HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 1985-12232 RESOLUTION NO. 12232
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ADOPTING FINDINGS RELATIVE TO
SECTION 21081 OF CEQA AND SECTIONS 15091,
15092, AND 15093 OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES AS
THEY RELATE TO THE EL RANCHO DEL REY
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby
resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, the City Council has certified that EIR-83-2(B)
was prepared in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines,
and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula
Vista, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered
the information in the Final Supplemental EIR prior to its
approval of the project, and
WHEREAS, the EIR for the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan
Amendment concluded that the project would not have any
significant adverse impacts in the areas of land use, fiscal
analysis, water service, sewer service, solid waste disposal,
fire protection, police protection, energy consumption and
conservation and socioeconomics, and
WHEREAS, changes or other measures have been included in
the project or are otherwise being implemented which mitigate
significant environmental impacts in all other areas except for
biological resources and air quality, and
WHEREAS, in the areas of biological resources and air
quality, the EIR identifies significant impacts which are
infeasible to mitigate, and
WHEREAS, the unavoidable significant effects have been
reduced to an acceptable level when balanced against facts set
forth in the staff presentation and the Statement of Overriding
Considerations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Chula Vista hereby adopts the attached CEQA Findings
and hereby incorporates them as if fully set forth herein.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby
adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations as proposed by
the staff as the reasons for its approval of the project.
Presented by Approved as to form by
G~rge/~re~, D~ector of Charles-R. Gill, Assistant
Planning City Attorney
0890a
ADOPTED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF' THE CITY OF
;HULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this_ 5th
dOy Of-- November
9 85 , by the following vote, to-wit:
~YES: Councilmen Scott, McCandliss, Cox, Malcolm, Moore
;AYES: Councilmen None
~BSTAIN: Councilmen___ None
~BSENT: Councilmen._~__ None. ~
.TTE~
TATE OF CAL/FORNJA )
OUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) ss.
ITY OF CHULA VISTA )
l, JENNIE M. FULASZ, CMC, CITY CLERK of the City of Chulo Vista, California,
HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of
RESOLUTION NO. 12232
,and that the some has not been amended or repealed.
~,TED_
(seal) City Clerk
;-660
.... EL RANCHO DEL REY
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
EIR-83-2
CANDIDATE CEQA FINDINGS
ii! IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 21081 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
AND SECTION 15091 OF TITLE 14
OF THE CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATION CODE
i~! ~i REVISED AUGUST 1985
?
REVISED OCTOBER 1985
I. BACKGROUND 'l~'~i~,,,' ''h
It is the policy of the State of California and the City of Chula Vista that
the City shall not approve a project if it would result in a significant
environmental impact if it is feasible to avoid or substantially lessen that
effect. Only when there are specific economic, social or technical reasons
which make it infeasible to mitigate an impact, can a project with significant
impact be approved.
Therefore, when an EIR has been completed which identifies one or more
significant environmental impacts, one of the following findings must be made:
1. Changes or alternatives have been required of, or incorporated into
the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental
effects identified in the final EIR, or
2. Such changes or alternatives are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the
finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or
can and should be adopted by such other agency, or
3. Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible
the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the
final EIR.
The following findings are made relative to the conclusions of the final
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed E1 Rancho del Rey Specific
Plan Amendment {SCH# 8306083) based on the EIR text and supplement, and all
documents, maps and illustrations included in the public record.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The only discretionary action included in the project is the amendment of the
E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan, which is the official land use designation
for the project site in the Chula Vista General Plan. Thus, it is in effect a
General Plan Amendment. Future discretionary actions which will be necessary
prior to the actual development of the project area include approval of
Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan(s) and Tentative Maps for various sub-areas
of the Specific Plan area. These will occur with each phase of development
during the approximate 20 year buildout period of the project.
Implementation of the project, as proposed, would change the designations
applied to a portion of the approximately 2,377 acre Specific Plan area.
Portions of this total area are currently developed or are under development.
The amendment includes a revised text and set of maps for the entire area
which reflects development to date and delineates future development areas and
intensities in a consistent manner. Within the amendment area, implementation
of the project would result in a revised mixture of residential, circulation,
recreational, and open space land uses, as indicated on the proposed Land Use
Exhibit. The revisions also include the addition of Employment Park uses to
the Plan.
The following table provides a statistical summary and comparison of the
Existing Specific Plan, and the proposed Specific Plan Amendment.
III. 'INSIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
The final EIR for the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan Amendment concluded that
the project would not have any significant adverse impacts in the following
areas (numbers refer to section of the EIR where the issue is discussed):
Land Use (3.1)
Fiscal Analysis (3.3)
~.. Water Service (3.14)
Sewer Service (3.15)
~ Solid Waste Disposal (3.16)
Fire Protection (3.17)
Police Protection (3.18)
Energy Consumption and Conservation (3.19)
Socioeconomics (3.20)
IV. IMPACTS FOUND TO BE MITICdkBLE TO INSIGNIFICANT LEVELS "
1. Traffic Circulation (3.2)
The proposed project would generate significantly more traffic than
the adopted Plan. However, arterial streets must be sized to
accommodate the regional demands created by additional projects in
the eastern Chula Vista area along with those of the proposed
project. Significant adverse traffic impacts will result if
_ . adequate improvements are not implemented.
