Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1985/05/22 AGENDA City Planning Commission Chula Vista, California City Council Chambers Wednesday, May 22, 1985 - 7:00 p.m. _ ................... PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER INTRODUCTORY REMARKS APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of March 27, 1985 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of tentative subdivision map for Brightwood Atrium Townhouses, Chula Vista Tract 85-9 - Thom L. Sanders Associates 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of tentative subdivision map for Las Flores, Chula Vista Tract 82-7 - Harold West 3. PUBLIC HEARING: GPA-83-7 - Amendment to E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan Amendment - Gersten Company 4. Consideration of "CEQA Findings" and "Statement of Overriding Considerations for the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan Amendments DIRECTOR'S REPORT COMMISSI ON COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT AT to the Regular Business Meeting of June 12, 1985 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers TO: City Planning Commission FROM: George Krempl, Director of Planning SUBJECT: Staff Report on Agenda Items for Planning Commission Meeting of May 22, 1985 I PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-85-9 - Consideration of tentative subdivision map for Bri~htwood Atrium Tewnhouses, Chula Vista Trac~ 85-9 - Thom L. Sanders Associates A. BACKGROUND The applicant has submitted a tentative subdivision map known as Brightwood Atrium Townhomes, Chula Vista Tract 85-9 in order to develop a one-lot condominium project consisting of ll units on 0.37 acres located at 457 "E" Street in the R-3 zone. An Initial Study, IS-80-7, of possible adverse environmental impacts of the project was conducted by the Environmental Review Coordinator on August 2, 1979, in conjunction with a similar project for the site. The Environmental Review Coordinator concluded that there would be no significant environmental effects and recommended adoption of the Negative Declaration for the present proposal. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-80-?. 2. Based on the findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a motion to approve the tentative subdivision map for Brightwood Atrium Townhouses, Chula Vista Tract 85-9, subject to the following conditions: a. The developer shall remove the existing driveway approaches on the north side of "E" Street and replace with curb, gutter and sidewalk to meet the existing improvements, except at the new driveway location. A construction permit will be required for all work done within the public right-of-way. b. The structural section of the driveway, outside the public right-of-way, shall be designed to,,R~eet flexible pavement structural design criteria based on values and a minimum traffic index of 4 or, if Portland cement concrete, shall be 5-1/2" thick. All onsite paving including parking areas except those within carports will be inspected by the Engineering Department. The design of the structural section shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. Private drive construction is subject to review and inspection fees. c. The grading and drainage shall be designed in such a manner as to result in no increase in runoff over adjacent private property. A plan showing said grading and drainage shall be submitted for approval of the City Engineer prior to approval of the Final Map. City Planning Commission Page 2 Agenda Items for Meeting of May 22, 1985 C. DISCUSSION Adjacent zonin~ and land use. North R-3 Multiple family dwelling South R-1 Single family dwellings East R-3 Multiple family dwelling West R-3 Pre-school and single family dwelling Existing site characteristics. ro erty is a vacant, level 0.37 acre parcel located on the north side The,,p~. Pstreet east of Brightwood Avenue. A prior tentative map for an of ll-unit condominium (CVT-80-13) was approved in June 1980 and extended the maximum three times until it expired in December 1984. Proposed development.. The project consists of the construction of ll two-bedroom, townhouse- style condominium units to be contained within 2 three-story structures. A two-car garage is provided beneath each living unit in addition to two on-site open parking spaces. The proposed development meets the condominium requirements relating to open space, private open space, storage and parking. The project was approved by the Design Review Committee on February 21, 1985. D. ANALYSIS As stated above, the project meets the requirements of the Municipal Code relating to condominiums and has received Design Review Committee approval. It is appropriate, therefore, to recommend approval of the tentati ye map. E. FINDINGS Pursuant to Section 66473.5 of the Subdivision Map Act, the tentative subdivision map for Brightwood Atrium Townhomes, Chula Vista Tract 85-9, is found to be in conformance with the various elements of the City's General Plan based on the following: 1. The site is physically suitable for the residential development and the proposal conforms to all standards established by the City for such projects. 2. The design of the subdivision will not affect the existing improvements -- streets, sewers, etc. -- which have been designed to avoid any serious problems. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of May 22, 1985 Page 3 3. The project is in substantial conformance with the Chula Vista General Plan Elements as follows: a. Land Use - The site is designated for "High Density Residential" use. b. Circulation - The project is served by existing streets and no streets are required across the property to serve adjacent areas. c. Housing The project will provide additional home ownership opportunities for residents of the community. d. Conservation - The site is located within an urbanized area and was previously developed. e. Park and Recreation, Open Space - The developer is required to pay Park Acquisition and Development fees in lieu of dedicating and improving parkland. f. Seismic Safety - The property is not near any known earthquake faul ts. g. Safety - The site is well within the response time of the fire station located on "F" Street. h. Noise - The units meet the requirements of the U.B.C. with regard to noise. i. Scenic Highway - The site is not adjacent to a designated scenic route. j. Bicycle Routes - The adjoining street is not designated a bike route, but will accommodate bicycles. k. Public Buildings No public buildings are proposed on the property. 4. Pursuant to Section 66412.2 of the Subdivision Map Act, the Commission certifies that it has considered the effect of this approval on the housing needs of the region and has balanced those needs against the public service needs of the residents of the City and the available fiscal and environmental resources. WPC 1 929P I I I I I I I I ;' D" , STREET I I- .... ETTA S'[ , ST. i I : --I ~ I I I .- . ADDENDUM TO NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS-80-7 FINDINGS REGARDING THE ADEQUACY OF CONDITIONED NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS-80-7 A. BACKGROUND The Environmental Review procedures of the City of Chula Vista provide that the Environmental Review Coordinator shall review any significant project revisions to assure that there will be no potential' fgr significant environmental impacts which have not been previously evaluated in a Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report. If the ERC ~.inds, that a proposed project is essentially the same in terms of impact or circumstances under which the project is to be undertaken, the ERC may recommend that a previously prepared ND/IS or EIR be utilized as the environmental document for the project. B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project applicant proposes to revise a proposed ll-unit (all 2 bedrooms) condominium project located at 457 "E" Street to a 12-unit (all 1 bedrooms) apartment/condominium residential development. There would be a decrease in the number of on-site parking spaces from 22 to 16. C. ANALYSIS · ~ 1. Soils Expansive soils have been found to be present in the project area and a soils report was previously required at the project. There are no changes in the project that would change this requirement or further exacerbate the expansive soils problem. 2. Noise Noise impacts experienced from "E" Street traffic were discussed with the previous project and an acoustical analysis was required. An assurance that interior levels be limited to a maximum of 45 db was required and will be required with this latest proposal. An acoustical analysis has been prepared by San Diego Acoustics which not only addresses the interior noise levels, but levels within exterior private open space areas oriented to "E" Street which were not proposed with the original project. The analysis makes recommendations to ensure that the noise levels be limited to a maximum of 65 db (normally acceptable noise level) within these private open space areas and the developer has agreed to incoporate these measures into the project. 3. Sshool~ The proposed 12-unit one bedroom project will have a less adverse effect on local educational facilities than the previous ll-unit two bedroom proposal. No additional mitigation will be required. D. CONCLUSION Based on the above discussion, I hereby find that the proposed 12-unit apartment/condominium project is essentially the same in terms of environmental impact or circumstances under which it is being undertaken, and recommend that the Design Review Committee, Planning Commission and City Council adopt Negative Declaration IS-80-7 prior to taking action on the project, subject to the mitigation measures specified in the Negative Declaration with the added condition that exterior noise levels within required open space areas be reduced to a maximum of 65 db. ~D*6bgl~s~/D. Reid Envir6~imental Review Coordinator WPC 0454P -2- NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT TITLE: HEDRICK CONDOMINIUMS Project Location: 457 E STREET Project Proponent: J.H. HEDRICK & CO. 1516 W. REDWOOD SAN DIEGO ~ 921~1 CASE NO. IS-8~-7 DATE: ' AUGUST 2,~1~79 A. PROJECT SETTINGi THE PROJECT INVOLVES APPROXIMATELY .37 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 457 E STREET. THE SITE IS CURRENTLY DEVELOPED WITH ONE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE. ADJACENT LAND USES INCLUDE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS TO THE SOUTH AND WEST AND MULTIPLE FAMILY UNITS TO THE NORTH AND EAST. THE SITE IS ALSO ADJACENT TO E STREET WHICH HAS A CURRENT ADT OF 17,55~. DUE TO THE SITES CURRENT DEVELOPED STATE, VEGETATION CONSISTS OF DECORATIVE LANDSCAPING. THERE ARE NO KNOWN ARCHAEOLOGICAL OR HISTORIC RESOURCES pRESENT. THE LAND AREA IS LEVEL WITH A MAXIMUM NATURAL SLOPE OF 2% AND NO SEISMIC HAZARDS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED WITHIN THE VICINITY. EXPANSIVE SOILS MAY BE PRESENT. B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION THIS PROPOSAL ENTAILS THE REMOVAL OF EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN 11 UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT. UNITS WILL CONSIST OF BELOW GRADE, TWO CAR GARAGES WITH TWO STORY LIVING UNITS ABOVE. APPROXIMATELY 16,15~ SQ. FT. OF LANDSCAPING IS PLANNED INCLUSIVE OF THE RECREATIONAL AREA. C. COMPATIBI. LITY WITH ZONING AND PLANS NET DENSITY PROPOSED IS 29.6 DU/AC 'WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH THE- SITES R-3 ZONE. THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL IS ALSO IN.CONFORMANCE WITH THE ON SITE HIGH DENSITY LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE GENERAL PLAN. D. IDENTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS SOILS 'ACCORDING TO THE CITY ENGINEERING DEPT., EXPANSIVE SOILS MAY BE PRESENT ON SITE. TO ENSURE STABLE CONSTRUCTION, PREPARATION OF A SOILS REPORT SHALL BE REQUIRED AND SUBSEQUENT RECOMMENDATIONS IMPLEMENTED. NOISE t. ~.:. AN ANALYSIS OF NOISE GENERATING FROM VEHICLE TRAFFIC ON E STREET WAS CONDUCTED AND CONCLUDED THAT UNITS PROPOSED TO BE CONSTRUCTED ADdACENT TO E STREET WOULD BE SUBdECT TO AN L_~ NOISE'LEVEL OF 69 DB AND AN L.~ LEVEL OF 79 DB. TO ENSURE T~T INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS WITHIN t~E PROPOSED UNITS DO NOT EXCEED 45 DB, A NOISE ANALYSIS SHALL BE PREPARED BY A QUALIFIED ACOUSTICIAN AND SUBSEQUENT RECOMMEN- DATIONS INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT. SCHOOLS THE LOCAL JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL IS CURRENTLY OPERATING IN EXCESS OF CAPACITY. TO ENSURE THAT ADEQUATE EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES ARE AVAILABLE TO NEW STUDENTS RESIDING IN THE PROPOSED PROJEC~ AR~, WRITTEN ASSURANCE OF SUCH SHOULD BE OBTAINED FROM THE APPROPRIATE SCHOOL DISTRICT. E. MITIGATION NECESSARY TO AVOID SIGNIFICANT IMPACT 1. A SOILS REPORT SHALL BE PREPARED AND SUBSEQUENT RECOMMENDATIONS IMPLEMENTED. 2. A NOISE ANALYSIS OF VEHICLE TRAFFIC SHALL BE PREPARED BY A QUALIFIED ACOUSTICIAN AND SUBSEQUENT RECOMMENDATIONS INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT. 3. THE APPLICANT WILL BE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT WRITTEN ASSURANCE OF CLASSROOM AVAILABILITY FROM APPROPRIATE SCHOOL DISTRICTS. ~ F. FINDINGS OF INSIGNIFICANT IMPACT THE pROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT RESULT IN-~NY ADVERSE EFFECT ON ANTURAL OR MAN-MADE RESOURCES NOR WILL THE PROJECT BE SUBJECT TO ANY UNUSUAL GEOLOGIC HAZARD. ADVERSE SOILS MAY BE PRESENT ON SITE HOWEVER, THESE CONDITIONS CAN BE MITIGATED TO ENSURE STABLE CONSTRUCTION. 2. THE PROPOSED CONDOMINIUM PROJECT IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN AND IS NOT ANTICIPATED TO ACHIEVE SHORT TERM TO THE DISADVANTAGE OF LONG TERM'ENVIRON- MENTAL GOALS. 3. POTENTIAL IMPACTS CAN BE MITIGATED TO AN ACCEPTABLE LEVEL AND NONE ARE ANTICIPATED TO INTERACT TO CREATE ANY CUMULATIVE ADVE'RSE EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. 4. THE PROJECT WILL NOT RESULT IN ANY SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN VEHICLE TRAFFIC NOR WILL ANY SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON HUMAN BEINGS RESULT. POTENTIAL IMPACT DUE TO TRAFFIC GENERATED NOISE CAN BE MITIGATED TO AN ACCEPTABLE LEVEL. G. CONSULTATION.~--~ ~ 1. INDIVIDU. AND ORGANIZATIONS CITY OF CHULA VISTA D. J. PETERSON, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING GENE GRADY, DIRECTOR OF BUILDING & HOUSING BILL ULLRICH, ASSOC- ENG. TED MONSELL, FIRE MARSHAL JOHN MACEVICZ, ENV~:.RONMENTAL CONTR. COMM. 2. DOCUMENTS IS-76-69 EYERS APARTMENTS HIGHWAY NOISE PROGRAM REPORT 117 The Initial study Application and evaluation forms documenting the findings of no significant impact are on file and available for public review at the chula Vista Planning Dept., 276 4th Ave., Chula Vista, CA. EN 3 (rev. 5/77) City Planning Commission Page 1 Agenda Items for Meeting of May 22, 1985 2 PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-82-? - Consideration of tentative subdivision map ~or Las Flores, Chula Vista Tract 82-7 - Harold D. West, et. al. A. BACKGROUND The applicant has submitted a tentative subdivision map known as Las Flores, Chula Vista Tract 82-7 in order to subdivide 5.4 acres, located between the extension of Las FLores Drive and Minot Avenue north of "D" Street, into 22 single family residential lots. A prior tentative map subdividing five of the subject acres into 20 single family lots was approved by the City Council in 1982 but was allowed to expire. An Initial Study, IS-82-1 5, of possible adverse environmental impacts of the project was conducted by the Environmental Review Coordinator on November 21, 1981, in conjunction with the prior tentative map for the property. IS-82-15 has been reviewed and the Environmental Review Coordinator has concluded that there would be no significant environmental effects not considered originally and recommended adoption of the Negative Declaration with Addendum. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration with Addendum issued on IS-82-15. 