HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 1985-11904
RESOLUTION NO.
11904
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA ADOPTING "CANDIDATE CEQA FINDINGS" AND STATEMENT
OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS - BAY FRONT SPECIFIC PLAN
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby
resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, the final EIR for the Bayfront Specific Plan
identifies several potentially significant impacts, and
WHEREAS, it is necessary
describe how the project, in its
impacts or why it is not feasible to
to adopt "CEQA Findings" to
final form, mitigates those
mitigate those impacts, and
WHEREAS, the Chula Vista Planning Commission reviewed
said findings and recommends adoption by the City Council, and
WHEREAS, the "Candidate CEQA Findings" and statement of
overriding considerations on the Bayfront Specific Plan are
attached hereto as Attachment 1 and incorporated herein by
reference as if set forth in full, and
WHEREAS, it is the conclusion of these findings that:
1. Changes have been incorporated into the project which
mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects as identi-
fied in the final EIR with the exception of Water Supply and
Visual Quality.
2. Any changes or alterations necessary
substantially reduce impacts relevant to the supply
under the jurisdiction of the Sweetwater Authority
City of Chula Vista.
to avo id
of water
and not
or
are
the
3. The avoidance of significant
be achieved through the implementation of
native which is not feasible to carry out
consistent with the Land Use Element of
Coastal Program nor would it provide the
support the Bayfront redevelopment district.
visual impacts can only
the "no project" alter-
because it would not be
the Chula Vista Local
necessary tax base to
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Chula Vista does hereby adopt the "Candidate CEQA
Findings" and statement of overriding considerations for the
Bayfront Specific Plan as shown on Attachment 1.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
~~ ~~~
Gé ge Ktemplj Dit ctor of
Planning
a.·¿¿ / p- ?~þ:
Charles R. Gill, Assistant
City Attorney
ADOPTED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this
19 85
24th
day of
¡Januarv
--
AYES: Councilmen
NAYES: Councilmen
ABSTAIN: Councilmen
ABSENT: Councilmen
, by the following yote, to_it:
Cox, Malcolm, McCandliss, Scott, Moore
None
None
None
!M ~. Of~ Volo
ATTEW~<"/// '2J;C:jLh"j/
(/ City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) ss.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA )
I, JENNIE M. FULASZ, CMC, CITY CLERK of the City of Chula Vista, California,
DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of
RESOLUTION NO. 11904
,and that the same has not been amended or repealed.
DATED
(sea )
City Clerk
CC-660
-- . -...--
THE BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN
E IR 85-1
CANDIDATE CEQA FINDINGS
(California Public Resources Code Sec. 21081)
(California Administratiye Code Sec. 15091)
I. BACKGROUND
It is the policy of the State of California and the City of Chu1a Vista
that the City shall not approye a project that would result in a significant
enyironmenta1 impact if it is feasible to ayoid 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 approyed.
Therefore, when an EIR has been completed which identifies one or more
significant enYironmenta1 impacts, one of the following findings must be made:
Changes or a1ternatiyes haye been required of, or
into, the project which mitigate or ayoid the
enyironmenta1 effects identified in the final EIR, or
2. Such changes or alternatiyes are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making
the finding. Such changes haye been adopted by such other agency
or can and shou1 d be adopted by such other agency, or
1.
incorporated
significant
3. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible
the miti gati on measure or project a 1 ternati yes i denti fi ed in the
final EIR.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The 790-acre Bayfront Planning Area is located within the City of Chu1a
Vista west of Interstate 5 between C and Palomar streets. San Diego Unified
Port District lands lie to the west and north, with National City and Chula
Vista on the north and east, respectiyely. The area lies within the coastal
plain and exhibits yery little topographic relief. The dominant land uses
include nearly built out industrial operations south of G Street, agriculture
(Vener Farms), and yacant fill areas to the north. Seyera1 areas containing
wetlands (e.g., Sweetwater Marsh) also dominate the landscape.
The existing land use designations are indicated in the Chu1a Vista
Bayfront Land Use Plan, which has been approyed by the California Coastal
Commission and the Chu1a Vista City Council. These land uses will be
implemented upon approya1 of the proposed specific plan by the City of Chu1a
\qD~
?--\
Vista, which this report addresses. The specific plan will supersede the
provisions of the existing zoning ordinance. The City of Chu1a Vista
proposes to adopt the Bayfront Land Use Pl an as a general. p1 an amendment,
specific plan, and revisions to the Subdivision Ordinance, thus allowing the
plan to be implemented.
