HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1985/03/27 AGENDA
City Planning Commission
Chula Vista, California
Wednesday, March 27, 1985 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
1. PUBLIC HEARING: (Continued) Consideration of request for extension of
tentative subdivision map, Rio Otay Industrial Park,
Chula Vista Tract 82-11, 4826 Otay Valley Road
2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-85-2: Consideration of Amendment to Title 19 of the
Municipal Code to establish standards for large family
day care homes in single family zones
3. Consideration of Final EIR-83-2, E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan Amendment
4. PUBLIC HEARING: GPA-83-7: E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan Amendment
5. Consideration of "CEQA Findings" and Statement of Overriding Considerations
for E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan Amendment
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
COMMISSION COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT AT to the Regular Business Meeting of April 10, 1985
at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of March 27, 1985 Page 1
1. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of request for extension of tentative
subdivision map. Rio Otav Industrial Park~ Chula Vista
Tract 82-11 - 4§26 Otay ~alley Road (Continued}
A. BACKGROUND
This item was continued from the meeting of February 27, 1985, at the
request of the applicant.
On April 20, 1982, the City Council approved the tentative subdivision map
known as Rio Otay Industrial Park, Chula V~sta Tract 82-11, for the purpose of
subdividing 40.7 acres located at 4826 Otay Valley Road in the I-P zone into
22 industrial lots ranging in size from 42,464 sq. ft. to 194,920 sq. ft. The
map is scheduled to expire on April 20, 1985, and the developer is requesting
a throe-year extension of the tentative map.
B. RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a motion to deny the extension of the tentative map for Rio Otay
Industrial Park, Chula Vista Tract 82-11.
C. DISCUSSION
The Rio Otay Industrial Park property lies in what is now the Otay Valley
Road Redevelopment Project Area. The Project Area was established in December
1983, or more than l-l/2 years after Rio Otay's tentative map was approved. A
draft implementation plan and design manual for the Project Area will be
considered for adoption in late March 1985, and the tentative map conflicts
with several of the standards contained in the draft plan, including minimum
lot sizes (only 5 of 22 lots meet proposed 2 ac. minimum lot size standard),
lot frontage (only 7 of 22 lots meet proposed 200 ft. lot frontage standard),
sensitive impact boundary setbacks from residential areas (lots in sensitive
impact area have depth of 370+ feet, but will require rear yard setback of
200 ft.), and proposals conceding street widths (industrial roads shown at
68' right-of-way need 72' right-of-way; Otay Valley Road shown at 100'
right-of-way needs 128' right-of-way) and sewerage. As a result, significant
changes have occurred in the immediate vicinity which may affect the original
findings and conditions of approval for Rio Otay Industrial Park, and it would
be inappropriate to grant an extension under these circumstances.
WPC 1726P
,
I
C/fy Chuto
_LE Y
I
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of March 27, 1985 Page 1
2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-85-2; Consideration of amendment to Title 19 of
the Municipal Code to establish standards for large
family daN care homes in single family zones
A. BACKGROUND
1. The State recently enacted Senate Bill 163, which prohibits cities
from excluding large family day care homes {those serving from seven to 12
children) from single family zones. A City may either allow such homes as a
matter of right, or may adopt and apply certain local standards via a peKmit
process.
2. The City presently limits family day care homes to six children.
These .homes are allowed by right in the R-E and R-1 zones, and by conditional
use permit in the R-2 and R-3 zones. Commercial day care centers are allowed
by conditional use permit in the R-3 and C-O zones.
3. The Environmental Review Coordinator has found that the proposed
amendment is exempt from environmental review under Section 15061 of the
California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines.
B. RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council enact an ordinance
amending Title 19 of the Municipal Code to establish standards for large
family day care homes in single family zones, as shown in Exhibit A attached
hereto.
C. DISCUSSION
1. The State defines family day care as regularly provided care,
protection and supervision of 12 or fewer children, in the provider's own
home, for periods of less than 24 hours per day. The number of children
residing at the home are included in determining the total number allowed.