2. Based on the findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a motion recommending that the City Council approve the tentative subdivision map for Las Flores, Chula Vista Tract 82-7, subject to the following conditions: a. The developer shall be responsible for acquiring and dedicating right-of-way for Las Flores Drive to a line 12 feet west of its centerline {as shown on the tentative map) between the north and south boundaries of the project excluding that easement already granted to the City by Document No. 78-300702 recorded 7-18-78. b. The developer shall obtain drainage easements for any segments of brow ditch offsite of the subdivision. c. The developer shall be responsible for constructing a lO foot width of Las Flores Drive immediately west of its centerline from the southerly subdivision boundary to "D" Street. Installation of these improvements shall be coordinated with the deferral granted for property associated with Parcel Map 5711. Note: There is an improvement certificate on Parcel Map ?129 covering a portion of a l0 foot wide strip west of centerline. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of May 22, 1985 Page 2 d. The developer shall be responsible for constructing the storm drain in Las Flores Drive and offsite drainage facilities from the southern subdivision boundary northward to a suitable outlet north of the northerly boundary. A reimbursement agreement may be requested for one half the cost of such work. e. The developer shall be responsible for constructing street improvements in Las Flores Drive consisting of, but not limited to: a paved roadway width of 28 feet; curb, gutter, and sidewalk along the east side and an A.C. berm along the west side; and drainage facilities. f. The lowest habitable floor of each dwelling shall be at least one foot above the 100 year water surface elevation. g. The developer shall acquire and dedicate adequate right-of-way for the cul-de-sac at the north end of Las Flores and shall construct said facility. h. The owner shall grant to the City, by grant deeds, one foot control lots as determined by the City Engineer prior to approval of the Final Map. i. The developer shall grant to the City a 6-foot wide irrevocable offer of dedication for street widening purposes along Minot Avenue. The developer shall file copies of the CC&R's with the County Recorder concurrent with the final map. Said CC&R's shall provide for the responsibility for the maintenance of all common areas, roads and guest parking areas shared under contractural agreement by the property owner of each panhandle lot. This may be accomplished by the formation of a homeowner's association. k. The panhandle lots are approved in concept, which means that the lots may be developed provided that the detailed regulations of the code can be complied with and that additional grading and/or retaining walls may be necessary to build on the lot. 1. The driveway locations shall be so spaced as to provide the maximum number of parking spaces at the curb. m. The common access serving two lots shall be improved to its maximum width upon the development of one or both lots. n. Development of the panhandle lots shall be subject to the provisions of Section 19.22.150 of the Zoning Ordinance. o. The conversion of garages for living purposes shall be prohibited within the subdivision and it shall be so stated in the CC&R's. City Planning Commission Page 3 Agenda Items for Meeting of May 22, 1985 C. DISCUSSION Adjacent zoning and land use. North R-1 Vacant South R-1 and R-2 Single family dwellings East R-1 Vacant and single family dwellings West R-1 Vacant and single family dwellings Existing site characteristics. The 5.4 acre project site consists of ll existing parcels located on the easterly slopes of a canyon between Second and Minot Avenues and north of "D" Street. The northerly extension of Las Flores Drive will be located at the bottom of the canyon. Four of the existing parcels are through lots with frontage on both Minot Avenue and the extension of Las Flores Drive. Each of these lots as well as one other parcel is developed with a single family dwelling fronting on Minot Avenue; the other six lots are vacant. The runoff from the sides of the canyon drains north to the Sweetwater River floodplain. Tentative map. 1. The developer intends to subdivide the ll parcels into 22 single family resldentla lots with a minimum lot size of 7,000 sq. ft. The four through lots with single family dwellings will be split, leaving a total of five parcels fronting on Minor Avenue (ranging from 9,360 sq. ft. to 16,020 sq. ft.). The rear portion of these lots will be consolidated with the other parcels fronting on the extension of Las Flores and divided into 17 lots. Of the 17 lots, 8 will be panhandle lots with access to Las Flores Drive. 2. Each of the newly created vacant lots will be graded to create level pad areas on each lot. Because of the steep terrain, a series of retaining walls will be constructed. As each site is developed additional grading and walls may be required. 3. The development involves the extension of Las Flores Drive and other public improvements. These improvements will be coordinated with other proposed developments on the westerly slope of the canyon. The coordination of the grading and installation of improvements will eliminate the necessity of interim measures caused by piecemeal grading and development and will allow the properties to be developed in a logical and sequential manner. The City is also asking for an irrevocable offer of dedication should it be necessary to widen Minot Avenue at some future date. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of May 22, 1985 Page 4 4. The gross density of the subdivision is just over 4 units per acre, which is consistent with the General Plan designation for this area of Medium Density Residential, 4-12 dwelling units per acre. The lots range from 7,000 sq. ft. to 16,020 sq. ft. The Code requires a minimum lot size of 7,000 sq. ft. The panhandle lots conform to Section 19.24.170 governing panhandle lot development. The conditions of approval will insure the maintenance of the common driveways and guest parking areas. E. FINDINGS Pursuant to Section 66473.5 of the Subdivision Map Act, the tentative subdivision map for Las Flores, Chula Vista Tract 82-7, is found to be in conformance with the various elements of the City's General Plan based on the following: 1. The site is physically suitable for the residential development and the proposal conforms to all standards established by the City for such projects. 2. The design of the subdivision will not affect the existing improvements -- streets, sewers, etc. -- which have been designed to avoid any serious problems. 3. The project is in substantial conformance with the Chula Vista General Plan Elements as follows: a. Land Use The density of the project of 4.0 units per acre conforms to the General Plan designation of this area of 4-12 du/acre. b. Circulation - The development will extend and improve Las Flores Drive north of "D" Street, as well as provide for the future widening of Minor Avenue if necessary. c. Housing - The proposed development will provide needed housing in the community. d. Conservation While extensive grading will occur, the basic land form will be retained. e. Park and Recreation, Open Space - The development will be required to pay fees in lieu of dedication and improving park lands. f. Seismic Safety - The project is not adjacent to any known earthquake fault. g. Safety - The property is well within the response time of the fire station located on "F" Street. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of May 22, 1985 Page 5 h. Noise - The units must be of a construction necessary to achieve acceptable interior noise levels established by the Uniform Building Code. i. Scenic Highway -The project is not adjacent to any designated scenic route. j. Bicycle Routes No bicycle route is designated on Las Flores Drive. k. Public Buildings - No public buildings are designated on the property. 4. Pursuant to Section 66412.2 of the Subdivision Map Act, the Commission certifies that it has considered the effect of this approval on the housing needs of the region and has balanced those needs against the public service needs of the residents of the City and the available fiscal and environmental resources. WPC 1932P ADDENDUM TO IS-82-15 FINDINGS REGARDING THE ADEQUACY OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS-82-15 A. BACKGROUND The environmental review procedures of the City of Chula Vista provide that the Environmental Review Coordinator (ERC) shall review any significant project revisions to ensure that there will be no potential or significant environmental impacts which have not been previously evaluated in a Negative Declaration (ND) or Environmental Impact Report (EIR). If the ERC finds that a proposed project is essentially the same in terms of impact or circumstances under which the project is to be undertaken, the ERC may recommend that a previously prepared ND/IS or EIR be utilized as an environmental document for the project. B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project applicant proposes to subdivide approximately 5 acres of property into 17 vacant parcels and 5 parcels containing existing single family dwellings. The previous project also involved a subdivision into 22 lots, although i~o existing lots on Minor Avenue have been deleted from the Tentative Map and one has been added. C. ANALYSIS 1. Soils No significant changes have occurred on the project site nor in the tentative map previously reviewed, therefore, no additional mitigation will be required beyond that recommended in the Negative Declaration. 2. Land Form/Aesthetics No significant changes have occurred in the Tentative Map, therefore, no additional mitigation will be required beyond that recommended in the Negative Declaration. 3. Flood Hazard Building pad elevations have not changed from the original tentative map nor has the flood plain elevation changed. Although the completion of the Sweetwater River Flood Control Channel is anticipated within the next 2-3 years, which will delete the property from the lO0-year flood plain zone. No additional mitigation will be required. 4. Schools No additional dwelling units are proposed and therefore no additional students beyond those originally projected are anticipated to be generated by the project. The applicant shall still obtain written assurance of available classroom space from the appropriate school districts. 5. Parks No additional park land has been added to District No. 2.01 within which the project is located, therefore, the park needs generated from this subdivision remain the same. Park fees will be required to be paid in lieu of park land dedication. D. CONCLUSION Based on the above discussion, I hereby find that the impacts of the proposed subdivision are essentially the same or less than those evaluated in the previous initial study, and there has been no substantial change in the circumstances under which it is being undertaken and recommend that the Planning Commission and City Council adopt Negative Declaration IS-82-15 prior to taking action on the project. ~ ~ 15, 1985 DF~M~VIEW COORDINATOR Date: May WPC 1938P -2- negative declaration PROJECT NAME: The West Subdivision PROJECT LOCATION: North of 'D' Street, between Minot Avenue and the future extension of Las Flores Drive PROJECT APPLICANT: Harold D. West, Et A] CASE NO. IS-82-15 DATE: November 12, 1981 A. Project Setting The project involves approximately 5 acres of property along the easterly slope of a canyon between the northerly extension of Las Flores Drive and Minot Avenue. The site currently contains a few accessory structures (stables, sheds, etc.) which are utilized by properties fronting on Minot Avenue. Adjacent land uses consist of single family dwellings located to the east, vacant land to the west, vacant land to the north, and single family dwellings to the south. The subject property has an average natural slope of 16.79% and maximum slope of 28%. Runoff from Minot Avenue drains down the canyon slopes to the floor of the canyon and proceeds north to the Sweetwater River flood plain. However, elevations (35 ft. elevation and below) of the site are currently within the 100 year flood plain and/or subject to potential inundation. The site is covered with native vegetation and most likely supports wildlife prevalent in open canyon areas with limited human access. Several large California Pepper Trees are located on the project site. There are no known'geologic hazards within the project vicinity, however, cohesionless and compressible soils are present. B. Project Description The applicant proposes to subdivide the subject property into 16 vacant parcels and 6 parcels containing existing single family dwellings. All vacant parcels will obtain access from Las Flores Drive and existing parcels front on Minot Avenue. All proposed residential building pads are located above the lO0-year flood plain, those pads less than I foot above have been designated as garage pads for development. To provide access to the site, Las Flores Drive will be improved south to its inter- section with 'D'. Street. The proposed Las Flores Drive improvements consist of the dedication of 26' of right-of-way on the east side of the future center line and the installation of curb, gutter and sidewalk on the east side of the street in addition to a storm drain pipe and basic utilities (water, gas electric, etc.) under Las Flores Drive. The project also involves the extension of the storm drain system from Minot Avenue to the proposed systems in Las Flores Drive. Improvements are proposed to coordinatewith the development of Hudson Valley Estates #1 (EIR-78-1) which is located to the west of the proposed project. C. C_gmpatibility with zoninq and plans The proposed subdivision will result in a net density of 4.6 DU/acre which is in conformance with the medium density residential (4-12 DU/acre) land use desi~ city of chula vista planning department · environmental review section IS-82-15 ~ 2 of the General Plan. The proposed subdivision conforms with the Municipal Code requirements for lot size minimums (7,000 sq. ft.) and lot depth and width minimums (90 ft. and 60 ft. respectively). D.Identification of Environmental Effects 1. Soils A soils report prepared for the subject property indicates that on-site soils consist of loose alluvium, uncompated fill and terraced deposits. Cohesionless soils located on the project site may be subject to localized sloughing. To ensure stable construction, recommendations as stated in the Soils report should be incorporated into the project. 2. Land Form/Aesthetics The project entails substantial grading. To reduce potential siltation and ensure aesthetic quality, manufactured slopes should be graded to blend with the existing contours of the natural topography by use of variable slope ratios and rounding of top and side slopes. Hydroseeding and other planting with native materials should be used to substantially reduce aesthetic impact of land form change and retain a more rural appearance as well as minimize water consumption. Several mature California Pepper Trees are currently located on the project site and are scheduled for removal through the proposed grading plans. The applicant should contact the City's Landscape Architect in an effort to save as many trees as feasible. The tentative map, or a preliminary grading plan, should reflect the location of the trees and indicate their proposed disposition. 3. Flood Hazard Lower building pads and Las Flores Drive improvements are located within the Sweetwater River lO0-year flood plain. The applicant indicates that these lower pads will be primarily for garage construction, but that dwelling pads will all be raised I ft. above the flood level to avoid flood hazard. In order to maintain vehicular access to the dwelling units, the travel lanes of the proposed street will be required to be at an elevation which will result in about one and one half ft. of inundation during a lO0-year flood and have no ponding during a lO-year flood. 