The specific plan proposes several types of new development for the
Bayfront, predomi nantly wi thi n the agricultural and vacant areas north of G
Street. These uses include multi-family residential units at three
locations, highway-related commercial in four areas, commercial office park
in three locations, marine-related commercial use at the northern boundary, a
hotel, an area of specialty retail, industrial business park, neighborhood
parks and public open space, landscaped parking areas, infill areas of
general industrial, and seyeral wetland areas.
III. EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
The final EIR for the Bayfront Specific Plan concluded that the project
wou1 d c1 early not have any si gnifi cant adverse impacts in the foll owi ng
areas :*
Land Use (3.7)
Community Infrastructure
Fire Protection (3.8.2)
Police Service (3.8.3)
Library Services (3.8.4)
Hospital Services (3.8.5)
Solid Waste (3.8.6)
Public Transportation (3.8.7)
*NOTE:
The numbers in parentheses refer to the section number in the EIR
where the issue is discussed.
IV. EFFECTS FOUND TO BE AVOIDED OR SUBSTANTIALLY LESSENED 1. Geology (3.1)
The project site, as with any locale in southern California, is subject
to seismic hazards from ground shaking. However, the absence of any fault
trayersing the site and the general quiescence of seismic activity in western
San Di ego County 1 imi t the potenti a1 for fault di sp1 acement on the site.
Although earthquakes from the Elsinore and San Jacinto fault zones could
affect the site (based on a maximum probable earthquake of 6.9 to 7.3), the
potential for ground shaking is not considered to be significantly greater
than any other area in southern California.
The soil characteristics and shallow groundwater table on the site
could also present possible geologic hazards associated with liquefaction
during an earthquake. Since the sand and silts on portions of the Bayfront
site exhibit little cohesiveness and the groundwater table is generally three
feet above mean sea 1eye1, soil liquefaction causing the ground to fail is a
possibi1 ity.
-2-
\ ~ (J '-\
~_\
~
Findings
Preliminary soils inyestigations conducted as part of earlier
environmental review (3.1.2 and 3.1.3) and more recent investigations have
identified specific areas of concern within the project boundary. The
Specifi c Pl an recogni zed the haza rds posed by potenti al 1 i quefacti on and
requires detailed geotechnical studies for subsequent projects (Section
19.87.02) and appropri ate rei nforcement of all structures to withstand any
hazards (Section 19.91.04b). Adherence to grading and building code
requirements, including proper analysis, engineering, design, and
construction, will reduce potential impacts to an insignificant level.
2. Soils (3.2.2)
The most significant potential soils impacts at the project site are
related to the presence of organic mud deposits on the tidal flats,
marsh1 ands, and possi bly beneath fi 11 areas. The weak, compressi b1 e nature
of these soil s makes them very poor foundati on materi als. In addi ti on, the
mud thickness is often very erratic and yariab1e, leading to possible
di fferenti a1 sett1 ement prob1 ems. The constructi on of faci 1 i ti es on 01 der,
poorly planned fills consisting possibly of deleterious materials oyer bay
muds cou1 d 1 ead to i rregul ar sett1 ements. If such sett1 ements amount to
several inches or more, damage to roadways or utilities could occur.
Findings
Requi rements for subsequent soi 1 s studi es have been incorporated into
e project whi ch reduce the potenti al impacts re1 ated to soi 1 i nstabi 1 i ty .to
"n insignificant level. As noted above, the Specific Plan requires
subsequent geological studies and appropriate foundation reinforcement to
withstand potenti a1 hazards. Gradi ng and compacti on requi rements in
accordance wi th city standa rds and buil di ng code speci ficati ons wi 11 provi de
adequate mitigation of potential impacts.
3. Noise (3.4.2)
The noise standards as specified in the City of Chu1a Vista General
Plan require that the exterior noise level for residential land uses not
exceed 65 dBA. In addition, multi-family residential uses are regulated by
the California Noise Insulation Standard (California Administrative Code,
Title 25, Chapter 1, Article 4), which requires that interior noise level s
not exceed 45 dBA. This interior noise standard is also used by the City of
Chu1a Vista for single-family homes. Wood-frame constructed walls will
typically reduce exterior noise levels of 65 dBA to interior 1eye1s of 45 dBA.
Based on the noise standards and the existing noise 1eye1s and land
uses, there are no significant impacts. However, future noise 1eye1s in
excess of 65 dBA will affect proposed residential areas located east and west
of Tidelands Avenue at F Street. Noise levels greater than the city standard
from vehicular traffic will not impact industrial and commercial uses in the
plan.