2. SB 163 provides that the establishment of large family day care homes
may be subject to reasonable local standards concerning spacing and
concentration, traffic control, parking and noise control. These standards
must be applied uniformly by way of a permit acted upon by the Zoning
Administrator. Notice must be given to properties within 100 feet of the
proposed care home ten days prior to consideration of the permit, and the
applicant or other affected person may appeal the Zoning Administrator's
decision.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of March 27, 1985 Page 2
D. ANALYSIS
1. The establishment of large family day care homes in single family
neighborhoods has the potential to create traffic and parking problems during
the morning drop-off and late afternoon pick-up periods. The outdoor play
activities of seven to 12 youngsters could also be a continuing source of
noise irritation to neighbors throughout the day.
2. The State law is clear, however, that local standards must be
"reasonable" in relation to the goal of providing larger family day care homes
in single family neighborhoods. Thus, such homes cannot be restricted to
large-lot single family zones, nor can larger lots be required in standard
single family zones unless this would be an indirect consequence of the
application of reasonable standards related to traffic, parking and/or noise.
3. An undue increase in traffic or serious parking/congestion problems
could ordinarily occur where two or more large family day care homes are
located in close proximity to one another. Although any figure may appear
arbitrary, we believe it would not be unreasonable to require a 500 foot
separation between such facilities. This would not only address the traffic
and parking problems, but would also avoid one home backing-up to another on
an adjacent street and thus compounding the potential for adverse noise
impacts.
4. There should also be provided on or adjacent to the site a convenient
area for the temporary parking of at least two vehicles for the safe loading
and unloading of children. The ability to provide such an area will depend on
the nature of the site and neighborhood and should thus be evaluated on a
case-by-case basis. In the absence of extenuating circumstances, however, we
believe the driveway in front of a two-car garage would nomally be adequate
to meet this requirement.
5. The County licensing agency for family day care homes does not
prescribe minimum requirements for outdoor play space, but evaluates each home
on an individual basis. An adequate area for outdoor activities relates not
only to proper child development, but also helps alleviate the adverse impacts
of noise which could occur on an inordinately small lot. A standard of 100
sq. ft. per child, or 1,200 sq. ft. for a large family day care home, would
seem to be a minimal but reasonable figure in light of the average lot width
and required rear yard setback of the standard single family parcel (65'x20' :
1,300 sq. ft.)
In terms of additional requirements to ameliorate noise, the size of
the lot, the location of the play area and the existence of dense landscaping
and/or fencing should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. If it is deemed
necessary, we believe the Zoning Administrator should be given the authority
to require the installation of a 6-foot high block wall around the perimeter
of the rear yard play area. Outdoor play activity should not be allowed in
the front yard, and normally should be restricted from the side yard as well.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of March 27, 1985 Page 3
6. Procedurally, we have recommended that large family day care homes be
processed by a Zoning Administrator conditional use permit. This permit
currently carries a fee of $175.00, with appeal to the Planning Commission for
a fee of $125.00. The amendment also includes revised definitions to conform
with those of the State.
7. To our knowledge, three other jurisdictions within the region have
adopted local standards for large family day care homes. These standards are
summarized below:
Traffic/
Separation Parkin9 Play Area Noise
County None One for None-- Adequate
assistant based on provision--
if not licensing landscaping/
resident; agency fencing.
"safe" area evaluation.
for loading/
unloading
Carlsbad 1200 lineal "safe" area Same as above May require
ft. on same for loading/ block wall.
street unloading
National City 330 ft. {avg. two-car Same as above Same as
city block) driveway above
normally
adequate.
Chula Vista 500 ft. Same as above 1,200 sq. ft. Same as
(proposed) above.
WPC 1797P
EXHIBIT A
Family Day Care Home Amendments to Title 19
Chula Vista Municipal Code
Add (Definitions):
19.04.090 Family day care.
"Family day care" means regularly provided care, protection and supervision of
12 or fewer children in the provider's own home, for periods of less than 24
hours per day, while the parents or guardians are away.