Findings
A. Changes or other measures have been included in the project or
are otherwise being implemented which mitigate this
significant environmental effect, in that:
l) The overall number of dwelling units has been reduced
from 4,598 to 4,028 dwellings and the employment park has
been reduced from 151.6 gross acres to lll.6 gross acres
(100 acres net). This reduce the overall number of
automobile trips generated by the project.
2) The Specific Plan Amendment contains a broad range of
land uses including employment and recreational
opportunities. This will serve to reduce the number of
external or regional trips.
3) The final EIR provides a list of specific improvements
which will be required at various stages of project
consideration (SPA, Tentative SUbdivision Map, etc.)
which would reduce the traffic impacts to a level of
insignificance. These measures are summarized as:
Widen Telegraph Canyon Road in phases to four lanes
between Paseo Ladera and Paseo Ranchero as required
. for future development projects.
-3-
- Designate and construct East H Street as a six land
prime arterial between 1-805 and Otay Lakes Road.
- Provide appropriate turning lanes at major
intersections along East "H" Street.
Construct Paseo Ranchero as a four lane collector
from Telegraph Canyon Road and East "N" Street.
Extend Ridgeback Road to the loop road as a four
lane collector.
- Provide roads "A". "B" and "C" as four lane
collectors.
- Construct Otay Lakes Road between East "H" Street
and Camino del Cerro Grande as a four lane collector.
Review specific projects on an individual basis to
determine required extension or widening of on and
off site facilities.
- Participate in the overall monitoring of the
adequacy of the circulation system in the eastern
Chula Vista area to assure adequacy of service
levels given cumulative impacts.
4) Prior or concurrent with the first,SPA submission the
applicant shall submit a more detailed traffic analysis
to determine the number of turning lanes and any
mitigation necessary to assure an adequate level of
service at the 1-805 and East "H" Street/Telegraph Canyon
Road interchanges. (See Specific Plan Sec. E.3.(J)
48) - Pg
B. All significant environmental effects that can feasibly be
avoided will be eliminated or substantially reduced to an
insignificant level by virtue of the project changes and
mitigation measures set forth above.
Cultural Resources (3.5)
The project site survey identified one recorded and ~ive previously
unrecorded archaeological sites. Future development of the project
could result in the loss or damage to these resources.
Findings
A. Changes and other measures have been incorporated in the
project or are otherwise being implemented which mitigate this
environmental effect, in that:
-4-
l) The mitigation program identified in the final £IR
consists of a testing program to assess the potential
significance of each site with respect to the specific
criteria established under CEQA (Public Resources Code
Section 21083.2 and CEQA Guidelines, Appendix K).
2) Development of the project site under the proposed
amendment will not result in any greater impacts than
under the currently adopted Plan. Both have the
potential for significant impacts. Completion of the
testing program and any required mitigation measures will
reduce these potential impacts to an insignificant level.
B. All significant effects that can be feasibly avoideC will be
eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation
measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the
project as set forth above.
3. Paleontological Resources (3.6)
Ultimate development under either the existing or proposed Specific
Plan would require substantial grading within the geologic
formation which is considered to contain significant
paleontological resources.
Findings
A. Changes and other measures have been incorporated in the
project or are otherwise being implement~dwhich mitigate this
environmental effect, in that:
l) The mitigation program identified in the final EIR
consists of on-site monitoring of grading and fossil
salvage. This program would be directed by a qualified
paleontologist and would mitigate potential
paleontological impacts to insignificance.
B. All significant effects that can be feasibly avoided will be
eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation
measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the
project as set forth above.
4. Geology/Soils (3.7) i~
The presence of known fault traces of the La Naci.on Fault system
and some soils which may exhibit expansive characteristics will
require further investigation in more detailed studies. A complete
geotechnical investigation will be conducted for each sectional
planning area and all of the conclusions and recommendations of the
investigation will be incorporated into the land use plan and the
engineering and architectural design of the project.
-5-
Fi ndings
A. Changes and other measures have been included in the project
or are otherwise being implemented which mitigate this
environmental effect in that:
1) A preliminary subsurface soil and engineering geology
investigation will be conducted tn conjunction with the
preparation of 'Site Development Plans "and conceptual
grading plans. Particular attention will be paid to
those-a~eas identified as geologic study zones tn the £IR.
2) A final soils and geological investigation will be _
prepared in conjunction with final grading ~tans and
structural and foundation design.
3) It is recommended that the area around the branch of the
La Nacion fault east of Paseo Ladera be designated as
park and open space to provide a higher level of seismic
safety.
B. All significant effects will be eliminated by virtue of
mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and changes
incorporated into the project as ~et forth above.
5. Nydrology/Water Quality (3.8)
The subject property is located within portions of four major
drainage basins. Only minor differences, of 5' percent or so, are
expected in storm flows that would occur under the proposed plan
compared with the flows for which offsite drainage facilities have
been designed. Of the four basins receiving runoff, only one is
unimproved to the extent that erosion and sedimentation impacts
could be expected.
As an individual project, the water quality effects of the project
are not significant. Continued urban expansion will create
cumulative impacts which could be significant.
