Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1985/01/09 AGENDA City Planning Commission Chula Vista, Cali~rnia Wednesday, January 9, 1985 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER INTRODUCTORY REMARKS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1. Consideration of Final EIR-85-1, Bayfront Specific Plan 2. PUBLIC HEARING: (a) PCM-85-5, Consideration of the Draft Bayfront Specific Plan (b) PCM-85-6, Amendments to the Subdivision Ordinance (Title 18) to implement the Bayfront Specific Plan 3. Consideration of "Candidate CEQA Findings" - Bayfront Specific Plan 4. Consideration of Final EIR-84-1, EastLake ! 5. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-84-9, Amendment of adopted General Development Plan and consideration of the Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan, Public Facilities and Financing Plan, Development Agreement - EastLake I 6. Consideration of "Candidate CEQA Findings" - EastLake I DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS COMMISSION COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT AT to the meeting of January 16, 1985 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers To: City Planning Commission From: George Krempl, Director of Planning~ Subject: Staff Report on Agenda Items for Planning Commission Meeting of January 9, 1985 1. Consideration of Final £IR-85-1, Bayfront Specific Plan A. BACKGROUND This EIR was the subject of a public hearing before the Planning Commission on December 19, 1984. There were substantial written comments on the draft £IR and verbal testimony regarding the biological mitigation measures built into the project was given. All comments received have been responded to and included in the Comments/Response section of the final EIR. B. RECOMMENDATION Certify that final EIR-85-1 has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the State CEQA Guidelines, the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista and that the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information in the final EIR. C. REVISIONS In response to comments received during the public review period (Jo Anne Sorenson and Chula Vista Development Company), the biological impacts and mitigation sections of the EIR have been revised to clarify each of the impacts identified and the corresponding mitigation prescribed for that impact in the Bayfront Specific Plan. As a result, the biological section of the EIR concludes that the specific plan substantially reduces the impacts identified. Also, the Less Intense Develop- ment alternative section has been revised to include the reduction in impacts to landform and visual quality. The landform and visual quality issue is perhaps the most subjective issue of the EIR, since opinion varies widely as to whether the existing open space is more or less visually appealing as compared to the ultimate development proposed for the project site. However, the introduction of the proposed development, including an eight-story hotel on Gunpowder Point and buildings ranging in height from five (55 feet) to two (22 feet) stories, will unquestionably obstruct existing views in many locations of the open area associated with the agriculture operations, Sweetwater Marsh complex, and San Diego Bay. This impact, which remains after consideration of the specific plan design, physical form and appearance and landscape specifications, is the basis for the significance determination. D. CONCLUSION It is the conclusion of this final EIR that with the exception of visual quality all significant environmental impacts can be reduced to a level of insignificance through the incorporation of mitigation measures identified in the £IR. During the consideration of the project and "Candidate CEQA Findings" it will be determined which mitigation measures are feasible, which are under the jurisdiction of another agency and which have been incorporated into the project. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of January 9, 1985 Page 1 2{a).PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-85-5, Consideration of the Draft Ba~front Specific Plan A. BACKGROUND The Draft Bayfront Specific Plan was prepared by the planning consultant firm of Sedway Cooke Associates, and is being reviewed by the staff of the California Coastal Commission. Since the said plan would implement the Chula Vista Local Coastal Program and Land Use Plan, the Chula Vista General Plan, the specific plan provisions of Chapter 19.07 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code and the Bayfront Redevelopment Plan, this report is jointly submitted by the Directors of Planning and Community Development. The Draft Bayfront Specific Plan is proposed as a replacement of the existing Bayfront Specific Plan, adopted on January 15, 1974, under Council Resolution No. 1974. The new specific plan would become a part of Title 19 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, which would be retitled "Zoning and Specific Plans." B. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Environmental Review Report on the subject project, EIR-85-1, was considered by the Planning Commission and the City Council at prior meetings. C. RECOIt~ENDATION Adopt a motion to approve the Draft Bayfront Specific Plan. D. ANALYSIS 1. The State Planning and Zoning Law enables local governments to adopt specific plans which provide for the methodical implementation of their general plans. The Draft Bayfront Specific Plan substantially conforms to the text and plan diagram of the Land Use Element of the Chula Vista General Plan, as amended by the Omnibus Amendment of 1979, and would promote the orderly effectuation of its policies and standards. 2. The Draft Bayfront Specific Plan is also consistent with the Chula Vista Bayfront Local Coastal Program II, certified by the Coastal Commission in 1984, and its Land Use Plan. 3. A specific plan, according to Section 19.07.030 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, may be implemented by standard zoning, planned-community zoning, or plan effectuation standards incorporated within the text of the individual specific plan. In the case of the Draft Bayfront Specific Plan, the standards are built into the specific plan's text. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of January 9, 1985 Page 2 4. As a self-contained, self-implementing mechanism, the Draft Bayfront Specific Plan embodies land-use, bulk, height, residential-density, building-intensity, and off-street parking standards. It also contains townscape-planning, landscape, recreational, circulatory, and signage criteria and guidelines. The plan, furthemore, places major emphasis on the Environmental Management Program for specific protection and enhancement measures for the wetland and upland resources and design provisions for creating wetland buffers. A Chula Vista Bayfront Conservancy Trust is proposed to implement the habitat preservation and coordinate mitigation measures. Emphasis is also placed on the role of State and Federal Wildlife agencies in advising the trust on conservation issues and on the design and upkeep of the wetlands and uplands. Finally, Coastal Development Permit Procedures are defined. 5. The Draft Bayfront Specific Plan is harmonious with the San Diego Unified Port District's Local Coastal Program for adjacent lands and waters, and is complementary to the said program's goals, objectives, policies, and land-use proposals. E. CONCLUSION The Draft Bayfront Specific Plan would be consonant with the Chula Vista General Plan, the certified Local Coastal Program II and its Land Use Plan, and the goals and objectives of the City's redevelopment policies for the Bayfront Community. The said specific plan would promote the orderly and economic growth, development, and conservation of the Bayfront Community, and foster the improvement of its amenity. WPC 1560P City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of January 9, 1985 Page 1 2(b) PUBLIC HEARING: PCM 85-6, Amendments to the Subdivision Ordinance (Title 18) to Implement the Ba~front Specific Plan A. BACKGROUND The purpose of the Subdivision Ordinance amendment is to implement the Chula Vista General Plan and the Bayfront Land Use Plan adopted by the Chula Vista City Council and the California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission. The Bayfront Specific Plan, containing Zoning Regulations and Environmental Management Provisions is a preceding agenda item. Both documents, acting in concert, will facilitate the implementation of the Bayfront Plan. B. RECO)~4ENDATION That the Planning Commission forward the proposed subdivision amendments to the City Council with a recommendation for adoption. C. DISCUSSION The amendment involves a readoption of the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Chula Vista with appropriate inserts throughout to indicate that the subdivision of any lands in the coastal zone will require full compliance with the provisions of the certified local coastal program. Specifically, "No subdivision approval shall be given to any project located in the coastal zone which is found to be in conflict with the certified Local Coastal Program. The type and intensity of land uses shown in the Bayfront Land Use Plan shall determine the types of streets, roads, highways, utilities and public services that shall be provided by the subdivider. For lands within the coastal zone, the subdivider shall obtain a coastal development permit as prescribed in the Bayfront Specific Plan, in addition to the requirements of this code." (Chapter 18.04.040) In addition to establishing consistency, the proposed subdivision amendments indicate the proper public hearing and notice provisions to be followed, including those to the California Coastal Commission. Further, it indicates that no lots, intended for urban development in the coastal zone, shall consist totally of environmentally sensitive habitat areas as defined in the certified Local Coastal Program. Finally, where conflicts arise between the certified Local Coastal Program and the Subdivision Ordinance, the latter shall prevail. D. CONCLUSION In essence therefore, the substantive standards of the Subdivision Ordinance are not being diluted or changed but augmented to strengthen the tie and consistency with the Local Coastal Program for the Chula Vista Bayfront. The approval of the amendment is thus recommended to aid in the plan i~l ementation. WPC 1606P City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of January 9, 1985 Page I 3. Consideration of "Candidate CEQA Findings" and Statement of Overridin~ Considerations - Basfront Specific Plan A. BACKGROUND The Final EIR for the Bayfront Specific Plan 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. B. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached "Candidate CEQA findings" and statement of overriding considerations on the Bayfront Specific Plan. C. ANALYSIS It is the conclusion of these findings that: 1. Changes have been incorporated into the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects as identified in the final EIR with the exception of Water Supply and Visual Quality, 2. Any changes or alterations necessary to avoid or substantially reduce impacts relevant to the supply of water are under the jurisdiction of the Sweetwater Authority and not the City of Chula Vista, and that 3. The avoidance of significant Visual impacts can only be achieved through the implementation of the "no project" alternative which is not feasible to carry out because it would not be consistent with the Land Use Element of the Chula Vista Local Coastal Program nor would it provide the necessary tax base to support the Bayfront redevelopment district. THE BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN EIR 85-1 CANDIDATE CEQA FINDINGS (California Public Resources Code Sec. 21081) {California Administrative Code Sec. 15091) 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 that 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 measure or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The 790-acre Bayfront Planning Area is located within the City of Chula Vista west of Interstate 5 between C and Palomar streets. San Diego Unified Port District lands lie to the west and north, with National City and Chula Vista on the north and east, respectively. The area lies within the coastal plain and exhibits very little topographic relief. The dominant land uses include nearly built out industrial operations south of G Street, agriculture (Verier Farms), and vacant fill areas to the north. Several areas containing wetlands (e.g., Sweetwater Marsh) also dominate the landscape. The existing land use designations are indicated in the Chula Vista Bayfront Land Use Plan, which has been approved by the California Coastal Commission and the Chula Vista City Council. These land uses will be implemented upon approval of the proposed specific plan by the City of Chula Vista, which this report addresses. The specific plan will supersede the provisions of the existing zoning ordinance. The City of Chula Vista proposes to adopt the Bayfront Land Use Plan as a general plan amendment, specific plan, and revisions to the Subdivision Ordinance, thus allowing the plan to be implemented. The specific plan proposes several types of new development for the Bayfront, predominantly within the agricultural and vacant areas north of G Street. These uses include multi-family residential units at three locations, highway-related commercial in four areas, commercial office park in three locations, marine-related commercial use at the northern boundary, a hotel, an area of specialty retail, industrial business park, neighborhood parks and public open space, landscaped parking areas, infill areas of general industrial, and several wetland areas. III. EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT The final EIR for the Bayfront Specific Plan concluded that the project would clearly not have any significant adverse impacts in the following areas :* Land Use (3.7) Community Infrastructure Fire Protection (3.8.2) Police Service (3.8.3) Library Services (3.8.4) Hospital Services (3.8.5) Solid Waste (3.8.6) Public Transportation (3.8.7) *NOTE: The numbers in parentheses refer to the section number in the EIR where the issue is discussed. IV. EFFECTS FOUND TO BE AVOIDED OR SUBSTANTIALLY LESSENED 1. Geology (3.1) The project site, as with any locale in southern California, is subject to seismic hazards from ground shaking. However, the absence of any fault traversing the site and the general quiescence of seismic activity in western San Diego County limit the potential for fault displacement on the site. Although earthquakes from the Elsinore and San Jacinto fault zones could affect the site (based on a maximum probable earthquake of 6.9 to 7.3), the potential for ground shaking is not considered to be significantly greater than any other area in southern California. The soil characteristics and shallow groundwater table on the site could also present possible geologic hazards associated with liquefaction during an earthquake. Since the sand and silts on portions of the Bayfront site exhibit little cohesiveness and the groundwater table is generally three feet above mean sea level, soil liquefaction causing the ground to fail is a possibility. -2- Findings Preliminary soils investigations conducted as part of earlier environmental review (3.1.2 and 3.1.3) and more recent investigations have identified specific areas of concern within the project boundary. The Specific Plan recognized the hazards posed by potential liquefaction and requires detailed geotechnical studies for subsequent projects ISection 19.87.02) and appropriate reinforcement of all structures to withstand any hazards (Section 19.91.04b). Adherence to grading and building code requirements, including proper analysis, engineerin§, design, and construction, will reduce potential impacts to an insignificant level. 2. Soils (3.2.2) The most significant potential soils impacts at the project site are related to the presence of organic mud deposits on the tidal flats, marshlands, and possibly beneath fill areas. The weak, compressible nature of these soils makes them very poor foundation materials. In addition, the mud thickness is often very erratic and variable, leading to possible differential settlement problems. The construction of facilities on older, poorly planned fills consisting possibly of deleterious materials over bay muds could lead to irregular settlements. If such settlements amount to several inches or more, damage to roadways or utilities could occur. Findings Requirements for subsequent soils studies have been incorporated into the project which reduce the potential impacts related to soil instability to an insignificant level. As noted above, the Specific Plan requires subsequent geological studies and appropriate foundation reinforcement to withstand potential hazards. Grading and compaction requirements in accordance with city standards and building code specifications will provide adequate mitigation of potential impacts. 3. Noise (3.4.2) The noise standards as specified in the City of Chula Vista General Plan require that the exterior noise level for residential land uses not exceed 65 dBA. In addition, multi-family residential uses are regulated by the California Noise Insulation Standard ICalifornia Administrative Code, Title 25, Chapter l, Article 4), which requires that interior noise levels not exceed 45 dBA. This interior noise standard is also used by the City of Chula Vista for single-family homes. Wood-frame constructed walls wilt typically reduce exterior noise levels of 65 dBA to interior levels of 45 dBA. Based on the noise standards and the existing noise levels and land uses, there are no significant impacts. However, future noise levels in excess of 65 dBA will affect proposed residential areas located east and west of Tidelands Avenue at F Street. Noise levels greater than the city standard from vehicular traffic will not impact industrial and commercial uses in the plan. -3- l) Approximately 3.4 acres in and adjacent to Verier Pond, 3.0 acres adjacent to the E Street marsh, and 2.5 acres of degraded salt marsh in the F-G Street marsh will be restored to "high quality" wetland habitat [Sedway Cooke 1983:111-36; Specific Plan Section 19.88.05; California Coastal Commission 1984:5]. 2) Approximately one acre of "high quality wetland" will be created in Sweetwater Marsh in conjunction with the Tidelands Avenue extension [Sedway Cooke 1983:111-37; Specific Plan Section 19.88.06(b)]. 3) The artificial lagoon berm will be removed and a "healthy wetland" will be restored over approximately 1.2 acres at the southwest corner of Gunpowder Point [Sedway Cooke 1983:III-33; Specific Plan Section 19.88.04(c)]. 4) Fill and spoil material will be removed from the "wetland upland mosaic" and wetland habitat will be restored over approximately 2 acres at the northwestern corner of Gunpowder Point [Sedway Cooke 1983:III-33; Specific Plan Section 19.88.04(c)]. The total area specified for wetland restoration is 9.9 acres, plus the 3.2 acres on Gunpowder Point that will be improved. This area exceeds that which will be destroyed by the project. Assuming that equal habitat value is provided under the direction of the environmental management program discussed below, this wetlands restoration will mitigate the direct impacts of filling and dredging. b. Impacts to the California least tern resulting from a reduction of potential breeding area will be offset by the creation of a preserve which will be isolated by a water channel and protected from disturbance by vehicles, direct human activity, and pets. In approving the Bayfront Land Use Plan, the California Coastal Commission determined that the proposals provided "adequate protection against significant disruption of least tern habitat values" {California Coastal Commission 1984:22), based on the fact that size alone is not the only determining factor in the effectiveness of a least tern breeding preserve. Even though the potential area for least tern nesting would be reduced, the added protection from disturbance by humans (not regularly occurring under the existing conditions) may reasonably be expected to provide mitigation. c. Impacts from the loss of upland habitat on Gunpowder, while not considered significant by the Coastal Commission and Jones and Stokes {1983), would be mitigated by the restoration of upland habitat over an area of approximately 9.6 acres. -5- d. Potential impacts from the altered characteristics of storm runoff will be mitigated by two features of the project: First, existing runoff impacts related to current agricultural activities on Gunpowder Point and elsewhere in the Bayfront area will be eliminated. Second, the proposed drainage system within the Bayfront development would direct most storm runoff into the open waters of San Diego Bay rather than into the marshlands. e. Potential impacts to the light-footed clapper rail may not occur at all if the conclusions of Jones and Stokes {1983:66-67) are accurate. Based on these findings, traffic and the passive human activities allowable along the marshland perimeters within the plan {walking, jogging, observation) would have little or no adverse effects. The only potentially significant impact to light-footed clapper rails would be that from road kills. The design for the access road to Gunpowder Point (Figure 7 in the specific plan) would clearly discourage birds from walking across the road between marsh areas. Tidelands Avenue could also be designed in a manner, perhaps with low fences or walls adjacent to it, which would prevent birds from walking into the roadway. The widened bridge structure proposed for Tidelands Avenue would improve the opportunity for wading birds to travel between Sweetwater Marsh and the upstream marsh areas. Indirect impacts related to the proximity of human activity near the preserved wetlands will be mitigated through the project design, which restricts or prohibits human presence in some areas and provides for nonactive pursuits in other areas. The general concept of the buffers would allow limited human activity, such as walking, jogging, and observation, in the outermost 50 feet of the buffer, while the 50 feet nearest the wetlands would be landscaped with plantings which provide a visual barrier with limited breaks to permit some views into the wetlands. In some areas within the outer portions of the buffer, bicycle paths would be provided. The general concept of this kind of buffer with limited recreational uses was first proposed by the COE (1982:9) and endorsed by the USFWS (COE 1982:A2-40, 59) pending review of detailed designs. 5. Archaeological/Historical Resources {3.6.2) Development of the Bayfront project area will adversely impact the six archaeological sites within the project area by destroying them through grading, fill, and other construction-related activities. No cultural resources were found near the project boundaries, so indirect impacts are unlikely. Findings Potential impacts to archaeological sites will be mitigated through a program of testing and excavation which will be coordinated through subsequent review of individual development proposals within the specific plan. Testing will consist of surface collections of artifacts, posthole excavations to establish site size and depth, and one-by-one-meter unit excavation to sample the artifacts and establish site significance. Sites determined to contain significant cultural materials will then be sampled further to achieve mitigation, unless the sites can be preserved in open space easements. This program will reduce potential impacts to cultural resources to an insignificant level. 