4. Schools Local schools are currently operating at or above capacity. The following chart contains the most current school enrollment and capacity figures and number of new students anticipated due to the proposed project. New Students School Enrollment Capacity From Project Rosebank 475 476 10 Hilltop Jr. High 1362 1440 5 Hilltop Sr. High 1444 1484 3 The proponent will be required to conform to the public facilities policies of the General Plan. This will include the submission of letters from the school districts. IS-82-15 ~ 3 5. Parks There are currently no dedicated park facilities within the park district 2.01 where the project is proposed to be located. Given the population of this district, the park acreage requirement is 3.6 acres. Based on the city's park acreage requirement factor of 2 acres/lO00 population, approximately 0.10 acres of park land would be required to serve the project. The project proponents will be required to pay fees in lieu of park land dedication. These fees will be used for the purchase and/or development of park facilities in the area of this project. E. Mitigation necessary to avoid si§nificant impact 1. Recommendations stated within the prepared soils report should be incorporated into the project. 2. Grading and hydroseeding should be accomplished as described in Section D2 of this Negative Declaration. 3. The sewer system will have to be designed to minimize the inflow of water during inundation and designed in conformance with the flood plain ordinance. 4. In order to maintain vehicular access to the dwelling units, the travel lanes of the proposed street will be required to be at an elevation which will result in about one and one half ft. of inundation during a lO0-year flood and have no ponding during a lO-year flood. 5. Written assurance of classroom space from the appropriate school district will be required. 6. In-lieu park fees will be required. F. Findin§s of insi§nificant impact 1. The project site is void of any natural or man made resource, although several mature trees are present on site. Dwelling sites will be raised above the lO0-year flood plain and recommendations stated within a prepared soils report will be followed to mitigate soils and slope stability related impacts. The aesthetic quality of resulting land form and feasible disposition of mature trees will'-also be ensured by prescribed mitigation. 2. The proposed subdivision is in basic conformance with the Land Use Element of the Chula Vista General Plan and will not achieve short term to the disadvantage of long term environmental goals. 3. Impacts can be mitigated and none are anticipated to occur which could interact to create a substantial cumulative effect on the environment. 4. Construction of the proposed 16 units will not result in any significant increase in vehicle traffic nor will any appreciable increase in related noise or pollutants result. IS-82-15 4 G. Consultation 1. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista Steve Griffin, Associate Planner Duane Bazzel, Assistant Planner Bill Harshman, Senior Engineer Roberto Saucedo, Associate Engineer Ted Monsell, Fire Marshal Tom Dyke, Building Department Applicant Harold D. West Applicant's Engineer Algert & Hay Engineering, Inc. 2. Documents EIR-78-1, Hudson Valley Estates #1 IS-81-5, Extension of Las Flores Drive IS-79-58, Hudson Valley Estates #2 Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation (Leighton & Associates, July 1981) The Initial Study A[)[~I [c.:~tion and ,~valuation forms documenting the findin(;s of no si{inif[cant impact are on file and available for public review ~t the Chul,~ Vista Planninq Dcpt., 276 4th Avenue, ChuZa Vista, CA 92010. ENVIR~L REVIEW COOFdDINATOR city o! chula vista planning department , . environmental review section EN 6 City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of May 22, 1985 Page 1 3. PUBLIC HEARING: GPA-83-7 - Amendment to E1 Rancho Del Rey Specific Plan - Gersten Company A. BACKGROUND The subject of this hearing is a request by the Gersten Company for certain amendments to the E1 Rancho Del Rey Specific Plan. On April 16, 1985, the City Council conceptually approved amendments to this specific plan as modified by staff and with the addition of several other stipulations. The matter was then referred back to your Commission for reconsideration. B. RECOMMENDATION Based on the reasons noted in Section D of this report, adopt a motion recommending approval of the E1 Rancho Del Rey Specific Plan, as amended. C. DISCUSSION On March 27, 1985, your Commission approved a motion recommending denial of the Gersten Company's request to amend the E1 Rancho Del Rey Specific Plan. This request proposed an increase in residential dwelling units from 4,215 to 4,634 and adding about 150 gross acres of employment park to the plan. Staff had recommended that the number of residential units be decreased to 4,228. At its April 16, 1985 hearing, the City Council approved the staff's alternative plan with the following provisions: 1. Increase the number of estate lots. 2. Include criteria in the specific plan requiring with each sub-area plan an update of the traffic study with correlating mitigating measures and provision of appropriate public facilities with each phase. 3. Provide design guidelines for the employment park in text and sub-area level planning. 4. Prepare a development agreement for the provision of public facilities prior to permit issuance. 5. Permit out-parcel owners to file for plan amendments on an individual basis if they are dissatisfied with the land use designations approved by the Council. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of May 22, 1985 Page 2 Subsequent to the Council decision, the applicant has revised the staff-modified plan as follows: 1. Increased the number of estate lots (0-2 du/ac) from 200 to 271, decreased the number of lots in the 2-4 du/ac range by 14, decreased the lots in the 4-6 du/ac range from 1,738 to 1,222, increased the lots in the 6-8 du/ac range from 592 to 1,068, decreased the 8-12 du/ac range by 17 lots and left the 12-20 du/ac designated lots unchanged. 2. Modified the text to accommodate Council requirements and the aforementioned map changes. 3. Required in the text that any phase proposed be first approved by the City Council before planning begins on any sub-area. 4. Reflected the revised park and open space locations and acreages requested by staff. Both the Council and your Commission have expressed concern regarding the traffic which would be generated by the project. The residential traffic would be virtually the same as the 1978 plan, the difference between the plans being the creation of the employment park. In response to traffic concerns, the City's traffic consultant has done additional traffic studies. A copy of his report is attached and he will be present at your meeting to discuss it. Staff has had a recent discussion with officials of the Sweetwater Union High School District who indicate that an additional five acres will be required to accommodate the junior high school proposed for the project. The school site size should be remected accordingly on the final specific plan and staff would request that this be made a condition of approval. Included in your packet is a revised specific plan text; the text has been highlighted so that it will not be necessary to re-read it in its entirety. Deletions made since the Commission hearing have been lined out and additions have been underlined. D. CONCLUSION Based on the information contained in the attached report to the City Council dated April 16, 1985, and the attached supplemental traffic report, staff recommends approval of the E1 Rancho Del Rey Specific Plan amendment because: 1. It provides a superior circulation system. 2. It provides bonafide estate housing. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of May 22, 1985 Page 3 3. It provides more affordable housing while retaining, for the most part,a single family texture. 4. It provides 10% low and moderate income housing. 5. It provides an employment park which we believe will be an asset to the City. 6. It provides a better connecting open space system. 7. It provides more stringent development standards and controls. 8. It provides more appropriate phasing techniques to make available at the same time a better variety of housing types. 9. It adheres to the goals and principles of the lg?8 plan and the City's General Plan. WPC 1934P COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item Meeting Date 4/16/85 ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: GPA-83-7 - Amendments to E1 Rancho Del Rey Specific Plan - Gersten Company SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning~ REVIEWED BY: City Manager (4/Sths Vote: Yes No x ) The ~ubject of this hearing is a request by the Gersten Company for certain amendments to E1 Rancho Del Rey Specific Plan. Included in this proposal by staff are l0 "out-parcels" not under Gersten ownership but within the specific plan area. Three of the out-parcel owners have made separate requests for their properties and have been so advertised. In addition, staff has included for continuity purposes, but not for amendment, the remainder of the entire E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan Area. RECOMME~I)ATION: That Council: 1. Basedyon the discussion contained in the Issues and Recommendations Sections, staff recommends that the City Council approve in concept the proposed amendments to the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan map and text as modified by staff. 2. Refer the amendment back to the Planning Commission for consideration. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: On March 27, 1985, the Planning Commission denied this request by a vote of 6-1. DISCUSSION: I. Introduction A. Setting and Site Description The subject of the proposed Specific Plan amendment consists of the remaining 1,582 acres of undeveloped property within the approximately 2,373 acre E1 Rancho Del Rey Specific Plan. This property has been renamed the Corcoran Ranch by its owners, the Gersten Company. The area requested for amendment is generally located east of Interstate 805 adjacent to the east boundary of the Terra Nova development presently under construction. The eastern edge of the property lies along Otay Lakes Road while Telegraph Canyon Road delineates the property's southerly boundary. Existing low density residential development (Rancho Robinhood) bounds the property to the north. The ridge and canyon topograhy of the site is dominated by Rice Canyon and its tributaries, drainage from which Page 2, Item Meeting Date~ flows east to west ultimately flowing north into the Sweetwater River. The site is bisected by East "H" Street and eventually East "J" Street will also traverse the property. B. Historical Perspective The subject property is a portion of the 3,140 acres acquired by the Gersten Companies in 1968 from United Enterprises. Planning and engineering studies were conducted during 1969 and 1970 culminating in the preparation of the Rancho Bonita Land Use Plan approved by the City Council on September 15, 1970. This plan, originally proposing 13,193 dwellings, 148 acres of commercial development, 291 acres of parks and open space and 84 acres for school purposes, was incorporated into the 1970 amendment to the General Plan by means of general land use designations necessary for its.~ implementation. Subsequently, these General Plan designations were superseded by a General Plan Amendment in 1978 when the adopted specific plan for E1 Rancho Del Rey was approved. The project was renamed E1 Rancho Del Rey in 1971. Dr. Leonard Bloom acquired options on the approximately 1,400 acres north of East "H" Street in 1971 and proposed the "Sports World" development which featured a sports arena and a regional shopping center on a westerly portion of the property. This proposal was defeated by referendum as was a subsequent plan for a regional shopping center at East "H" Street and Interstate 805. Most of the land optioned by Bloom reverted back to Gersten ownership following the referenda. Portions of the E1 Rancho Del Rey property were annexed to the City beginning in 1972 with the last parcel of the Gersten ownership annexed in 1980. Development of portions of the property began in 1973 and continues today. At the time of the preparation of this report, about 45% of the original property has been developed or are in the development process. 1,582 of the original 3,140 acres of the Gersten ownership are left to be developed and, along with several out-parcels, are the subject of this Specific Plan amendment request. Page 3, Item Meeting Oate~ In 1978, the City Council approved a City-prepared specific development plan for the then-remaining acreage of the Gersten property which included several parcels outside the Gersten ownership. This plan accommodated 6,002 dwelling units, 63 acres of con~nercial development, seven school sites, 44 acres of public parks, 780 acres of open space and a fire station site. By 1983, ten amendments to the Specific Plan had been approved resulting in new totals of 6,843 dwelling units, 46 acres of commercial development, 56 acres of public parks and 735 acres of open space. In 1983, the Gersten Company applied for an amendment to the 1978 Specific Plan citing increases in the cost of housing developed at -. low densities, changes in the housing market since 1978, and difficulties in implementing portions of the adopted plan. The first proposal provided for 5,338 dwelling units and. 93.4 acres of office/industrial uses/employment park and filling of the bottom of the north leg of Rice Canyon. Subsequent draft plans, based on a new grading plan for the property and negotiations wi th staff, have reduced the dwelling unit count to 4,634, increased the employment park acreage to about 150 acres and retained the north leg of Rice Canyon as natural open space. C. Method of Processing Request Only the development potential of the 1,582 acre Gersten ownership and the l0 out-parcels will actually be affected by the proposed amendment. However, the entire 2,373 acre E1 Rancho Del Rey Specific Plan has been included in the specific plan amendment for continuity since the residential land use categories in the amended version differ from those in the original plan. The remaining 700+ acres of the specific plan, while receiving new land use designation, will be allocated only the number of dwelling units previously approved. Since nearly all of this property is either developed or approved for development, few parcels outside the Gersten ownership and the out-parcels would be affected by this specific plan amendment. Page 4, Item Meeting Date~ II. Background Proposed Amendment to the E1 Rancho Del Rey Specific Plan A. Land Use 1. Residential a. Density categories - The adopted specific plan provides density ranges as follows: Very Low [1-2 dwelling units per acre (du/ac)], Low (2-3 du/ac), Medium Low (3-5 du/ac), Medium (6-10 du/ac) and Medium High (ll-18 du/ac). Associated with each range are corresponding dwelling types. The proposed specific plan amendment changes the density ranges to 0-2, 2-4, 4-6, 6-8, 8-12 and 12-20 dwelling units per acre, each range signifying the density permitted in that category and those housing types which characterize it. The adopted specific plan permits a maximum of 4,215 dwelling units on that portion of the plan proposed for amendment while the requested amendment to the plan indicates a maximum of 4,634 units, an increase of about 10%. Due to the introduction of the employment park, however, the "net" residential density increase proposed is actually 37%. The l0 out-parcels are allocated 375 units on the existing plan and 507 units on the proposed plan, based on property owner requests and on staff density allocations for those properties which no specific land use requests were made by their owners. The adopted plan provides a net residential density of 4.4 du/ac and a gross density of 2.7 du/ac while the proposed plan provides net and gross densities of 5.6 and 3.2 respectively. By comparison, the EastLake development received approval of a net density of 5.9 du/ac and a gross density of 3.4 du/ac. (Note: acreages devoted to employment park uses on the proposed plan and the EastLake project have been deleted in compiling gross density figures.) b. Housing types - Both plans promote a variety of housing types and endorse a "fine grained" mixture of housing patterns. Following is a brief outline of the types of housing associated with each of the density categories. Page 5, Item Meeting Date-~F/1-676n~ 0-2 du/ac Single family residential on estate-sized lots. 2-4 du/ac - Single family residential on minimum 6,000 square foot lots. 4-6 du/ac - Small lot single family, duplexes, and other cluster-type development. 