\\~ () t.\
~.
-3-
Fi ndi ngs
The requirement for subsequent review of detailed plans provides the
opportunity to preci se1y i denti fy necessary miti gating measures. The use of
masonry walls or other noise-attenuating measures will reduce noise levels to
acceptable levels for residential uses. Thus, this impact can be reduced to
an insignificant level.
4. Biological Resources (3.5)
The potential direct impacts which may occur from implementation of the
specific plan are as follows:
a. Di rect loss of wetl and habitat through i nfi 11 i ng or dredgi ng of
several areas (totaling 6.45 acres).
b. Reduction in the area available for breeding of the California
least tern.
c. Possi b1 e loss of wil dl ife habitat and other impacts to speci es
uti1 izing adjacent wetlands through the construction of a hotel,
parking, and associated uses on approximately 14 acres of
Gunpowder Point.
d. Potential impacts from altered hydrology and pollutants from urban
runoff.
e. Potential reduction in light-footed clapper rail due to road kills
or altered behavior in the vicinity of the Tidelands Avenue
extension and Gunpowder Point access road.
These impacts are discussed in detail in Section 3.5 of the EIR.
Fi ndi ng
The specific plan has incorporated many measures that reduce the
potential impacts to biological resources. These measures have been
developed over years of negotiation with various regulating agencies and
studies performed by other consultants. The following summary comes from the
EIR. The measures are described in detail within the Environmental
Management secti on of the speci fi c p1 an. With these measures incorporated
into the project, bi 01 ogical impacts have been avoi ded or substanti ally
lessened.
a. Potential impacts resulting from the direct filling or dredging of
wet1 ands wi 11 be miti gated through the restorati on of wetl and
habitat in certain areas that have suffered filling or degradation
through past uncontroll ed acti vi ti es. As noted in the previ ous
section, 6.45 acres of wetland habitat would be directly
eliminated by the proposed development. The areas to be restored
as compensation for this loss are as follows:
\\~ \) '-\
~.
-4-
..
1) Approximately 3.4 acres in and adjacent to Vener Pond, 3.0
acres adjacent to the E Street marsh, and 2.5 acres of
degraded salt marsh in the F-G Street marsh will be restored
to "high quality" wetland habitat [Sedway Cooke 1983:111-36;
Specific Plan Section 19.88.05; California Coastal Commission
1984:5].
2) Approximately one acre of "high quality wetland" will be
created in Sweetwater Marsh in conjunction with the Tidelands
Avenue extension [Sedway Cooke 1983:111-37; Specific Plan
Section 19.88.06(b)].
3) The artificial lagoon berm will be remoyed and a "healthy
wetland" will be restored oyer approximately 1.2 acres at the
southwest corner of Gunpowder Point [Sedway Cooke
1983:111-33; Specific Plan Section 19.88.04(c)].
4)
Fill and spoil
up1 and mosai c"
approximately 2
Poi nt [Sedway
19.88.04(c)].
material wi 11 be remoyed from the "wet1 and
and wetl and habi tat wi 11 be restored oyer
acres at the northwestern corner of Gunpowder
Cooke 1983:II1-33; Specific Plan Section
The total a rea speci fi ed for wetland restorati on is 9.9 acres,
plus the 3.2 acres on Gunpowder Point that will be improved. This
area exceeds that which will be destroyed by the project.
Assuming that equal habitat ya1ue is proYided under the direction
of the environmental management program discussed below, this
wetl ands restorati on will mi ti gate the di rect impacts of fill i ng
and dredgi ng. .
b. Impacts to the Ca1 ifornia 1 east tern resulting from a reduction of
potential breeding area will be offset by the creation of a preserye
which will be isolated by a water channel and protected from
disturbance by yehic1es, direct human actiyity, and pets.
In approYing the Bayfront Land Use Plan, the California Coastal
Commission determined that the proposals provided "adequate protection
against significant disruption of least tern habitat values"
(California Coastal Commission 1984:22), based on the fact that size
alone is not the only determini ng factor in the effecti veness of a
1 east tern breedi ng preserve. Even though the area for 1 east tern
nesti ng wou1 d be reduced, the added protecti on from di sturbance by
humans (not regularly occurring under the existing conditions) may
reasonably be expected to provide mitigation.
c. Impacts from the loss of upland habitat on Gunpowder, while not
consi dered si gni fi cant by the Coastal Commi ssi on and Jones and Stokes
(1983), would be mitigated by the restoration of upland habitat over an
area of approximately 9.6 acres.