6. Community Infrastructure - Schools {3.8.1.2) Ultimate maximum residential development of the Bayfront area would, according to the generation rates provided by the Chula Vista City School District and the Sweetwater Union High School District, add approximately 274 elementary school students and 343 junior high school and high school students, or a total of 618 students. The proposed residential development would contribute to overcrowding of the school facilities within both of these districts and thus impair the normal functioning of educational programs in the districts. The location of the proposed development, west of 1-5 and the San Diego Trolley line, would also create the additional impact of requiring the Chula Vista City School District to bus students to the school for safety purposes. Findings In accordance with existing City of Chula Vista ordinance, a letter of service availability will be required prior to the approval of any residential units. In order to obtain the necessary agreement from the school districts, developers agree to contribute towards the cost of providing temporary classroom facilities. This procedure provides the mechanism to reduce impacts to the affected school districts to acceptable levels. 7. Transportation and Circulation {3.10.2) According to the Federhart study {Appendix C of the EIR), approximately 43,140 new trips would ultimately be generated on a daily basis. These new trips would approach 1-5 from the west, travel south of J Street on Bay Boulevard, or travel north into National City on Tidelands Avenue. This total exceeds the existing ADT by 27,260 trips. The distribution of the existing traffic and the project-generated traffic is shown in Figure 17 {of the EIR). The majority of the streets within the Bayfront plan area will have the capacity to adequately serve the planned uses. However, as indicated in Figure 17, the E Street interchange between Bay Boulevard and 1-5 will have the highest ADT. This volume could cause problems and adversely affect the level of service in the future if the improvements suggested in the Land Use Plan are not implemented. -7- Findinos The following measures have been incorporated into the project to reduce traffic impacts: a. The widening of the E Street bridge from its present six-lane configuration to seven to nine lanes in phases coordinated with development. This widening would include improvements at the Bay Boulevard intersection to eliminate a left-turn movement on the southbound freeway ramp. b. An extended loop ramp at the Bay Boulevard intersection with E Street. c. Ramp connections to Tidelands Avenue from Route 54. Additional measures which will be evaluated in the future as individual developments are proposed to include dual left-turn lanes from southbound Bay Boulevard to E Street and from southbound Tidelands Avenue to E and F streets. In addition to the roadway improvements noted above and included within the Specific Plan, alternate transportation modes will be strongly encouraged by the plan through the provision of an additional trolley stop, bicycle paths, and pedestrian walks which link to similar facilities to the west and north. These measures incorporated into the project will provide an adequate circulation system which will avoid significant impacts from future development within the Specific Plan area. 8. Hydrology and Water Quality (3.12.2) Development of the Bayfront site, as with any conversion of a comparable nonurban area, would lead to a number of hydrologic impacts. These include increased runoff rates, altered chemical content of runoff waters, and altered drainage pattern. Developed areas generally exhibit a higher runoff volume than comparable nonurban areas. With development of the project area, the quantity of surface runoff fl ow will increase. The discharge curve will change from a gradual increase and relatively high flow rate to a discharge characterized by a rapid buildup, with a peak runoff during and immediately following rainfall, then a more rapid decrease in flow. Surface drainage will ultimately flow directly into San Diego Bay or the wetland area via the storm drain system. The change from agricultural and vacant land to urban uses would also result in the altered chemical content of the runoff waters that now flow off the property. The nutrients, and pest~c~ e concentration of the runoff which now enters the marsh areas w~ll be reduced. However, urban use will generate a number of different chemical-waste products, which include oil and other petroleum products, heavy metals, soaps and detergents, and pesticides. Many of these will be picked up in runoff and carried into the bay wetlands. The alterations proposed for Gunpowder Point, the D Street fill, and the Midbayfront will change the existing drainage pattern and also affect the existing water quality. Groundwater will be impacted by implementation of the plan through the reduction in the recharge to the aquifer beneath the site. The impact is considered insignificant because of the extremely low quality of the existing groundwater. Findinqs The Specific Plan recognizes the importance of maintaining high water quality and incorporates measures to maintain drainage in as natural a condition as possible and to improve tidal circulation as a means of improving water quality. Section 19.87.07 of the Specific Plan sets forth grading regulations which provide for a major detention and desilting basin in the Midbayfront area, restriction of grading during the rainy season, permanent erosion control device installation prior to grading activities, and erosion control landscaping within 60 days of grading. The drainage system proposed in the Specific Plan (Map 5) would direct runoff from developed areas through a storm drain system and as directly as possible into the open waters of San Diego Bay, minimizing urban runoff into the Sweetwater, Verier, and G Street marshes. Seasonal runoff from developed areas into the G Street marsh would be supplemented with inputs of higher quality fresh water to reduce pollutant concentrations which may occur. These measures would minimize the urban runoff impacts of the project. The project would also rebuild the existing viaducts connecting portions of Sweetwater Marsh on each side of the railroad tracks. This measure will improve tidal flows within the marsh, improving water quality in the eastern portion. These measures taken together will insure that the hydrologic and water quality impacts resulting from the project are insignificant. V. MITIGATION FOUND TO BE UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF ANOTHER AGENCY 9. Water Supply (3.9.1) Ultimate development of the project site will result in approximately 539,810 gallons being consumed per day for residential and commercial uses. Since industrial water use can va~ greatly depending on the specific type of use, the approximate consumption has not been included. The commercial and --9- residential consumption can also be variable for this same reason. While this amount of water is not considered a disproportionate amount of water for the project, it will contribute incrementally to the increased demand for water resources in San Diego County. The Sweetwater Authority anticipates no problems in providing water for the project (Silva, Sweetwater Authority, 10118/84). Since the majority of the region's water is imported, the cumulative effect of increased water demand is considered significant. Fi nding Since the impact is cumulative and the solution is independent of the present project, no project-level mitigation is available. Therefore, no mitigation was incorporated to lessen the impact. The changes or alterations necessary to avoid or substantially reduce this impact lie with the Sweetwater Authority and not with the City of Chula Vista. Alternative development plans would not reduce the cumulative impact. The EIR notes that the projected water use is not considered disproportionate (page 63). Recognizing that less intense development would result in less water consumption, any alternative, other than the no project alternative, would present significant cumulative water supply impacts. While the responsibility for avoiding or substantially reducing cumulative water impacts lies with another jurisdiction, cumulative significant water supply impacts remain. These impacts are considered acceptable because of the overriding social and economic benefits accruing from the project. These are described in the "Statement of Overriding Considerations" attached to these findings. VI. EFFECTS FOUND TO BE INFEASIBLE TO AVOID OR SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCE lO. Landform and Visual Quality (3.3) The EIR indicates that although the impact of the plan implementation will positively affect the overall visual appearance of the site and provide increased public access to the visual resources, it will also create the effect of removing a generally open area from a surrounding environment which is dominated by more intense urban development. The development proposed for the D Street fill, the resort hotel on Gunpowder Point, and development proposed on existing agricultural lands {Midbayfront) will delete and interrupt the visual amenity of an open area in an urban environment. For these reasons, the visual impact is considered significant. The specific plan has incorporated design features to enhance the form and appearance of the project. Design standards, landscaping direction, and architectural guidance is provided on pages 55 through 74 of the specific -10- plan. These measures avoid some adverse visual effects of the project. The impacts to visual amenities from open areas in an urban environment discussed above remain, however. There are no mitigation measures for significant adverse impacts to visual quality which fall within the jurisdiction of another agency. The visible impact results from building in a presently undeveloped area. There is no mitigation or alternative, aside from the no project alternative, which would not present a significant visual impact. An alternative discussed in the EIR considered omission of the hotel from Gunpowder Point. Elimination of the hotel from this location would reduce visual impacts by removing a tall structure at the bay edge. It would not, however, avoid or substantially lessen the visual impact of the project. Therefore, although design criteria incorporated into the specific plan do not mitigate some visual quality/landform impacts, significant impacts remain. These impacts are considered acceptable because of the social and economic benefit resulting from the project. These are described in the "Statement of Overriding Considerations" attached to these findings. VII. RECORD For the purposes of CEQA and these findings, the record of the Planning Commission and City Council relating to these actions include: 1. The Final EIR for the Bayfront Specific Plan, City of Chula Vista (E IR-8§-l ). 2. Chula Vista Bayfront Specific Plan; Chula Vista Local Coastal Program Phase III. A division of the Chula Vista Zoning Ordinance. City of Chula Vista. 