6-8 du/ac, 8-12 du/ac Various cluster and condominium-type developments. 12-20 du/ac - Multifamily-type developments. c. Housing Type Locations - Housing types and densities have been grouped in homogenous clusters. However, density transfers among categories are permitted by the specific plan text if deemed appropriate by the City. Generally, densities increase in a north-to-south direction for the area north of East "H" Street. The area north of the main {north) leg of Rice Canyon features two dwelling units per acre (du/ac) estate and 4 du/ac single family areas with 6 du/ac clusters at either end of the neighborhood. The ridge, between the north and center legs of Rice Canyon, west of the San Diego Gas and Electric right-of-way is characterized by groupings of 6, 8 and 12 du/ac. The area east of the San Diego Gas and Electric right-of-way along the north side of East "H" Street is the location of approximately 33 acres of medium high density residential at 20 du/ac. South of East "H" Street, the plan features a mixture of densities ranging from 4 to 8 du/ac. The densities allocated to the area are somewhat similar to those provided by the existing plan. Page 6, Item Meeting Date-l~/1-G7BE~ 2. Employment Park About 151 acres (141.3 net acres) located on either side of East "H" Street between the center and south legs of Rice Canyon are designated as an "employment park," the activities in which would be limited industrial, office and support commercial uses. One objective to the provision of this use, in this location, is to provide employment to some of the present and future residents of E1 Rancho Del Rey. Permitted uses in the employment park would be those which are compatible with residential areas; substantial landscaped areas along East "H" Street would be required; no direct industrial lot access to East "H" Street would be permitted; and signing would be limited to monument and wall signs. 3. Retail Commercial Major commercial uses are presently confined to the south si de of East "H" Street near its intersection with Interstate 805 ~ in the previously approved Rice Canyon SPA. No new commercial areas are proposed for the Corcoran Ranch SPA. 4. Parks and Open Space The amended plan allocates about 56 acres for park purposes and 613 acres as open space. Based on the 4,634 dwelling units proposed by the applicant, the Park and Recreation Element of the General Plan requires approximately 25 acres of neighborhood park and an identical amount for community park purposes. In addition, it is anticipated that private recreation facilities will be provided for the future residents of the areas designated for eight dwelling units per acre or higher. Many of the areas reserved for open space will be undisturbed, but manufactured slope banks on the perimeter of natural areas have also been included in the open space calculations. Most of the identified rare or endangered plant and animal species are located in the natural open space area. The parks and open space components of both the adopted and proposed plans are similar. While the adopted plan provides about 40 acres more open space than the proposed plan, it also provides about 25 fewer acres of park land. Figures 1 and 2 depict the adopted and proposed specific plans, respectively. Page 10, Item Meeting Date qF/1-6-/gEF- B. Traffic Circulation A transportation analysis for the project was conducted by Urban Systems Associates (USA) which included an assessment of a cumulative impact study prepared by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) using its computer model. Estimates of the number of trips that could be generated by the proposed project were developed and distributed to the street system, and intersection capacity analyses were completed for key intersections to identify potential problem areas. Following is a table which compares the estimated average daily traffic generated by the adopted and proposed plans. Land Use Adopted Plan Proposed Plan Residential 43,100 46,400 Employment Park --- 21,200 Schools 3,800 2,600 Public Facilities 500 500 Parks 1,300 2,300 y Out-Parcels 3,400 4,500 TOTALS 52,100 77,500 As is evident from this table, the proposed plan would increase weekday traffic by approximately 25,400 trips per day, 21,000 of which are directly attributable to the employment park. Mitigating some of this increase is the fact that most of the peak employment park traffic would be going in directions opposite to peak residential traffic and that access to the employment park would be restricted to two or three access points on East "H" Street. In addition, the USA report used "worst case" traffic assignments, all of which were considered external trips. In reality, the report notes, lO-15 percent of the trips generated will remain localized to the project area. In their subsequent report dated March 20, 1985, USA evaluated the latest E1 Rancho Del Rey plan to address (1) the traffic impacts of the new modified plan which reduced the number of dwelling units from 5,338 to 4,634 and increased the size of the employment park from g3 acres to 141 acres; (2) the cumulative impacts of this plan and other projects on the East "H" Street/I-805 and Telegraph Canyon Road/I-805 roadways. A copy of that report is enclosed. Based on USA's recent transportation analysis, the environmental impact report concludes that, if the mitigation measures outlined in the analysis are implemented in conjunction with need as development proceeds, traffic impacts can be reduced to insignificance. Page 11, Item Meeting Oate~/TGTB5-- The specific plan text requires that a traffic analysis be prepared for any sub-area plan to identify and analyze anticipated impacts on 1-805 and its interchanges at Telegraph Canyon Road, East "H" Street and Bonita Road caused by each sub-area plan. C. Public Facilities 1. Water Service - The subject property is located entirely within the Otay Water District (OWD) Improvement District 22. The proposed amendment to the Specific Plan would increase the daily water consumption by about 24% or about 700,000 gallons per day. This water would be provided from one future and several existing reservoirs via numerous existing and future water mains. These facilities would be constructed by the developers of E1 Rancho Del Rey in conjunction with OWD in confomance with a water supply master plan prepared for the project in March, 1982 by James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers. The water distribution facilities outlined in that plan would adequately serve the uses proposed by this specific plan amendment request. 2. Sewer Service - The City of Chula Vista would provide sewer service to the project via its present approximately 19 million gallons per day capacity in the San Diego Metropolitan Sewage System (METRO). Most of the effluent will be transported to the METRO system through the Rice Canyon sewer outfall. Based on the plan originally submitted, the Rice Canyon outfall has the ability to accommodate the projected sewage from the project. However, a portion of the 15-inch line west of Hidden Vista Drive would be under pressure during peak flows and could require additional facilities to handle peak flows. New trunk sewers are proposed to be located in the north and south legs of Rice Canyon. 3. Drainage While most of the property drains into the Rice Canyon drainage basin, portions of the project drain into three other basins--Bonita, Otay Lakes Road, and Telegraph Canyon. Existing and proposed drainage improvements including improved and natural storm drain channels, culverts, and siltation basins will accommodate storm runoff in the project area. 4. Police Protection Service - Police protection is provided by Patrol Beat 32 of the City Police Department. Beat 32 is patrolled on a 24-hour basis by one squad car. As development of the project occurs, Beat 32 is likely to be split into two beats with additional personnel and equipment required to provide service to the area. Page 12, Item Meeting Date qF/1-67~ 5. Fire Suppression Service - Two fire stations will serve the site dependent upon location of the fire. A new station planned at the northeast corner of East "H" Street and Ridgeback Road will be in operation by the time development occurs on the project site. Station #4 on Otay Lakes Road would serve the eastern portion of the project area. No significant problems in providing fire protection services to the area are foreseen. 6. Library Service - A branch library site is tentatively proposed for a location near the intersection of East "H" Street and Buena Vista Way. This site would be between one -. and two acres in size and would provide service to the area east of Interstate 805 and north of the service area of the branch facility planned for the EastLake development to the southeast. Whether a site will actually be required and its precise location will be determined during the SPA plan process. 7. Schools - Sites for two junior high and three elementary schools are depicted on the specific plan map. In addition, the existing Bonita Vista Junior High School, Halecrest Elementary School and a district-owned elementary school site on Buena Vista Way also serve portions of the specific plan area. Whether all of the junior high school sites will be utilized will depend upon the results of the future studies by the Sweetwater High School District which is now contracting to update its facilities master plan. Elementary school sites will be developed if/as needed. The district-owned elementa~ school site, located at the southwest corner of the extension of East "J" Street and the proposed alignment of Paseo Ranchero may be traded for a parcel at the southeast corner of East "J" Street (extended) and Paseo Ladera (extended) to provide for better attendance boundaries. In addition, as development occurs and SPA's planned, it is quite possible that individual school locations will change to accommodate changes in circumstances. The text of the specific plan provides for flexibility in choosing school sites. The Chula Vista Elementary School District will soon undertake a facilities plan study to evaluate their future school needs. School financing will be a~dressed as part of the Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan rewew process. Figure 3 depicts the locations and attendance radii of existing and proposed schools serving this area. Page 14, Item Meeting Date q~/T671)5-- D. Fiscal Impacts An analysis of the fiscal impacts of the proposed plan on the City was prepared by Public Affairs Consultants in June, 1984, which compared the effects on the City's operating revenues and expenditures of the buildout of the adopted plan with the buildout of the proposed plan. This analysis evaluated operating costs and revenues attributable to the development of each plan using existing service levels and revenue sources. Based on this evaluation, Public Affairs Consultants projected that additional annual net revenues (revenues less expenditures) gained by the adoption of the proposed plan over the existing plan would be approximately $398,000 annually after five years, $874,000 annually after ten years, $749,000 annually after 15 years, and $826,000 annually after twenty years. These projections are based on the proposed plan which was submitted in late 1983 before the revisions which are reflected on the plan under consideration were prepared. Since the number of dwelling units have been reduced and the employment park acreage increased subsequent to 1983, these estimates will change somewhat, but the amendments are not expected Yto .reduce projected revenues. Without the employment park, the project would have a negative cost impact on operating revenues. E. Financing of Public Facilities and Services 1. Water Facilities - Water usage is estimated as follows: Gallons per day Residential 2,520,000 Employment Park 493,500 Schools 53,600 Public Facilities 30,800 Parks/Recreation 40,000 Open Space TOTAL 3,137,900 Water facilities to serve the plan area will be provided by the developer. Estimated cost for those facilities as of January 1, 1984, is as follows: Reservoirs $ 1,200,000 Transmission Lines 1,300,000 Local Distribution ll,190,O00 Meters, Hookups 5,390,000 Fees 1,470,000 Employment Park Facilities 1,405,000 TOTAL $21,955,000 Page 15, Item Meeting Date l~/Tb'TgS- No City expense would be incurred to provide water service or to maintain the water transmission facilities. The Otay Metropolitan Water District will be responsible for the cost of maintaining the water distribution system. 2. Sewer Facilities - Sewer facilities to serve the proposed development will be provided by the developer. Anticipated effluent generation upon total buildout of the project would be approximately 1.6 million gallons per day. Estimated costs for on-site facilities to be funded by the developer follows: Main $ 7,050,000 Laterals 2,800,000 Lift Station and Force Mains 300,000 Fees 1,150,O00 Employment Park Facilities 470,000 TOTAL $11,770,000 y In addition to the costs for on-site facilities indicated above, the developer will also be required to participate in the funding of major trunk lines in varying degrees in four sewer improvement districts. The City will be responsible for the on-going maintenance of the sewer distribution system. 3. Drainage Facilities - The drainage system will be constructed by the developer and subsequently maintained by the City. Costs for these facilities to be borne by the developer follow: Trunk Lines $2,000,000 Connector Lines 2,700,000 Catch Basins 2,400,000 Energy Dissipators 60,000 Employment Park Facilities 470,000 TOTAL $7,630,000 4. Circulation System - The on-site circulation system, consists of six classifications of roads. Estimated costs for the circulation system follow: Arterial Roads $ 6,025,000 Collector Roads 1,160,000 Residential Collectors 2,265,000 Residential Streets lO,O00,O00 Major Road Widening 750,000 Employment Park Roads 1,875,000 TOTAL $22,075,000 Page 16, Item Meeting Date~-/1-6-/B5- III. Phasing The adopted plan requires SPA plan approval before any tentative maps or other plans for development may be considered. These SPA's are delineated on the specific plan map on a geographical basis and each SPA constitutes a phase. The proposed amendment would create one large SPA (Corcoran Ranch) which would subsequently be divided into several sub-areas. The sub-areas, . however, would not be delineated on a map at this time but rather will be established by a process of negotiation between the City and the developer. Each sub-area would constitute a phase and would be .