-5-
\'" O~
0--\
. - ....-.
d. Potential impacts from the altered characteristics of storm runoff
will be mitigated by two features of the project: First, existing
runoff impacts related to current agricultural activities on
Gunpowder Point and elsewhere in the Bayfront area will be
eliminated. Second, the proposed drainage system within the
Bayfront deyelopment would direct most storm runoff into the open
waters of San Diego Bay rather than into the marshlands.
e. Potenti a1 impacts to the 1 i ght-footed cl apper rail may not occur
at all if the conclusions of Jones and Stokes (1983:66-67) are
accurate. Based on these findings, traffic and the passive human
activities allowable along the marshland perimeters within the
plan (walking, jogging, obseryation) would have little or no
adverse effects. The only potentially significant impact to
1 ight-footed cl apper rail s wou1 d be that from road kill s. The
design for the access road to Gunpowder Point (Figure 7 in the
specific plan) would clearly discourage birds from walking across
the road between marsh areas. Ti del ands Avenue cou1 d a1 so be
designed in a manner, perhaps with low fences or walls adjacent to
it, which would prevent birds from walking into the roadway. The
widened bridge structure proposed for Tidelands Avenue would
improve the opportunity for wading birds to travel between
Sweetwater Marsh and the upstream marsh areas.
Indi rect impacts re1 ated to the proximi ty of human acti vity near the
preserved wetlands will be mitigated through the project design, which
restricts or prohibits human presence in some areas and provides for
nonactive pursuits in other areas. The general concept of the buffers would
allow limited human activity, such as walking, jogging, and obseryation, in
the outermost 50 feet of the buffer, while the 50 feet nearest the wetlands
woul d be 1 andscaped wi th planti ngs whi ch provi de a yi sua1 barri er with
limited breaks to permit some views into the wetlands. In some areas within
the outer portions of the buffer, bicycle paths would be provided. The
general concept of this kind of buffer with limited recreational uses was
first proposed by the COE (1982:9) and endorsed by the USFWS (COE 1982:A2-40,
59) pending review of detailed designs. The buffer design was also accepted
by the California Coastal Commission (California Coastal Commission 1984:7)
5. Archaeological/Historical Resources (3.6.2)
Development of the Bayfront project area will adversely impact the six
archaeological sites within the project area by destroying them through
grading, fill, and other construction-related actiyities. No cultural
resources were found near the project boundari es, so i ndi rect impacts are
unl ike1y.
Fi ndi ngs
Potential impacts to archaeological sites will be mitigated through a
program of testing and excavation which will be coordinated through
subsequent revi ew of i ndi vi dua 1 development proposal s withi n the speci fi c
plan. Testi ng will consi st of surface collections of artifacts, postho1 e
'-\
\\qD
C?-.
-6-
_n_....."_
excavati ons to establ ish si te si ze and depth, and one-by-one-meter unit
xcavation to sample the artifacts and establish site significance. Sites
~termined to contain significant cultural materials will then be sampled
further to ach i eve mi ti gati on, unl ess the si tes can be preserved in open
space easements. This program will reduce potential impacts to cultural
resources to an insignificant 1eye1.
6. Community Infrastructure - Schools (3.8.1.2)
U1 timate maximum resi dentia1 development of the Bayfront area wou1 d,
accordi ng to the generati on rates provi ded by the Chu1 a Vi sta City School
District and the Sweetwater Union High School District, add approximately 274
elementary school students and 343 junior high school and high school
students, or a total of 618 students.
The proposed residential development wou1 d contribute to overcrowding
of the school facilities within both of these districts and thus impair the
normal functioning of educational programs in the districts. The location of
the proposed deye10pment, west of 1-5 and the San Di ego Troll ey 1 i ne, wou1 d
also create the additional impact of requiring the Chu1a Vista City School
District to bus students to the school for safety purposes.
Findings
In accordance with existing City of Chula Vista ordinance, a letter of
seryice ayai 1 abil i ty will be requi red pri or to the approya1 of any
~esidentia1 units. In order to obtain the necessary agreement from the
hool districts, developers agree to contribute towards the cost of
µroviding temporary classroom facilities. This procedure provides the
mechanism to reduce impacts to the affected school districts to acceptable
1 eve1 s.