3. California Administrative Code, Title 25 4. Chula Vista Bayfront Land Use Plan, Sedway Cooke Associate, 1983. 5. Revised Findings for the Approval of the City of Chula Vista Bayfront Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan. California Coastal Commission, December 21, 1984. 6. Final Analysis of Select Biological Resources Relating to the Chula Vista Bayfront Plan. Jones and Stokes Associates, Inc. 7. Sweetwater River Final Environmental Statement. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. March 1982. 8. Silva, Sweetwater Authority, 10/18/84. -t 1- 9. Documentary and oral evidence presented to the Planning Commission, City Council and the Coastal Commission during public hearings on EIR-85-1 and the Bayfront Specific Plan. 10. 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. Bull, Charles S. 1977 SDM-W-1323: Archaeolo~ of a Site on Gunpowder Point. RECON. Bull, Charles S. 1973 An Archaeological Survey of the Sweetwater River Flood Control Channel. San Diego State University Foundation. California, State of 1967 Ground Water Occurrence and Quality: San Diego Region, Volume 1. Department of Water Resources. Caltrans 1975 San Diego Metropolitan Area Transportation Study. 1981 Biological Assessment for Endangered Species Consultation on the Sweetwater Flood Control Channel and Freeway Interchange Combined Project. Carrico, Richard L. 1978 Cultural Resources Reconnaissance of the San Diego Fixed Guideway Project, Centre City to San Ysidro. WESTEC Services, Inc. Chula Vista, City of 1974 Bayfront Redevelopment Project Plan. Redevelopment Agency. Close, Daniel, et al. 1970 Climates of San Diego County: A~ricultural Relationships. University of California Agricultural Extension Service, San Diego. -12- Corum, Joyce M. 1978 An Archaeological Survey for the Proposed San Diego Bay Route Bikeway IHarbor Drive to Coronado). California Department of Transportation, Sacramento. De Costa, Joan 1981 Proposed Archaeological Phase II Excavation at SDi-8873H. California Department of Transportation, San Diego. Leach, Larry L. 1977 Archaeological Investigations at the Handyman Site and the Edgemere Site. San Diego State University Foundation. San Diego, County of 1976a Regional Air Quality Strategies for the San Diego Air Basin. Prepared by the San Diego Air Quality Planning 1976b Air Quali~y Assessment for Environmental Impact Reports. Air Pollution Control District. 1978a Revised Regional Air Quality Strategy. Prepared by the San Diego Air Quality Planning Team. 1978b Regional Emission Trends Projections for the San Diego Air Quality Management Plan. 1979 Air Quality in San Diego County: Annual Air Monitoring Report, 1978. Air Pollution Control District. 1980 Air Quality in San Diego County: Annual Air Monitoring Report, 1979. Air Pollution Control District. San Diego Association of Governments 1978 Travel Behavior Survey. Snyder, John W. 1982 Historic Research Evaluation Report for Site SDi-8873H. California Department of Transportation, Sacramento. Southern California Soil and Testing, Inc. 1976 Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation: Proposed Development Areas of Bayfront Redevelopment Project. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers 1977 Environmental Statement for the Sweetwater River Flood Control Channel, State Highw~ Route 54, Interstate Highway Route 5, Recreation Facilities, and Conservation of Marshlands. -13- U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 1977 Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (AP-42). WESTEC Services, Inc. 1977 Final EIR, Chula Vista Bayfront Redevelopment Project. Williams, B., and J. Reiger 1973 An Invento~ of Physical and Biological Factors of Paradise Creek Marsh. Prepared for Planning Department, National City, CA. Zedler, Joy B. 1982 The Ecology of Southern California Coastal Salt Marshes: A Community Profile. Prepared for U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984 Salt Marsh Restoration: A Guidebook for Southern California. California Sea Grant College Program. Zimbal, R. L., and B. W. Massey 1980 Continuation Study of the Light-Footed Clapper Rail. Prepared for California Department of Fish and Game. 1984 Continuation Study of the Light-Footed Clapper Rail. Prepared for California Department of Fish and Game. -14- STATE~NT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS BACKGROUND The California Environmental Quality Act {CEQA) and the State EIR Guidelines promulgated pursuant thereto provide: 15093. (a) CEQA requires the decision-maker to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmenal effects may be considered "acceptable." (b) Where the decision of the public agency allows the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not at least substantially mitigated, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record. This statement may be necessary if the agency also makes a finding under Section 15091(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 (State of California 1984:111). STATEMENTS The following statements are considerations which warrant approval of the project and therefore override environmental impacts identified in EIR 85-1. Significant impacts which are overridden are visual aesthetics and cumulative water supply. 1. The provision of low-and moderate-cost housing. In the documents entitled "City of Chula Vista's Response to the California Coastal Commission Staff Report of July 6, 1979 Concerning Chula Vista's Local Coastal Program," the city states: The lack of housing for low-and moderate-income persons in Chula Vista has been a problem the City has been trying to alleviate for some time. Attached as Exhibit N is an outline of the numerous programs that the City is undertaking to lessen the impact of this problem. Recent legislation sponsored by the City to assist in the financing of its redevelopment activities contains a statuto~ requirement that 20 percent of property tax revenues to the Redevelopment Agency be used to provide low-and moderate-income housing {AB405). Since most of the Bayfront Specific Plan area is within a Redevelopment District, the city is required to provide 20 percent of the number of dwelling units built within Bayfront district to low to moderate income families. These dwelling units may be provided anywhere within the City of Chula Vista. -15- 2. The provision of public coastal access, recreation, and increased coastal identity. The Santa Fe railroad, Interstate 5, privately owned land, and industrial development severely restrict coastal access for the community of Chula Vista. The California Coastal Commission recently found that: The LUP provides for increase in both the quantity and quality of public access consistent with the capacity of the Bayfront to sustain such use. They further state: In sum, the LUP contains policies which will result in an additional 3.2 miles of horizontal shoreline access, 39 acres of public park, and 34 acres of wetland buffers. The Commission finds that this increase in access opportunities maximizes such opportunities consistent wi th the protection of natural resource areas from disturbance or overuse. The Commission further finds that sufficient public accessways will be provided, that parking areas will be appropriately distributed throughout the Bayfront, and that low-cost visitor facilities will be provided. The Commission therefore finds that the LUP is consistent with Sections 30210-30214 of the Coastal Act. In addition, the Commission finds that the LUP contains the specific access component required by Public Resources Code Section 30500 3. Economic benefit to the city through an increased tax base. The proposed project will generate revenue in the form of property taxes, sales taxes, and transient occupancy taxes. The amount of revenue expected from the project area is presented on pages 36 through 44 of the Financial Analysis of Alternatives for Development of the Chula Vista Bayfront, prepared by Gruen and Gruen Associates (1983). Such revenues will initially go to paying off the debt instruments used to finance the project and will ultimately add to the city's revenue base. The funds permit development of infrastructure improvements that may not otherwise be feasible. Combined with applicant-developed infrastructure as outlined in the Land Use Plan, these improvements are of substantial public benefit. References The following documents were used in preparing these overriding considerations: 1. City of Chula Vista's Response to the California Coastal Commission Staff Report of July 6, 1979 Concerning Chula Vista's Local Coastal Program. 2. Financial Analysis of Alternatives for Development of the Chula Vista Bayfront. Gruen and Gruen Associates. 1983. 3. The r~rd sited in Section VII of the Bayfront Specific Plan "CEQA Findings" {EIR-85-1). WPC 1605P 12/31/84 -16- City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of January 9, 1985 Page I 4. Consideration of Final EIR-84-1, EastLake ! A. BACKGROUND A public hearing on the draft of this document was held on November 14, 1984. During that hearing, written comments were presented by Michael Spata and Wendy Longley-Cook of Longley-Cook Engineering, both representing United Enterprises. Other written comments were received and all have been included in the Comments/Response section of the Final EIR. B. RECO)IMENDATION Certify that Final EIR-84-1 has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the State CEQA Guidelines, the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista and that the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information in the Final EIR. C. REVISIONS The most significant revision to the text of the Final EIR is the section on "astronomical dark sky" which begins on page 3-58. This section was written for the draft EIR based on incorrect information that the City standard street lighting was low pressure sodium lamps, while in fact, the City's standard is high pressure sodium lamps. High pressure lamps, according to Astronomers, if installed throughout the County, would destroy the usefulness of optical astronomical observatory's at Mt. Palomar and Mt. Laguna. The City of San Diego and several other jurisdictions in San Diego County have begun a conversion to low pressure sodium lamps. Such a conversion program throughout San Diego County would avoid a cumulative impact on these sensitive scientific instruments. The EastLake I will result in an adverse though not significant impact to astronomical dark sky. There have been no other substantial changes in the document and no conclusions have been changed. D. CONCLUSION It is the conclusion of this Final EIR that all significant environmental impacts can be reduced to a level of insignificance through the incorporation of mitigation measures identified in the EIR. During the consideration of the project and "Candidate CEQA Findings" it will be determined which mitigation measures are feasible, which are under the jurisdiction of another agency and which have been incorporated into the project. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of January 9, 1985 Page 1 5. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM 84-9, Consideration of General Development Plan Amendment, Sectional Planning Area (SPA} Plan, Public Facilities and Financing Plan and Development Agreement; EastLake Development Company A. BACKGROUND This item involves the consideration of the EastLake I Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan and related items for a 1,267.9 acre project which was approved as a General Plan Amendment in August 1982. The project represents the first phase of development of the Janal Ranch which contains 3,073 acres. The first phase was annexed to the City in August of 1983. The balance of the property is still in the unincorporated area and will be planned and annexed to the City at some future date. The EastLake I SPA Plan covers a smaller area than the 1,267.9 acres addressed in the EastLake I General Development Plan of 1982. The EastLake I SPA Plan does not include the area south of Telegraph Canyon Road (currently named Otay Lakes Road). This area will be addressed in a supplemental SPA Plan at a later time (375.8 acres and 1,299 du). Thus, this project consists of 892.1 acres and proposes 2,384 dwelling units. The Environmental Impact Report for the items described herein, is the preceding item. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Based upon the findings attached to this report (Attachment l) adopt a motion recommending that the City Council approve the amendment to the General Development Plan; and 2. Based upon the findings attached to this report (Attachment 2), adopt a motion recommending that the City Council approve the EastLake I Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan, subject to the Conditions of Approval listed in Section 6; and 3. Adopt a motion approving in concept the preliminary Public Facilities and Financing Plan and Development Agreement; and 4. Direct staff to continue negotiating with the applicant with respect to the final draft of the Public Facilities and Financing Plan and Development Agreement for City Council action. C. DISCUSSION 1. EASTLAKE I GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT The EastLake I General Development Plan adopted by the City Council in 1982 contained 1,267.9 acres with a maximum of 3,683 dwelling units, 145.3 acres of employment park, 34.2 acres of office and commercial, 59.9 acres of schools, 301.4 acres of parks and open space and 106.4 acres of streets. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of January 9, 1985 Page 2 Since 1982, the EastLake Development Company has completed more detailed planning studies for the project which have resulted in some changes to the original General Development Plan. These changes are consistent with the original design and intent, however, they nevertheless require an amendment to ensure consistency between the General Development Plan and the SPA Plan. The principal changes involve moving the proposed lake from the Village Center to the EastLake Shores residential neighborhood and the rearrangement of land uses in the EastLake Shores area and in the Village Center. There has also been a shift of residential dwelling units from south of Telegraph Canyon Road to the west side of future Route 125. Density transfers are permitted by the PC District Regulations. The location of the future high school has been shifted from EastLake I to EastLake II based on the recommendation of the high school district. The employment park as been increased in size slightly (8.4 acres) due to the redesign of the Village Center. The overall number of residential units has not changed. 2. EASTLAKE SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN The General Development Plan and text requires the preparation and approval of a Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan before subdivision maps and site plans are considered. The purpose of the SPA Plan is to provide a more specific plan for the development of a planned community which, due to its size or complexity cannot be subdivided and built in its entirety at one time. A second purpose of the SPA Plan is to provide the planning framework (land use, density, open space, circulation, public facilities, and design policy) to guide the preparation of individual project plans. Many building firms will be carrying out specific projects within EastLake I at different times over the next several years. The SPA Plan will ensure that individual projects will be consistent with the purpose and intent set forth in the SPA Plan. The SPA Plan is a summary prepared by the City based on an extensive amount of research submitted by the EastLake Development Company. Substantial refinements were made by the City and other public agencies. Once adopted by the City Council, the SPA Plan establishes the basic design, land use allocations and development guidelines for the project. Plan Structure EastLake is intended to be a balanced community with a broad range of housing types and prices plus an employment park and village center. The structure of the community is organized into four residential neighborhoods with connecting open space, parks and trails. The high activity nodes are City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of January 9, 1985 Page 3 located on the east side of future Route 125 and the residential areas are located on the west side. Each of the four neighborhoods contains a major focal point such as elementary school/park, lake/beach club or water feature. Low density residential is located on the north side of "H" Street and moderately higher densities are located on the south side of "H" Street. The Village Center will contain mixed uses such as retail, office, senior citizen residential, apartments and public facilities. The employment park is planned to have principally high tech firms located around the nine (9) acre park and a variety of non-high tech and multi-tenant uses on the periphery. Transportation System The initial access to the industrial area will be Otay Lakes Road Ito be renamed Telegraph Canyon Road). Access to the residential areas will be East "H" Street. The third major arterial will be a new road running north-south which is referred to as Route 125. Actually, this road will not be built until needed and, although it is being planned as a future 8-lane freeway, initially it will be a two lane or four lane road extending north to Route 54. The principal collector street within the boundaries of the project is EastLake Parkway which will connect each of the residential neighborhoods and extend over to the Village Center and southerly to the future high school. EastLake Parkway will function as the main internal collector street providing access between all four neighborhoods. Special landscaping, trails, and bike lanes are planned for EastLake Parkway. The major offsite streets include East "H" Street, Telegraph Canyon Road, Rutgers, Otay Lakes Road and Route 125. The precise responsibilities for improvements and time schedule are addressed in the Public Facilities and Financing Plan. In addition, an area-wide benefit assessment analysis will be conducted by the City to establish the fair share obligation for improving major streets in the area east of 1-805 by respective developers in the area, In addition to automobile transportation facilities, EastLake will build a transportation center within the Village Center to serve the expanded local and regional bus service. Park and ride facilities will be incorporated into the Village Center parking areas. Open Space and Recreation The EastLake I SPA Plan provides for 250.8 acres of open space and 32.8 acres of park land. A General Landscape Plan is included within the SPA Plan which describes the various treatment of the open space lands. Some will be left in a natural condition and other areas will be planted and irrigated to achieve neighborhood identity and/or linkages between neighborhoods. Major entries into the development will receive highly manicured treatment to identify the community. Four private parks plus 3 mini-parks will be fully developed and maintained by the Master Homeowners Association. The one public park is proposed next to the future high school and will be treated in a future submittal. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of Janua~ 9, 1985 Page 4 The major recreational facility for the project will be a 17 acre lake located in the EastLake Shores neighborhood. This lake will provide sailing and fishing plus a trail system for jogging and walking around the lake. Residential units will be sited back from the lake to allow people to use all of the lake shoreline. A beach-park facility is planned adjacent to the 17 acre lake to provide swimming, water sports, volleyball and outdoor picnicing. All of the park'facilities will be open to the public except the swimming pools located in the neighborhood parks, which will be fenced for safety purposes. A system of bike lanes and pedestrian walkways are planned to provide access within the project from residential areas to recreational, shopping and other community facilities. Public Facilities Public facilities such as roads, sewers, water facilities, drainage facilities, fire station, library, transportation center and other required facilities needed to serve the project will be provided by the EastLake Development Company. The developer will install the necessary public facilities within the project in accordance with the phasing plan for the development. Certain offsite facilities such as drainage facilities and major road widenings or extensions are outlined in the Public Facilities and Financing Plan. The timing and method of building the transportation facility referred to as Route 125 from EastLake I to State Route 54 is the major offsite facility being planned for future development within the next 5-10 years. Transportation studies have been conducted by the EastLake Development Company, the City Engineer and SANDAG, WESTEC Services, and a private traffic engineering consultant, Mr. Gary Hansen. Mr. Hansen's analysis of the other studies has provided the basis for the City Engineer's recommendation contained in the Public Facilities and Financing Plan. Design The community design guidelines treat various design elements that contribute to community character. Building scale, landscaping, fencing, street design, lighting, signage and project design must work together to create a well designed community. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of January 9, 1985 Page 5 Many of the community design guidelines included in the SPA Plan represent design principles to guide builders and City staff in reviewing more detailed project plans at a later date. Those items that relate to community features such as landscaping, fencing, lighting, signing, open space and recreation, and the major and collector street system are treated in more detail to ensure consistency with the overall project design. Future submittals involving site plan and architectural review will address the remaining elements of site design. 3. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND FINANCING PLAN The requirement for preparation of a Public Facilities and Financing Plan was established in 1982 with the City Council's adoption of the Planned Community District Regulation for EastLake I. The purpose of the plan was to set forth the method and source of funding by the developer to finance the public facilities required to support the project and a development phasing plan setting forth capital improvement program elements and schedules for implementation. The actual preparation of the Public Facilities and Financing Plan was carried out by a financial consultant retained by the City. The draft facilities plan will require approval by the City Council before the project can proceed. The Public Facilities and Financing Plan is an essential component of the SPA Plan. Together, these documents contain the City's official policy to guide future decisions regarding public and private development of the property. The facilities required for the efficient and orderly development of the project are as follows: a. Road facilities b. Water facilities c. Sewer facilities d. Educational facilities e. Fire and Police facilities f. Park and Recreation facilities g. Library facilities h. Public utility facilities Road Facilities All onsite road improvements will be built by the developer as conditions of tentative subdivision map approval. Offsite road improvements identified by the City's traffic analysis will be financed by developers or a Facilities Benefit Assessment District, where each developer in the affected area will participate in financing the improvements. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of January 9, 1985 Page 6 The streets identified for improvement by 1995 are: East "H" Street, Telegraph Canyon Road, Otay Lakes Road, Rutgers, Route 125, Proctor Valley Road, Paseo Ladera, Paseo Del Rey, Corral Canyon Road, Bonita Road, and Sweetwater Road. The level of improvement and timing will be determined by the rate of cumulative development in the area. An annual monitoring program will be established to track actual traffic generation rates from development to ensure that improvements are built in accordance wi th need. EastLake developers will construct offsite improvements or will be assessed their fair share for the cost of offsite improvements. Water Facilities The Otay Municipal Water District will provide water service to the project. EastLake will annex to Improvement District 22 and pay annexation fees to the District. These fees will be used to construct water reservoirs, pipelines, pump station,s and related facilities. All water facilities will be financed by the developer. Sewer Facilities Since EastLake lies in several drainage basins, sewer lines will be connected to the Telegraph Canyon Trunk Line, the Proctor Valley system and Long Canyon. On-site facilities will be constructed by the developer. Fees will be charged by the City for sewer connection and reimbursements for capacity in the Telegraph Canyon Trunk Line. Educational Facilities EastLake I will generate approximately 875 elementary students and 418 seconda~ students. An elementary school will be built to serve the first phase of EastLake I. A second elementa~ school will be necessa~ to serve future phases of the project. A location for a new high school has been identified by the high school district, but based on available capacity, a new high school will not be needed for this first phase. Separate agreements will be signed by the elementally and high school districts with the EastLake Development Company to guarantee educational facilities will be available concurrent with need. Fire and Police Facilities The City is adequately served by the central police facility, however, additional staff and equipment will be needed once EastLake I is occupied. No new facilities are necessary to provide police services at this time. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of January 9, 1985 Page 7 Fire protection facilities may need to be augmented with a new fire station and start-up equipment to provide an adequate level of service to the area. EastLake Development Company is obligated to dedicate a site, build a station and provide start-up equipment or contribute funds to a new station. Further detailed analysis of the cost, demand, and location of the fire station will be conducted prior to any final decision by the City Council. Park and Recreation Facilities There will be seven (7) private parks constructed and maintained by the Master Homeowners Association. A complete range of facilities is planned within the seven parks. All facilities will be open to the public except for the swimming park which will be fenced. A total of 32.8 acres of park land will serve the project. Library Facilities A "store front" library site has been reserved within the Village Center for future use. In addition, a one Il) acre site is being reserved for construction of a branch library, should future development in the eastern area create the need for a larger facility. Various options to provide library service will be studied by the City in conjunction with the General Plan update for the total area. Public Facilities Telephone, gas, electricity and cable television facilities have been planned in cooperation with the respective utility companies. Discussions between EastLake Development Company and the City will continue with respect to a telecommunications system to provide for traffic signal interconnections, full service alarm capacity, emergency heal th telecommunications system, water system telemetry and telecommunication capability for high technology firms within the industrial park. 4. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT A development agreement, as permitted by California law, is a relatively new tool that helps a public agency and a large scale development identify what the rules are before large sums of public and/or private money are invested in a project. A development agreement does not take the place of a general plan or zoning or subdivision map. It is an agreement that sets forth the things the developer will do and the things the City will do. In short, the EastLake Development Company agrees to provide the public and private improvements identified in the SPA Plan and the Public Facilities and Financing Plan and the City agrees not to change the planning and zoning approvals applicable to EastLake I during a specified period of time. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of January 9, 1985 Page 8 Future land use decisions must be made in accordance with the City's laws and policies in effect when the agreement was entered into, with certain exceptions regarding new State or Federal laws. Development agreements may be deliberately written to be flexible to allow the City and the developer to solve specific problems in a cooperative manner. The implications for the City are essentially that a development agreement specifies the time during which the City agrees not to change its regulations, the permitted uses of the property, the density or intensity of uses, and provisions for dedication or reservation of land for public purposes. The agreement may also include any other terms and conditions including time schedules for development or additional public services and facilities to be provided by the developer. The law does not prevent the City from subsequently denying or conditioning the project so long as such decisions are not based upon a zoning or plan change which occurred after entering into the development agreement. 5. SUBSEQUENT ACTIONS The subsequent actions scheduled for EastLake I implementation include public hearings to adopt a more detailed set of zoning regulations IPlanned Community District Regulations) and master tentative subdivision maps. The PC Zone has the flexibility to permit adoption of "custom" zoning standards for large scale planned communities. A Planning Commission workshop will be held to review the EastLake I zoning regulation prior to formal public hearing. The master tentative subdivision maps (2) will be considered by your Commission in late January 1985. These subdivision maps will show the total project. The condominium parcels will be further subdivided as detailed project plans are filed later on. Rough grading will commence early next year. 6. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF EASTLAKE I SPA PLAN a. The lotting and street pattern shown on the EastLake I SPA Plan map may be modified by the Planning Commission and City Council during tentative subdivision map consideration. b. Street connections to the south in the EastLake Shores neighborhood shall be as required on the tentative subdivision map. c. The alignment of the street connection from EastLake Hills neighborhood to Rutgers shall be as required on the tentative subdivision map. d. Lot 64 located at the southeast quadrant of Route 125 and East "H" Street shall be deleted. e. The ultimate right-of-way width for future Route 125 shall be as required on the tentative map to accommodate an eight lane freeway. WPC 1583P Attachment 1 EASTLAKE I GENEPJ~L DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT RECOMMENDED FINDINGS 1. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AS DESCRIBED BY THE GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE PROVISION OF THE CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN. The amendment to the General Development Plan is consistent with the original intent and purpose of the overall development plan, and is, therefore, in conformity with the provisions of the General Plan. The amendment does not change the overall density or intensity of use, nor the circulation system. Relatively minor changes in the location of open space uses and rearrangement of residential densities within the project boundaries constitute the principal changes. 2. A PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CAN BE INITIATED BY ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIFIC USES OR SECTIONAL PLANNING AREAS WITHIN TWO YEARS OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONE. The applicant has submitted tentative subdivision maps and a phasing plan indicating construction will begin within two years. 3. IN THE CASE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, THAT SUCH DEVELOPMENT WILL CONSTITUTE A RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENT OF SUSTAINED DESIRABILITY AND STABILITY; AND THAT IT WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH OR PROVIDE COMPATIBLE VARIETY TO THE CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING AREA; AND THAT THE SITES PROPOSED FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES, SUCH AS SCHOOLS, PLAYGROUNDS AND PARKS, ARE ADEQUATE TO SERVE THE ANTICIPATED POPULATION AND APPEAR ACCEPTABLE TO THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES HAVING JURISDICTION THEREOF. The amendment to the General Development Plan enhances the quality of the residential environment by providing a 17-acre lake and 3.8 acre beach club facility in the largest residential neighborhood. The elementary schools, playgrounds and parks are adequate to serve the projected population. 4. IN THE CASE OF PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL AND RESEARCH USES, THAT SUCH DEVELOPMENT WILL BE APPROPRIATE IN AREA, LOCATION, AND OVERALL DESIGN TO THE PURPOSE INTENDED; THAT THE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ARE SUCH AS TO CREATE A RESEARCH OR INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENT OF SUSTAINED DESIRABILITY AND STABILITY; AND, THAT SUCH DEVELOPMENT WILL MEET PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ESTABLISHED BY THIS TITLE. The amendment to the General Development Plan adds 8.9 acres of land to the industrial park area which is a result of more precise design studies of the Village Center and major street alignments. The overall quality of the industrial area is unchanged by the amendment. EASTLAKE I GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN ~4ENDMENT (cont'd) 5. IN THE CASE OF INSTITUTIONAL, RECREATIONAL, AND OTHER SIMILAR NONRESIDENTIAL USES, THAT SUCH DEVELOPMENT WILL BE APPROPRIATE IN AREA, LOCATION AND OVERALL PLANNING TO THE PURPOSE PROPOSED, AND THAT SURROUNDING AREAS ARE PROTECTED FROM ANY ADVERSE AFFECTS FROM SUCH. The amendment to the General Development Plan improves the relationship between residential uses and park uses by relocating the man-made lake to the center of the major residential neighborhood. The relocation of the future high school site to a more central regional location was recommended by the Sweetwater Union High School after completing master plan studies for future high school facilities throughout the district. 