- processed in a manner identical to a SPA. This method is deemed appropriate since the project can be phased in several ways because of the property's "hole-in-the-doughnut" situation; that is, since the property is nearly surrounded by existing development, new development can be logically established in a variety of locations. However, the text of the proposed plan sets forth several guidelines with which to evaluate boundaries of proposed sub-areas. These guidelines relate to size, contiguity to existing development, access to existing public facilities, sufficiency of public improvements, provision of community facilities, public and private economic concerns and environmental impacts. This method of phasing the development of this large property provides the flexibility required for land development in response to the vagaries of today's market and economy. IV. Out Parcels As mentioned elsewhere in this report, in addition to the 1,582 acre Gersten ownership, there are ten parcels containing about ~ acres not under that ownership. These parcels have been included in this proposed amendment by staff because they are also located in those SPA's which are being combined to create the Corcoran Ranch SPA, the subject of this request. These properties are indicated on the map following this section. A brief discussion of each follows: No. l: 10+ acres adjacent to Bonita Vista Junior High School designated for resid6-ntial uses at 3-5 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) on the adopted plan. Since the property owner has made no request for any specific land use changes on this parcel, staff has advertised it in the 4-6 du/ac category in conformance with the densities proposed around it by the Gersten amendment. No. 2: 5+ acres on the north side of East "H" Street west of Otay Lakes ~ de~ignated for residential uses at ll-18 du/ac on the adopted plan. The property has been recently improved with 60 condominium units, thus staff has assigned it the 8-12 du/ac category in conformance with its existing development. Page 17, Item Meeting Date No. 3: 10+ acres on the north side of East "H" Street just west of its intersection with Buena Vista Way, designated for residential uses at 3-5 du/ac and Open Space on the adopted plan. Preliminary plans have been filed for a church and church-related facilities for the property so staff has assigned it the PF Public Facilities category in conformance with parcel's proposed use. No. 4: 4+ acres on the southeast corner of East "H" Street and the ~e ex~nsion of Paseo Ranchero, designed for residential uses at 3-5 du/ac on the adopted plan. This parcel is owned by the Roman Catholic Church but, lacking precise information as to its development, staff has advertised it for the 4-6 du/ac category in conformance with neighboring parcels on the proposed amendment. No. 5: 10+ acres near the northeast corner of the future intersection of East ,,jr Street and Paseo Ladera, designated for residential uses at 2-3 du/ac on the adopted plan. Since the property owner has made no requests for any specific land use changes on this parcel, staff has advertised it for the 2-4 du/ac category in conformance with the densities around it. No. 6: 10+ acres at the northwest corner of the future intersection of East '"J" ~reet and Paseo Ranchero, designated for residential uses at 6-10 du/ac on the adopted plan. 102 dwelling units were approved for the property by the City in 1982, thus the 8-12 du/ac category shown conforms to the approved project. No. 7: 10+ acres at the southwest corner of' the future intersection of ~-~--"J" s-{reet and Paseo Ranchero designated for use as an elementary school on the adopted plan. Since the property is already owned by the Chula Vista Elementary School District, staff has assigned it the School category. No. 8: 10+ acres at the easterly terminus of Paseo Entrada just south of out-panel No. 7, designated for residential uses at 3-5 du/ac and Open Space on the adopted plan. The property owners have requested that this parcel be redesignated for 8-12 du/ac and it has been so advertised. No. g: 10+ acres on the north side of East "J" Street {extended) east of the future extension of Paseo Ranchero, designated for use as a junior high school and a small amount of residential at 3-5 du/ac on the adopted plan. The property owner has requested that this parcel be redesignated for 6-8 du/ac and it has been so advertised. No. 10: 2.5+ acres on the north side of Telegraph Canyon Road east of its future i~tersection with Paseo Ranchero, designated Open Space on the adopted plan. Property in this category is permitted to develop at a density not to exceed 2 du/ac, per the zoning ordinance. The property owner has requested that this parcel be redesignated for 6-8 du/ac and it has been so advertised. Page 18, Item Meeting Date q~/l~-/BS- One additional parcel has, until recently, been referred to as an out-parcel. This is a ten-acre piece located on both sides of the future extension of East "J" Street west of Paseo Ladera and owned by the Bennett family. Staff excluded this parcel from special consideration since it is not located within the SPA's which comprise the Corcoran Ranch and because the City has already assigned the property 46 dwelling units via a 1980 amendment to the Ranchero SPA. To accommodate this amendment, however, staff has applied the 2-4 du/ac category for one lot depth on both sides of East "J" Street and 4-6 du/ac for the remainder. See Figure 4 for precise locations of the out-parcels. Page 20, Item Meeting Date qF/T67BS- V. Issues As perceived by staff, the primary issues associated with the proposed amendment relate to residential density, the employment park, traffic circulation and biology. Issues related to biology are discussed in more detail in the environmental impact report while traffic issues are covered in Section II D of this report. The remaining two issues are discussed in detail below. _ A. Residential Densities The proposed plan would create 4,634 dwelling units on 833 acres of residentially designated property in density ranges up to 20 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). The adopted plan presently permits 4,215 units on 954 residential acres in density ranges up to 18 du/ac. Amendments to the proposed plan suggested by staff would reduce the number of units to 4,228. Tables located elsewhere in this report compare the adopted plan to the proposed plan and the proposed plan to the suggested staff amended plan. ~The prima~ difference between the total residential acreage of the adopted and proposed plans is the redesignation of about 150 acres from residential to employment park uses. The adopted plan allocates about 1,150 dwelling units to these 150 acres. These units have been relocated elsewhere on the proposed plan map. The result of this relocation and the 419 additional units over those permitted by the adopted plan is a 10% increase in the total number of units. However, the actual increase, considering the relocation of the units presently allocated to the site of the proposed employment park, is about 37%. The key density questions, therefore, are {1) "Is the requested increase in the number of dwelling units over about 150 fewer residential acres warranted? {2) Are public facilities in the area adequate to accommodate the increased density? and {3) Would the increases in density have a detrimental effect on the community character? The following paragraphs attempt to answer these questions. 1. The adopted plan projects densities emphasizing housing types appropriate to 1978 when it was adopted, i.e., a preponderance of single family housing on standard lots. While clustering is permitted by that plan to provide opportunities for varied housing types, the low permitted densities tend to discourage such variety. 2. Of the 4,200 dwelling units permitted by this adopted plan, 72% are at densities of 5 du/ac or less. Staff believes that densities which, for the most part, retain the City's basic single family character, while at the same time permitting a Page 21, Item Meeting Date~F/1-G-/l)~- greater yield, would result in the opportunity for builders to construct housing at affordability levels of a greater number of families. 3. The property has good freeway and arterial road access; it has a close-in location; it is nearly surrounded by urban development; and all required public facilities to serve the project are available. Because of these facts, the property can easily accommodate an increase in dwelling units. 4. The VTN grading study indicates that the proposed plan can be accommodated with basically the same grading plan as that which would be required for the adopted plan. 5. The proposed housing mix responds to changes in market characteristics and provides the opportunity for a more comprehensive mixture of residential products than does the adopted plan. In their market analysis for the proposed project, Market Profiles, a marketing consultant firm, concluded that "...the future of E1 Rancho Del Rey lies in ~ providing a well-balanced mix of product that can be delivered in orderly yet fast paced sequence. The current land use plan doesn't allow for flexibility in product planning. That is, due to the heavy mix of detached units, the future products will become more expensive while the consumer will desire less expensive units." They state further that "...the existing land use scenario is out of balance. The objective of a well balanced and phased community cannot be achieved unless the land use is altered." While staff concurs with some of these conclusions, we believe that, over time, the adopted plan could create a viable and prestigious community which would be an asset to the City. An exception, perhaps, would be the overabundance of low density areas {1-3 du/ac) in the adopted plan and the concommitant lack of opportunity for townhouses and apartments over l0 du/ac. Staff no longer believes that the amount of low density shown on the adopted plan is appropriate nor is the absence of higher density products due to changing market conditions, increases in interest rates and affordability and demand changes. 6. In the original specific plan amendment submitted, the applicant had deleted the 0-2 du/ac estate category in its entirety. Subsequent negotiations with staff, however, led to the application of this category to the north side of the project's north ridge. Staff believes that an estate product is essential to have a balanced development and is marketable. At least 100 acres should be devoted to estate-type lots. Our rationale is that such lots are saleable on the north ridge which provides outstanding views to the west and south. An estate lot enclave can be created Page 22, Item Meeting Date~71-67B~-- to assist in providing the "high-end" housing which is desirable for the City of Chula Vista and the E1 Rancho Del Rey community. 7. The staff recommended amendments to the proposed plan would create a density range dominated by the 4-6 du/ac category. We believe that this particular category provides for a variety of single family-type developments which are consistent with the texture of the area while providing the opportunity to construct a variety of housing types. 8. The City's basic character is in the process of evolution. The older areas west of 1-805 and east of downtown are basically traditional single family neighborhoods with isolated areas of higher densities. East of 1-805, the land use densities are more integrated but overall densities are, for the most part, only slightly higher than the older areas. Staff's recommended density mix should be compatible with existing abutting development since the mid-range densities (6-8 du/ac), which are somewhat higher than existing development in the area, would, for the most part, be located in the interior of the project. The higher density areas (12-20 du/ac) are located near existing similar areas and in close proximity to the future commercial area at the East "H" Street-Otay Lakes Road intersection. The lower density areas (2-6 du/ac) have been placed near and adjacent to similarly developed and planned areas as well as inside the confines of the project. B. Employment Park Perhaps the most significant departure from the adopted plan is the proposal for a 141 acre employment center on East "H" Street. In its report, Market Profiles recommends development of a well planned business park offering a quality working environment. They state that the property offers the unique opportunity to create a business park in a quality rural setting, yet within close proximity to downtown San Diego and other central county areas. The topography of the site will enable many sites to have territorial views of the surrounding countryside. Market Profiles recommends that about 90 acres be devoted to this use, including a retail center on a portion of the property. Staff, however, believes that the entire 141 acres should be designated as Employment Park and only those commercial uses appurtenant to the park be permitted. Page 23, Item Meeting Date qF/T67IF6- Staff's rationale for its recommendation follows: 1. While the employment park would occupy a prominent site, standards requiring landscaped setbacks from East "H" Street and strict architectural control could create an aesthetically pleasing environment similar to the industrial park at the entrance to the Scripps Ranch development in San Diego which is superior to many residential environments in the area. There is little doubt that the intrusion of the employment park will affect the character of the area, but staff believes that, overall, the employment park will be a benefit to the City and the community. In this case, basic development standards have been written into the text of the specific plan. In addition, specific standards will. be required as part of the first sub-area plan submittal to assure that the employment park is functionally and aesthetically acceptable to the City. In addition to the East "H" Street streetscape, special care will have to be taken to assure that views from affected dwelling units are not adversely affected. This will take the form of special architectural and landscape treatment of the rear of both sections of the employment park and should be required during the sub-area plan process. 2. Another major consideration is traffic circulation. As stated elsewhere in this report, the employment park will, upon its complete buildout, generate about 21,000 average daily trips. This traffic generation is equivalent to that produced by a residential project at 18.6 du/ac on the 141 acres devoted to employment park uses. Before any portion of the park is approved, additional traffic studies to consider access points, peaking characteristics and turning movements will be required at the sub-area plan level. 