7. Transportation and Circulation (3.10.2)
According to the Federhart study (Appendix C of the EIR), approximately
43,140 tri ps wou1 d ul timate1y be generated from the entire bayfront project
area on a daily basis. These new trips would approach 1-5 from the west,
travel south of J Street on Bay Bou1eyard, or travel north into National City
on Tidelands Avenue. This total exceeds the existing ADT by 27,260 trips.
The distribution of the existing traffic and the project-generated
traffic is shown in Figure 17 (of the EIR). The majority of the streets
within the Bayfront plan area will have the capacity to adequately serve the
planned uses. However, as indicated in Figure 17, the E Street interchange
between Bay Boulevard and 1-5 will have the highest ADT. This volume could
cause problems and adyerse1y affect the level of seryice in the future if the
improvements suggested in the Land Use Plan are not implemented.
-7-
OID~
\\ I
~-
Findings
The foll owi ng measures have been incorporated into the project to
reduce traffic impacts:
a. The widening of the E Street bridge from its present six-lane
confi gurati on to seven to ni ne 1 anes in phases coordi nated wi th
development. This widening would include improvements at the Bay
Bou1 eyard i ntersecti on to e1 imi nate a 1 eft-turn movement on the
southbound freeway ramp.
b. An extended loop ramp at the Bay Bou1 evard i ntersecti on wi th E
Street.
Additi onal measures whi ch wi 11 be eval uated in the future as i ndi vi dual
deyelopments are proposed to include dual left-turn lanes from southbound Bay
Boulevard to E Street and from southbound Tidelands Avenue to E and F streets.
In addition to the roadway improvements noted above and included within
the Specific Plan, alternate transportation modes will be strongly encouraged
by the plan through the proYision of an additional trolley stop, bicycle
paths, and pedestrian walks which link to similar facilities to the west and
north.
These measures incorporated into the project will provide an adequate
ci rcu1 ati on system whi ch wi 11 ayoi d si gnifi cant impacts from future
deye10pment within the Specific Plan area.
8. Hydrology and Water Quality (3.12.2)
Development of the Bayfront site, as with any conversion of a
comparable nonurban area, would lead to a number of hydrologic impacts.
These i nc1 ude increased runoff rates, al tered chemical content of runoff
waters, and altered drainage pattern.
Developed areas generally exhibit a higher runoff yo1ume than
comparable nonurban areas. With development of the project area, the
quanti ty of surface runoff flow wi 11 increase. The di scharge curve wi 11
change from a gradual increase and relatiye1y high flow rate to a discharge
characterized by a rapid buildup, with a peak runoff during and immediately
foll owi ng rai nfa11 , then a more rapi d decrease in flow. Surface drai nage
will ultimately flow directly into San Diego Bay or the wetland area via the
storm drain system.
The change from agricultural and vacant land to urban uses would also
result in the altered chemical content of the runoff waters that now flow off
the property. The nutrients and pesticide concentration of the runoff which
now enters the marsh areas will be reduced. However, urban use will generate
-8-
~
\ \<\ \)
~.
a number of different chemical-waste products, which include oil and
'etroleum products, heavy metals, soaps and detergents, and pesticides.
,f these will be picked up in runoff and carried into the bay wetlands.
The alterations proposed .for Gunpowder Point, the D Street fill, and
the Midbayfront will change the existing drainage pattern and also affect the
existing water quality.
other
Many
Groundwater will be impacted by implementation of the plan through the
reducti on in the recha rge to the aquifer beneath the si te. The impact is
considered insignificant because of the extremely low quality of the existing
groundwater.
Findinqs
The Specific Pl an recognizes the importance of maintaining high water
quality and incorporates measures to maintain drainage in as natural a
condition as possible and to improve tidal circulation as a means of
improYing water quality.
Section 19.87.07 of the Specific Plan sets forth grading regulations
which provide for a major detention and desilting basin in the Midbayfront
area, restriction of grading during the rainy season, permanent erosion
control device installation prior to grading activities, and erosion control
1 andscapi ng wi thi n 60 days of gradi ng.
The drainage system proposed in the Specific Plan (Map 5) would direct
noff from developed areas through a storm drain system and as directly as
possible into the open waters of San Diego Bay, minimizing urban runoff,into
the Sweetwater, Vener, and G Street marshes. Seasonal runoff from deye10ped
areas into the G Street marsh wou1 d be supp1 emented with inputs of hi gher
qual ity fresh water to reduce poll utant concentrations which may occur.
These measures would minimize the urban runoff impacts of the project.