Findings
A. Changes and other measures have been incorporated in the
project or are otherwise being implemented which mitigate this
environmental effect, in that:
l)The mitigation measures listed in the final EIR include
the following:
- Maintain the existing desilting basin at the western
end of Rice Canyon
- Implement an open channel concept on northern
property boundary for flows in Otay Lakes Road
basin. This channel may need to be lined due to the
steepness of the road grade in this area.
- Support concept plan for widening of Telegraph
Canyon Road and drainage channel to include an open
facility.
- Consider construction of retention/siltation basin
onsite above the Bonita Basin drainage to reduce
potential for downstream impact. Location of a
retention/siltation basin at this location should be
subject to biological resource review and -land use
feasibility review.
Consider open channel drainage concepts for major
interior flood control and drainage facilities. The
feasibility of such concepts is influenced by
channel slope (about 2 degrees is optimal) and the
ability to control channel flow, by either
structural means such as drop structures, turn-outs,
basins, etc.; or by diverting a portion of the flow
to a bypass structure (normally an underground
culvert). The benefit Of implementing such concepts
is that some wildlife habitat can be maintained and
the visual quality of the development can be
enhanced.
2) A drainage plan will be prepared in conjunction with
Sectional Area Plans, and drainage improvements will be
completed to assure that no significant downstream
effects would be associated with project development.
3) The long-term protection of the north by Rice Canyon will
be ensured by the development and implementation of plans
for the reversal of erosion, long-term erosion control
and a plan to keep off-road vehicles out of the canyon.
B. All significant effects that can be feasibly avoided have been
eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation
measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the
project as set forth above.
6. Landform/Aesthetics (3.9)
Development of the project site under either the adopted Specific
Plan or the proposed amendment will require substantial landform
alteration. This involves cutting of the ridge areas, and filling
lower elevations, including tributary canyons. The preservation of
the north leg of Rice Canyon as ungraded, undeveloped open space is
considered an important landform/aesthetic consideration. Also of
interest, are potential impacts to the designated scenic highways
on or adjacent to the project site.
.F. indin9s
A. Changes and other measures have been Incorporated in the
project or will other~ise be Implemented which mitigate this
environmental effect, in that:
1) The proposed Specific Plan amendment retains the natural
condition of the north leg of Rice Canyon by designating
it for open space uses.
2) Open space ts-designated for the land adjacent to Otay
Lakes Road and Telegraph Canyon Road, both of which are
recognized by the Scenic Hlghway Element of the Chula
Vista General Plan.
3) East H Street, a designated scenic highway, has ..
development proposed adjacent to it under both the
adopted and proposed plans. Development in these areas
would be subject to Scenic Highway standards, which would
minimize the potential for adverse effects.
-' 4) A landscaped buffer area 85 ft. in width between East "H"
Street and the residential area south of the employment
park has been added to the plan.
5) The Sectional Planning Area review will include several
plans and/or programs which will effect the aesthetic
character of the development ~n.cluding: grading,
signing, lighting, fencing, architecture, and design
concepts.
6) The proposed Specific Plan contains special grading
standards to ensure that all graded areas will blend with
natural landform characteristics and will otherwise
provide a pleasing visual appearance.
7) More open space has been retained at the northwest corner
of Telegraph Canyon Road and Paseo Ranchero. This will
prevent an intrusion into the viewshed of the Telegraph
Canyon Road scenic route.
B. All significant effects which can feasibly be avoided have
been eliminated or substantially lessened by.virtue of the
mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and changes
which have been incorporated into the project as set forth
above.
7. Noise (3.11)
Two categories of noise were considered: roadway and
construction. The major source of noise affecting the project site
will be from future traffic. The potential for construction noise
impact would, exist on a short-term basis when construction is
proposed immediately adjacent to a developed parcel. Significant
noise impacts would occur if residential uses were constructed
within future 65 dB(A) CNEL contours adjacent to roadways or
construction noise exceeded the standards of the City of Chula
Vista.
Findings
A. Changes and other measures have been incorporated in the
project or are otherwise being implemented which mitigate this
environmental effect, in that:
l) Prior to submittal of each sectional development plan, a
more detailed noise analysis will be conducted to further
refine the ultimate expected noise volumes along all
roadways to be improved within the sectional planning
area and offsite. Based on that analysis, ~ detailed
acoustical analysis will be conducted prior to site plan
review to determine the extent and design of noise
attenuation measures to assure that all planned
development is in conformance with the City of Chula
Vista's noise standards.
2) An 85 ft. buffer between East "H" Street and the
residential units to the south of the employment park
which will reduce roadway noise impact on residential
units in this area.
3) At the time of building permit application, the
architectural plans will be reviewed to ensure that
interior noise levels do not exceed 45 CNEL. If
additional attenuation is necessary, measures (increases
in window 'glass thickness, reduction of window area,
and/or location of attic vents away from roadways) can be
specified at that time.
B. All significant effects that can be feasibly avoided have been
eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation
measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the
project as set forth above.
8. Schools (3.12)
The precise number of students to be generated by the proposed
development has not been determined, but additional students will
be generated by the additional dwelling units included in the
proposed amendment. Due to the magnitude of the proposed
.development school facilities will be required onsite.