3. In its report, Market Profiles states, "A wide variety of locations and quality of business space is available in the Central and Northern County areas. In contrast, the South Bay is limited in the amount and quality of sites and building available. This circumstance is both a limitation and opportunity for the development of new South Bay business parks. The limited amount of large-scale, new industrial parks in the South Bay is a disadvantage from a market awareness standpoint. Less industrial sector marketing and merchandising effort is emanating from the South Bay in general. Thus, the market's awareness and overall image of the region is below that of Central and North County. However, the relative absence of business park competition creates an opportunity to fill a void in the South Bay for a business park offering a quality working environment. No such development exists to accommodate firms who desire a South Bay location, or to compete with North City and County for the attraction of firms. Hence, the opportunity exists to fill an identified market need." Page 24, Item Meeting Date qqT67~ 4. The advantageous fiscal impacts to the City by the proposed plan determined by Public Affairs Consultants is based primarily upon the presence of an employment park because of its positive effects on the tax base. 5. The employment park would provide additional jobs for the City. 6. It would assist in dispersing industrial areas within the City's planning area. ?. The property is located on a divided six-lane major road with easy access to 1-805, about a mile away. 8. Public facilities required to serve employment park uses are available to the site. 9. The site would provide canyon access and views to employment park employees. C. Biological Impacts 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 the adopted plan. The impacts of the two plans are similar because the pattern and extent of preserved open space is similar. For specific detailed information, please refer to the environmental impact report. D. Traffic Circulation Traffic generated by the proposed plan would exceed traffic generated by the adopted plan by approximately 24,000 average daily trips. Mitigation measures and future study requirements have been incorporated into the specific plan. Please refer to Section III.B for more details. VI. Recommendations 1. Specific Plan Map During the review process of the application, many of staff's land use concerns were able to be resolved and the application amended accordingly. One fundamental issue not resolved was the project density. Concerning the total number of units to be permitted in the project, we believe that 406 additional units should be deleted from the applicant's proposal, in spite of the fact that they have already reduced their originally requested total by 704 units at staff's request. A discussion of staff's rationale by area proposed for change follows. Figure 5 depicting staff's recommendations follows this section. Page 25, Item Meeting Date~F/1-67155- (1) North Side of North Ridge. Expand the 0-2 du/ac area to 100 acres of level area. Wh~ile the proposed plan indicates about 109 acres in this category, only about 85 acres would be level. The expansion as recommended would provide a more viable level estate area which would also allow for split-level parcels at its perimeter. (2) Ridgeback Road Intersection with Loop Street Change from Residential 4-6 du/ac to 2-4 du/ac. This area is at the west entrance to the north ridge which features densities of 0-2 and 2-4 du/ac. The recommended density would continue this pattern at this key neighborhood entrance and provide more compatibility with the remainder of the north ridge. (3) Center Ridge Add a 5-acre neighborhood park and change east end from Residential 6-8 du/ac to 4-6 du/ac. There are no park facilities on the center ridge. While adequate park acreage is already provided, the plan is deficient in useable park area in terms of locations in proximity to the neighborhoods which will use them. Regarding density, staff believes that the lowering of the density on the east end of this development area is necessary to reduce the intensity of development on this relatively narrow ridge while still providing a good density and product mix. (4) North Side East "H" Street at Buena Vista Way Change from Residential 8-12 du/ac to 6-8 du/ac. This proposed change would (1) provide a better density and product mix in this area, (2) reduce the intensity of development in this medium high density quadrant, and (3) be more compatible with the existing single family neighborhood across East "H" Street to the south. (5) Northeast Corner East "J" Street and Paseo Ranchero Change from Residential 4-6 du/ac to 6-8 du/ac. This proposed change would add a 6-8 du/ac category in a location that staff feels is more appropriate than some other areas where it has been proposed to be deleted. It is well located at the intersection of two arterials across Paseo Ranchero from a parcel previously approved by the City Council for l0 du/ac. Page 26, Item Meeting Date l)-/1-67BE;- (6) South Side East "J" Street East of Paseo Ranchero Change from Residential 6-8 du/ac to 4-6 du/ac. This proposed change would provide more compatibility with the existing neighborhood to the east and the 4-6 du/ac category to the north. (7) Northwest Corner Telegraph Canyon Road and Paseo Ranchero Change from Residential 6-8 du/ac to Open Space. This proposed change would be in conformance with the Open Space Element of the General Plan which indicates open space uses along Telegraph Canyon Road, a scenic highway on the Scenic Hi ghway s E1 ement. (8) East Side Paseo Ladera West of the Casa Del Rey Subdivision Change from Residential 2-4 du/ac to Park. This area of the plan is deficient in park acreage. The recommended change would provide a small linear park of about three acres on an area which is underlain by a trace fault line. Improvement of this property with lots would result in such lots having frontage on Paseo Ladera, a residential collector. No other lots have frontage on this street. 2. Specific Plan Text The writing of the specific plan text has been a continuing process between staff and the applicant. Most issues have been resolved and text changes made accordingly. However, a few changes remain to be made, in staff's view, and are as follows: (1) Pages 7 and 8 Changes to the tables on these pages will be dependent upon any amendments to the specific plan map made by the City Council. (2) Page 19 Delete paragraph 3 if the Council agrees that a neighborhood park is appropriate on the center ridge as recommended by staff. Out-parcels Staff recommendations concerning the l0 "out-parcels" are based primarily on the land use around them on the specific plan map as recommended by staff. Should your Council approve land uses on the specific plan which are different from those recommended by staff, it may also, in some cases, be appropriate to Page 27, Item Meeting Date q~6-/lT5-- change the land use on an abutting out-parcel for consistency. Following are staff recommendations on the out-parcels as numbered in this report and on the accompanying staff recommendation map. No. l, APN 594-120-02: Residential 4-6 du/ac, maximum 60 dwelling units, to ~rm to the density around it. No. 2, APN 642-020-30: Residential 8-12 du/ac, maximum 60 dwelling units, to conform to the 60 dwelling units previously approved for the property. No. 3, APN 642-010-39: PF Public Facilities to conform to its proposed use as a-~-~-rch and related facilities. No. 4, APN 642-010-03: Residential 4-6 du/ac, maximum 25 dwelling units, to con-6-~-f~-rm to neighboring property. ..r No. 5, APN 640-090-01: Residential 2-4 du/ac, maximum 40 dwelling units, to con--6~-f~-rm to the density around it. No. 6, APN 640-090-05: Residential 8-12 du/ac, maximum 102 dwelling units, in ~rmance with the 102 units previously approved for the property. No. 7, APN 640-090-06: School, since the property was acquired by the Chula Vista Elementary School District for school purposes. No. 8, APN 640-090-07: Residential 2-4 du/ac, maximum 40 dwelling units, to conform to and continue the density pattern established on the property abutting to the west. North of the parcel is a school site while south of the property is recommended for open space by staff. No. 9, APN 642-040-15: Residential 4-6 du/ac, maximum 60 dwelling units, to conform to the recommended density bounding the property on three sides. No. 10, APN 641-040-01: Open space in conformance with the Open Space Element o~ General Plan. The property owner would still have the ability to develop his parcel at a density not to exceed 2 du/ac pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance. Based on staff discussion in the issues section of this report and subject to the amendments to the map and text as outlined above, staff recommends approval of the E1 Rancho Del Rey Specific Plan Amendment. WPC 1845P MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Tuesday, 7:10 p.m. April 16, 1985 5a. CONSIDERATION FINAL EIR 83-2, EL RANCHO DEL REY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT (Director of Planning) b. RESOLUTION 11991 CERTIFYING FINAL EIR 83-2, EL RANCHO DEL REY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT c. PUBLIC HEARING GPA-83-7 - AMENDMENTS TO EL RANCHO DEL REY SPECIFIC PLAN - GERSTEN COMPANY (Director of Planning) This being the time and place as advertised, Mayor Cox opened the public hearing for Items 5a, b and c. Director of Planning Krempl explained the subject of this hearing is a request by the Gersten Company for certain amendments to E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan. Included in this proposal by staff are 10 "out parcels" not under Gersten ownership but within the specific plan area. Three of the out-parcel owners have made separate requests for their properties and have been so advertised. In addition, staff has included for continuity purposes, but not for amendment, the remainder of the entire E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan Area. Director of Planning Krempl explained that Environmental Review Coordinator Reid and Mr. Larkin from WESTEC will comment on the EIR followed by Mr. Paul Manganelli, staff project planner who will review this project. Mr. Andrew Schlaefli, Vice President of Urban Systems will talk about traffic mitigation and impact. Mr. Krempl explained this draft EIR was issued for public review on October 19, 1984 involving a revision to the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan. The Draft EIR was circulated by the State Clearinghouse and their 45-day review period has closed. City Council Meeting - 5 - April 16, 1985 The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the EIR on January 23, 1985. No verbal testimony was taken; however, several letters of comment were received. They have now been incorporated into the final EIR along with a response to those comments. The proposed project involves a Specific Plan Amendment for 1673.5 acres of the 2450 acre E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan. Of this, 1582 acres are under ownership of the Gersten Company and the remaining 91.5 acres are under various other private ownerships. The property is located east of Interstate 805 and north of Telegraph Canyon Road. Existing topograpy of the site consists of east-west trending ridges and intervening valleys. Major roads in the project area include Telegraph Canyon road on the south, East 'H" Street (which is presently constructed with two lanes) through the central portion of the property, and Stay Lakes Road along the eastern and northeastern portion of the site. The original proposed Specific Plan Amendment as described in the Draft EIR would involve an increase in the maximum permitted dwelling units from 4220 to 5928. The proposed plan would provide a 93.4-acre Employment Park designation adjacent to East 'H" Street. Other land use changes include the addition of a public facilities designation to accommodate community service uses (9.9 acres), an increase in acreage designated for parks/recreation uses (from 27.0 acres to 90.5 acres), and a decrease in natural open space acreage. Staff analysis included: land use, traffic circulation, fiscal analysis, biological resources, cultural resources, paleontological resources, geology/soils, landform/aesthetics, noise, schools and parks, recreation and open space. Mr. Krempl explained the Planning Commission considered this item on March 27 and denied the proposed amendment reaffirming the adopted plan; however, the Planning staff supports the amendment to the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan. Mr. Krempl discussed the proposed improvements in the staff's proposal; the density factor; and staff's su[~port r)£ the employment park as being viable subject to some string,:nt de:~ign standards which can be compatible with its particular setting within the rest of the project and general environment. Staff recommends 4,228 units for the Gersten holdings and 4,598 units for the total Specific Plan area including out-parcels which are the subject of this amendment. City Council Meeting - 6 - April 16, 1985 Further that the City Council: (1) Approve in concept the proposed amendments to the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan map and text as modified by staff. (2) Refer the amendment back to the Planning Commission for consideration. Environmental Review Coordinator Reid stated the Draft Environmental Impact Review (EIR )was released for public review in October 1984 and was extended into January 23, 1985. On January 23, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the document and at that hearing no verbal testimony was taken. There were several written comments from agencies and individuals and those have now been incorporated into the final EIR along with appropriate responses. subsequent to the review of the draft EIR, the project had several dramatic changes made mainly in response to the problems identified in the EIR. Therefore, it was necessary to prepare an addendum to the EIR to assure that it adequately evaluated the impacts of the proposed plan. It is the conclusion of the addendum that the EIR is adequate for the review of the project as currently proposed. It is the basic conclusion of the final EIR that all significant impacts can'be mitigated to a level of insignificance with the exception of air quality and biological impacts. The Planning Commission certified the Final EIR at their March 25 meeting and recommended that Council certify this document. Mr. Tom Larkin, 3211 Fifth Avenue, San Diego, Project Manager for WESTEC Services, the firm that prepared the EIR, provided a description of the EIR findings and described the project characteristics and the major conclusions of that EIR. " Some of the issues discussed by Mr. Larkin were: the future developments within the specific plan area which would reduce natural habitats on site, the project generating a greater number of trips than the adopted plan which would require a variety of street improvements and intersection improvements to mitigate potential impacts; the fiscal impact analysis completed by public affair consultants and included in the final EIR; the land form and aesthetic impacts which were evaluated in the EIR and tend to be significant with the conversion of the site from a rural area to an urbanized community; and the air quality impacts. The report concluded that those impacts could be adequately mitigated. City Council Meeting - 7 - April 16, 1985 Andrew Schlaefli, Vice President of Urban Systems, 4540 Kearney Villa Road, Suite 106, San Diego responsible for the supplemental report, stated that his firm analyzed extensively the existing interchanges, traffic count and identified the locations the project would impact. No specific traffic mitigation measures were proposed since it could not be known with any degree of certainty which of the many alternative measures would be the most appropriate unless the existing traffic conditions at that time were taken into consideration. He pointed out that "H" Street (which is the interchange most significantly impacted) had evidently been designed with development in mind as indicated by the southbound to eastbound loop: yet, to forecast that the loop would need signal control was impossible at this time. His firm recommended a monitoring program with mitigation measures based on information current at the time needed. In answer to Councilman Scott's question regarding the number of average daily trips on East "H" Street, Mr. Schlaefli stated that specific impacts on "H" Street are approaching 50,000 cars per day. City Engineer Lippitt noted the highest traffic generation in Chula Vista at the present time would be at Bonita Road between willow and Otay Lakes Road (30,000 trips daily). Mr. Schlaefli discussed the traffic impacts of the project referring to the special study done for the City by SANDAG. He discussed the impacts with emphasis to the exchanges on 1-805; the residential element will generate approximately 43,00Q trips; the primary difference between the adopted plan is in the industrial area where in the adopted plan there is no industrial development and in the modified plan there is about 141.3 acres of industrial use - that use alone generates about 21,000 trips. Mr. Schlaefli added the primary use is on East "H" Street in the central portion of the project; noted the peak hour traffic characteristics for industrial uses will be occurring in a direction that is opposite from the predominant residential use; based upon cumulative impacts they used the SANDAG computer model to establish a "project only" assignment of traffic; they reviewed the SANDAG analysis, concurred in its findings and used that data to address the impacts of the revised project. Mr. Schlaefli further testified that the priority impacts for the project were at two freeway interchanges: "H" Street and Telegraph Canyon Road. The cumulative traffic flow at "H" Street just east of Interstate 805 was 47,800 - approaching 50,000 - about 72% of the traffic. At Telegraph Canyon, the projection was 40,700, again, east of Interstate 805 on Telegraph Canyon. The project contributing only about 11,000 or 20% of the total traffic flow. City Council Meeting _ 8 _ April 16, 1985 He concluded it was extremely important to have a monitoring system to keep track of what is happening in the City - traffic count data must be gathered and continually monitored and evaluated as it is impossible to project when and