Amend (Definitions) to read:
19.04.094 Family day care home, large.
"Family day care home, large" means a home which provides family day care to
seven to 12 children, inclusive, including children who reside at the home.
Add (Definitions):
19.04.095 Family day care home, small.
"Family day care home, small" means a home which provides family day care to
six or fewer children, including children who reside at the home.
Amend (R-E Zone) to read:
19.22.030 Accessory uses and buildings.
D. Full-time foster homes and small family day care homes, as defined in
Sections 19.04.095 and 19.04.098;
Add {R-E Zone):
19.22.040 Conditional uses.
E. Large family day care homes, subject to the provisions of Section
19.58.147.
Amend (R-1 Zone) to read:
19.24.020 Accessory uses and buildings.
D. Full-time foster homes and small family day care homes, as defined in
Sections 19.04.095 and 19.04.098;
Add (R-1 Zone):
19.24.040 Conditional uses.
F. Large family day care homes, subject to the provisions of Section
19.58.147.
Amend {R-2 Zone) to read:
19.26.040 Conditional uses. ~
D. Small family day care homes, as defined in Section 19.04.095.
Amend (R-3 Zone) to read:
19.28.040 Conditional uses.
H. Small family care homes, as defined in Section 19.04.095;
Add {Uses): 19.58.147 Family day care homes, large.
A large family day care home may be allowed in the R-E and R-1 zones upon the
issuance of a conditional use permit by the Zoning Administrator subject to
the following conditions:
A. Notice shall be given to properties within 100 feet of the proposed large
family day care home at least ten days prior to consideration of the
permit.
B. The permit shall be considered without public hearing unless a hearing is
requested by the applicant or other affected party. The applicant or
other affected party may appeal the Zoning Administrator's decision to the
Planning Commission.
C. The family day care function shall be incidental to the residential use of
the property.
D. A large family day care home shall not locate within 500 feet of another
such facility as measured from the exterior boundaries of the property.
E. An area shall be provided for the temporary parking of at least two
vehicles for the safe loading and unloading of children. In most cases
the driveway in front of a two-car garage will satisfy this requirement.
F. A usable rear yard play area of 1,200 sq. ft. shall be provided. Outdoor
play activity shall not be allowed in the front yard and will normally
also not be allowed in the side yard.
G. Play areas shall be designed and located to reduce the impact of noise on
surrounding properties. The Zoning Administrator may require the
installation of a six-foot high block wall around the perimeter of the
rear yard to minimize noise impact.
WPC 1805P
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of Page
3. Consideration of Final EIR-83-2, E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan Amendment
A. BACKGROUND
1. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this Draft EIR on
January 23, 1985, and 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.
2. The original project involved a specific plan amendment for
1673.5-acres within the existing 2450-acre E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan.
Since the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan is the official land use designation
for this property in the Chula Vista General Plan, the proposed amendment to
the specific plan will in effect also amend the General Plan. A Draft EIR was
prepared and circulated for public review in October 1984. Subsequent to
public review of the DEIR, several proposed land use designations were altered
and a lO.2-acre out parcel was excluded from the project. The proposed
project revisions are described in Section 2 of this report, along with a
summary of the original project. The original project was revised to reduce
environmental impacts to the project area.
The City of Chula Vista's planning staff proposed further revisions to the
revised project plan. These revisions are also described (in Section 2) and
analyzed in this Evaluation of Adequacy report.
B. RECOMMENDATION
Certify that EIR-83-2 has been prepared in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act and the environmental review procedures of the City
of Chula Vista and that the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered
the information in this document.
C. ANALYSIS
It is the conclusion of the Addendum to this EIR that the evaluation
provided in the draft document is accurate given the revisions that have been
made in the project. It was the finding of the Draft EIR that all significant
environmental impacts could be mitigated to a level of insignificance with the
exception of biology and air quality. A brief verbal summary of these
findings will be presented at the Planning Commission meeting.