The project would also rebuild the existing viaducts connecting
portions of Sweetwater Marsh on each side of the railroad tracks. This
measure will improve tidal flows within the marsh, improYing water quality in
the eastern port ion.
These measures taken together will insure that the hydrologic and water
quality tmpacts resulting from the project are insignificant.
V. MITIGATION FOUND TO BE UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF ANOTHER AGENCY
9. Water Supply (3.9.1)
Ultimate deye10pment of the project site will result in approximately
539,810 gallons being consumed per day for residential and commercial uses.
Since industrial water use can vary greatly depending on the specific type of
use, the approximate consumption has not been included. The commercial and
-9-
\\,\D'-\
~-
residential consumption can also be variable for this same reason. While
this amount of water is not considered a disproportionate amount of water for
the project, it wi 11 contri bute incrementally to the increased demand for
water resources in San Diego County. The Sweetwater Authority anticipates no
problems in providing water for the project (Silva, Sweetwater Authority,
10/18/84).
Si nce the majority of the region's water is imported, the cumulative
effect of increased water demand is considered significant.
Finding
Since the impact is cumu1atiye and the solution is independent of the
present project, no project-level mitigation is ayailable. Therefore, no
mitigation was incorporated to lessen the impact.
The changes or a1 terati ons necessary to avoid or substanti ally reduce
this impact lie with the Sweetwater Authority and not with the City of Chula
Vista.
A1 ternati ve development p1 ans wou1 d not reduce the cumu1 atiye impact.
The EIR notes that the projected water use is not considered disproportionate
(page 63). Recognizing that less intense deye10pment would result in less
water consumption, any a1ternatiye, other than the no project alternative,
would present significant cumulative water supply impacts.
Whil e the responsi bi 1 ity for avoi di ng or substanti ally reduci ng
cumulative water impacts lies with another jurisdiction, cumu1atiye
significant water supply impacts remain. These impacts are considered
acceptable because of the overriding social and economic benefits accruing
from the project. These are descri bed in the "Statement of Overri di ng
Consi derati ons" a ttached to these fi ndi ngs.
VI. EFFECTS FOUND TO BE INFEASIBLE TO AVOID OR SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCE
10. Landform and Visual Quality (3.3)
The EIR indicates that although the impact of the plan implementation
will positiye1y affect the overall visual appearance of the site and proYide
increased public access to the visual resources, it will also create the
effect of removing a generally open area from a surrounding enyironment which
is dominated by more intense urban development. The development proposed for
the D Street fill, the resort hotel on Gunpowder Point, and deye10pment
proposed on existing agricultural lands (Midbayfront) will delete and
interrupt the vi sual amenity of an open a rea in an urban en vi ronment. For
these reasons, the visual impact is considered significant.
The specifi c p1 an has incorporated desi gn features to enhance the form
and appearance of the project. Design standards, landscaping direction, and
a rchi tectura 1 gui dance is provi ded on pages 55 through 74 of the speci fi c
-10-
\~Dc.\
~_\
no·· .
plan. These measures avoid some adverse visual effects of the project. The
mpacts to visual amenities from open areas in an urban environment discussed
4bove remain, however.
There are no mitigation measures for significant adverse impacts to
visual quality which fall within the jurisdiction of anotnêt agency.
The visible impact results from building in a presently undeveloped
area. There is no mitigation or alternative, aside from the no project
alternative, which would not present a significant visual impact. An
alternative discussed in the EIR considered omission of the hotel from
Gunpowder Point. Elimination of the hotel from this location would reduce
visual impacts by removing a tall structure at the bay edge. It would not,
however, avoid or substantially lessen the Yisual impact of the project.
Therefore, although design criteria incorporated into the specific plan
do not mitigate some Yisua1 qua1ity/landform impacts, significant impacts
remain. These impacts are considered acceptable because of the social and
economi c benefi t resulti ng from the p,roject. These are descri bed in the
"Statement of Overriding Considerations I attached to these findings.
V I 1. RECORD
For the purposes of CEQA and these fi ndi ngs, the record of the Pl anni ng
Commission and City Council relating to these actions include:
The Fi nal EIR for the Bayfront Specifi c Plan, Ci ty of Chul a Vi sta
(EIR-85-l) .
2. Chu1a Vista Bayfront Specific Plan; Chu1a Vista Local Coastal Program
Phase II 1. A di vi si on of the Chul a Vi sta Zoni ng Ordi nance. Ci ty of
Chul a Vi sta.
