Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Mtg 02-13-2013 Agenda PacketREVISED AGENDA MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA p.m. We We nesday, February 13, 2013 L TO ORDER: ROLL CALL/MOTIONS TO EXCUSE: NING COMMISSION: Spethman Livag Moctezuma Vinson Calvo Anaya TO EXCUSE: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND MOMENT OF SILENCE: OPENING STATEMENT: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 9, 2013 cin of CHULAVISTA 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA PUBLIC COMMENTS: Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Planning Commission on any subject matter withii the Commission's jurisdiction, but not an item on today's agenda. Each speaker's presentation may not exceed three minutes. CONSENT ITEMS: The hair may entertain requests by staff to continue an agenda item. The Chair may also entertain a re ommendation by a Commissioner to approve certain non - controversial agenda items as Consent items. Notwithstanding the foregoing, an agenda item listed as a Public Hearing may not be a ted upon by the Commission as a Consent Item. Public Hearing items shall be heard by the Co mission as a Public Hearing. 1. i INFORMATION ITEM Report on the Update of Accessory Second Dwelling Unit (ASDU) Construction On October 12, 2009, staff provided the Planning Commissioners with a status report regarding the construction of accessory second dwelling units in the City. In adopting a modified accessory second dwelling unit ordinance in 2007, the City Council requested that staff report back to the Planning Commission and Council at regular intervals to monitor the construction of ASDUs in the City under the requirements of the modified ordinance. This update includes some of the key aspects of the ordinance. Project Mgr. Michael Walker 2. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 2 -a SEIR -09 -01 Consideration of amendments to the Chula Vista General Plan (GP) and the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) to: revise the GP and GDP policies for the project area; revise the Circulation Plan within the project area; reconfigure the boundaries of Village 8 to include portions of Villages 4 and 7 that are within the Applicant's ownership; separate Village 8 into Village 8 West and Village 8 East based on separate ownerships; reconfigure the boundaries of Village 9 to include the portion of the Eastern Urban Center owned by the Applicant; include an 85 -acre Regional Technology park (RTP) within the University site and resize the University site; amend the Land Use Designations within Village 8 West and Village 9, and; reflect the previously adopted 2001 GP and GDP land uses within Village 8 East. Pro' i sect Manager. Steve Power, Principal Planner i I 2 -b GPA - 09 -01; PCM -09 -11 Consideration of amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA- 09 -01) and the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM- 09 -11) to reflect land use, circulation and policy changes for approximately 1,281 acres of land located south of Main Street/Rock Mountain Road, east of Heritage Road, west of the Salt Creek canyon and north of the Otay River Valley within the Otay Ranch Planned Community. Applicant: Otay Land Company Project Manager: Scott Donaghe, Principal Planner Materials provided to the Planning Commission related to any item on this agenda are available for publi review in the Planning and Building Department located at 276 Fourth Avenue during normal business hours. 3. I OTHER BUSINESS: i 4. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: 5. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Adjournment: To a Regular Planning Commission on February 27, 2013. COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT T e City of Chula Vista, in complying with the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), requests individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend, and/or participate in a City meeting, activity, or service, request such accommodations at lei ist forty-eight hours in advance for meetings, and five days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact Diana V rgas for specific information at (619) 691 -5101 or Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TDD) at 585 -5647. California Relay Service is also available for the hearing impaired. Minutes of the PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA 6:0 p.m. We nesday, January 9, 2013 L TO ORDER: ROLL CALL/MOTIONS TO EXCUSE: Planning Commission: Mc PLI OP PU PU 1. Bai In pro NS TO EXCUSE: 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA Spethman Livag Moctezuma Vinson Calvo Anaya NIA :DGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND MOMENT OF SILENCE: :NING STATEMENT: Read into the record by Chair Moctezuma 3LIC COMMENTS: There were none 3LIC HEARINGS: Public Hearing: PCM -12 -42 Consideration of Amendments to Chula Vista Municipal Code: Title 19 (Zoning Ordinance) related to special events, temporary outside sales and temporary promotional sign permit regulations; and Title 18 (Subdivision Ordinance). Project Managers: Michael Walker, Senior Planner Tom Adler, Land Development Manager kground: Michael Walker gave a brief PowerPoint presentation and presented the following information: )09, the Development Services Department initiated a comprehensive review of the City's 4opment review process to develop better customer service by making improvements including imlining, increasing transparency, improving public access, predictability, and reduce the cost of ,ct review. This resulted in a Process Improvement Program implemented by staff and ported by a citizen Oversight Committee. In 2 10 Phase 1 of the Process Improvement Program consisted of various code amendments and poli ies which have been adopted and implemented. Phase 2 of the program includes Title 19 code amendments for special events, temporary outside sales and promotional signs, and amendments to Title 18 related to administrative procedures for the division of land. A notable change is the special event permit process. The current special event Planning Commission Minutes 2 January 9, 2013 per it limits events to four types; grand openings, change of business ownership, business anr iversaries and change of business address. But a variety of other events not currently listed, have been permitted through the special event permit process including, annual events at the Oly pic Training Center and various events at Cricket Amphitheater. After much discussion focused on providing greater clarity and consistency to the process, staff recommended that the special event code section be repealed and such events be referred to as minor promotional events and distinguish from major special events. Minor events will continue to be held on private property and would include the events noted above and allow for a variety of other small events such as health fairs and the like. Major special events are events held on public property and /or require two or more secondary permits from other departments and are not typically related to a business. Development Services staff will continue to process minor events. The City Manager's office will continue to process major events, and is considering processing major events held on private property such as the Olympic Training Center. The following are the proposed CVMC Title 19 changes: m L S S 19.58.380: Special event: • Staff recommends this be repealed because the regulations provided are already addressed in Temporary outside sales and temporary promotional sign code sections, and will eliminate confusion. ction 19.58.370: Temporary outside sales permits per the City Attorney minor revisions were de to this section that are not included in your packet, but are provided to you this evening. anges include: • approval by the Director of Development Services instead of the Zoning Administrator; • time flexibility for temporary holiday sales; and • Omission of redundant text inage associated with temporary outside sales and minor promotional events will be regulated by existing code section for Temporary Promotional Signs. ction 19.60.500(C): Temporary Promotional Sign include: • minor word changes to reflect the changes noted above. In addition to code amendments, improvements for the permit application process were needed and will be implemented including: Creating better permit tracking through workflow to improve customer service and processing; Planning Commission Minutes 3 January 9, 2013 • Modifying the application form and incorporate a template and handouts providing more information for customers enabling them to submit complete applications and move more quickly through the review process. Sta I Recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt resolution PCM -12 -42 and recommend to the city Council approval of the proposed amendments to Chula Vista municipal Co (e Title 19 and Title 18. Co missioner' s Comments. Cm Spethman: Sees a lot of illegal signs in the City and wanted to know how we are going to enforce the new signage ordinance when it doesn't seem like we have staff to enforce what we now have. Director Halbert: • Wouldn't advise the Commission to try to make sure all the laws are being adhered to before adopting new laws that would simplify and improve things for the customer. • The issue of sign enforcement was brought up through the budget process. Staff has been cut to the point that sign enforcement is largely done on a complaint driven basis. Cmt. Spethman Ha The exception to that are the Main Street, Third Avenue and Broadway corridors. Thinks that is a different discussion topic and should not really influence whether or not we should enact regulations that simplify the process and make other special events that are not currently covered eligible. If there are customers not playing by the rules, how can an applicant feel confident when applying when he knows that a large element is non- compliant? What is being presented today is something that makes it easier to apply for a permit and loosens some of the current restrictions. It is to the individual's volition if he will adhere to the laws and abide by them. The laws be updated so they are easier to comply with. Cm�. Spethman had some reservations and perhaps some questions for the attorney, but will wait until the other Commissioners voice their questions /concerns /comments. David Miller, Deputy City Attorney: The item before the Commission is not about sign regulation. This item is about allowing outside sales and display of merchandise. t Ttaking out the redundancy in this section regarding sign regulation. 4 Nothing is changing the sign statutes. Cm(. Livag: In the discussion of the staff report, minor and major events are covered. What part of the statute covers the major events on private property? Planning Commission Minutes 4 January 9, 2013 Michael Walker: The events that are held on private property are still covered, we're just not calling them special events. t Over time, there have been a lot of events that have applied for permits that cannot be classed in any of the four current categories. Staff has, in the past, allowed the flexibility of those events that occurred, but all of the statutes are still in place. The City Manager's office is considering taking on the large events on private property as there is nothing currently in the code for "large, special events ". Halbert: In the case of large event coordination, the City manager's office is trying to coordinate that. We are streamlining the process for day -in- day -out promotional events. There is a special process going through the Continuous Improvement branch to address these large events — which is not part of the current discussion. C* Calvo: Section 19:58:370 — why is it that not more than 6 permits are allowed per year? Walker: Don't know the background, but it has been the code since before he came here. Perhaps it has something to do with temporary permits which have been strung out longer than "temporary". Cm. Moctezuma: When the holiday sales says without time and permit number limitations. Doesn't it mean that they could keep the holiday sales through January if there are no time limitations? Walker: When they apply there are start and end dates and staff can determine whether it is r easnnnhIP Cm. Moctezuma Major events — think waiving fees is very important because they are so expensive. PUBLIC HEARING: No public comments — opened and closed. MS (Livag /Moctezuma) (6- 0 -1 -0) with Vinson absent — that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCM -12 -42 and recommend to the City Council that they approve the proposed amendments to Chula Vista Municipal Code Title 19 and Title 18 OTHER BUSINESS: DIRIECTOR'S REPORT: Introduced Patricia Laughlin as the new Planning Commission Secretary. Diana Vargas has been with Economic Development for a year now and has also providing support on Agendas and Planning Commission but is now moving full time to Economic Development. The City is going through some reorganization at the City Manager's level. Scott Tullock will be leaving in February and Gary Halbert is assuming his duties. Planning Commission Minutes 5 January 9, 2013 Kelley Bacon — former Director of HR & IT has been appointed Deputy City Manager and will oversee HR, ITS, Recreation and Library. Will be bringing in a new Development Services Director with Halbert acting as Interim until the new person is on- board. Mandy Mills, the Housing Manager is now in the Manager's office as Manager of Continuous Improvement. Another issue that has come up is the Urban Core Specific Plan. The Mayor has requested that we develop a work plan. Previously the section regarding re- zoning was pulled and there is a desire to look back on it and do some clean -up on the UCSP. The Arts Master Plan was done with the General Plan Update, but was never actually adopted. Will be bringing that forward along