[indings
A. Changes and other measures have been included in the project
or are otherwise being implemented which mitigate this
environmental effect, in that:
l) The amended Land Use Plan for E1 Rancho del Rey makes
provisions fo~; school sites to be provided within the
community.
-9-
2) The proposed amended text specifies that implementation
and financing of school sites shall be a component of
Sectional Planning Area (SPA) or sub-area plan review.
The developer will be required to have a signed agreement
with the school district(s) in order to complete a SPA
application.
B. All significant effects will be eliminated by virtue of
mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and
incorporated into the project as set forth above.
9. Parks, Recreation and Open Space (3.13)
The proposed Specific Plan .Amendment includes approximately 56.3
acres of land designated for Parks and Recreation use. T~e staff
modified specific plan provides 65.1 acres of park/recreation
facilities. Applying the City's park standard of 5 acres of
neighborhood and community parks per 1,O00 population with 1 acre
provided on an adjacent school site to the project's statistics of
5,141 dwellings and assuming 2.58 persons per unit, yields a
requirement of 53.1 acres of parkland with 13.3 acres on adjacent
school parcels. Thus sufficient parkland is provided.
Th? Chula Vista General Plan Open Space Element designates all
major canyons onsite and frontage along Telegraph Canyon Road and
Otay Lakes Road as open space. The proposed Specific Plan
Amendment,as revised, include these major areas, including the
north leg of Rice Canyon, in the open space use category.
Findings
The proposed Specific Plan Amendment, as revised, will create no
significant impacts in this category.
V. IMPACTS FOUND INFEASIBLE TO MITIGATE TO AN INSIGNIFICANT LEVEl
1. Biological Resources (3.4)
Development of the proposed project as revised, will result in the
loss of some biological resources which now exist on the project
site. This would also be the case with development under current
Plan. The impacts of the two plans are very similar because the
pattern and extent of preserved, open space is very similar. The
current plan includes 553 acres in this category while the proposed
includes 528, a loss of 25 acres or approximately 5.0 percent.
Additionally, as set forth in the final supplemental EIR-83-2A, the
state listed as endangered San Diego Thornmint and Otay Tar Plant
have been located on the project site.
Findings
A. Changes and other measures have been incorporated in the project
or are otherwise being implemented which mitigate this
environmental effect, in that:
1) As noted above the loss of some natural habitat is
unavoidable under either plan.
2) The proposed Specific Plan, as revised, envisions the north
leg of Rice Canyon for a nature park setting. This area is
identified as an important resource to be preserved in such
an open space use by the biological assessment. In
addition, wildlife access to the west will be provided by a
suitable drainage culvert under the loop road.
3) A mitigation program has been described as a part of the
proposed Plan in the EIR, which would reduce those impacts
which would occur under either development Plan. The
adopted Plan does not include such a program. .
4) .The open space and road system for the project have been
modified to protect the San Diego Thornmint and Otay Tar
Plant on the project site.
B. Potential mitigation measures or project alternatives which
would eliminate or substantially lessen the environmental
effects and which were not incorporated into the project were
found infeasible, based on economic, social, and other
considerations as set forth in the Final EIR and listed below.
l) Development, in an economically feasible manner, of the
project site will involve some loss of biological habitat.
(see A#l above)
2) To develop the ~project site in a manner that would retain
substantially more open space would result in an
inefficient infrastructure design, poor community
structure, would not be responsive to the current and
forecasted housing market needs and uneconomical grading.
3) The preservation of all biological resources would preclude
its use as the proposed housing, employment, and
recreational opportunities incorporated in the community of
E1 Rancho del Rey and would conflict with the basic goals
of the Chula Vista General Plan.
4) Such preservation would preclude the City of Chula Vista
from benefiting from the projected increase in net revenue
which would accrue to the City from E1 Rancho del Rey.
5) The preservation of the site for such use would preclude
the project applicant from achieving the goals of
developing the project.
C. All significant biological environmental effects that can
feasibly be avoided have been eliminated or substantially
lessened by virtue of the project changes and mitigation
measures identified in the Final EIR and supplemental EIR and
incorporated in the project as set forth above. There remain
some significant biological impacts.
D. The remaining unavoidable significant effects have been reduced
to an acceptable level when balanced against facts set forth
above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations.
2. Air Quality (3.10)
The emissions resulting from project generated traffic, when compared
to regional emissions, are relatively small. However, the San Diego
Regional Air Quality 'Strategy--(RRAQS) is based on population and
growth projections contained in SANDAG'S growth projections.
Therefore, to- the extent-'that development '-under the proposed
amendment exceeds that of the existing plan, which was considered in
the current growth projections, and is not a redistribution of growth
within the region, it is inconsistent with the RRAQS. To the extent -
that E1 Rancho del Rey precludes RRAQS from achieving the goals of
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), the emissions ..
~ from project-related sources must be considered significant on a
cumulative basis.
· , ~indings
-. A. Changes and other measures have been included in the project or
are otherwise being implemented which mitigate the significant
environmental effect, in that:
j 1) The overall number of dwelling units has been reduced from
I 4,598 to 4,028 dwellings and the employment park has been
reducedlto 100 net acres. This reduce the overall number
of automobile trips generated by the project.
