact, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and the Statement of Overriding Considerations are prepared in accordance with the requirements of the CEQA, the State EIR Guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista. V. The zoning of those parcels to PC shall become effective at the same time that the annexation of said parcels to the City of Chula Vista becomes effective. VI. ATTACHMENTS All attachments and exhibits are incorporated herein by reference as set forth in full. Ordinance No. Page 4 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California this December 17, 1996, by the following vote: YES: NOES: ABSENT: Shirley Horton, Mayor ATTEST: Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO) ss. CITY OF CHULA VISTA) I, Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a City Council meeting held on the 17th day of December, 1996. Executed this 17th day of December, 1996. Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk Attachment: Exhibit I (m: \home\planning\paul\A-S. ord) l i :Y m:\home\planning\carlos\zoning\pcz96c CASE NUMBER: ACREAGE: SCALE: DATE: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: PCZ-96-C 2.53 No Scale November 13, 1996 c. J. Jernarukz ~I ~669.05' I 21 22 \27 '333.09''''' 28 \ ~ ~ q CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS ZONING MAP WAS APPROVED AS A PART OF ORDINANCE BY THE CITY COUNCil ON CITY WRK DATE C9 ZONING MAP ~{~ - - .: -- C!1YOf OllIlA VISfA NORTH ATTACHMENT 3 DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CERTIFYING THE FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FSEIR 94-04) FOR THE SAN MIGUEL RANCH PROJECT WHICH INCLUDES THE MOTHER MIGUEL ESTATES PROPERTY; AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA FOR THE MOTHER MIGUEL ESTATES PROPERTY (GPA-96-02); MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS OF FACT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT; ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM; AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS WHEREAS, James Algert and William Scott, hereafter referred to as "applicants", have submitted an application for a General Plan Amendment for approximately 10 acres of land, referred to as Mother Miguel Estates (Case # GPA-96-02), generally located adjacent to the north side of the south parcel of San Miguel Ranch and the south side of the San Diego Gas and Electric Company transmission facility, southwest of Mother Miguel Mountain; and WHEREAS, the applicant has also submitted an application for prezoning of the property to the PC Planned Community Zone (Case # PCM-96-0S) in accordance with the prezoning previously established for the adjacent San Miguel Ranch property; and WHEREAS, a Draft Subsequent Enviromnental Impact Report (Case # SEIR-95-04), dated August, 1996, was prepared for the San Miguel Ranch, which also included the Mother Miguel Estates project; and WHEREAS, the Draft Subsequent Enviromnental Impact Report indicated that the following issues were significant and not mitigable for the proposed project: Land Use Landform/Visual Quality Parks, Recreation and Open Space Air Quality; and WHEREAS, the Draft Subsequent Enviromnental Impact Report was transmitted to the City of Chula Vista, as lead agency, to all concerned parties for review and comment; and WHEREAS, notice of the availability of the Draft Subsequent Enviromnental Impact Report was given as required by law; and WHEREAS, written comments from the public on the Draft Subsequent Enviromnental Impact Report were accepted from August 11, 1996 to October 9, 1996; and WHEREAS, City Planning Commission held a duly called and noticed public hearing and accepted public testimony on the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report on October 9, 1996; and WHEREAS, agency and public comments have been addressed 10 the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called and noticed public hearing on the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, the General Plan Amendment and the Prezoning on November 20, 1996, and made certain recommendations regarding the project; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly called and noticed public hearing on December 17, 1996, regarding the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, the General Plan Amendment and the Prezone; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: A. FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1. The Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, San Miguel Ranch General Plan Amendment/General Development Plan Amendment (SEIR-95-04), dated August, 1996, which also includes the Mother Miguel Estates project, consists of: Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR-95-04, SCH #96051038) dated August, 1996, which contains 1) the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, and 2) Comments and Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR. 2. The Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report has been reviewed and considered by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista. 3. The Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (and addendum thereto) reflects the independent judgement of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista. 4. The Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (and Addendum thereto) is hereby certified by the City Council to have been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and all applicable guidelines. B. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FINDINGS Land Use The amendment to the General Plan provides the land use category which is the same as that proposed for the adjacent San Miguel Ranch. Circulation The property would take access from a local street emanating from the Mt. Miguel Road, a proposed four-land collector street with access to future SR-I25. Public Facilities The General Development Plan for the San Miguel Ranch project and implementing future Sectional Planning Area plan will provide the framework for the provision of master plans for water, wastewater, drainage/flood control, sewer and other systems as appropriate. The amendment to the General Plan and companion prezoning for Mother Miguel Estates will benefit from the implementation of these plans. Housing Because of its relatively small size, the provision of low- and moderate- income housing is not a requirement for the project. Growth Management The Goals and Objectives of the San Miguel Ranch General Development Plan relative to the provision of public facilities and the phasing of development subject to their availability implement the Growth Management Element of the General Plan. Before any construction may occur on the Mother Miguel Estates property as a result of this General Plan Amendment, a Public Facilities Financing Plan for the San Miguel Ranch must first be prepared to insure that all public facilities are available to serve the Mother Miguel Estates project concurrent with need as required by the General Plan. Parks and Recreation The owners of the Mother Miguel Estates property will be will be required to pay Park Acquisition and Development fees to assist in the financing of park and recreation facilities in the area before development may occur. Safety Element No geologic hazards have been identified for the subject property although all development resulting from this General Plan Amendment and Prezone must conform with recommendations of a qualified engineering geologist. Brush management and fuel modification requirements will be required as a condition of approval of any tentative subdivision map resulting from this General Plan Amendment and Prezone for fire safety. Noise Element The Noise Element of the General Plan requires that the City enforce regulations related to noise from traffic and conflicting land uses. No noise sources have been identified relative to this project. C. CEQA Findings, Mitigation Monitoring Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations 1. Adoption of Findings. The City Council does hereby approve, accept as its own, incorporate as if set forth in full herein, and make each and every one of the findings contained in the "Candidate Findings of Fact" (Document Number ). 2. Certain Mitigation Measures Feasible and Adopted. As more fully identified and set forth in SEIR-95-Q4 and in the Candidate Findings of Fact, the Council hereby finds pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 that the mitigation measures described as feasible in the above referenced documents, are feasible, and will become binding upon the entity (such as the project proponent, the City, or the School district) assigned thereby to implement same. 3. Infeasibility of Alternatives As is also noted in the above referenced enviromnental documents described in the above subparagraph 2, each of the alternatives to the project which were identified as potentially feasible in SEIR-95-04 are found not to be feasible since they could not meet both the objectives of the Project and avoid the identified significant enviromnental effects through implementation of feasible mitigation measures for the reasons set forth in said Candidate Findings of Fact. 4. Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program As required by the Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("Program") incorporated in the SEIR Section 6.0. The Council hereby finds that the Program is designed to ensure that during project implementation the permittee/project applicant and any other responsible parties implement the project components and comply with the feasible mitigation measures identified in the Candidate Findings if Fact and the Program. 5. Statement of Overriding Considerations Even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures and any feasible alternatives, certain significant or potentially significant enviromnental effects caused by the project, or cumulatively, will remain. Therefore, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista hereby issues, pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15093, a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Document No. ), identifying the specific economic, social, and other considerations that render the unavoidable significant adverse effects acceptable. D. Notice of Determination The Environmental Review Coordinator of the City of Chula Vista is directed, after City Council approval of this project, to insure that a Notice of Determination is filed with the County Clerk of the County of San Diego. E. Invalidity: Automatic Revocation It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Resolution is dependent upon the enforceability of each and every term, provision and condition herein stated; and that in the event that anyone or more terms, provisions or conditions are determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, this resolution shall be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no further force and effect ab initio. F. One General Plan Amendment It is the intention of the City Council that its action on the Mother Miguel Estates project by this Resolution and its action on the companion item, San Miguel Ranch, be and is one General Plan Amendment for the purposes of the State Law limitation on the number of allowable General Plan Amendments in one year. Presented by Approved as to form by Robert A. Leiter Director of Planning Ann Y. Moore City Attorney (Acting)