with some of the other Master Plans. gg 9 COMMISSION COMMENTS: Cm Spethman Is amazed at the volume and quality of work that is being done with the small amount of q Y g staff. Wished the community realized what a great job everyone is doing. wrnment: To a Regular Planning Commission on January 23, 2013. COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT City of Chula Vista, in complying with the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), requests individuals who require special immodations.to access, attend, and/or participate in a City meeting, activity, or service, request such accommodations at f forty -eight hours in advance for meetings, and five days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact Diana las for specific information at (619) 691 -5101 or Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TDD) at 585 -5647. California y Service is also available for the hearing impaired. Services Department ATE: January 23, 2013 CRY OF CHULAVISfA Planning Commission M: G Halbe P Gary I C ,Assistant City Manager/ Development Services Director ING: Update - Accessory Second Dwelling Unit (ASDU) Construction n October 12, 2009 staff provided Planning Commissioners with a status report garding the construction of accessory second dwelling units in the City. In adopting a odified accessory second dwelling unit ordinance in 2007, the City Council requested at staff report back to the Planning Commission and Council at regular intervals to onitor the construction of ASDUs in the City under the requirements of the modified dinance. Below are some of the key aspects of the ordinance: Accessory Secondary Dwelling Units can have a maximum size of 650 square -feet or 750 square -feet depending on the lot area. The size of the ASDU will be determined by the size of the lot's "buildable pad area ", which is the flat area of the lot and areas with slopes less than 50 percent. ASDU's are not permitted on lots that are less than 5,000 square -feet in area, or that have less than 5,000 square -feet of buildable pad area. Accessory Second Dwelling Units can be attached above, behind, or below the primary residence, or, on larger lots, can be a detached single -story unit behind the primary residence. Detached second units are only allowed on parcels greater than 7,000 square -feet. The property owner must live in one of the units that will exist on the site. There is no restriction on who can occupy the accessory unit. intent of the ordinance is to ensure orderly development in single family residential s, and to maintain single - family neighborhoods. ASDUs continue to provide an irtunity for affordable housing in the city, and can be a potential source of income for owners. ed below is a summary of the last four years of ASDU construction in the City of Vista: )Planning Commission Memorandum January 23, 2013 CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT Item No.: (A Meeting Date: 02/13/13 TITLE: Public Hearing: Consideration of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR 09 -01) for amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA- 09 -01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM- 09 -11). BACKGROUND: In accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) has been prepared to- analyze the environmental impacts of proposed amendments to the City of Chula General Plan and Otay Ranch General Development Plan. CEQA Findings of Fact, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), have been prepared that reflect the conclusions of the Final SEIR. The Final SEIR also contains comments and responses to the comments received during the pub is review period, which ran from June 8, 2012 to July 24, 2012. MMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt: • Resolution SEIR -09 -01 of the Planning Commission recommending that the City Council certify the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR 09- 01/SCH2004081066) for amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA -09- 01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM- 09 -11); making certain findings of fact; adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations; and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program pursuant to CEQA. GROUND: This staff report discusses the general content of Final SEIR 09 -01. SEIR -09 -01 constitutes a Suf iplemental EIR pursuant to Section 15163 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. The subject EIR provides a supplement to the Program EIR (EIR- 05 -01) originally certified by the City of Chula Vista in December of 2005, as part of the 2005 General Pla i Update (GPU) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan Amendment (GDPA). When the Cit adopted the GPU and GDPA in 2005, amendments to portions of Otay Ranch Villages 4 an 7, as well as amendments to all of Villages 8, 9, and 10 were deferred. This area has since Page 2, Item No.: Meeting Date: 02/13/13 to be referred to as the "Deferral Area." While action on land use was deferred in 2005, the certified EIR analyzed the impacts of the proposed amendments within the Deferral Area that were proposed as part of the 2005 GPU Preferred Alternative. SEIR -09 -01 analyzes the diff rences between what was examined as part of EIR -05 -01 in 2005 for the Preferred Alt ative and what is now proposed within the Deferral Area (as well as a small portion of the Eastern Urban Center) to accomplish the University Villages Project. SEI -09 -01 analyzes all of the General Plan (GP) /General Development Plan (GDP) land use and policy changes that are required to realize the City's vision for the University Villages area. The GP /GDP amendments (the "Project ") will reconfigure existing Otay Ranch village boundaries, increase residential densities, amend the General Plan Circulation Element in eastern Chula Vista, and establish an 85 acre regional technology park (RTP) on the future university site. The General Plan amendment (GPA), and GDPA, result in policy, circulation, and land use changes affecting lands within the Project area. All amendments are intended to facilitate and support a university site, and establish appropriate land uses adjacent to the university. The GPA/GDPA will establish the land use patterns and development intensities necessary for a successful university. The actual project level planning documents /approvals will come before the City Council in early 2013. A full project description is provided starting on Page 35 of SEI - 09- 01(attached). DISCUSSION: SEIR assesses the environmental impacts of the City of Chula Vista's General Plan/General elopment Plan Amendments and associated actions. It constitutes a supplemental, program - 1 EIR under the provisions of Section 15168 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The EIR ysis determined whether the land use changes proposed in the GPA/GDPA would result in a ificant impact upon the environment, beyond those analyzed in the GPU EIR of 2005. A ificant impact on the environment is defined in CEQA as a substantial adverse change in the ;ical conditions that exist in the area affected by the proposed Project. When a significant act is identified, the EIR calls out measures or alternatives that would substantially reduce or iinate (mitigate) the impact. The EIR also identifies impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less I significant level. Many of the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan, as well as the proposed GPA/GDPA, serve to mitigate potential environmental impacts, since they call for development that is compatible with surrounding neighborhoods, environmentally sensitive, and sustainable. These policies will be employed over the life of the GP /GDP to shape future development in a way that ensures that potentially significant environmental impacts are reduced to a less than significant level. In this sense, many of the policies of the GPA/GDPA are "self mitigating." The EIR con ains many of the policies stated in the adopted GP /GDP and GPA/GDPA documents, in ord r to demonstrate how potential environmental impacts would be "self mitigated" and, thus, do iot result in a significant impact. In these issue areas no further mitigation is necessary. In tho e instances where potential environmental impacts have been identified, mitigation measures are alled for in the EIR. _l Page 3, Item No.: Meeting Date: 02/13/13 The public review period for the EIR was from June 8, 2012 to July 24, 2012. comment were received on the Draft EIR from the following agencies and individuals: State Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Native American Heritage Commission Department of Toxic Substances Control County of San Diego City of San Diego SANDAG San Diego Gas and Electric The letters and responses are included in the Final SEIR 09 -01 (Attachment 2) rece ved concerning SEIR -09 -01 have been fully addressed within the Final EIR. Summary of Environmental Im Letters of All comments The following discussion contains a summary of the impact conclusions for the Final EIR. The impacts are identified and divided into two categories: less than significant /self mitigated; and significant and unmitigated. than SignificanNSelf Mitigated Impacts than significant/self mitigated impacts were identified in the following environmental issue Public Facilities and Services Public Utilities (excluding long term water supply) Housing (with the exception of growth inducement) Global Climate Change igoificant and Unmitigated Impacts igtiificant and unmitigated impacts have been identified in the Final SEIR for the following areas: Use The SEIR identifies significant and unmitigated community character impacts in the Project area. Proposed revisions to the City's adopted land use plan in the East Planning Area would result in adjustments to the boundaries and overall densities for residential, commercial, industrial, and public/quasi-public uses. The amount and location of open space and parklands would also be adjusted. Presently, the land within the Project area is undeveloped; therefore, any proposed Page 4, Item No.: Meeting Date: 02113/13 would cause an intensification in land use over the existing condition. The Project have the potential to cause an adverse effect on the community character of the ding villages within the East Planning Area. The above referenced community character impacts would be substantially lessened through the imp ementation of the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan, and proposed GPA/GDPA. The goals and policies of the GP /GDP and GPA/GDPA would ensure that development occurring in the Project area is compatible with surrounding areas and that environmental impacts are minimized. Policies such as ensuring that development adheres to quality design standards, and facilitating compatible land uses help to minimize environmental impacts. While the adoption of the goals and policies of the GP /GDP and GPA/GDPA would limit land use impacts, the impacts would not be eliminated. The objectives and policies do not completely mitigate identified impacts because the development standards that would serve to limit impacts will be implemented at a later date. The current Project is a GP /GDP amendment, while the development of design standards is included later during the development of the Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plans. Until future SPA plans are approved and zoning specifications are implemented (hearing anticipated in early 2013), impacts remain significant and unmitigated. This is the same conclusion that was reached in the 2005 GPU EIR and the Project would not add to the severity of this already identified impact, since the development footprint is essentially the same. Iform Alternation/Aesthetics The SEIR identifies potentially significant impacts to landform alternation/aesthetics, since the policies set forth in the GPA/GDPA could substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the Project area. In the Project area, development in accordance with the GPA/GDPA would significantly change the visual character of the area. The existing character in eastern Otay Ranch would be changed from an undeveloped area to an urban area. The open rolling hills encountered in the East would be permanently altered by development and the change from open areas to developed areas in the Project area constitutes a significant adverse visual impact that can not be fully mitigated. Cor formance with the objectives and policies in the GP and GPA/GDPA would reduce visual qua ity impacts within the Project area, but not to below a level of significance. Impacts remain sigr ificant because of the lack of specific design standards at this time. The current Project is a GP/ DP amendment and the development of design standards is a zoning and specific plan effo . Until future SPAs are approved and implemented, impacts remain significant. Additionally, within the Project area, the conversion of open, rolling hills to a developed con lition was identified as a significant adverse impact, as was the case under the adopted Ger eral Plan. Implementation of the mitigation measure called out in SEIR -09 -01 reduces the significant landform alteration and aesthetics impacts; however, the open, rolling hills would be permanently altered by development and the impact remains significant and unavoidable. This is the 3ame conclusion that was reached in FEIR- 05 -01. Similar to the land use impacts described abo e, the Project would not add to the severity of aesthetic impacts, since the development foo rint is essentially the same as was analyzed in 2005. Page 5, Item No.: Meeting Date: 02/13/13 The Project would result in increased energy consumption since it proposes a slightly greater density (880 units) than what was analyzed in the 2005 GPU FEIR- 05 -01. Direct impacts to energy would occur if as a result of plan implementation future energy demand outstrips supply. Impacts