2) E1 Rancho del Rey is proposed to be phased over a 20-year
period.
3) The proposed amendment contains a mix of land uses
including housing, employment, and recreation
opportunities, which will reduce overall vehicle miles
traveled.
4) The developer will be required to construct significant
roadway improvements both onsite and offsite to accommodate
project-related traffic.
5)E1 Rancho del Rey will provide transit facilities including
bus pullouts and stops.
6) The project includes trail and bike lane systems.
B. Changes to the project or other activities which mitigate this
significant effect are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of other public agencies and not to a large degree
of the City of Chula Vista.
l) Overall control of regional growth and the implementation
of the RRAQS is under the Jurisdiction of the County and
all of the cities of the County.
- 12-
2) Control of vehicular emissions through a vehicle inspection
maintenance program is under the control of the State of
California.
C. Potential mitigation measures or project alternatives not
incorporated into the project were rejected as infeasible, based
on economic, social, and other considerations as set forth in
the Final EIR, and as follows:
l) The currently adopted Specific Plan has several barriers to
implementation including: not being responsive to the
current and forecast housing market, poor community
structure, inefficient infrastructure design, and is based
on dated technical studies. The economic charaoteristics
of the adopted Planare the most limiting.
2) The proposed Specific Plan Amendment includes an employment
park which provides an economical plan for the development
of the project site. This provides an opportunity to meet
the objectives of the project with only a small departure
from the adopted growth forecast.
3) The citizens of Chula Vista and the region would be
deprived of the ,housing, employment, and recreational
opportunities inherent in the proposed plan if it were not
adopted.
4) The City of Chula Vista would be deprived of the surplus
revenue projected from E1 Rancho del Rey.
$) The City of Chula Vista and the County would not benefit
from the capital improvements and public facilities which
will be constructed as part of the project.
D. All significant environmental effects that can feasibly be
avoided have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue
of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and
incorporated into the project as set forth above. Also, the
intensity of the project has been substantially reduced which is
a project change reducing air quality impact. There remain,
however, significant cumulative impacts on regional air quality
due to non-compliance with RRAQS.
E. The remaining unavoidable significant effects have been reduced
to an acceptable level when balanced against facts set forth
above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations.
VI. THE RECORD 1~,~- h ~
For the purposes of CEQA and these findings the record of the
Commission and City Council relating to these actions include: Planning
1. Artim, R.R. and D.L. Elder, 1979, Late Quaternary deformation along the
La Nacion fault system, San Diego, California: Geological Society of
America Abstracts with Programs. v. ll, no. 7, p. 381.
2. Artim, E.R. and D. Elder-Mills, 1982, The Rose Canyon Fault: A Review in
P. L. Abbott,'ed.; §eologic Studies in San Diego San 'Diego Associati~
of Geologists, pp. 35-45.
3. Artim, E.R. and C.J. Pickney, 1973, La Nacion fault system, ~an Diego,
California: G~eological Society of America Bulletin, v. 84, pp. 1075-1080.
4. ~ssociation of Engineering ~e~logists, 1973, Geology and Earthquake
Mazards, Planners Guide to ~elsmic Safety~ AssOciation of Engineering
Geologists, Southern California Section, duly, pp. 6-8.
5. Boyle Engineering Corporation, 1981, Water Resources Division Hydrologic
~nd Hydraulic Analysis, August. --
6. Burchell, Robert W. and David Li'stokin, 1978, The Fiscal Impact
Handbook. The Center for Urban Policy Research, New Brunswick.
7. California Air Resources Board (CARB), California Air Quality Data
1977, 1978, 1979, 1980.
8. California Department of Fish and Game, 1979, Endangered and Rare Plant~
of California. The Resources Agency, October 5.
g. Chula Vista, City of, 1970, G~eneral Plan 19gO, December.
10.Chula Vista, City of, 1974, Scenic Highways Element of the Chula Vist.
G~eneral Plan. --
ll. Chula Vista, City of, 1975, ~ecial Census Report, April 1.
12. Chula Vista, City of, 1979, Parks and Recreation Element of the Chula
Vista General Plan.
13. Chula Vista, City of, 1981, Engineering Department Subdivision Manual,
14. Chula Vista, City of, 1982a, Chula Vista: Facts About San Diego County's
Second Largest City.
15. Chula Vista, City of, 1982c, Master Fee Schedule, November g.
16. Chula Vista, City of, 1983-84, Proposed Budget, May lg.
- 14 -
17. Chula Vista, City of, Municipal Code.
18. Cole, Lane F., 1982, Memorandum "Full-Cost Recovery Council Workshop,"
September 21.
19. Farrand, T.T., ed., 1977, Geology of Southwestern San Diego County,
California, and Northwestern Baja, California, San Diego Association of
Geologists.
Kennedy, M.P., 1975, Geology of the San Diego MEtropolitan Area,
California, California Division of Mines and Geology, Bulletin 200,
Section A, 39 p.
Kennedy, M.P. and Slang S. Tan, 1977, Geology of National City, Imperial
Beach and Otay Mesa Quadrangles,' Southern San Diego Metropolitan-Area,
California, Map Sheet 29. ..