WPC 1807P
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of March 27, 1985 Page 1
4. PUBLIC HEARING: GPA-83-7 - Amendments to E1 Rancho Del Re~ Specific Plan - ~ersten uompany
HEARING
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 lO "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.
I. Recommendations
1. Based on the discussion contained in the Issues and Recommendations
Sections, staff recommends that your Commission recommend to the City Council
approval of the proposed amendments to the E1 Rancho del Rey Specific Plan map
and text as modified by staff.
2. Adopt on a preliminary basis the Administrative Plan to establish
the number of dwelling units approved for each development area. Final
approval of the Administrative Plan should occur following City Council action.
II. 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 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.
In addition to the subject 1,582 acres, ten "out-parcels",
containing about 81 acres not under Gersten ownership, have been
included in this Specific Plan amendment by City staff. The owners
of three of these parcels have requested specific land use
designations which have been included in the hearing notice. Also
included in the amendment, for continuity, are those areas included
in the original E1 Rancho Del Rey Specific Plan which have
subsequently been developed or approved for development. This
portion contains about 700 acres and is not proposed for change.
B. Hi storical 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 i ts impl ementati on. Subsequently, these General P1 an
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 2,100 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 wi th several
out-parcels, are the subject of this Specific Plan amendment
request.
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 commercial 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 with 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. The applicant proposes that about 34
acres of the area designated Employment Park be reserved for
residential uses at 12 dwelling units per acre should it be
subsequently determined that no market exists for this acreage.
The subject hearing is on a request for amendments to those
portions of the E1 Rancho Del Rey Specific Plan containing the
remaining undeveloped 1,582 acres owned by Gersten and 81 acres
comprising the staff-included associated out-parcels.
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 as 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 u~
designations, 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.
-3-
III. 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 Idu/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 10 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.
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.
The revised plan, as originally submitted by the
applicant, designated the easterly approximately 34
acres of the portion of the Employment Park north of
East "H" Street for residential uses at 12 du/ac. The
applicant has designated that property for employment
park use on the Specific Plan map but with the option in
the Plan text which would permit the City Council to
approve alternative residential uses at up to 12 du/ac
for these 34 acres.
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 side
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.
-6-
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
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, 10-15 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 93 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 interchanges; and {3) the impacts of the project
on these interchanges and the freeway itself. 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.
- 10-
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.
-ll -
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 elementary 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 addressed as part of the Sectional
Planning Area (SPA) plan review process.
Figure 3 depicts the locations and attendance radii of
existing and proposed schools serving this area.
-12-
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
to reduce projected revenues. Without the employment park, the
project would have a negative cost impact on operating revenues.
-14-
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 l, 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
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 1,150,000
Employment Park Facilities 470,000
TOTAL $11,770,000
-15-
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,O00
Residential Collectors 2,265,000
Residential Streets 10,000,000
Major Road Widening 750,000
Employment Park Roads 1,875,000
TOTAL $22,075,000
IV. 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
- 16 -
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.
V. Out Parcels
As mentioned elsewhere in this report, in addition to the 1,582 acre
Gersten ownership, there are ten parcels containing about 81 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
~ residential 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~gnated 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.
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
future 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.
-l?-
No. 5: 10+ acres near the northeast corner of the future intersection
~st "J"-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" ~-treet 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
East "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
o-ir-6~t-pa~el 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. 9: 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
~ure ~tersection with Paseo Ranchero, designated Open Space on
the adopted plan. Property in this category is pemitted 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.
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 al ready 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.
-18-
VI. Issues
As perceived by staff, the prima~ 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 primary 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
greater yield, would result in the opportunity for builders to
construct housing at affordability levels of a greater number
of families.
- 20 -
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 10 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
to assist in providing the "high-end" housing which is
desirable for the City of Chula Vista and the E1 Rancho Del
Rey community.