6. THE STREETS AND THOROUGHFARES PROPOSED ARE SUITABLE AND ADEQUATE TO CARRY THE ANTICIPATED TRAFFIC THEREON. The amendment to the General Plan does not alter the planned system of streets and thoroughfares to serve the project. 7. ANY PROPOSED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT CAN BE JUSTIFIED ECONOMICALLY AT THE LOCATION(S) PROPOSED AND WILL PROVIDE ADEQUATE COMMERCIAL FACILITIES OF THE TYPES NEEDED AT SUCH PROPOSED LOCATION(S). The amount and location of commercial development remains unchanged by this amendment to the General Development Plan. 8. THE AREA SURROUNDING SAID DEVELOPMENT CAN BE PLANNED AND ZONED IN COORDINATION AND SUBSTANTIAL COMPATIBILITY WITH SAID DEVELOPMENT. The amendment to the General Development Plan will not alter the planned land use pattern of EastLake I with respect to compatibility with adjacent lands. WPC 1586P Attachment 2 EASTLAKE I SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN RECOMMENDED FINDINGS 1. THE PROPOSED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE EASTLAKE I GENEPJkL DEVELOPMENT PLAN OF THE PC ZONE AND THE CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN. The EastLake I Sectional Planning Area Plan reflects land use, circulation, open space, and public facility uses consistent with the EastLake I General Development Plan, as amended. 2. THE PROPOSED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN WOULD PROMOTE THE ORDERLY, SEQUENTIALIZED DEVELOPMENT OF THE INVOLVED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA. The SPA Plan and Public Facilities and Financing Plan contain provisions to ensure the orderly, phased development of the project over a 5-6 year period. Public road improvements phasing schedules will control the sequential development of the project. 3. THE PROPOSED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN WOULD NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND USE, RESIDENTIAL ENJOYMENT, CIRCULATION OR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY. Perimeter open space and/or single family detached residential is planned adjacent to existing residential areas to the west and south to ensure the continued residential enjoyment of adjacent residents. Circulation is provided by street connections to the west, north and south to ensure orderly traffic movement. Supplemental environmental impact analysis documents the overall benefits to the environment, including mitigation measures to protect environmental quality of the region. WPC 1586P City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of January 9, 1985 Page I 6. Consideration of "Candidate CEQA Findings" - EastLake I A. BACKGROUND The Final EIR for the EastLake I project 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. B. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached "Candidate CEQA findings" on the EastLake I project. C. ANALYSIS It is the conclusion of these findings that: 1. Changes have been incorporated into the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects as identified in the final EIR, 2. None of the significant environmental effects anticipated as a result of the proposed project are within the responsibility or jurisdiction of another public agency, and that 3. No specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures identified in the EIR. EASTLAKE I EIR-84-1 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 JANUARY 1985 I. INTRODUCTION Section 21081 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that no project shall be approved by a public agency when significant environmental effects have been identified, unless one of the following findings is be made and supported by substantial evidence in the record: l) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 2) Changes or alterations are the responsibility of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. 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 EastLake I Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan (SCH ~84022206) and all documents, maps, illustrations listed in Section II of these findings. The project's discretionary actions included an amendment to the General Development Plan, approval of the SPA Plan and Tentative Maps. Future discretionary action includes the preparation and environmental review of a Supplemental SPA Plan for EastLake Greens and a Precise Plan for the Village Center. Implementation of the 1267.9-acre project as proposed would result in a mixture of residential, employment park, office, commercial, circulation, recreational, educational and open space land uses as specified in the General Development Plan. The project would allow a maximum of 3683 dwelling units within a total residential area of 619.9 acres. The remaining 51 percent of the site would be developed for a variety of non-residential land uses on 648 acres. The following findings have been prepared pursuant to Sections 15088 and 15089 of Title 14 of the California Administrative Code and Section 21081 of the California Public Resources Code. II. CITY OF CNULA VISTA FINDINGS l) The Chula Vista City Council and Planning Commission, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR for the EastLake I Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan (SCH #84022206) and the record, finds that changes have been incorporated into the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof, as identified in the final EIR. These measures are outlined in summary form below. 2) The Chula Vista City Council and Planning Commission, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR and the record, finds that none of the significant environmental effects anticipated as a result of the proposed project are within the responsibility or jurisdiction of another public agency. -1 3) The Chula Vista City Council and Planning Commission, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR and the record, finds that no specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures identified in the EIR. Changes incorporated into the project which will mitigate or avoid the fol 1 owl ngs i gni fi cant environmental effects: Traffic Impact EastLake I will have both project level and cumulative level environmental effects. At a project level, EastLake I will contribute a substantial percent of traffic on SR-125 north of East "14" Street and south of SR-$4, East "H" Street east of Telegraph Canyon Road east of 1-805 and to a lesser degree other streets in the project's vicinity. The streets noted above will reach or exceed their design ADT with EastLake I contributing a major portion of the projected ADT. Cumulative impacts were also identified in the final EIR. These impacts occur when the design ADT is approached or exceeded and only a small ~ercent of is contributed by EastLake I. These include San Miguel the.ADT oad east of SR 125, Telegraph Canyon Road east of SR-125, Corral Canyon Road, Otay Lakes Road south of Bonita Road, and East "14" Street east of 1-805. Mi tigation Measures have been incorporated into the project to mitigate the potential traffic impacts. See the EastLake I Public Financing Plan (12/84) for details and financing methods. (Specific area-wide and/or off-site phasing plans pg. 14-36 and specific on-site phasing plans pg. 38-50.) These i ncl ude: Reserve the right-of-way for SR125 ultimately as an eight lane freeway; initially construct four lanes between the project and San Miguel Road; two lanes north of San Miguel Road. Construct East "H" Street as a six lane prime arterial east of 1-805; four lanes east of SR125. Construct Telegraph Canyon Road as a six lane prime arterial east of SR125; four lanes offsite to 1-805. Construct San Miguel Road as a six lane prime arterial east of SR125; four lanes west of SR125. Install traffic signals on all streets required to be constructed at the intersections of collector streets, major roads and prime arterials with each other, plus locations where local collectors intersect major roads or prime arterials. Finding With the inclusion of the above specified mitigation no significant environmental impact will result. - 2- Educational Facilities Impact Students generated by project development would create a need for additional school facilities within the project area. Mitigation Reservation of one elementary school site and one high school site, and a construction financing mechanism. Fi nding Measures have been incorporated into the project to mitigate potential educational facility impacts. One elementary school is proposed in the £astJ. ake Hills neighborhood; a second school is proposed in the Supplemental SPA Plan for the EastLake Greens neighborhood. While the development of EastLake I would not adversely effect the existing junior high and high school facilities in the short term, negotiations for a. high school site are nevertheless underway with the Sweetwater Union High School District to avoid any possible long term impacts. Fi re Protection Impact A short-term impact to fire protection services would occur as existing facilities and personnel would be required to provide services to EastLake I during initial phases. Mitigation Provision of an equipped fire station within EastLake Village Center, or a financial contribution to a new offsite fire station. Fi nding Measures have been incorporated into the project to ultimately mitigate the fire protection impact, which include an equipped fire station within EastLake Village Center or at a site designated by the City of Chula Vista which is the responsibility of the developer. Library Services Impact EastLake I would increase the demand for library facilities. Mitigation Provision of a community-oriented library, and ultimately a branch library on or off the project site. -3- Fi ndi ng Measures have been incorporated into the project to mitigate potential library service impacts. When EastLake's population reaches lO,O00, a community-oriented library would include use of commercial space at EastLake Village Center; or purchase of a bookmobile; or construction of an addition to the EastLake community meeting center. The ultimate need for a branch library would be mitigated by construction of a separate library facility financed by any combination of Mello-Roos, State library funds, grants or specially earmarked City revenues. Visual Resources Impact The proposed EastLake I development would change the appearance of the project site as the pastoral character of the existing landscape would be replaced by urban development. Mitigation The project site has been designated in the Chula Vista General Plan for urban development. Extensive design measures to avoid potential visual impacts have been incorporated into the project. Fi ndi n~ Measures have been incorporated into the project to mitigate potential visual impacts, and include designation of open space and parks; provision of a landscape plan with visual buffer zones, landscape zones, a plant matrix, a street tree plan, trails plan, signage plan, fencing plan and grading plan. The plan also seeks to maintain the intent of the Scenic Hi ghways E1 ement. H¥ drol ogy/Drai nage Impact Runoff volumes as a result of EastLake I development would increase slightly for Long Canyon and Telegraph Canyon drainages. Mi ti ~ati on Provide drainage improvements that reduce peak flows from the property. Fi ndi Measures have been incorporated into the project to mitigate the potential hydrology/drainage impacts. In Long Canyon, a reduction in peak runoff can be achieved through construction of a culvert under Corral Canyon Road. Concerning Telegraph Canyon drainage, interim drainage facilities improvement will include a retention basin in the Commercial Center area in