K~nnedy, M.P., Slang S. Tan, Roger H. Chapman, and Gordon W. Chase,
1975, Character and Recency of Faulting, San Diego Metropolitan Area,
California, Special Report 123, California Division of Mines and Geology.
23. Minch, J.A., 1970, Stratigraphy and structure of the Tijuana-Rosarito
Beach area, Northwestern Baja California, Mexico: Geological Society of
America Bulletin, v. 78, pp. 11§5-1178.
24. Moore, G.W. and M.P. Kennedy, 1970, Coastal geology of the
California-Baja California border area, E.C. Allison, et am., editors,
Pacific slope geology of northern Baja California and adjacent Alta Baja
California: American Association Petroleum Geologists (Pacific section)
Fall Field Trip Guidebook.'
25. Munz. C.A., 1974, A Flora of Southern California, University of
California Press, Berkeley.
26. Rahnau et al., 1983, Sweetwater Union High School District Master Plan
Sub-area Report, Chula Vista, October.
27. SANDAG (CPO), 1976, 1975 Special Census Selected Data, December.
28. SANDAG (CPO), 1978, Info 78, 1978 Employment Estimates, San Diego
Region, September.
29. SANDAG (CPO), 1979, Regional Energy Plan for the San' Diego Region,
January.
30. SANDAG (CPO), 1980a, Preliminary 1980 Census Data by Tract, July 29.
31. SANDAG (CPO), 1980b, Final Series V Regional Development Forecasts.
32. SANDAG, 1984, A Housing Study for the City of Chula Vista.
33. San Diego County Air Pollution Control District, Air Quality in San
Diego, Annual Air Monitoring Report, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980.
- l§ -
34. San Diego County Air Pollution Control District, and Comprehensive
Planning Organization (CPO), 1978, Regional Air Quality Strategy.
35. San Diego, County of, 196g, Soils Interpretation Study, Jamul Mountains.
36. San Diego, County of, 1975, Scenic Highways Element.
37. San Diego, County of, 1978, Regional Growth Management Plan, June.
38. San Diego, County of 1981, Department of Sanitation and Flood Control
Hydrology Manual, May. .
3g. San Diego, County of 1982-83, Auditor and Controller, 1982-83
~roportionate Increase by Fund, July 21. . -
40. San Diego, County of, 1983-84, Assessor's Secured Property Assessed
~91uations.
41. Scheidemann, Jr., Robert C., 1977, Correlation of the Otay and Rosarito
Beach Formation i~ G.T. Farrand, ed., Geology of Southwestern San Diego,
County, California and Northwester~ Baja California: San Diego
Association of Geologists, pp.. 17-28.
42. Stereoscopic Aerial Photography, flown in November 1978, Line No.
210-30D (5-8), 210-31D (1-8), 210-32E (6-7), 210-32F (lA, 1-5), scale 1
inch: 1000 feet.
43. Thorne, Robert F., 1976, The Vascular Plant Communities of California,
In: Symposium Proceedings - Plant Communities of Southern California,
edited by June Latting, California Native Plant Society, Special
Publication No. 2.
44. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Soil Conservation
Service, 1973, Soil Survey, San Diego Area, California, December.
45. United States Department of Commerce, 1972, Soil Conservation Service
National Engineering Handbook, Hydrology, August.
46. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, lg80, Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants: Review of Plant Taxa for Listing as Endangered or
Threatened Species, Federal Register 45 (242):82480-82509, Monday,
December 15.
47. University of California, Agricultural Extension Service, 1970, Climate
of San Diego County; Agricultural Relationship November.
48. Weber, F. Harold, 1963, Mines and Mineral Resources of San Diego County,
Falifornia, County Report 3, California Division of Mines and Geology,
30g p.
- 16 -
49. WESTEC Services, Inc. 1982, EastLake Final Environmental Impact Report
(SCH #80121007). Prepared for the City of Chula Vista.
50. American Ornithologists Union, 1983, Checklist of North American Birds.
51. Arroyo, Manuel, 1983a, District Planning Engineer, Otay Water District.
Telephone conversations, various days in August.
$2. Arroyo, Manuel, 1983b, District Planning Engineer, Otay Water District.
Letter, August 26.
53. Atwood, J. L., 1980, The United States distribution of the Black-tailed
Gnatcatcher, Western Birds. 11:65-78.
54. Balko, M. L., 1979, The biological evaluation of vernal pools in the San
Diego region, prepared for the City of San Diego, Environmental Quality
Division, December.
55. Beauchamp, R. M., 1979, San Diego vernal pool study, California
Department of Fish and Game, Nongame Wildlife Investigations, Endangered
Plant Program, 145, Job I-l.O.
56. Beauchamp, R. M. and S. J. Montgomery, 1979, Biological survey report of
the Rice Canyon Sectional Planning Area, EIR-79-E, City of Chula Vista.
57. Brown, Dick, 1983, Planner, The Gersten Company. Telephone
conversation, August 23.
58. California Depart~ient of Fish and Game, 1980,' Endangered rare and
threatened animals of California, The Resources Agency, September 15.
59. California Department of Fish and Game, 1982, Designated endangered or
rare plants, The Resources Agency, August 1.