3. California Administrative Code, Title 25
4. Chul a Vi sta Bayfront Land Use Pl an, Sedway Cooke Associ ate, 1983.
5. Revised Findings for the Approval of the City of Chu1a Vista Bayfront
Local Coastal Program Land Use P1 an. Ca1 iforni a Coastal Commi ssion,
December 21, 1984.
6. Final Analysis of Select Biological Resources Relating to the Chu1a
Vista Bayfront Plan. Jones and Stokes Associates, Inc.
7. Sweetwater River Final Environmental Statement. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. March 1982.
8. Silva, Sweetwater Authority, 10/18/84.
-11-
\\'\()~
~-
"
.,--....-'.-.
........... ...
9. Documentary and oral evidence presented to the Planning Commission,
City Council and the Coastal Commission during pUblic hearings on
EIR-85-l and the Bayfront Specific Plan.
10. Ma tters of common knowl edge to the Pl anni ng Commi ssi on and/or City
Council such as:
a. The City of Chu1a Vista General Plan, including the Land Use Map
and all elements thereof;
b. The Zoning Ordinance of the City of Chu1a Vista as most recently
amended.
c. The Municipal Code of the City of Chu1a Vista.
d. All other formally adopted policies and ordinances.
Bull, Charles S.
1977 SDM-W-1323: Arc haeol ogy of a Si te on Gunpowder Poi nt.
RECON.
Bull, Charles S.
1973 An Archaeological Survey of the Sweetwater River Flood
Control Channel. San Diego State University Foundation.
California, State of
1967 Ground Water Occurrence and Quality: San Diego Region,
Volume 1. Department of Water Resources.
Ca1 trans
1975 San Diego Metropolitan Area Transportation Study.
1981
Biological Assessment for
Consultation on the Sweetwater
and Freeway Interchange Combined
Endangered
Flood Control
Project.
Species
Channel
Carrico, Richard L.
1978 Cultural Resources Reconnaissance of the San Diego
Fixed Guideway Project, Centre City to San Ysidro.
WESTEC SerYices, Inc.
Chula Vista, City of
1974 Bayfront Redevelopment Project P1 an.
Agency.
Redeyelopment
Diego.
-12-
\\ ~ D1
\?-.-
Corum, Joyce M.
1978 An Archaeological Survey for the Proposed San Diego Bay
Route Bikeway (Harbor Drive to Coronado). California
Department of Transportation, Sacramento.
De Costa, Joan
1981 Proposed
SDi-8873H.
San Diego.
Archaeological Phase II
California Department of
Excavation at
Transportation,
Leach, Larry L.
1977 Archaeological
the Edgemere
Foundation.
I nyesti gati ons at the Handyman Site and
Site. San Diego State Uniyersity
San Diego,
1976a
1976b Air Quality Assessment for Environmental Impact
Reports. Air Pollution Control District.
1978a Revised Retona1 Air Quality Strategy. Prepared by the
San Diego ir Quality Plannlng Team.
1978b Regional Emission Trends Projections for the San Diego
Alr Quality Management Plan.
1979 Air Quality in San Diego County: Annual Air Monitoring
Report, 1978. Air Pollution Control District.
1980
stn ct.
San Diego Association of Governments
1978 Travel Behavior Survey.
Snyde r, John W.
1982 Hi stori c
SDi-8873H.
Sacramento.
Research Eval uati on Report for Si te
California Department of Transportation,
Southern California Soil and Testing, Inc.
1976 Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation: Proposed
Development Areas of Bayfront Redevelopment Project.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
1977 Environmental Statement for the Sweetwater Riyer Flood
Control Channel, State Highway Route 54, Interstate
Highway Route 5, Recreation Facilities, and
Conservation of Marshlands.
\~(j~
\ci-- \
._on..._._
-13-
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
1977 Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (AP-42).
WESTEC Services, Inc.
1977 Final EIR, Chula Vista Bayfront Redevelopment Project.
Williams, B., and J. Reiger
1973 An Inventory of Physical and Biological Factors of
Paradi se Creek Marsh. Prepared for P1 anni ng
Department, National City, CA.
Zedler, Joy B.
1982 of Southern California
ommunlty ro 1 e.
Service.
1984 Salt Marsh Restoration: A Guidebook for Southern
California. California Sea Grant College Program.
Zimba1, R. L., and B. W. Massey
1980 Continuation Study of the Light-Footed Clapper Rail.
Prepared for California Department of Fish and Game.
1984 Continuation Study of the Light-Footed Clapper Rail.
Prepared for California Department of Fish and Game.