order that downstream flows would not increase beyond existing levels. Longterm drainage facilities improvements would be financed under a fee district to be instituted by the City of Chula Vista. -4- Archaeological Resources Impact Construction of EastLake I would impact archaeological site CA-SDi-?179 with 5 loci, located in the EastLake Business Center area. Mitigation Locus B of site CA-SDi-?l?9 has been mitigated under the SDG&E Interconnection Project. Loci A, C, D and E will be mitigated by the developer. Fi ndi n9 Measures have been incorporated into the project to mitigate the potential archaeological resource impacts. Mitigation measures for site CA-SDi-T179 involve a two-stage investigative data recovery program. Pal eontol ogical Resources Impact The development of EastLake I could have adverse impacts on significant paleontological resources. Mi ti 9ati on Paleontological resource impacts would be mitigated by monitoring during initial grading activity. Fi ndi ng Measures have been incorporated into the project to mitigate the potential paleontological resource impacts. A qualified paleontologist would monitor initial grading activities in the Sweetwater Formation as it appears in the drainage walls. Grading operations could be halted for a period of time to allow for examination and, if necessary, removal of significant fossil resources. III. INSIGNIFICANT IMPACTS In accordance with the evaluation provided in EIR-84-1 the project would clearly not result in any significant impact and therefore have not been discussed any further in these findings: 1. Land use {3.1) 2. Water availability (3.3.1) 3. Water availability (3.3.1) 4. Police protection (3.3.4) 5. Parks and recreation (3.3.6) 6. Energy supply and conservation (3.3.8) ?. Other utilities and services (3.3.9) 8. Geology and soils (3.5) g. Air quality (3.7) 10. Socioeconomic factors (3.8) ll. Fiscal impact (3.9) 12. Noise (3.10) 13. Biology (3.11) IV. 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. Alfred Gobar Associates, Inc., 1981, Fiscal Efficiency of EastLake Planned Community, March. 2. Artim, R.R. and D.L. Elder, 1979, Late Quaternary defomation along the La Nacion fault system, San Diego, California: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. ll, no. ?, p. 381. 3. Artim, E.R. and D. Elder-Mills, 1982, The Rose Canyon Fault: A Review in P. L. Abbott, ed., Geologic Studies in San Diego, San Diego Association ~ Geologists, pp. 35-45. 4. 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. 5. Association of Engineering Geologists, 1973, Geology and Earthquake Hazards, Planners Guide to Seismic Safety, Association of Engineering Geologists, Southern California Section, July, pp. 6-8. -6- 6. Boyle Engineering Corporation, 1981, Water Resources Division Hydrologi~ and Hydraulic Analysis, August. 7. Burchell, Robert W. and David Listokin, 1978, The Fiscal Impact Handbook. The Center for Urban Policy Research, New Brunswick. 8. California Air Resources Board {CARB), California Air Quality Data, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980. 9. California Department of Fish and Game, 1979, Endangered and Rare Plants of California. The Resources Agency, October 5. 10. Chula Vista, City of, 1970, General Plan 1990, December. ll. Chula Vista, City of, 1974, Scenic Highways Element of the Chula Vista General P1 an. 12. Chula Vista, City of, 1975, Special Census Report, April 1. 13. Chula Vista, City of, 1979, Parks and Recreation Element of the Chula Vista General Plan. 14. Chula Vista, City of, 1981, Department of Sanitation and Flood Control Subdivision Manual, May. 15. Chula Vista, City of, 1982a, Chula Vista: Facts About San Diego County's Second Largest City. 16. Chula Vista, City of, 1982b, EastLake Final Environmental Impact Report, EIR 81-03, prepared for City of Chula Vista by WESTEC Services, Inc. 17. Chula Vista, City of, 1982c, Master Fee Schedule, November 9. 18. Chula Vista, City of, 1982d, Planned Community District Regulations for EastLake I. Adopted by the City of Chula Vista on August 24, 1982. 19. Chula Vista, City of, 1983-84, Proposed Budget, May 19. 20. Chula Vista, City of, Municipal Code. 21. Cole, Lane F., 1982, Memorandum "Full-Cost Recovery Council Workshop," September 21. 22. EastLake Development Company, March 1984, EastLake I: Draft Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Pan, Volumes I and II, prepared by Cinti and Associates. 23. Farrand, T.T., ed., 1977, Geology of Southwestern San Diego Counts, California, and Northwestern Baja, California, San Diego Association ol Geologists. -7- 24. Kennedy, M.P., 1975, Geology of the San Diego MEtropolitan Area, California, California Division of Mines and Geology, Bulletin Section A, 39 p. 25. Kennedy, M.P. and Siang S. Tan, 19777, Geology of National City, Imperial Beach and Otay Mesa Quadrangles, Southern San Diego Metropolitan Area, California, Map Sheet 29. 26. 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. 27. Larry Seeman Associates, Inc. 1983, Archaeolo.~ical Data Recovery at Locus B, CA-SDi-7197, San Diego County, California. Prepared for Lane-Kuhn Pacific Development Company, September. 28. Leighton and Associates, 1979, Geotechnical Reconnaissance of An Area in San Diego County, East of Chula Vista and West of Otay Reservoir, 8 p. 29. Leighton and Associates, 1980a, Phase 2 Geotechnical Investigation, Janal Ranch, San Diego, California. 30. Leighton and Associ.ates, 1980b, Review of Agricultural Soil Maps, Phase 2 Geotechnical Investigation, Janal Ranch, San Diego County, California. 31. Leighton and Associates, 1980c, Sand and Gravel Resources, 3,200 Acre Janal Ranch, Eastern Chula Vista, California. 32. Leighton and Associates and Woodward-Gizienski and Associates, 1974, Seismic Safety Study for the City of San Diego. 33. Lowry & Associates, 1984a, EastLake I Water System Subarea Master Plan, January. 34. Lowry & Associates, 1984b, EastLake I Wastewater System Subarea Master Plan, January. 35. McGuire, Donna, 1984, Land Assistant with San Diego Gas & Electric. Correspondence dated March 26, 1984. 36. The McKinley Associates, Inc. 1984., 1984, EastLake I Draft of Public Facilities Finance Plan, March. 37. 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. 38. 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. -8- 39. Mun~. [.A., 1974, A Flora of Southern California, University of California Press, Berkeley. 40. Rahnau et al., 1983, Sweetwater Union High School District Master Plan Sub-area Report, Chula Vista, October. 41. SANDAG (CPO), 1976, 1975 Special Census Selected Data, December. 42. SANDAG (CPO), 1978, Info 78, 1978 Employment Estimates, San Diego Region, September. 43. SANDAG (CPO), 1979, Regional Energy Plan for the San Diego Region, January. 44. SANDAG (CPO), 1980a, Preliminary 1980 Census Data by Tract, July 29. 45. SANDAG (CPO), 1980b, Final Series V Regional Development Forecasts. 46. SANDAG, 1984, A Housing Study for the City of Chula Vista. 47. San Diego County Air Pollution Control District, Air Quality in San Diego, Annual Air Monitoring Report, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980. 48. San Diego County Air Pollution Control District, and Comprehensive Planning Organization (CPO), 1978, Regional Air Quality Strategy. 49. San Diego, County of, 1969, Soils Inte~retation Study, Jamul Mountains. 50. San Diego, County of, 1975, Scenic Highways Element. 51. San Diego, County of, 1976, Integrated Planning Office, 1975 Special Census Bulletin, January. 52. San Diego, County of, 1978, Regional Growth Management Plan, June. 53. San Diego, County of 1981, Department of Sanitation and Flood Control Hydrology Manual, May. 54. San Diego, County of 1982-83, Auditor and Controller, 1982-83 Proportionate Increase by Fund, July 21. 55. San Diego, County of, 1983-84, Assessor's Secured Property ~ssessed Valuations. 56. Scheidemann, Jr., Robert C., 1977, Correlation of the Otay and Rosarito Beach Fomation in G.T. Farrand, ed., Geology of Southwestern San Diego, County, California and Northwestern Baja California~ San Diego Association of Geologists, pp. 17-28. 57. 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. -9- 58. 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. 59. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Soil Conservation Service, 1973, Soil Survey, San Diego Area, California, December. 60. United States Department of Commerce, 1972, Soil Conservation Service National Engineering Handbook, Hydrology, August. 61. United States Department of Interior, 1975, Geological Survey topographic map, Jamul Mountains quadrangle. 62. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 1980, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Review of Plant Taxa for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species, Federal Register 45 (242):82480-82509, Monday, December 15. 63. University of California, Agricultural Extension Service, 1970, Climate of San Diego County; Agricultural Relationship, November. 64. Urbanplan, 1984, EastLake Elementary School Draft Master Plan, prepared for City of Chula Vista, Chula Vista City School District and EastLake Development Company, May. 65. Van Dell and Associates, Inc., 1984, Long Canyon Basin Preliminary Hydrology Report, May. 66. Weber, F. Harold, 1963, Mines and Mineral Resources of San Diego County, California, County Report 3, California Division of Mines and Geology, 309 p. 67. WESTEC Services, Inc. 1982, EastLake Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH #80121007). Prepared for the City of Chula Vista. 68. Willdan Associates, 1984, Traffic Analysis, EastLake I Specific Plan, July. Also included in the record are the following studies prepared for the EastLake I Planning Program: 1. EastLake Elementary School Master Plan, Urbanplan (October 1984) 2. East "H" Street & Telegraph Canyon Road Scenic Highway Report, Wimmer Yamada & Associates (March 1984) 3. General Landscape Plan, ONA, Inc. (November 1984) 4. EastLake I Water System Sub-Area Master Plan, Lowry & Associates (January 1984) -lO- 5. EastLake I Wastewater System Sub-Area Master Plan, Lowry & Associates. 6. EastLake I Lakes-Design Development Report, J. Harlan Glenn & Associates (December 1983). 7. Geotechnical Investigation for Planning Purposes - EastLake I, Leighton and Associates (July1983). 8. Preliminar~ Transportation Analysis .and Improvement Phasing Plan, Urban Systems Associates, Inc. (March 1984) 9. EastLake ! Sign Program,. R. Jacks & Company (March 1984). lO~ EastLake I Draft Environmental Impact Report, Westec Services, Inc. (September 19841 ll. Sweetwater Union High School District Master Plan Sub-Area Report, Ruhnau, McGavin, Ruhnau/Associates (October 1983) 12. Long Canyon Basin Prelimina~ Hydrology Report, Van Dell & Associates IMay 1984) 13. EastLake Policy Plan, Chula Vista General Plan, (August 1982) 14. EastLake I PC District Regulations, (August 1984) 15. EastLake I Public Facilities Financing Plan, Wedin Enterprises (December 19B4}. 16. Review of Traffic Impacts of EastLake I Chula Vista, California, Gary R. Hansen, Transportation Consultant (November 1984}. Also included as part of the Planning Commission and City Council record are: 1. Final EIR-84-1, EastLake I, WESTEC Services, Inc., December 1984 (S CH #84022206) 2. "The Candidate CEQA Findings" for the Planned Community of EastLake, revised 6/29/82. 3. Documentary and oral evidence presented to the Planning Commission and City Council during public hearings on EIR-84-1 and the EastLake I project. 4. 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; - ll - 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 fomally adopted policies and ordinances. WPC 1581P -12-