to energy are significant because there is no long -term assurance that energy supplies will be available to meet demand for the life of the GP /GDP (year 2030). Although the programs and policies contained within the GP /GDP would result in the more efficient use of energy, the prof cted increase in population resulting from the Project would result in an increased demand for nergy. None of the energy policies called out in the adopted or amended GP /GDP would enst ire that energy supplies will be available. Because there is no assurance of a long -term supply of energy for the life of the GP /GDP as amended, the increased projected energy demand results in a significant unmitigated impact. The additional density resulting from the GPA/GDPA (880 unit) would result in higher energy demands, but does not change the conclusion that was reached in the 2005 FEIR -05 -01 that energy impacts are significant and unmitigated due to the factors described above. T No significant unmitigated impacts would result within the City of Chula Vista as a result of the GP GDPA. Unmitigated impacts would occur on Heritage Road just south of the City limit within the City of San Diego. Most of the traffic impacts along this portion of Heritage Road are due to increases in development intensity within Otay Mesa, that are currently being planned (bu not yet adopted) by the City of San Diego. EIR -05 -01 did not analyze traffic impacts within the ity of San Diego. No unmitigated freeway impacts result from the Project. Air Because the land use changes contemplated in GP /GDP amendments are not consistent with land use assumptions with the State Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS), the Project does not conform with current state guidelines regarding air quality. Thus, the Project would conflict with an dopted air quality plan and there would be a significant impact. This is the same conclusion that was reached in the 2005 FEIR- 05 -01. I SEIR indicates that traffic increases along Circulation Element roadways will result in noise eases of over three decibels for receivers. This increase is a significant adverse impact. -.ssing and mitigating potential noise impacts requires a level of analyses that can only occur n detailed land development plans are available; this will occur at the SPA level. Since this 1 of noise analysis is infeasible at the GP /GDP stage, impacts remain significant and not gated until SPA level noise analyses are conducted. This is the same conclusion that was in the 2005 FEIR- 05 -01. Page 6, Item No.: Meeting Date: 02/13/13 Water S The Project would result in significant unmitigated impacts to water supply. Water needs for the region are determined by the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) and stated in their Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). The UWMP is primarily a forecast of future water demand and does not provide any guarantee of future water supply. The UWMP analyzes historic and current water demands for the San Diego region, compares water supplies with demands through the year 2020, and identifies potential new supplies to meet that demand. Long-term water supply cannot be assured because there are no contracts with water agencies to provide Chula Vista (or other cities) with a guaranteed source of water through the build -out of the I-J'P /GDP. Because the water agencies cannot provide a guarantee of future water supply, the imp ct to water supply is considered to be significant and unmitigated. It is important to note, however, that the Project is included within the 2010 UWMP, and, therefore, consistent with this document. Also, as part of the preparation of the University Villages SPA plans, water supply asse sment and verification reports identifying long term water supply for the Project have been app oved by the Otay Water District for the Village 8 East and Village 9 SPA plans. The Project's slight increase in demand for water would require corresponding improvements to water treatment and distribution facilities. Significant impacts would occur as a result of these types of projects, the extent of those effects is speculative at this point because the nature and location of those improvements have not yet been determined. Water supply was identified as an unmitigated impact within the 2005 FEIR- 05 -01, consistent with the discussion above. itional Revisions to Draft SEIR Revisions to the SEIR made as a result of public comment have been summarized on Page 1 of the SEIR. Minor typographical corrections have been made to information contained in the Draft SEIR; the Final SEIR reflects the corrected information. None of the corrections made to the document have resulted in modifications to conclusions regarding the level of significance of of the Fi The Final SEIR identified a number of significant environmental effects (or "impacts ") that would result from the proposed Project. Some impacts cannot be avoided by the adoption of feasible mitigation measures or feasible environmentally superior alternatives. In order to approve the proposed Project, a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) must be adopted in accordance with CEQA. Pursuant to CEQA, an EIR can be determined to be adequate and a project approved, even if significant unmitigated impacts are identified and an SOC is required. The purpose of an EIR is to disclose to the public all environmental impacts associated with a project regardless of whether or not these impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant leve . The Statement of Overriding Considerations is included as a part of the proposed "Findings of Fact" (Exhibit "A" to resolution of approval of SEIR- 09 -01). Page 7, Item No.: Meeting Date: 02/13/13 clusions All feasible mitigation measures with respect to Project impacts•for the Project and all associated actions have been included in the Final SEIR (see Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in Exhibit `B" to resolution of approval of SEIR- 09 -01). As described above, the implementation of he Project will result in unmitigated impacts that would remain significant after the app ication of these measures; therefore, in order to approve the Project, the City Council must ado )t a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15043 and 15093 (see Section XII the CEQA Findings). City has examined a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed Project, other than the osed Project described in the Final SEIR. Based on this examination, the City has rmined that none of the alternatives meet the Project objectives, or are environmentally rior to the Project (see Section XI of the CEQA Findings). The Final SEIR meets the requirements of the CEQA and staff, therefore, recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council certify that the Final SEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and adopt the Draft Findings of Fact, Statement of Ov aiding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached to this sta report Planning Commission Resolution SEIR 09 -01 Exhibit A - Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Exhibit B - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Final SEIR 09-01 (previously provided to the Planning Commission) Draft CC resolution ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2012 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SEIR 09- 01 /SCH 2004081066) FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN (GPA- 09 -01) AND OTAY RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PCM- 09 -11); MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS OF FACT; ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS; AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT WHEREAS, Otay Land Company LLC, submitted applications requesting proval of amendments to the Chula Vista General Plan and Otay Ranch General ,velopment Plan (Project) that will reconfigure existing Otay Ranch village boundaries, .rease residential densities, amend the General Plan Circulation Element in eastern Tula Vista, and establish an 85 acre Regional Technology Park (RTP) on the future iversity site; and WHEREAS, in December 2005, the City adopted a comprehensive General Plan plate, amended the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP), and certified nvironmental Impact Report 05-01 (EIR 05 -01) and EIR 90 -01; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Title 14 California Code of Regulations California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines or CEQA Guidelines) Section 15163, i Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR 09 -01) was prepared for the Project vhich constitutes a supplement to the first tier of documents (EIR 05 -01 and EIR 90 -01) hat evaluates the Project as it relates to the analysis contained in said environmental locuments; and WHEREAS, SEIR -09 -01 constitutes a programmatic document under the isions of Section 15168 and a SEIR under the provisions of Section 15163 of the ,A Guidelines; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation for SEIR -09 -01 was circulated on January . 5, 2010 pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15082; and WHEREAS, a SEIR scoping meeting was held on January 26, 2010; and WHEREAS, Draft SEIR 09 -01, together with the technical appendices for the ect, was issued for a 45 day public review period on June 8, 2012, and was processed ugh the State Clearinghouse; and WHEREAS, the public review period closed on July 24, 2012; and WHEREAS, during the public comment period, the City received comments on aft SEIR -09 -01 and consulted with all responsible and trustee agencies, other ;ulatory agencies and others pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15086 and pursuant Section 15088, all comments received were responded to in writing; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has independently reviewed and asidered the contents of the Final SEIR -09 -01 at a public meeting on February 13, 13; and WHEREAS, to the extent that the Findings of Fact for the Project, dated January 13 (Exhibit "A" of this Resolution, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City .-rk), conclude that proposed mitigation measures outlined in Final SEIR 09 -01 are tsible and have not been modified, superseded or withdrawn, the City of Chula Vista reby binds itself and the Applicant and its successors in interest, to implement those zures. These findings are not merely information or advisory, but constitute a binding of obligations that will come into effect when the City Council adopts the resolution proving the Project. The adopted mitigation measures contained within the Mitigation mitoring and Reporting Program, Exhibit "B" of this Resolution, a copy of which is on in the office of the City Clerk, are expressed as conditions of approval. Other luirements are referenced in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted acurrently with these Findings of Fact and will be effectuated through the process of plementing the Project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING )MMISSION of the City of Chula Vista does hereby determine, resolve and order as lows: The findings made in this Resolution are based upon the information and evidence forth in Final SEIR 09 -01 and all proceedings and all evidence introduced before the nning Commission, in consideration of this SEIR 09 -01 at their public meeting held February 13, 2013. The documents, staff report, technical studies, appendices, plans, cifications, other materials and any other documents submitted to the decision - makers I documents specified in Public Resources Code Section 21167.6, shall comprise the ire record of Proceedings for any claims under the CEQA. Final SEIR 09 -01 CONTENTS That the final SEIR 09 -01 consists of the following: 1. Supplemental EIR for the Project (including technical appendices); and 2. Comments and Responses (All hereafter collectively referred to as "SEIR 09 -01 ") ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS TO FEIR 09 -01 1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and 2. Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT That the Planning Commission does hereby find that SEIR 09 -01, and the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit "A" to this Resolution, a copy which is on file with the office of the City Clerk), and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit `B" to this Resolution, a copy which is on file with the office of the City Clerk) are prepared in accordance with the requirement of the CEQA (Pub. Resources Code, §21000 et seq.), the CEQA Guidelines (California Code Regs. Title 14 §15000 et seq.), and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF PLANNING COMMISSION That the Planning Commission finds that the SEIR 09 -01 reflects the independent judgment of the City of Chula Vista Planning Commission. CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT, AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM A. Adoption of Findings of Fact The Planning Commission does hereby approve, accepts as its own, incorporate as if set forth in full herein, and make each and every one of the findings contained in the Findings of Fact, Exhibit "A" of this Resolution, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk. B. Mitigation Measures Feasible and Adopted As more fully identified and set forth in SEIR 09 -01 and in the Findings of Fact for this project, which is Exhibit "A" to this Resolution, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, the Planning Commission hereby finds pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 that the mitigation measures described in the above referenced documents are feasible and will become binding upon the entity (such as the project proponent or the City) assigned thereby to implement the same. C. Infeasibility of Alternatives As more fully identified and set forth in SEIR 09 -01 and in the Findings of Fact, Section XII, for this project, which is Exhibit "A" to this Resolution, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, the Planning Commission hereby finds pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 that alternatives to the project, which were identified in SEIR- 09 -01, were not found to reduce impacts to a less than significant level or meet the project objectives. D. Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program As required by Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the Planning Commission hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program set forth in Exhibit `B" of this Resolution, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk. The Planning Commission further finds that the Program is designed to ensure that, during project implementation, the permittee /project applicant and any other responsible parties implement the project components and comply with the mitigation measures identified in the Findings of Fact and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION That the Director of Development Services of the City of Chula Vista is directed after City Council approval of the Project to ensure that a Notice of Determination is filed with the County Clerk of the County of San Diego. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission of the City of 'hula Vista certifies that SEIR 09 -01, and the Findings of Fact and Statement of Nerriding Considerations (Exhibit "A" to this Resolution, a copy which is on file with le office of the City Clerk), and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Exhibit `B" to this Resolution, a copy which is on file with the office of the City Clerk) ave been prepared in accordance with the requirement of CEQA (Pub. Resources Code, 21000 et seq.), CEQA Guidelines (California Code Regs. Title 14 §15000 et seq.), and le Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista and therefore, should be by: Approved as to form by: Halbert AICP City Manager/ of Development Services Glen R. Googins City Attorney J�\ AttomeyNichaelSh\ LandOfferAgts\ OtayLandCoTC\Reso- GPA- GDPA- SEIR4UnivVill- 9.25.12- DCADraft.doc I Exhibit A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE ENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN A- 09 -01) AND OTAY RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PCM- 09 -11) CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT N STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS January 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Ii. ACRONYMS Ill. DROJECT DESCRIPTION IV. 3ACKGROUND V. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS VI. INDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA VII. EGAL EFFECTS OF FINDINGS VIII. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM IX. SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES X. UMULATIVE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES XI. FEASIBILITY OF POTENTIAL PROJECT ALTERNATIVES XII. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 1 2 3 6 7 9 11 11 12 29 36 47 BEFORE THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL RE: ,amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA- 09 -01) and Otay Ranch eneral Development Plan (PCM- 09 -11) Supplemental Environmental Impact Report SEIR); SEIR- 09 -01; SCH No. 2004081066 The Fir Chula the pot the Fir followir FINDINGS OF FACT INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Supplemental Environmental Impact Report prepared for Amendments to the City of a (City) General Plan and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (SEIR) addresses ial environmental effects associated with implementation of the project. In addition, SEIR evaluates four alternatives to the project. These alternatives include the (1) No Project -No Build Alternative; (2) No Project -No Change in Existing Plans (3) Reduced Density Alternative; and (4) La Media Road Alternative. The Fi al SEIR represents a second tier EIR, in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 21094, and tiers from the certified Program EIR prepared for the City's eneral Plan Update (EIR #05 -01 1SCH #2004081066) (2005 PEIR). These findings have been prepared in accordance with requirements of CEQA (Pub. Resources Code, 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., Title 14, § 15000 et seq.). ACRONYMS ADT average daily trips CEQA California Environmental Quality Act City City of Chula Vista dB decibel GDPA General Development Plan Amendment GPA General Plan Amendment gpd gallons per day GPU General Plan Update LOA Land Offer Agreement LOS Level Of Service MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program OLC Otay Land Company OWD Otay Water District PFFP Public Facilities Financing Plan RAQS Regional Air Quality Standards RCP I Regional Comprehensive Plan RTP Regional Technology Park SAND AG San Diego Association of Governments SDAP D San Diego Air Pollution Control District SEIR Supplemental Environmental Impact Report SPA Sectional Planning Area SR State Route UWMP Urban Water Management Plan WRMP Water Resources Master Plan 0) PROJECT DESCRIPTION The pr 'ect includes a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan Amendment (GDPA) resulting in policy, circulation, and land use changes affecting the lands within the project area. The project area is an approximately 1,281 -acre area within the Otay Ranch Subarea of the City's Eastern Planning Area that spans multiple existing villages and pla ining areas, including portions of Villages 4 and 7; the entirety of Village 8 and Village 9; University/Planning Area 10, which includes a proposed 85 -acre Regional Technology Park (RTP); and a portion of the southern edge of the Eastern Urban Center. SEIR Figure 3 -1 illustrates the boundaries of the project area. The project will redefine the boundaries within the General Development Plan area to create proposed Villages 8 West and 9 and add 85 acres of RTP within the existing University Site. The 728 acres of land that comprise the proposed villages and RTP are referred to as the "Land Use Change Area." Proposed land use designation changes would affect only the Land Use Change Area. The project would re- designate land uses only within the Land Use Change Area. The project also includes General Plan and General Development Plan policy amendments affecting the entire project area, as well as revisions to the City's Circulation Plan —East. , the project includes the following component parts: • Revisions to General Plan policies and maps affecting the project area. This component entails modification of existing, or the addition of new goals, objectives, and policies of he General Plan to assure the "development of comprehensive, well- integrated, and alanced land uses" within the Otay Ranch Subarea as first envisioned in the 2005 General Plan Update (GPU). This includes further clarification and explanation of allowable density and intensity of uses within designated Town Centers. Additional amendments to the General Plan would designate the 85 -acre RTP within a University Focus Area, one of four other focus areas that make up the Eastern University District, which would create a symbiotic relationship between the economic development and employment opportunities of the RTP and the academic research and university campus ctivities. The amendments would adopt the University Strategic Framework Policies as means to assure coordinated development among the focus areas. e proposed amendments also re- designate the University Village Focus Area of the stern University District from low- medium to medium -high and mixed -use residential id use designations uses. The proposed vision for Village 9 (also known as University lage) includes the dedication of 50 net acres for inclusion in a university campus. • �evisions to the Circulation Plan —East that would allow the circulation plan to be onsistent with proposed land use changes. These amendments include the following: 1) 3 liminate the southerly extension of La Media Road crossing the Otay River Valley; 2) classification to "Other Roads" that portion of La Media Road south of Village 8 onnecting to the Active Recreation Area; 3) change name of Rock Mountain Road to lain Street from the point of existing Heritage Road easterly to Eastlake Parkway; 4) ?classify Main Street from a Town Center Arterial easterly of State Route (SR -)125 to a ix -lane Gateway; 5) reclassify Main Street /La Media Road Couplet from a Six -lane own Center Arterial to a Four -lane Town Center Arterial within Village 8 West; 6) ;classify and realign the segment of La Media Road from the southern end of the Main treet /La Media Road Couplet south easterly to SR -125 as a Four -Lane Major; 7) clarify iat the mid - arterial SR -125 bridge crossing between Village 8 and 9 is "pedestrian - nly"; and 8) provide that Urban Level of Service (Level of Service [LOS] D) is cceptable for Town Center Arterials. EIR Figures 3 -2 and 3 -3 provide further detail of the proposed amendments. • eduction of University area by 57 acres, for a total University acreage of 383 acres (within the project area). Total University acreage in the 2005 General Plan was 40 acres. University acres would be changed through the creation of an 85 -acre RTP I nd use designation within the Planning Area 10 /University Site; change of 40 acres om University to Mixed -Use Residential in Village 9; and the conversion of 68 acres of Residential to University in the southern portion of the Planning Area 10 /University Site. • Amendments to the Otay Ranch General Development Plan including revised text, graphics, and an update of maps and statistics. These amendments support the f flowing revisions to the plan: revise the statistical description and policy standards for t e proposed villages and the Eastern University Center; locate the 85 -acre RTP within tie Planning Area 10 /University Site and accordingly adjust University acreage; add etail regarding the requirement for the University Strategic Framework Policies; and r flect land uses previously approved in 2001 within the Village 8 East area. • and use changes affecting the Land Use Change Area. Individual land uses for proposed Village 8 West, Village 9, and the RTP are detailed in SEIR Tables 3 -2 and -3. The plans are focused around village -level mixed -use proposals to implement GPU concepts, Overall, the project would account for changes in the allowable land uses as shown in Table 1, below. TABLE 1 COMPARISON OF LAND USE TYPES WITHIN LAND USE CHANGE AREA 'The General Plan land use assumption in this table is a gross estimate and subject to further review and refinement. tThe maximum permitted commercial areas may alternatively be measured in square feet up to the maximum projected yield of 1,800,O DO square feet. $As dep cted on SEIR Figure 3 -4, the Land Use Change Area accommodated 175 acres of university area (university is included within the public/quasi-public GP designation, along with other similar types of land uses such as schools) in the 2005 General Plan U date. The project would convert 85 acres of this area into RTP, and 40 acres into residential, leaving 50 acres of Univer it within the Land Use Change Area. The discretionary actions to be taken by the City Council include the following: • General Plan Amendments • Otav Ranch GDPA Subsequent actions to implement the project would be subject to the approval of a Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan, Tentative Map, and /or formal design review. While future actions will require uture environmental review, once certified, this SEIR can be relied upon for relevant environment analysis. The City Council will determine whether the Final SEIR is complete and in comp lance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines as part of the certification process. OBJE As specified in the Final SEIR, the primary goals and objectives of the project are as follows: • Encourage social interaction and a diverse range of services to promote a mix of uses a village atmosphere; • Foster the goal of the 2005 GPU to expand the local economy by providing a broad range of businesses, facilitate provision of services for a University, provide employment nd housing opportunities that support an excellent standard of living, and improve the ability for residents to live and work locally; 5 Single- family (units) 887 640 Multi- family (units) 5,163 4,530 Commercial (acres) 32.3t 17.6 Cory munity Purpose Facility (acres) 10.8 20.1 Middle School (acres) 20.2 25.0 Elementary School (acres) 31.2 20.0 Park (acres) 55.4 50.3 University (acres) 50.0$ 175$ Indu trial /Reoional Technoloov Park 85.0 - 'The General Plan land use assumption in this table is a gross estimate and subject to further review and refinement. tThe maximum permitted commercial areas may alternatively be measured in square feet up to the maximum projected yield of 1,800,O DO square feet. $As dep cted on SEIR Figure 3 -4, the Land Use Change Area accommodated 175 acres of university area (university is included within the public/quasi-public GP designation, along with other similar types of land uses such as schools) in the 2005 General Plan U date. The project would convert 85 acres of this area into RTP, and 40 acres into residential, leaving 50 acres of Univer it within the Land Use Change Area. The discretionary actions to be taken by the City Council include the following: • General Plan Amendments • Otav Ranch GDPA Subsequent actions to implement the project would be subject to the approval of a Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan, Tentative Map, and /or formal design review. While future actions will require uture environmental review, once certified, this SEIR can be relied upon for relevant environment analysis. The City Council will determine whether the Final SEIR is complete and in comp lance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines as part of the