-14-
\\~C\'-\
~/
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
BACKGROUND
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State EIR Guidelines
promulgated pursuant thereto provide:
15093.
(a) CEQA requires the decision-maker to balance the benefits of a
proposed project against its unavoidable enyironmenta1 risks in
determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of a
proposed project outwei gh the unayoi dab1 e adverse envi ronmenta 1
effects, the adverse environmena1 effects may be considered
"acceptab 1 e. "
(b) Where the decision of the publ ic agency allows the occurrence of
significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not
at least substantially mitigated, the agency shall state in writing the
specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or
other information in the record. This statement may be necessary if
the agency also makes a finding under Section 15091(a)(2) or (a)(3).
(c) If an agency makes a statement of overri di ng consi derati ons, the
statement should be included in the record of the project approval and
should be mentioned in the Notice of Determination (State of California
1984:111 ).
STATEMENTS
The following statements are considerations which warrant approval of the
project and therefore oyerride enyironmental impacts identified in EIR 85-1.
Significant impacts which are overridden are visual aesthetics and cumulative
water supply.
1. The provision of low-and moderate-cost housing.
In the documents enti t1 ed "City of Chu1 a Vi sta' s Response to the
California Coastal Commission Staff Report of July 6, 1979 Concerning Chu1a
Vista's Local Coastal Program," the city states:
The 1 ack of housi ng for low-and moderate-i ncome persons in Chu1 a
Vista has been a problem the City has been trying to alleviate for some
time. Attached as Exhi bit N is an out1 i ne of the numerous programs
that the City is undertaking to lessen the impact of this problem.
Recent legislation sponsored by the City to assist in the financing of
its redevelopment activities contains a statutory requirement that 20
percent of property tax reyenues to the Redevelopment Agency be used to
provide low-and moderate-income housing (AB405).
Since most of the Bayfront Specific Plan area is within a Redevelopment
"'strict, the city is required to proYide 20 percent of the number of
!lling units built within Bayfront district to low to moderate income
I dmi1 ies. These dwell ing units may be provided anywhere within the City of
Chul a Vi sta.
\ \C\, 'ù '\
~-
-15-
2. The provision of public coastal access, recreation, and increased
coastal identity.
The Santa Fe railroad, Interstate 5, privately owned land, and
industrial development severely restrict coastal access for the community of
Chula Vista. The California Coastal Commission recently found that:
The LUP provides for increase in both the quantity and quality of public
access consistent with the capacity of the Bayfront to sustain such use.
They further state:
In sum, the LUP contains policies which will result in an additional 3.2
miles of horizontal shoreline access, 39 acres of public park, and 34
acre s of wet1 and buffers. The Commi ss ion fi nds that thi s increase in
access opportuniti es maximi zes such opportuni ti es consi stent with the
protecti on of natural resource areas from di sturbance or oyeruse. The
Commission further finds that sufficient public accessways will be
provided, that parking areas will be appropriately distributed
throughout the Bayfront, and that low-cost vi si tor facil i ti es will be
provi ded. The Commi ssi on therefore fi nds that the LUP is consi stent
with Sections 30210-30214 of the Coastal Act. In addition, the
Commi ssi on fi nds that the LUP contai ns the speci fi c access component
required by Public Resources Code Section 30500 (a).
3. Economic benefit to the city through an increased tax base.
The proposed project will generate revenue in the form of property
taxes, sales taxes, and transient. occupancy taxes. The amount of revenue
expected from the project area is presented on pages 36 through 44 of the
Fi nanci al Analysi s of Alternati ves for Development of the Chu1 a Vi sta
Bayfront, prepared by Gruen and Gruen Associ ates (1983).
Such revenues will initially go to paying off the debt instruments used
to finance the project and will ultimately add to the city's revenue base.
The funds permit development of infrastructure improvements that may not
otherwise be feasible. Combined with appl icant-developed infrastructure as
outlined in the Land Use Plan, these improvements are of substantial public
benefit.
Reference s
The following documents were used in preparing these overriding
considerations:
1.
City of Chula Vista's Response to the California Coastal Commission
Staff Report of July 6, 1979 Concerning Chu1a Vista's Local Coastal
Program.
Financial Analysis of Alternatives for Development of the Chu1a Vista
Bayfront. Gruen and Gruen Associates. 1983.
The record sited in Section VII of the Bayfront Specific Plan IICEQA
Fi ndi ngs" (EIR-85-1).
2.
3.
WPC 1605P
12/31/84
\C\ () '-\
~_\
-16-