60. California Department of Fish and Game, 1983, Hunting and Fishing
Regulations.
61. California Native Plant Society, 1980, Inventory of Rare and Endangered
Vascular Plants of California, edited by J. P. Smith, Jr., R. J. Cole,
and J. O. Sawyer, Jr. in collaboration with W. R. Powell, Special
Publication No. 1 (2nd edition).
62. California Native Plant Society, 1981, Inventory of Rare and Endangered
Vascular Plants of California - First Supplement, Special Publication
No. 1 (2nd edition).
63. Chambers Consultants and Planners, 1983, E1 Rancho del Rey biological
reconnaissance and planning/design considerations, prepared for The
Gersten Companies, Chula Vista, California.
- l? -
64. Cinti & Associates, 1984, E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan, Applicants
proposal for the amendment, March 15.
65. City of Chula Vista, 1973, Draft EIR Revised General Development Plan
and Previously unreported areas of E1 Rancho del Rey.
66. County of San Diego, 1978, Department of Public Works, Waste Generation
Factors, December 20.
67. County of San Diego, 1982, Department of Public Works, Revised San Diego
Regional Solid Waste Management Plan.
68. Evans, M. U. and R. M. Beauchamp, 1972, E1 Rancho del Rey development
biological survey, March-April 1972.
69. Everett, William T., 1979, Threatened, declining and sensitive bird
~pecies in San Diego County, San Diego Audubon Society, Sketches, June.
70. Faabory, J., 1980, Potential uses and abuses of diversity concepts in
w~ldlife management, Trans. Mo Acad. Sci. 14:41-49.
71. Hutchinson, Jim, 1983, Engineer, James A. Hutchinson & Associates.
Telephone ?nversation, August 24.
72. Hutchinson, J., 1984, Engineer, James A. Hutchinson & Associates.
Telephone conversation, August 2.
73. Hutchinson, James A. and Associates, 1984, Personal communication with
James Hutchinson, Project Engineer. ' '~
74. Jennings, M. Ri, 1983, ~An annotated check list of the am~hibinn~
reptiles of California, balifornia Fish and Game 69(3)~151-1~. __~ and
75. Jones, J. Knox, Jr., D. C. Carter and H. H. Genoways, 1982, Revised
checklist of North American Mammals North of Mexico. Occasional Papers
Museum Texas Technical University 80:1-22.
76. Kuper, H. T., 1977, Recommaissance of the Marine Sedimentary Rocks of
Southwestern San Diego County, California. G. T. Ferrand (ed.), Geology
of Southwestern San Diego County, California and Northwestern Baja
California. San Diego Association of Geologists, Guidebook, Plates 1-4.
77. Lawrence, Fogg, Florer and Smith, 1964, A Special Study of Storm
Drainage Facilities, Supplement to the Chula Vista General Plan.
78. Lovejoy, T. E. and D. C. Oren, 1981, The minimum critical size of
ecosystems, in: Forest island dynamics in man-dominated landscapes, R.
L. Burgess and D. M. Sharpe (eds.)., Springer-Verlag, New York.
79. Massman, R. J., 1983, Director of Public Works, County of San Diego,
letter, March 23.
-18-
80. McGurty, B., 1980, Survey and status of endangered and threatened
species of reptiles natively occurring in San Diego County, prepared for
Fish and Wildlife Con~nittee, San Diego County Department of Agriculture.
81. Monsell, T. R., 1983, Fire Marshal, Chula Vista Fire Prevention Bureau.
Letter, August 22.
82. Montgomery, J. M., 1982, James M. Montgomery Consulting Engineers, Water
Supply Master Plan for E1 Rancho del Rey, March.
83. MSA, Inc., 1979, E1 Rancho del Rey, Long Canyon Sectional Area Plan,
Final EIR, City of Chula Vista EIR-79-2.
84. Nilsson, S. G., 1978, Fragmented habitats, species richness and
conservation practice. Ambio 7:26-27.
85. Noss, R. E., 1981, The birds of Sugarcreek, an Ohio nature reserve.
Ohio S. Sci. 81:29-40.
86. Noss, R. F., 1983, A regional landscape approach to maintain diversity.
Bio Science 33(11):700-706.
87. Oberbauer, T. A., 1976, Ramona planning area biology, County of San
Diego, Planning Department.
88. Pacific Southwest Biological Services, 1981, Biological survey of the
Street extension and soil borrow sites, Rice Canyon area, prepared for
The Gersten Companies, Los Angeles, California
89. Patterson, C. C. and M. R. Brand, 1978, Biological survey report for
Bonita Long Canyon Equestrian Estates, San Diego County, California,
prepared by MSA, Inc. for the City of Chula Vista.
90. Purer, E. A., 1939, Ecological study of vernal pools, San Diego County,
Ecology 20 (20); 217-229.
91. Rea, A. M., 1981, letter of comment to Douglas Reid, Environmental
Review Coordinator, City of Chula Vista, January 19.
92. Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region 9, 1978,
Comprehensive Water Quality Control Plan Report, San Diego Basin
93. Rems'eh, J. V., 1979, Bird species of special concern in iCalifornia: An
annotated list of declining or vulnerable bird species. California
Department of Fish and Game, Nongame Wildlife Investigations, Report No.