where problems will occur. Continual evaluation can identify problems before they become critical as the correction may be expensive or the correction is time consuming to implement. Councilman Moore indicated his surprise regarding Mr. Schlaefli's comments that the interchange designs function well now - in regard to travelling north on 1-805 and "H" Street and the requirement to have to come to a full stop on a six-lane highway. Paul Man~anelli, 119 West Walnut, San Diego, Planning Consultant, showed slides of the project area noting the out-parcels not under ownership of the Gersten Company, the original Specific Plan area and a portion not under construction. This portion is included for continuity purposes since the residential land use categories in the amended plan differ from those in the original plan although the total number of units will not exceed designations. Mr. Manganelli traced the history of the project from its purchase in 1968 stating the proposed amendment, involves the remaining undeveloped 1,582 acres of Gersten-owned land and the ten out-parcels. He described the density category changes in which each range (0-2, 2-4, 4-6, 6-8, 8-12 and 12-20); signified the density permitted the applicant's requested increase from 4,216 dwelling units to 4,634 represents a density increase of about 10 percent in actual figures but 37 percent when looked at as a net figure with the employment park area density from the original plan transferred elsewhere on-site. Mr. Manganelli described the housing type locations; noted the major commercial uses confined to the south side of East "H" Street near its intersection with 1-805; that 56 acres have been designated for park purposes and 613 acres for open space where rare plant and animal species can exist in safety. In reviewing the public facilities, Mr. Manganelli stated the water distribution facilities would adequately serve the uses proposed by the specific plan amendment; the Rice Canyon outfall has the capacity to accommodate the sewage from the project; however, additional facilities would be required to handle peak flows and new trunk sewers are proposed for the north and south legs of Rice Canyon; existing and proposed drainage improvements will accommodate storm runoff in the project area; police service is adequate although additional personnel and equipment will be required as development of the project occurs; a new fire station should be on-line by the time development occurs on the project site; a site for a branch library is still "floating" but a City Council Meeting - 9 - April 16, 1985 request will be made for a potential site to be located in the general vicinity of East "H" Street; the locations for the elementary and junior high schools are on an "if/as" needed basis; school financing figures are not available as both districts are readjusting their fees; and an analysis of the fiscal impact of the proposed plan on the City indicates that the employment park would have a positive cost impact on operating revenues. The owners of the out parcels have been contacted and those who did not request a specific density have been assigned one commensurate with adjacent property. With regard to the employment park, Mr. Manganetli referred to the report by Market Profiles which points out that there is a limited number of large-scale, new industrial parks in the South Bay and recommends such an establishment. Councilwoman McCandliss inquired about the limitations placed on the employment park to insure it is compatible with the residential area. She commented it was pretty much an island completely surrounded by residential housing. Mr. Manganelli agreed it is surrounded by residential housing but it is also first surrounded by and totally bound by canyons. He noted the architectural control provisions and the landscaping commenting that the architectural treatment should not be left to just a facade but should include all sides because of the existing neighborhood. The Council recessed at 9:05 p.m. and reconvened at 9:10 p.m. In answer to Councilwoman McCandliss question, Mr. Krempl stated the employment park could be viewed as a very light industrial area, perhaps even more comparable to a research park with emphasis on manufacturing. He stated he agreed with Councilwoman McCandliss that the standards should be defined - perhaps a new ordinance in the project area which would actually set new regulations for development of the industrial area in conjunction with the SPA. Mr. Krempl stated staff's rationale for its recommendation regarding the employment park is: (1) Standards requiring landscaped setbacks could create an aesthetically pleasing environment. (2) Traffic circulation - before park is approved, additional traffic studies will be required. (3) The opportunity exists to fill an identified "market need". (4) The advantageous fiscal impacts to the City are based upon the presence of an employment park because of its positive effects on the tax base. City Council Meeting - 10 - April 16, 1985 (5) Employment park would provide additional jobs for the City. (6) Assist in dispersing industrial areas within the City's planning area. (7) Property located with easy access to 1-805. (8) Public facilities are available to the site. (9) Site would provide canyon access and views to employment park employees. Assistant City Attorney Gill stated that if Council decided to approve the proposal by either staff or the developer, since no resolutions are included for approval, he suggested continuing formal action for one week for the preparation of the documents. Gary Santar, representing Santar and Associates, 3151 Fairway Ave, Kearney Mesa, Planning Consultant for the Gersten Company showed slides of the Specific Density Plan for E1 Rancho del Rey. He explained his firm looked at this plan and several other alternatives with respect to engineering and marketing input and came up with a plan for 5,300 units. As a result of that study and discussions with staff, that figure was modified with a plan for 4,634 units. Mr. Santar discussed the plan, each type of density category and type of development to be expected:. 0-2 area in northern portion of the project for estate and custom home type lots for very large single-family development. People who would initially buy in the 2-4 area would move up into the 0-2 area when they could afford it. This is also for executives and owners of the businesses in the employment park. The 2-4 area, traditional detached single-family developments on standard size lots. The 4-6 area spotted throughout the project is for single-family detached smaller lots with smaller clustering, some patio type units oriented toward open space and common areas characterized by location adjacent to green space. The 6-8 unit area, scenic ridge on the canyon, sub-detached on smaller lots, beginning to be attached and clustered in common open spaces, recreation features particularly in the more attached areas. 8-12 units per acre category, attached townhouses and condominiums but more oriented toward townhouse type of development, developed quite commonly on open spaces, common greens and recreational features. City Council Meeting _ 11 _ April 16, 19~5 12-20 units per acre, stack flats, condominiums and garden apartment areas where each development has an orientation for open space and recreational features as a part of the project. The other dominant land use is the employment park featuring open space expansion from bluff to bluff. In addition to a width of 1,000 feet, there is a tremendous vertical difference between the residential vertical development and the open space. This substantial separation is naturally done by the canyons. Mr. Santar then noted the character of the modern industrial parks; the arrangement of open spaces; the system of trails both within the canyons and within the development areas which will link the schools, parks and employment area including equestrian trails; the proposed specific plan which is being formatted to fit in with the rest of the other SPAs which have been approved; the administrative plan for each development; and the performance criteria for the proposed establishment of the SPA. Mr. William Robens, representing Gersten Company, 690 Otay Lakes Road, Chula Vista stated the plan is designed around the views and integrated with the canyons taking advantage of open space corridors as well as utilizing a trail system. The proposed plan features an employment park, a new circulation system, new emphasis on preservation, new land use locations and addresses the housing needs of today, 1985. Changes have occurred since the inception of the adopted plan in 1978 with cost increases, higher interest rates and a growing preference for attached homes rather than the detached which were popular in 1978. Mr. R~bens showed slides and discussed the following: circulation, traffic, sense of community, biology and open space, canyon treatment, trail system, single family detached project, balance, fiscal benefits, employment benefit from employment park, SPAs, and estate lots. Mr. Robens explained the fiscal benefit, (assuming a 20-yea~ build-out) of the net revenues which would accrue to the City $12-$14 million more for the proposed plan than for the plan. After 20 years, the proposed plan revenues as compa[ed the existing plan will be $825,000 a year. The employment park market study showed a clear need for an employment park in the South Bay area. Gersten has proposed 90 acres; staff has increased that to 150 acres. Most of the fiscal benefits accrue to the City from the employment park. The aesthetic benefits from the employment park will be a park-like atmosphere. City Council Meeting - 12 - April 16, 1985 In summary, Mr. Robens stated Gersten Company has developed a plan which conforms better than the 1978 plan with outside professionals and staff input. He discussed the development of E1 Rancho del Rey Unit No. 6 located south of "H" Street, 350 units (50 units per year). The major development is the turnover of land owned by the Gersten Company at one time but sold at least 5 years prior to the 1978 plan and the Gersten Company has not participated, in any way, with that project. Mr. Robens added that the City, along with the Gersten Company constructed "H" Street and when that was constructed, it became possible to construct future developments. The City had imposed a west to east policy on the developer which meant they could only realistically develop along Telegraph Canyon Road. That opened up the opportunity for developing a new plan and for more development. Also, interest rates decreased after skyrocketing for several years and house prices started to stabilize. After five years, (since 1978) the Gersten Company took a look at a new plan. They hired a series of professionals to prepare a plan. In addition, staff has taken a very critical look at the plan and recommended many changes which helped Gersten bring back a much improved plan than originally submitted. Mr. Robens declared that the reasons for supporting the plan are circulation, traffic, biology, open space, canyon trail system, single family detached project, more balance, has fiscal benefit to City, employment benefits, employment park and SPA improvements, provides estate lots, canyon treatment, sense of community, traffic and circulation. Councilman Scott commented on the purpose of the 0-2 density which was to preserve the ruggedness and unique geographical land mass, thus allowing the developer to cluster in order to protect the environment. He further commented on the reasons for the phasing of the original plan (west to east). Cliff Roland, 1100 Industrial Boulevard, Chula Vista, did not wish to speak; but wished to go on record as approving the plan. Dr. Wendy Longley-Cook, 1007 Fifth Avenue, San Diego, representing United Enterprises, stated they have reviewed the plan and ~eel it provides a reasonable balanced land use mix and would be an asset to the area. They urged Council to support the amendment as proposed. Peter Watry, 1181 Second Avenue, Chula Vista, representing "Crossroads" stated the two proposals represent significant changes from the existing plan. He reviewed slides of the existing plan describing a brief history of its 1972 initiation City Council Meeting - 13 - April 16, 1985 and referendums. Mr. Watry asked Counc i I iiot to i~]i~or,, ~h, existing plan before approving t_he chang~::, .Iddin\l [h(ue {:; .~ n,'~.d for a more balanced community. The City nerds estate-size hom~3:: it already has more than enough low and moderate income units. Mr. Watry urged Council to (1) have the large lots kept in the plan; (2) question the location of the employment park; (3) be concerned with the 48% traffic increase projected; (4) proposed abolishment of the individual SPA's; (5) retain the 500 estate-size lots. Gerald LaLande, 4608 Villas Drive, Bonita, one of the owners of the out-parcels (No. 8) requested a change in density for which staff is recommending 2-4 du/ac. He commented, as a small developer, he could not afford to develop this property at the lesser density. There being no further comments either for or against, the public hearing was declared closed. In answer to Councilman Moore's question, Director Krempl commented that if the project was approved, staff will have a permit issue criteria for each SPA for Council approval regarding traffic study, public facility plans and financing, specific SPA plans and street and road update. The applicant's responsibility, as it pertains to off-site improvements would be defined as each SPA comes in. There would be a set of zoning regulations for the employment park~ insurance of the development of the "upper end" of the area and an agreement requiring development within a given period of time; each SPA will be looked at as it will be developed and phase-lines will be defined in advance. Mayor Cox clarified that the approved plan has six SPAs encompassing the Corcoran Ranch and the SPAs do not provide for phasing. Mr. Krempl added the other SPAs were included for continuity phases there would be no change within those. Further discussion ensued as to the rationale of going Ir,,m 90 acres of the employment park to the 140 Councilman Scott stated he was against the plan as it shows tremendous increase in traffic but does not show much improvement in the terms of engineering to solve the problem. RESOLUTION (5b) OFFERED BY COUNCILMAN MALCOLM, the reading of the text was waived by unanimous consent passed and approved with Councilman Scott voting "no". City Council Meeting 14 _ April 16, 1985 Councilwoman McCandliss commented the employment park is a new and important addition to the plan. In her analysis of plan she has taken it as a whole and forsees 50,000 trips on "H# Street. When people are going to and from work, the amount of traffic on interchange loops is "atrocious" and she noted the kind of modifications necessary. The employment park is generating 21,000 additional trips and she would like to see more attention given to the estate lots and larger units. MS (Moore/Malcolm) to accept the following five conditions of approval: 1. Staff work with developer to increase the number of estate lots. 2. Have a permit issue criteria for each phase-line or subarea within the Corcoran Ranch to insure update on traffic study and corrective action prior to permit issue of the next phase - that would also include public facilities. 3. Staff would work with the developer and come up with an implementation plan similar to the one in redevelopment of Otay Valley Road to insure employment, park quality in design and usage. 4. Staff also prepare a development agreement prior to permit issue in conjunction with the developer prior to Council approval. 