- 21
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. If, after a reasonable
amount of time, the employment park is not tracking as anticipated,
the applicant may wish to again file for a specific plan amendment
for substitute land uses. Such an amendment could result in a
re-evaluation of overall density and specific parcel densities
elsewhere within the specific plan area.
- 22 -
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."
- 23 -
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.
7. 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.
- 24 -
VII. 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 al ready
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.
(1) North Side of North Ridge
Expand the 0-2 du/ac area to lO0 acres of level area. While 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.
- 25-
(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 10 du/ac.
(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 catego~ to the
north.
{?) Northwest Corner Telegraph CanNon Road and Paseo Ranchero
Change from Residential 6-8 du/ac to Open Space. This
proposed change would be in conformance wi th the Open Space
Element of the General Plan which indicates open space uses
along Telegraph Canyon Road, a scenic highway on the Scenic
Highways Element.
{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 your
Commission or the City Council.
(2) Page 9
Delete paragraph E. Staff believes that, if the owner
determines that the market for office/industrial land is less
than that indicated on the plan, he should file a specific
plan amendment for substitute land uses. Such an amendment
could result in a reevaluation of the residential component of
the plan.
- 26-
(3) Page 19
Delete paragraph 3 if the Commission agrees that a
neighborhood park is appropriate on the center ridge as
recommended by staff.
(4) Page 25
On line 17, change the words "only upon a showing" to "if it
is determined." This amendment is suggested to avoid any
confusion as to whether formal findings will be required for
any deviation from the maximum density in any particular area.
(5) Page 28
Change El.a. to read: "0-2 du/ac: This classification is
primarily intended for single-family detached homes on estate
sized lots." This definition is intended to insure that the
0-2 du/ac category is indeed an estate-type area. Delete,
therefore, the applicant's reference to "estate lots in excess
of lO,O00 square feet" and "average lot sizes no less than
15,000 square feet." These are not estate lot sizes and
should not form a restriction at this time.
Delete paragraph 2 - This will be handled in the Public
Facilities/Financing Plan during the next level of planning.
Out-parcel s
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 Commission recommend land uses on the specific plan which is
different from those recommended by staff, it may also, in some cases, be
appropriate to 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
co--6~F6-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 church and related facilities.
No. 4, APN 642-010-03: Residential 4-6 du/ac, maximum 25 dwelling units, to
conform to neighboring property.
- 27 -
No. 5, APN 640-090-01: Residential 2-4 du/ac, maximum 40 dwelling units, to
con--6-~-i%-m to the density around it.
No. 6, APN 640-090-05: Residential 8-12 du/ac, maximum 102 dwelling units, in
conformance wi th 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
con--~-f-6-rm to the density bounding the property on three sides.
No. 1.O, APN 641-040-01: Open space in conformance with the Open Space Element
of the 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 subject to the
conditions listed below.
WPC 1754P
- 28-
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of March 27, 1985 Page 1
5. 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. RECOMMENDATION
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 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)
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/Soil s
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 March 27, 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 7 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 project as set forth above. There remain
significant cumulative impacts 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
)VUkRCH 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 two tables provide a statistical summary and comparison of the
Existing Specific Plan, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment and the staff
modified Specific Plan.
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:
l) The Specific Plan Amendment contains a broad range of
land uses including employment and recreational
opportunities. This will serve to reduce the number of
external or regional trips.
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.
-4-
Provi de appropri ate turning 1 anes at mai or
intersections along East "N" 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 is 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 prelimina~ 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 wi th 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-tem protection of the north by Rice Canyon will
be ensured by the development and implementation of plans
for the reversal of erosion, long-tem erosion control
and a plan to keep off-road vehicles out of the canyon.
B. All significant effects that can be feasibly avoided have been
eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation
measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the
project as set forth above.
6. Landform/Aesthetics (3.9)
Development of the project site under either the adopted Specific
Plan or the proposed amendment will require substantial landform
alteration. This involves cutting of the ridge areas, and filling
lower elevations, including 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 the
mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and changes
which have been incorporated into the project as set forth
above.