certification process. OBJE As specified in the Final SEIR, the primary goals and objectives of the project are as follows: • Encourage social interaction and a diverse range of services to promote a mix of uses a village atmosphere; • Foster the goal of the 2005 GPU to expand the local economy by providing a broad range of businesses, facilitate provision of services for a University, provide employment nd housing opportunities that support an excellent standard of living, and improve the ability for residents to live and work locally; 5 • reate Town Centers within newly defined boundaries for Village 8 West and Village 9, as encouraged by the GPU's emphasis on providing a mix of diverse land uses that eets community needs; • evelop a circulation plan that de- emphasizes the automobile, and places greater eliance on mass transit and pedestrian circulation; • arget higher- density and higher- intensity development into specific focus areas in order o protect stable residential neighborhoods and to create mixed -use urban environments hat are oriented to transit and pedestrian activity. This targeted development will be well esigned, compatible with adjacent areas, and contribute to the continued vitality of the ity's economy; • Allow for higher density residential development in order to encourage the development of off - campus student housing within the University Town Center (Village 9) and the Eastern Urban Center adjacent to the University; • rovide opportunities for higher density development that accommodate off -site Student nd Faculty Housing for the University; • rovide opportunities for goods and services and other ancillary uses necessary to upport the University and RTP to be provided within Planning Area 10 /University Site; • rovide access to, and connections between, the City's open space and trails network and the regional network, in accordance with the Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan, Chula Vista Greenbelt Master Plan, and Otay Valley Regional Park Concept Plan; and • onserve the City's sensitive biological and other valuable natural resources IV. BACKGROUND In December 2005, the City adopted a comprehensive GPU, amended the Otay Ranch GDP, and certified EIR 05 -01 for said actions. As part of the GPU, amendments to land uses for those areas comprising the project area were deferred by the City. While the action on the land uses w s deferred, the certified Program EIR (PEIR) analyzed the impacts of the proposed an ents within this Deferral Area as part of the 2005 GPU Preferred Alternative. Subsequent to approval of the GPU, the City entered into a Land Offer Agreement (LOA) with the Otay Land Company (OLC) on April 9, 2008. The LOA is an agreement between the OLC (owners of property within portions of the Deferral Area) and the City, allowing the future 6 conveyance of land within the project area for the development of land uses compatible with a facility Of higher education and for open space in conjunction with the development entitlements for the project. Pursuant to the LOA, all approvals are subject to all applicable legal require ents, including, but not limited to, CEQA. In Ma (JPB D SEIR i which, the pro The cu sites Di 2008, the City also entered into a separate LOA with another land owner velopment, who owns the remainder of the Deferral Area) with similar terms. The Final ipact analysis contained herein focuses primarily on the properties owned by OLC, -e within the Land Use Change Area. Specifically, the document analyzes the impacts of pct which differ from the impacts analyzed in the 2005 EIR as the Preferred Alternative, iulative impact analysis provides a discussion of the potential future buildout of the JPB r the 2008 LOA between the City and JPB. IM RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS For purposes of CEQA and the findings set forth below, the administrative record of the City Council decision on the environmental analysis of this project shall consist of the following: • he Notice of Preparation and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction ith the project, •he Draft and Final SEIR for the project (EIR #09 -01), including appendices and echnical reports; • �II comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public omment period on the Draft SEIR; • II reports, studies, memoranda, maps, staff reports, or other planning documents elating to the project prepared by the City, consultants to the City, or responsible or rustee agencies with respect to the City's compliance with the requirements of CEQA nd the City's actions on the project; • II documents, comments, and correspondence submitted by members of the public and ublic agencies in connection with this project, in addition to comments on the SEIR for he project; • �II documents submitted to the City by other public agencies or members of the public in onnection with the SEIR, up through the close of the public hearing; 7 • �inutes and verbatim transcripts of all workshops, the scoping meeting, other public eetings, and public hearings held by the City, or videotapes where transcripts are not available or adequate; • Any documentary or other evidence submitted at workshops, public meetings, and public rings for this project; • �II findings and resolutions adopted by City decision makers in connection with this roject, and all documents cited or referred to therein; and • Matters of common knowledge to the City which the members of the City Council � onsidered regarding this project, including federal, state, and local laws and egulations, and including, but not limited to, the following: The c to the o Chula Vista General Plan; o Relevant portions of the Zoning Code of the City; o Otay Ranch General Development Plan; o Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan; o City of Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan; o Otay Ranch GDP /SRP Final EIR (EIR #90 -01; SCH No. 89010154); and o Any other materials required to be in the record of proceedings by Public Resources Code section 21167.6, subdivision (e). . ......... .. ......... ... ............................... ........................... ............................... lian of the documents comprising the record of proceedings is Susan Bigelow, Clerk Comment [LS1]: cm Coll finn Council, whose office is located at 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California 91910. The Cit Council has relied on all of the documents listed above in reaching its decision on the project, even if every document was not formally presented to the City Council or City staff as part of the City files generated in connection with the project. Without exception, any documents set forth above but not found in the project files fall into two categories. Many of them reflect prior planning or legislative decisions with which the City Council was aware in approvi ig the project (see City of Santa Cruz v. Local Agency Formation Commission (1978) 76 Cal.Ap .3d 381, 391 -392 [142 Cal.Rptr. 873]; Dominey v. Department of Personnel Administration (1988)205 Cal.App.3d 729, 738, fn. 6 [252 Cal. Rptr. 620]). Other documents influenced the expert advice provided to City staff or consultants, who then provided advice to the City Council. For that reason, such documents form part of the underlying factual basis for the City Council's decisions relating to the adoption of the project (see Pub. Resources Code, 8 section 1167.6, subd. (e)(10); Browing -Ferns Industries v. City Council of City of San Jose (1986) 181 Cal. App.3d 852, 866 [226 Cal.Rptr. 575]; Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. v. County f Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4'h 144, 153, 155 [39 Cal.Rptr.2d 54]), VI. FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA Public Resources Code section 21002 provides that "public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects." (Emphasis added.) The same statute states that the procedures required by CEQA "are intende to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects" (emphasis added). Section 21002 goes on to state that "in the event [that] specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project Iternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or ore significant effects," The m ndate and principles announced in Public Resources Code section 21002 are implemented, in part, through the requirement that agencies must adopt findings before approving projects for which EIRs are required (see Pub. Resources Code, § 21081, subd. (a); CEQA uidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)). For each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a proposed project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or more of three permissible conclusions. The first such finding is that "[c]hanges 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" (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(1)). The second permissible finding is that "[s]uch changes or alterations 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" (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(2)). The third potential finding is that "[s]pecif c economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR" (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(3)). Public Resources Code section 21061.1 defines "feasible" to mean "capable of being accomplished in a succ ssful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and technological factors." CEQA Guidelines section 15364 adds another factor: `legal" considerations (see also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 553, 565 [276 Cal.Rptr. 410]). The co ncept of "feasibility" also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or mitigati ty measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project (see City of Del Mar v. of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417 ['83 Cal.Rptr. 898]). " `[F]easibility' 9 under EQA encompasses 'desirability' to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balanci g of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors" (ibid.; see also Se uoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.AppAth 704, 715 [29 Cal.Rpt .2d 182]). The CEQA Guidelines do not define the difference between "avoiding" a significant environ ental effect and merely "substantially lessening" such an effect. The City must therefore glean the meaning of these terms from the other contexts in which the terms are used. Public Resources Code section 21081, on which CEQA Guidelines section 15091 is based, uses the term "mitigate" rather than "substantially lessen." The CEQA Guidelines therefore equate 'mitigating" with "substantially lessening." Such an understanding of the statutory term is consistent with the policies underlying CEQA, which include the policy that "public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such pr jects" (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002). For pur oses of these findings, the term "avoid" refers to the effectiveness of one or more mitigation measures to reduce an otherwise significant effect to a less than significant level. In contrast the term "substantially lessen" refers to the effectiveness of such measure or measures to substantially reduce the severity of a significant effect, but not to reduce that effect to a les than significant level. These interpretations appear to be mandated by the holding in Laurel 4ills Homeowners Association v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 519 -527 [147 Cal.Rptr. 842], in which the Court of Appeal held that an agency had satisfied its obligation to substantially lessen or avoid significant effects by adopting numerous mitigation measures, not all of which rendered the significant impacts in question less than significant. Althoug CEQA Guidelines section 15091 requires only that approving agencies specify that a particular significant effect is "avoid[ed] or substantially lessen[ed]," these findings, for purposes of clarity, in each case will specify whether the effect in question has been reduced to a less than sig ificant level or has simply been substantially lessened but remains significant. Moreov r, although section 15091, read literally, does not require findings to address environ ental effects that an EIR identifies as merely "potentially significant," these findings will neverth less fully account for all such effects identified in the Final SEIR. In short CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasible to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur, Project modifications or alternatives are not required, however, where such changes are infeasib Ie or where the responsibility for modifying the project lies with some other agency (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a), (b)). With respect to a project for which significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened either through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures or a feasible environmentally 10 superic the pro "unavoi see als that, "[t balanci require 553, 51 alternative, a public agency, after adopting proper findings, may nevertheless approve pct if the agency first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the reasons why the agency found that the project's "benefits" rendered "acceptable" its able adverse environmental effects" (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15093, 15043, subd. (b); Pub. Resources Code, § 21081, subd. (b)). The California Supreme Court has stated le wisdom of approving ... any development project, a delicate task which requires a g of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their ants who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced" (Goleta, supra, 52 Cal.3d VII. LEGAL EFFECTS OF FINDINGS To the extent that these findings conclude that proposed mitigation measures outlined in the Final S IR are feasible and have not been modified, superseded, or withdrawn, the City (or "decision makers ") hereby binds itself and any other responsible parties, including the applicant and its successors in interest (hereinafter referred to as "Applicant "), to implement those measures. These findings, in other words, are not merely informational or hortatory, but constitu e a binding set of obligations that will come into effect when the City adopts the resolution(s) approving the project. The adopted mitigation measures are express conditions of approval. Other requirements are referenced in the Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP) adopted concurrently with these findings and will be effectuated through the process of implementing the project. The miti 3ation measures are referenced in the MMRP adopted concurrently with these findings, and will be effectuated both through the process of implementing the Otay Ranch GDP and through he process of constructing and implementing the project. As req finding the dir the ap CITY VIII. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ed by Public Resources Code section 21081.6, subd. (a)(1), the City, in adopting these also concurrently adopts a MMRP as prepared by the environmental consultant under :ion of the City. The program is designed to ensure that during project implementation, ,ant and any other responsible parties comply with the feasible mitigation measures below. The program is described in the document entitled AMENDMENTS TO THE CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN (GPA -0 -01) AND OTAY RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PCM-09-1 1) Mitigation Monitor ng Reporting Program. The City will use the MMRP to track compliance with project mitigation measures. The MMRP will be available for public review during the compliance period. The MMRP is dynamic in that it will undergo changes as additional mitigation measures are identified and additional conditions of approval are placed on the project throughout the project approval process. The monitoring program will serve the dual purpose of verifying completion of the miti ation measures for the project and generating information on the effectiveness of the mitigati n measures to guide future decisions. The program includes monitoring team qualific tions, specific monitoring activities, a reporting system, and criteria for evaluating the success of the mitigation measures. IX. SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES SUMMARY OF EFFECTS The Fin I SEIR identified a number of direct and indirect significant environmental effects (or "impacts") resulting from the project. Some of these significant effects can be fully avoided through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures. Others cannot be fully mitigated or avoided by the adoption of feasible mitigation measures or feasible environmentally superior alternatives. However, these effects are outweighed by overriding considerations set forth in Section XII below. This Section (IX) presents in greater detail the City Council's findings with respect to the environmental effects of the project. The pro ect will result in significant environmental changes with regard to the following issues: land use, landform alteration /visual quality, energy resources, transportation, air quality, noise, and public utilities (water). These significant environmental changes or impacts are discussed in the Fin I SEIR in Table 1 -1, pages 9 through 21, and Chapter 5, Environmental Impact Analysis, pages 63 through 364. No significant effects were identified for public services (fire protection and emergency services, police services, schools, library services, and parks and recreation), public utilities (wastewater and integrated waste management), housing and pop' lat' n, and global climate change. The project will result in significant unmitigable impacts to land use, landform alteration /visual quality, energy resources, transportation (cumulative freeway ), air quality, noise, and public utilities (water). Land At the programmatic level, the project does not include design standards necessary to assure that community character issues are addressed. Therefore, direct impacts associated with community character issues would be significant. Due to its overall adherence to the smart- WA growth principles in the Regional Comprehensive Plan and City's 2005 GPU, cumulative land use imp cts associated with the project would be less than significant. Landfotm Alteration /Aesthetics While compliance with the City's General Plan policies assures that future development projects apply design specifications to promote protection of the visual character of the project area, the project Joes not include a mechanism to assure their implementation. Therefore, direct and cumulative impacts associated with visual character would be significant. Energy Resources While future development within the project area would be required to implement the City's Energy Strategy and Action Plan, Transit First Plan, and conform to objectives contained in the General Plan, there is no long -term assurance that energy supplies will be available as needed. Therefo e, direct and cumulative impacts associated with energy consumption are considered sianific nt. Traffic,ICirculation, and Access Absent itigation, approval of the project will result in significant direct impacts along freeway mainlin segments, and significant cumulative impacts along freeway and roadway segments. Air Quality Becaus the proposed land use changes would not be consistent with the adopted General Plan upon which the Regional Air Quality Standards (RAQS) are based, the project would not confor to the current RAQS, and direct and cumulative impacts would be significant. Additior ally, while the project seeks to minimize air quality impacts by promoting mixed land use patterns that will create walkable neighborhoods as encouraged by the General Plan, operation of the roject will result in long -term direct and cumulative emissions from project - related vehicular trips. Noise Notwith tanding the project's conformance to General Plan and General Development Plan policies a direct and cumulative significant impact will occur to existing receivers adjacent to circulation element roadways where traffic volumes are projected to result in noise level increas s of more than three decibels (dB). 13 (Water) The project's increased demand for water would require corresponding expansion of treatment and distribution facilities the location and extent of which remain speculative at this time. Significant impacts could occur as a result of the construction of these projects; however, at this level of planning, because the extent of those effects is speculative, direct and cumulative impact would be significant. DETAILED ISSUES DISCUSSION Land The project would result in a significant impact to land use if it would: >ically divide or adversely affect the community character of an established munity; 2. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation, or an agency with j irisdiction over the Proposed Project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect; or 3. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or NCCP. Impact: Adversely affect community character Implementation of the project would result in a significant direct impact to community character because at this programmatic level, the project does not include design specifications required to protect visual impacts. (Final SEIR Section 5.1.3.2, pages 82 through 86). Implementation of the project would result in a change to the community character of the Land Use Change Area compared to that analyzed in the 2005 PEIR for the Preferred Alternative. Specifically, the project would increase allowable residential uses by 880 units and increases allowable commercial and industrial (RTP) acreage as shown in Table 1 of the EIR. While the project includes amendments to the City's General Plan and the Otay Ranch General Development Plan objectives and policies aimed at providing connectivity and integration between proposed and existing communities, the project does not include design standards necessary to assure that all community character issues are addressed. Compliance with both existing and proposed policies would reduce land use /community character impacts, but not to a level that is considered less than significant. 14 There is no mitigation contained in the 2005 PER or currently available at this programmatic level of analysis to address significant impacts associated with community character. Future projects shall be required to include design standards necessary to assure that these community character issues are addressed. Findi There is no feasible mitigation measure to reduce this impact to below significance. Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. Only implementation of the No Project -No Build alternative would reduce this impact to below a level of significance. Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other conside ations make this alternative infeasible. Adoption of the No Project -No Build alternative would n t achieve any of the objectives of the project as identified in Section 3.3 of the Final SEIR. ditional findings related to the project alternatives are discussed in Section XI, below. Until future SPA Plans containing zoning and specific design measures are implemented, there are no applicable or feasible mitigation measures within the control of the City at this time to reduce visual impacts to below a level of significance to visual character would remain significant and unmitigated. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Consideration will be require should the decision makers choose to approve the project. Landfofm Alteration /Aesthetics nificance: Thresh Id 1: Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista or substantially damage scenic resourc s, including, but not limited to, trees and rock outcroppings; Threshold 2: Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the City. Impact� Substantially degrade the existing visual character Implem ntation of the project would result in a direct significant impact to the existing visual charact r because at this programmatic level, the project does not include design specifications required to protect visual impacts. (Final SEIR Section 5.2.3.2, pages 105 through 106). Cumulative impacts associated with this issue are discussed in Section X, below. n Implen space m of the project would allow future construction within currently undeveloped open ng in the permanent alteration of the existing rolling hills. Additionally, future M development of the project would intensify the land uses allowed within the Land Use Change Area resulting in an increase in impacts to visual character beyond that analyzed in the 2005 PEIR for the Preferred Alternative. The General Plan and the Otay Ranch General Development Plan contain policies intended to assure the protection of aesthetic resources and require design considerations to be applied to construction within each village. Likewise, the Otay Ranch General Development Plan requires future projects to perform SPA -level visual analysis and implement landform- grading guidelines. Compliance with these policies would reduce visual impacts but not to a level that is considered less than significant. 5.2.5 -1 Prior to approval of grading plans, the applicant shall prepare grading and building plans that conform to the landform grading guidelines contained in the grading ordinance, Otay Ranch General Development Plan, and General Plan. The plans shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services and the City Engineer. These plans and guidelines shall provide the following that serve to reduce the aesthetic impacts: • A landscape design that addresses streetscapes provides landscape intensity zones, greenbelt edge treatments, and slope treatment for erosion control; • Grading concepts that ensure manufactured slopes that are contoured, blend, and mimic adjacent natural slopes; • Landscaping concepts that provide for a transition from the manicured appearance of developed areas to the natural landscape in open space areas; and • Landscaping concepts that include plantings selected to frame and maintain I views. Finding: While Mitigation Measure 5.2.5 -1 is feasible and shall be required as a condition of approval and m de binding on the applicant, it would not substantially lessen the significant environ ental effect as identified in the Final SEIR. The impact would only be reduced to less than sig ificant when specific design standards and zoning specifications are developed and applied to subsequent SPA plans. Only implementation of the No Project -No Build alternative would reduce this impact to below a level of significance. Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasibl this project alternative. Additional findings related to the project alternatives are discuss d in Section XI, below. 16 Becaus there are no applicable or feasible mitigation measures within the control of the City at this time to reduce visual impacts to below a level of significance, impacts to visual character would remain significant and unmitigated. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Consideration will be required should the decision makers choose to approve the project. Energy (Resources The Proposed Project would result in a significant impact to energy if it would: 1. Zduce the available supply of energy resources below a level considered sufficient to et the City's needs or cause a need for new and expanded facilities. Impact: l Increased energy demands While fu ure development would be required to implement the City's Energy Strategy and Action Plan, Tr nsit First Plan, and conform to objectives contained in the City's General Plan, there are no long-term assurances that energy supplies will be available as needed. Therefore, direct impacts associated with energy consumption are considered significant (Final SEIR Section .3.3.2, pages 121 through 125). Cumulative impacts associated with this issue are discussed in Section X, below. Implem ntation of the project would allow an increase in development potential within the Land Use Change Area beyond that analyzed in the 2005 PEIR for the Preferred Alternative. Tables .3 -2a and 5.3 -2b of the Final SEIR provide a breakdown of the additional intensity of land uses and calculates the projected increase in energy demands for the Land Use Change Area (adjusted for energy efficiency measures). Future SPA Plans would be required to meet the mandatory energy standards of the City including: City of Chula Vista Energy Code (Municipal Code sections 15.26, et seq.); CCR Title 24 Part 6 California Energy Code; Part 11 California Green Building Standards; and the City's Green Building Standards. Additionally, General Plan policies seek to reduce mobile- source energy consumption by optimizing traffic flow, directing higher- density housing within walking distance of transit facilities, promoting use of alternatives to vehicular travel, and generally reducing vehicle trip length through improved community design. The Otay Ranch General Development Plan likewise requires future SPA Plans to include a renewable energy conservation plan addressing preservation of energy resources. Although these programs and policies would result in more efficient use of energy, they do iot ensure that,increased resources will be available when needed. Therefore, because there are no assurances of a long -term supply of energy in the future, the increase in energy consum tion associated with the project would be significant. 17 Compa ibility with City regulations and policies alone will not reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Implementation of the following mitigation measure, as identified in the 2005 P IR, is required to be incorporated into future SPA plans. 5.3.5 -1 Continued focus on the Energy Strategy and Action Plan, which addresses demand side management, energy efficient and renewable energy outreach programs for businesses and residents, energy acquisition, power generation, and distributed energy resources and legislative actions, and continuing implementation of the CO2 Reduction Plan will lessen the impacts from energy. Finding: While mitigation measure 5.3.5 -1 is feasible and shall be required as a condition of approval and made binding on the applicant, it would not substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final SEIR. The impact will only be reduced to less than significant when a determination is made assuring energy resources would be available to adequately serve the projected increase in population and land uses resulting from impleME ntation of the project. Only implementation of the No Project -No Build alternative would reduce his impact to below a level of significance. Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make this alte native infeasible. Adoption of the No Project -No Build alternative would not achieve any of the objectives of the project as identified in Section 3.3 of the Final SEIR. Additional findings related to the project alternatives are discussed in Section XI, below. Because there are no applicable or feasible mitigation measures within the control of the City at this time to reduce impacts to energy resources to below a level of significance to energy resources would remain significant and unmitigated. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Consideration will be required should the decision makers choose to approve the project. Traffic, pirculation, and Access The Proposed Project would result in a significant traffic impact if it would: in traffic which exceeds the significance criteria of the respective jurisdiction. The Traffic Impact Analysis analyzed the study area location utilizing the appropriate jurisdictions' significance criteria. Therefore, City, City of San Diego, and County of San Diego roadways were analyzed using each jurisdiction's own significance criteria. 18 City of (hula Vista Project - specific (direct) impact if all the following criteria are met: i. Level of service is LOS D, LOS E, or LOS F. ii. Project trips comprise 5 percent or more of total segment volume. iii. Project adds greater than 800 average daily trips (ADT) to the segment. ), Cumulative impact, if only (i) is met. However, if the intersections along a LOS D or LOS E segment all operate at LOS D or better, the seg ent impact is considered not significant, since intersection analysis is more indicative of actual roadway system operations than street segment analysis. If the segment LOS is LOS F, he impact is significant regardless of intersection LOS. Project - specific (direct) impact, if all the following criteria are met: i. Level of service is LOS E or LOS F. ii. Project trips comprise 5 percent or more of entering volume. Cumulative impact if only (i) is met. City of 4an Diego According to the City of San Diego's Significance Determination Thresholds (2007), a project is considered to have a significant impact if the project traffic has decreased the operations of surrounding roadways by a City- defined threshold. For projects deemed complete on or after January 1, 2007, the City defined threshold by roadway type or intersection is shown in Table 5.4-5 of the Final SEIR. If a proji may coi project c the Fina within th by the C -t exceeds the thresholds in Table 5.4 -5 of the Final SEIR, then the City of San Diego >ider a project to have a significant impact. A significant impact can also occur if a 3uses the LOS to degrade from D to E, even if the allowable increases in Table 5.4 -5 of SEIR are not exceeded. A feasible mitigation measure is identified to return the impact City of San Diego thresholds, or the impact is considered significant and unmitigated y of San Diego. 19 County of San Diego The foll wing criteria was utilized to evaluate potential significant impacts based on the County of San iego Guidelines for Determining Significance — Transportation and Traffic (2009). Pursua�t to the County's General Plan Public Facilities Element, new development must provide improvements or other measures to mitigate traffic impacts to avoid: • Reduction in LOS below C for on -site Circulation Element roads; • Reduction in LOS below D for off -site and on -site abutting Circulation Element roads; • 'Significantly impacting congestion" on roads that operate at LOS E or F. If impacts cannot be mitigated, the project cannot be approved unless a statement of overriding endings is made pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines. The Public Facilities Element, however, does not include specific guidelines for determining the amount of additional traffic that would "significantly impact congestion" on such roads. The Co my has created guidelines, summarized in Table 5.4 -6 of the Final SEIR, to evaluate likely traffic impacts of a proposed project for road segments and intersections serving that project 5ite, for purposes of determining whether the development would significantly impact congest on on the referenced LOS E and F roads. The County considers traffic volume increases from public or private projects that result in one or more of the following criteria to have a significant traffic volume or level of service impact on a road se ment: • he additional or redistributed ADT generated by the proposed project will significantly i icrease congestion on a Circulation Element Road or State Highway currently operating at LOS E or LOS F, or will cause a Circulation Element Road or State Highway to perate at a LOS E or LOS F as a result of the proposed project as identified in able 5.4 -6, or • he additional or redistributed ADT generated by the proposed project will cause a r sidential street to exceed its design capacity. 20 11 Since t e project is a General Plan Amendment and General Development Plan Amendment, no project-specific development was analyzed in the traffic study. Rather, project buildout was analyzed over a 20 -year horizon time frame (i.e., Year 2030), since development will occur over a long period. Impacts are discussed under the following scenarios: Direct Impacts (Traffic Model 3) and Cumulative Impacts (Traffic Model 7). Traffic odel 3 measures the impacts resulting from implementation of the project compared to buildoul under the Traffic Model 1. (Traffic Model 1 refers to the conditions and traffic volumes that will be implemented under Year 2030 buildout of the existing condition.) Traffic Model 7 measures the impacts associated with buildout of the project, remaining land uses within the project area (including the proposed JPB LOA land uses), City of San Diego- proposed Otay Mesa Community Plan Update, and County G land uses. Impacts associated with Traffic Model 7 are discussed in Section X, below. Im As shown on Tables 5.4 -12 of the Final SEIR, four freeway mainline segments are projected to result in significant direct impacts at buildout of the project (Traffic Model 3). (SEIR Section 5.4.3.3, pages 162 through 174) Ex Jana ion: Based n the peak hour intersection, segment and freeway analyses, the following direct impacts were identified under Year 2030 conditions: 1 -805 • Olympic Parkway /Orange Avenue to Main Street /Auto Park Drive • Main Street /Auto Park Drive to Palm Avenue SR -905 between • 1805 to Ocean View Hills Parkway • Britannia Boulevard to La Media Road ati 5.4.5.-1 The City of Chula Vista shall collect the appropriate Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Plan funds from the project (Freeway Mainline Segments). 21 Findin Pursua t to section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Specifically, Mitigation Measure 5.4.5.1 -1 is feasible and shall be required as a condition of approval and made binding on the applicant. Implem ntation of this mitigation measure will reduce significant direct impacts to freeway mainlin segments to a less than significant level. + Project An Existing + Project analysis was conducted that measures the Proposed Project's buildout traffic volumes added to the existing traffic volumes and roadway configuration. While the Proposed Project is not anticipated to reach full buildout until after the Year 2030, this analysis presumed the existing environment as the baseline condition to which full buildout of the Propos d Project was added. Impact Seven oadway segment impacts were calculated in the Existing + Project condition. Under the Existing + Project condition, the following street segments are calculated to operate at a LOS D or worse conditions in the City: Olympic Parkway between 1 -805 and Brandywine Avenue — LOS F Olympic Parkway between Brandywine Avenue and Heritage Road /Paseo Ranchero — DS F Olympic Parkway between Heritage Road /Paseo Ranchero and La Media Road — LOS Olympic Parkway between La Media Road and SR -125 — LOS D Birch Road between La Media Road and SR -125 — LOS E La Media Road between Olympic Parkway and Birch Road — LOS E Eastlake Parkway between Birch Road and Hunte Parkway — LOS E The proposed Project is anticipated to be built in phases over a period of up to twenty years. This phasing would not require the construction of all of the circulation improvements at once. In additio , under this scenario, application of the City's GMP would apply. If the LOS D threshold is exce ded for more than two hours, then all development may be suspended until acceptable operati g conditions can be achieved. As a part of the City's GMP, the City analyzed if GMO 22 thresholds are projected to be reached or exceeded, and whether mitigation measures are necessary to remain compliant with the requirements of the GMP along Olympic Parkway. The study concluded that the segment of westbound Olympic Parkway between Heritage Road and Oleand r Avenue during peak hours would be the first to fall below GMO traffic threshold standards as traffic volumes increase over time with the Proposed Project and other projects east of 1 -805. The analysis demonstrated that GMO thresholds would not be reached along Olympic Parkway until building permits for 2,463 dwelling units have been issued for projects east of 1 -805. The projected 2,463 dwelling unit threshold is used by the City to determine when cumula ive impacts may occur along the corridor. M 1. In th e event the GMO threshold is reached at any time prior to the issuance of the building permit for the 2,463rd dwelling unit for development east of 1 -805 commencing from April 4, 2011 the applicant may; Prepare a traffic study that demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, that circulation system has additional capacity without exceeding the GMO traffic eshold standards, or Demonstrate that other improvements are constructed which provide the additional acessary capacity to comply with the GMO traffic threshold to the satisfaction of the ity Engineer, or Agree to the City Engineer's selection of an alternative method of maintaining GMO iffic threshold compliance, or Enter into agreement, approved by the City, with other Otay Ranch developers that leviates congestion and achieves GMO traffic threshold compliance for Olympic arkway. The Agreement will identify the deficiencies in transportation infrastructure that ill need to be constructed, the parties that will construct said needed infrastructure, a neline for such construction, and provides assurances for construction, in accordance the City's customary requirements, for said infrastructure. If GMO ompliance cannot be achieved through 1 a, b, c or d above, then the City may, in its sole discretion, stop issuing new building permits within the Project Area after building permits for 2,463 dwelling units have been issued for any development east of 1 -805 after April 4, 2011, until such time that GMO traffic threshold standard compliance can be assured to the satisfac ion of the City Manager. These measures shall constitute full compliance with growth management objectives and policies n accordance with the requirements of the General Plan, Chapter 10 with regard to traffic th esholds set forth in the GMO. 23 Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant effect as in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Specifically, the above described Mitigation is feasible and shall be required as a condition of approval and made binding on the applican Implementation of this measures will reduce existing + project impacts to less than ignifica -t t levels. Air Quality The Proposed Project would result in a significant impact to air quality if it would: onflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. 