78-1.
94. Samson, F. B. and F. L. Knopf, 1982, In search of a diversity ethic for
wildlife management. Trans. N. fun. Wild Nat. Res. Conf. 47:421-431.
- 19 -
I" 95. SANDAG, 1983, Series 6, Average Travel Distances by Trip Type for
Subregional Areas.
96. Scheidemann, R. C. and H. T. Koper, 1979, Stratigraphy and Lithofacies
of the Sweetwater and Rosarito Beach Formations, Southwestern San Diego
County, California and Northwestern Baja California, Mexico. C.J.
Stuart (ed.), Miocene Lithofacies and Depositional Environments, Coastal
Southern California and Northwestern Baja California. Geological
Society of America, Guidebook; pp. 107-118.~
97. Tate, J., Jr. and D. J, Tate,.1982, The Blue List for 1982, Amemican
Birds, 35(1):3-10. '
98. The Planning Center, 1983, E1 Rancho del Rey, Supplemental Report, -
December 21, unpublished. -
g9. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 1979, List of endangered and
threatened wildlife and plants (Republication), Department of Interior,
Federal Register, 4{12):3656-3654, Wednesday, January 17.
100. W~STEC Services, Inc., 1976a, Draft EIR E1 Rancho del Rey.
lO1. WESTEC Services, Inc., 1976b, Draft EIR for Rancho Robinhood, City of · Chula Vista.
102. WESTEC Services, Inc., 1979, Proponents Environmental Assessment Miquel
to Tijuana Interconnection Project 230 KV Transmission Line, prepared
for San Diego Gas & Electric Company.
103. Winters, William J., 1983, Director of Public Safety, Chula Vista Police
Department. Letter, August 17.
104. Woodward-Clyde Consultants, 1978, Fault Investigation for the Proposed
E1 Rancho del Rey, Southwest Chula Vista, California. Report prepared
for the Gersten Companies.
Also included as part of the Planning Commission and City Council record are:
105. Final EIR'83-2, E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan Amendment, WESTEC
Services, Inc., March 1985 (SCH #83060803)
106. Documentary and oral evidence presented to the Planning Commission and
City Council during public hearings on EIR-83-2 and the E1 Rancho del
Rey project.
- 20 -
107. Matters of common knowledge to the Planning Commission and/or City
Council such as:
a.The City of Chula Vista General Plan, including the Land Use Map and
all elements thereof;
b. The Zoning Ordinance of the City of Chula Vista as most recently
amended.
c. The Municipal Code of the City of Chula Vista.
d. All other formally adopted policies and ordinances.
WPC 1801P
J
- 21 -
'STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
BACKGROUND
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State EIR Guidelines
promulgated pursuant thereto provide:.
(a) CEQA requires the decision maker to balance the benefits of
proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in
determining whether to approve the project. Where agencies have taken
action resulting in environmental damage without explaining the reasons
which supported the decision, courts have invalidated the action.
(b) Where the decision.of the public agency allows the occurrence of
significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not
mitigated, the agency must state in writing the 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 15088(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.
(EIR Guidelines, Section 15089)
STATEMENTS
The following statements are considerations which warrant approval of the
project and therefore override the significant environmental impacts
identified in EIR -83-02:
A. The project will result in the extension and implementation of major
elements of the City's traffic circulation system (East H Street,
Telegraph Canyon Road, and Otay Lakes Road).
B. The project will result in a comprehensive planned community providing a
logical extension of city services, including public transportation, law
enforcement, fire protection and public utilities.
C. The project includes a 151.6 acre employment park which could eventually
result in the creation of over 4,000 additional jobs ~and constitute
approximately 14 percent of the employment opportunity within the Chula
Vista Planning Area by 1990.
D. The employment park acreage will enable large commercial/industrial users
to locate in the area with the ability to provide local housing from upper
level income groups to low to moderate income level groups.
- 22 -
E. The plan includes the stipulation that the developers of E1 Rancho del Rey
shall devote five percent of the total units to low-income households and
five percent to moderate income households as defined in the plan.
F. As a planned community, the project will provide a wide range of
transportation alternatives in addition to the single-passenger
automobile, such as; an extension of the public transportation system, a
pedestrian/bicycle trail system, residential and school/park complexes,and
as an equestrian trail system for recreation.
G. Eventual project completion will result in a positive fiscal impact on the
City of Chula Vista, as detailed in the EIR addendum.
H. The project will result in providing employment in areas adjacent to
residential growth, thus avoiding typical employment-commuting- impacts
which generally result in increased energy consumption, traffic, and air
pollution.
I. The project reserves 513.2 acres of open space, the vast majority of which
will be preserved in its natural state. Included in this area is the
north leg of Rice Canyon which is identified as an especially valuable
area in the Open Space Element of the General Plan and was identified as
an area with important biological resources in the EIR. Implementation of
the project will provide long term preservation of the open space areas
and protection from development' to the ~iological resources located
therein. The project also includes pedestrian trails, an interpretive
center and passive recreation opportunities within the open space areas to
provide a managed interaction between residents and the natural
environment.
WPC 1801P
- 23 -