5. Out parcel owners be allowed to come forth on an individual basis if they warrant density change. The motion passed with the following vote to-wit: AYES: Cox, Malcolm, Moore NOES: McCandliss, Scott ABSTAIN: None Council%;oman McCandliss noted 1,150 units transferred to the development area and asked for a reduction of the 1,100 dwelling units in the development area to be reworked and brought back to the City. MS (McCandliss/Scott) to require a reduction of 1,100 dwelling units for the entire SPA area. Mayor Cox commented staff's plan is more supportable from his position than the applicant's proposal. There have been a number of changes which have occurred over the last seven years since the original plan was approved. It is reasonable to assume that those areas closest to "H" Street would be a higher density developed area than those areas closer to the south and north leg of Rice Canyon. The housing styles are different, the buying City Council Meeting _ 15 April 16, 1985 styles are different than they were seven or eight years ago, and just to pick out 1,100 dwelling units may not be doing justice to staff or applicant's recommendation. Councilman Scott said he could support the 1978 plan; however, cannot see the logic of taking 1,100 units from the employment park and moving them to another location. Councilman Malcolm stated he could support sending it back to the Planning Commission asking for some reduction in the number of units. Councilwoman McCandliss asked the Planning Director if this plan was to go back to Planning Commission what would be the next step. Director Krempl stated the developer would be asked to respond with an alternate proposal, and if staff did not feel it was adequate, an alternate proposal it would be taken to the Commission. The motion failed by the following vote to wit: AYES: McCandliss, Scott NOES: Cox, Malcolm, Moore ABSENT: None MSUC (Moore/Malcolm) for staff recommendations 1 and 2 (delete the word "in concept"). The staff recommendations are: 1. Based on the discussion contained in the Issues and Recommendations Sections, staff recommended that the City Council approve "in concept" the proposed amendments to the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan ~ap and text as modified by staff. 2. Refer the amendment back to the Planning Commission for consideration. The motion carried with Councilwoman McCandliss and Councilman Scott voting "no". City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of May 22, 1985 Page 1 4. Consideration of "Candidate CEQA Findings and "Statement of overriding considerations" for the E1 Rancho del Re¥ Specific Plan Amendments A. BACKGROUND The Final EIR for the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan Amendments identifies several potentially significant impacts. Therefore, it is necessary to adopt "CEQA findings" to describe how the project, in its final form, mitigates those impacts or why it is not feasible to mitigate those impacts. A1 so it will be necessary to adopt a statement of overriding considerations. B. RECOI~qENDATION Adopt the attached "Candidate CEQA findings" and Statement of Overriding Considerations. C. ANALYSIS It is the conclusion of these findings that: 1. INSIGNIFICANT IMPACTS The final £IR 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) 2. Changes or other measures have been included in the project or are otherwise being implemented which mitigate significant environmental impacts in the following issues (see attached findings for details): a) Traffic b) Cultural Resources c) Paleontological Resources d) Geology/Soils e) Hydrology/Water Quality f) Landform/Aesthetics g) Noise h) Schools i) Parks, Recreation and Open Space City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of May 22, 1985 Page 2 3. There are two areas of impact which remain significant and infeasible to mitigate: a) 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 553.4 acres in this category while the proposed includes 513.2, a loss of 40.2 acres or approximately ? percent. All significant biological environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided have been eliminated or substantually lessened by virtue of the project changes and mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated in the project as set forth above. There remain some significant biological impacts. 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. b) 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. 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 ~roject as set forth above. There remain significant cumulative ~mpacts on regional air quality. 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. WPC 1806P EL RANCHO DEL REY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT EIR-83-2 CANDIDATE CEQA FINDINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 21081 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND SECTION 15091 OF TITLE 14 OF THE CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATION CODE JUNE 1985 I. BACKGROUND 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 1663.3 acres 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 summa~ 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 MITIGABLE 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: 1) The Specific Plan Amendment contains a broad range of 1 and uses including employment and recreational opportunities. This will serve to reduce the number 'of external or regional trips. 2) 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. Designate and construct East H Street as a six land prime arterial between 1-805 and Otay Lakes Road. -3- __ ~ ~ ~ 0 - 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 "H" 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. 3) 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. D.3.(J) pg 46) B. All significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided will be eliminated or substantially reduced to an insignificant level by virtue of the mitigation measures set forth above. 2. Cultural Resources (3.5) The project site survey identified one recorded and five 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: l) The mitigation program identified in the final EIR 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, 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 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. 3. Paleontological Resources (3.6) Ultimate development under either the existing or proposed Specific Plan would require substantial grading within the geologic formation which i s considered to contain significant paleontological 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: 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) The presence of known fault traces of the La Nacion 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. Findings A. Changes and other measures have been included in the project or are otherwise being implemented which mitigate this environmental effect in that: l) A preliminary subsurface soil and engineering geology investigation will be conducted in conjunction with the preparation of Site Development Plans and conceptual grading plans. Particular attention will be paid to those areas identified as geologic study zones in the EIR. 2) A final soils and geological investigation will be prepared in conjunction with final grading plans and structural and foundation design. 3) It is recommended that the area around the branch of the La Nacion faul 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 set forth above. 5. Hydrology/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: 1) 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 b~en 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 tributory 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. Findings A. Changes and other measures have been incorporated in the project or will otherwise be implemented which mitigate this environmental effect, in that: l) 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 is designated for the land adjacent to Otay Lakes Road and Telegraph Canyon Road, both of which are recognized by the Scenic Highway 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) The Sectional Planning Area review will include several plans and/or programs which will effect the aesthetic character of the development including: grading, signing, lighting, fencing, architecture, and design concepts. 5) 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. 6) It is recommended that more open space be retained at the northwest corner of Telegraph Canyon Road and Paseo Ranchero. This would 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 ~e 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, a 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) 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. Findings 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 for school sites to be provided within the community. 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. The 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 1,000 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. The 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 553.4 acres in this category while the proposed includes 528.7 a loss of 25.0 acres or approximately 5 percent. 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) 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. 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#1 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 substantually lessened by virtue of the project changes and mitigation measures identified in the Final 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. Findings A. Changes and other measures have been included in the project or are otherwise being implemented which mitigate the significant environmental effect, in that: l) E1 Rancho del Rey is proposed to be phased over a 20-year period. 2) The proposed amendment contains a mix of land uses including housing, employment, and recreation opportunities, which will reduce overall vehicle miles traveled. 3) The developer will be required to construct significant roadway improvements both onsite and offsite to accommodate project-related traffic. 4) E1 Rancho del Rey will provide transit facilities including bus pullouts and stops. 5) 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. 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: 1) 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, uneconomic grading requirements and a basis in dated technical studies. The economic characteristics of the Plan are the most limiting. 2) The proposed Specific Plan Amendment includes an increase in total dwelling units in addition to th~ employment park, but provides an economical plan for the uevelopment 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 community. 4) The City of Chula Vista would be deprived of the surplus revenue projected from E1 Rancho del Rey. 5) 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. There remain significant cumulative impacts on regional air quality~ 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 VI. THE RECORD For the purposes of CEQA and these findings the record of the Planning Commission and City Council relating to these actions include: 1. Artim~ R.R. and D.L. E1 der, 1979, Late Quaterna~ 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., Geologic Studies in San Diego, San Diego Association of Geologists, pp. 35-45. 3. Artim, E.R. and C.J. Pickney, 1973, La Nacion fault system, San Diego, California: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 84, pp. 1075-1080. 4. Association of Engineering Geologists, 1973, Geology and Earthquake Hazards, Planners Guide to Seismic Safety, Association of Engineering Geologists, Southern California Section, July, pp. 6-8. 5. Boyle Engineering Corporation, 1981, Water Resources Division Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis, August. 6. Burchell, Robert W. and David Listokin, 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 Plants of California. The Resources Agency, October 5. 9. Chula Vista, City of, 1970, General Plan 1990, December. 10. Chula Vista, City of, 1974, Scenic Highways Element of the Chula Vista General Plan. ll. Chula Vista, City of, 1975, Special Census Report, April 1. 12. Chula Vista, City of, 1979, Parks and Recreation Element of the Chdia Vista General Plan. 13. Chula Vista, City of, 1981, Engineering Department Subdivision Manual, May. 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 9. 16. Chula Vista, City of, 1983-84, Proposed Budget, May 19. 17. Chula Vista, City of, Municipal Code. 18. Cole, Lane F., 1982, Memorandum "Full-Cost Recove~ Council Workshop," September 21. 19. Farrand, T.T., ed., 1977, Geology of Southwestern San Diego County, California, and Northwestern Baja~ California, San Diego Association ot Geologists. 20. Kennedy, M.P., 1975, Geolog~ of the San Diego MEtropolitan Area, California, California Division of Mines and Geology, Bulletin 200, ~ection A, ~9 p. 21. Kennedy, M.P. and Siang S. Tan, 1977, Geology of National City, Imperial Beach and Otay Mesa Quadrangles, Southern San Diego Metropolitan Area, California, Map Sheet 29. 22. Kennedy, M.P., Siang 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. 1155-1178. 24. Moore, G.W. and M.P. Kennedy, 1970, Coastal geology of the California-Baja California border area, E.C. Allison, et al., 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. 2?. 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, Janua~. 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. 34. San Diego County Air Pollution Control District, and Comprehensive Planning Organization (CPO), 1978, Regional Air Quality Strategy. 35. San Diego, County of, 1969, 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. 39. San Diego, County of 1982-83, Auditor and Controller, 1982-83 Proportionate Increase by Fund, July 21. 40. San Diego, County of, 1983-84, Assessor's Secured Property Assessed Valuations. 41. Scheidemann, Jr., Robert C., 1977, Correlation of the Otay and Rosarito Beach Formation in G.T. Farrand, ed., Geology of Southwestern San Diego, County, California and Northwestern Baja California~ San Diego Association of Geologists, pp. 17-28. 42. Stereoscopic Aerial Photograhy, 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 = lO00 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, 1980, 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. 4?. 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, California, County Report 3, California Division of Mines and Geology, 309 p. 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. 52. 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 Department 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 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. -18- 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 species in San Diego County, San Diego Audubon Society, Sketches, June. 70. Faabory, J., 1980, Potential uses and abuses of diversity concepts in wildlife management, Trans. Mo Acad. Sci. 14:41-49. ?l. Hutchinson, Jim, 1983, Engineer, James A. Hutchinson & Associates. Telephone conversation, 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. R., 1983, An annotated check list of the amphibians and reptiles of California, California Fish and Game 69(3):151-171. 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. 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 Committee, 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):?00-706. 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 H 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 9. 93. Remsen, J. V., 1979, Bird species of special concern in California: An annotated list of declining or vulnerable bird species. Califor6ia 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. Am. Wild Nat. Res. Conf. 47:421-431. 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. Ta. te, J., Jr. and D. J. Tate, 1982, The Blue List for 1982, American B1 rds, 35(1 ) :3-10. 98. The Planning Center, 1983, E1 Rancho del Rey, Supplemental Report, December 21, unpubl i shed. 99. 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 l?. 100. WESTEC 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. 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 ~d 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. 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 a 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. 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 Cpen 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 biological 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