7. Noise {3.11)
Two categories of noise were considered: roadway and
construction. The major source of noise affecting the project site
will be from future traffic. The potential for construction noise
impact would exist on a short-term basis when construction is
proposed immediately adjacent to a developed parcel. Significant
noise impacts would occur if residential uses were constructed
within future 65 dB{A) CNEL contours adjacent to roadways or
construction noise exceeded the standards of the City of Chula
Vista.
Findings
A. Changes and other measures have been incorporated in the
project or are otherwise being implemented which mitigate this
environmental effect, in that:
1) 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,O00 population with 1 acre
provided on an adjacent school site to the project's statistics of
5,141 dwellings and assuming 2.58 persons per unit, yields a
requirement of 53.1 acres of parkland with 13.3 acres on adjacent
school parcels. Thus sufficient parkland is provided.
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 513.2, a loss of 40.2 acres or approximately 7 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:
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 ~evelopment 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 Quaternar~y 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 Associati~
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, Geolo~v and Earthquake
Hazards, Planners Guide to Seismic Safety, Association of Engineering
Geologists, Southern California Section, July, pp. 6-8.
5. Boyle Engineering Corporation, 19~, 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 Chula
Vista General Plan.
13. Chula Vista, City of, 19~, 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 Recovery Council Workshop,"
September 21.
19. Farrand, T.T., ed., 1977, Geology of Southwestern San Diego County,
California, and Northwestern Baja~ California, San Diego Association of
Geol ogi sts.
20. Kennedy, M.P., 1975, Geolog~v of the San Diego MEtropolitan Area,
California, California Division of Mines and Geology, Bulletin 200,
Section A, 39 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.
27. SANDAG (CPO), 1976, 1975 Special Census Selected Data, December.
28. SANDAG {CPO), 1978, Info 78, 1978 Employment Estimates, San Diego Region,
September.
29. SANDAG (CPO), 1979, Regional Ener~s Plan for the San Diego Region, January.
30. SANDAG {CPO), 1980a, Preliminary 1980 Census Data by Tract, July 29.
31. SANDAG (CPO), 1980b, Final Series V Regional Development Forecasts.
32. SANDAG, 1984, A Housing StudS for the CitS of Chula Vista.
33. San Diego County Air Pollution Control District, Air QualitS 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 Die~o,
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 En~ineerin~ 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 ReQister 45 {242):82480-82509, Monday,
December 15.
47. University of California, Agricultural Extension Service, 1970, Climate
of San Diego Counts; 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,
3O9 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-?g-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 .or
rare plants, The Resources Agency, August 1.
60. California Department of Fish and Game, 1983, Hunting and Fishing
Regulations.
61. California Native Plant Society, 1980, Inventory of Rare and Endangered
Vascular Plants of California, edited by J. P. Smith, Jr., R. J. Cole,
and J. O. Sawyer, Jr. in collaboration with W. R. Powell, Special
Publication No. 1 (2nd edition).
62. California Native Plant Society, 1981, Inventory of Rare and Endangered
Vascular Plants of California - First Supplement, Special Publication No.
1 (2nd edition).
63. Chambers Consultants and Planners, 1983, E1 Rancho del Rey biological
reconnaissance and planning/design considerations, prepared for The
Gersten Companies, Chula Vista, California.
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.
71. 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 Consul ting 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 Su§arcreek, 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. California
Department of Fish and Game, Nongame Wildlife Investigations, Report No.
78-1.
94. Samson, F. B. and F. L. Knopf, 1982, In search of a diversity ethic for
wildlife management. Trans. N. 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. Tate, J., Jr. and D. J. Tate, 1982, The Blue List for 1982, American
Birds, 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 17.
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., Ma~ch 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 and
all elements thereof;
b. The Zoning Ordinance of the City of Chula Vista as most recently
amended.
c. The Municipal Code of the City of Chula Vista.
d. All other formally adopted policies and ordinances.
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.
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