2. :ality olate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air violation. 3. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). The City uses the SCAQMD thresholds shown in Table 5.5 -4 of the Final EIR to assess the significance of air quality impacts. 4. expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. 5. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan The project is not consistent with the growth projections of the local regional air quality plan, which r presents a direct and significant impact (Section 5.5.3.2, pages 214 through 215). Cumulative impacts associated with this issue are discussed in Section X, below. Becaus the proposed land use changes would not be consistent with the adopted General Plan upon which the RAQS was based, the project would not conform to the current RAQS, and direct irr pacts would be significant. 24 Mitig�ith ion of this planning impact would require the updating of the RAQS to reflect the General Plan the project land use changes. Revision of the RAQS would reduce this impact to less than significant. This is the responsibility of the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) and outside the jurisdiction of the City. Therefore, pursuant to section 15091(a)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines, such changes or alterati ns are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes can and should be adopted by such other agency; however, at this time, the impact would remain significant and unmitigable. Because there are no applicable or feasible mitigation measures within the control of the City at this time to reduce emissions to below a level of significance, impacts to air quality would remain significant and unmitigated. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Consideration will be required should the decision makers choose to approve the project. Impac : Result in an increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attain ent. Implem ntation of the project would increase operational air emissions beyond that analyzed in the 2005 General Plan EIR for the Preferred Alternative. In addition, construction activities required for the development of the project will result in significant air quality impacts from dust generated, fumes, and equipment exhaust adding to an increase in PM,o emissions (Final SEIR Section 5.5.3.2, pages 215 through 221). i� The region is not in compliance with the PM,o standards, and the project would increase PM,, emissio s. The project would result in a short -term significant fugitive dust impact as a result of construction emissions. At this programmatic level of analysis, the exact number and timing of future cevelopment projects that could occur are unknown. Upon application for individual develop ent projects, the City would use the SCAQMD construction thresholds to assess potential impacts. Additionally, future projects would be required to implement standard dust and err ission control measures during grading operations to reduce potential impacts. Notwith tanding the regulatory requirements for reduced construction emissions, impacts could remain ianificant. Operational source emissions would originate from traffic generated within or as a result of the project. Area source emissions would result from activities such as use of natural gas, fireplaces, and consumer products. In addition, landscaping maintenance activities associated with the proposed land uses would produce pollutant emissions. 25 M 5.5.5 -1 Mitigation of PM,o impacts requires active dust control during construction. As a matter of standard practice, the City shall require the following standard construction measures during construction to the extent applicable: All unpaved construction areas shall be sprinkled with water or other acceptable San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) dust control agents during dust - generating activities to reduce dust emissions. Additional watering or acceptable SDAPCD dust control agents shall be applied during dry weather or windy days until dust emissions are not visible. 2. Trucks hauling dirt and debris shall be properly covered to reduce windblown dust and spills. 3. A 20- mile - per -hour speed limit on unpaved surfaces shall be enforced. 4. On dry days, dirt and debris spilled onto paved surfaces shall be swept up immediately to reduce resuspension of particulate matter caused by vehicle movement. Approach routes to construction sites shall be cleaned daily of construction - related dirt in dry weather. 5. On -site stockpiles of excavated material shall be covered or watered. 6. Disturbed areas shall be hydroseeded, landscaped, or developed as quickly as possible and as directed by the City and/or SDAPCD to reduce dust generation. 7. To the maximum extent feasible: • Heavy -duty construction equipment with modified combustion /fuel injection systems for emissions control shall be utilized during grading and construction activities. • Catalytic reduction for gasoline - powered equipment shall be used. 8. Equip construction equipment with prechamber diesel engines (or equivalent) together with proper maintenance and operation to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxide, to the extent available and feasible. 9. Electrical construction equipment shall be used to the extent feasible. 10. The simultaneous operations of multiple construction equipment units shall be minimized (i.e., phase construction to minimize impacts). 26 Fin While mitigation measure 5.5.5 -1 is feasible and shall be required as a condition of approval and made binding on the applicant, it would not substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final SEIR. This mitigation measure would apply to PM10 from construction activities and would reduce impacts to less than significant. However, impacts resulting from daily operation would remain significant until the region is determined to be in a tainment with the PM10 standard. While implementation of the No Project -No Build, No Proj ct -No Change in Existing Plans, and Reduced Density alternatives would reduce this impact ompared to the project, it would not be to below a level of significance. This is due to the air asin's non - compliance with the criteria pollutant. Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA uidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make these al ernative infeasible. Adoption of the No Project -No Build alternative would not achieve any of the objectives of the project as identified in Section 3.3 of the Final SEIR. Additional findings related to the project alternatives are discussed in Section XI, below. Because there are no applicable or feasible mitigation measures within the control of the City at this time to reduce emissions to below a level of significance, impacts to air quality would remain significant and unmitigated. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Consideration will be required should the decision makers choose to approve the project. Noise Th re The Proposed Project would result in significant noise impacts if it would: Result in exposure of people to excessive noise. Result in the generation of excessive noises. Expose people residing or working within an established Airport Influence Area to excessive noise levels. Impact: l Exposure of people to excessive noise Implementation of the project would result in a direct increase greater than three dB in traffic noise beyond that contemplated in the 2005 General Plan EIR for the Preferred Project along two road segments. Additionally, as shown in Figure 5.6 -5 of the Final EIR, the project could a result in interior noise levels for multi - family residential uses located within the 60 CNEL contour for i sign with rays that have the potential to exceed 45 CNEL. These impacts would be considered it (Final SEIR Section 5.6.3.2, pages 237 through 250). Cumulative impacts associated issue are discussed in Section X, below. 27 Due to proposed changes in land uses, implementation of the project would result in a direct increase greater than three dB in traffic noise beyond that contemplated in the 2005 General Plan EIR for the Preferred Alternative along the following two road segments: • 9tay Valley Road from La Media Road to SR -125 • 9tay Valley Road from SR -125 to Otay Villa Road. Table 5.6 -1 of the Final SEIR contains the exterior land use -noise compatibility guidelines as contained in the General Plan. These guidelines reflect the levels of noise exposure that are generally considered to be compatible with various types of land use. Pursuant to the General Plan, residential, school, or park receptors are required to be within contours of 65 dB or less. Based on contours created for the project, implementation of the proposed land use plan would result ir noise impacts due to land uses proposed within noise contours exceeding allowable limits. Specifically, as shown in Figure 5.6 -3 of the Final SEIR, there are residential and mixed - use are s exceeding 65 CNEL. This represents a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures: There is no mitigation contained in the 2005 PEIR or currently available at this programmatic level of analysis to address significant impacts associated with noise. Future projects would be required to include project -level exterior analysis to assess the feasibility of reducing noise levels to outdoor use areas. There is no feasible mitigation measure to reduce this impact to below significance. Implementation of the No Project -No Build, No Project -No Change in Existing Plans, and the Reduced Density alternatives would reduce this impact due to the removal of residential uses from noise generating sources. Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make these alternatives infeasible. Each alternative would not achieve the objectives of the project as identified in Section 3.3 of the Final SEIR. Additional findings related to the project alternatives are discuss Becaus( this tim( significa required Utilities in Section XI, below. there are no applicable or feasible mitigation measures within the control of the City at to reduce noise impacts to below a level of significance, impacts to would remain it and unmitigated. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Consideration will be should the decision makers choose to approve the project. I(Water) 28 holds of Siani The Pr�posed Project would result in a significant impact to water supplies if it would: Require or result in the construction of new water facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Require new or expanded supplies or facilities to meet projected needs. Result in the Proposed Project being inconsistent with the Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) prepared by the CWA. Impact# Construction or expansion of new water facilities Implem ntation of the project would result in an increase in water consumption beyond that analyzed in the 2005 General Plan EIR for the Preferred Alternative placing greater demands on treatment and distribution facilities. (SEIR Section 5,814, pages 301 through 302). Cumulative impacts associated with this issue are discussed in Section X, below. ion: The Ot y Water District (OWD) Water Resources Master Plan (WRMP; Revised November 2010) (efines and describes the new water facilities that are required to accommodate forecasted growth within the entire OWD area, including the land uses that are part of the project. Construction associated with the forecasted growth could result in significant impacts. OWD typically requires developers, at a planning level, to prepare a Sub -Area Master Plan for a specific development project to assure consistency with the WRMP. This document defines and describes all the water system facilities to be constructed to provide an acceptable and adequat level of service to the proposed land uses. Financial responsibility of the facilities is also id other s plannin impacts sianifice There i level of water f� extent c Finding: tified. The OWD, through collection of water meter capacity fees, water rates, and irces of revenue, funds those facilities identified as CIP projects. Notwithstanding this effort, impacts associated with the construction of new or expanded facilities would be �d significant at this programmatic level of analysis because the extent of those I this time is too speculative to address. Therefore, direct impacts would be considered no mitigation contained in the 2005 PER or currently available at this programmatic Inalysis to address significant impacts associated with the construction or expansion of ;ilities. There is no mitigation available at this programmatic level of review because the improvements and/or the siting of water facility projects are too speculative at this time. 29 There i no feasible mitigation measure to reduce this impact to below significance. Implementation of the No Project -No Build would reduce this impact to below a level of significance. Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make these alternatives infeasible. This alternative would not achieve the objectives of the project as identified in Section 3.3 of the Final SEIR. Additional findings related to the project alternatives are discussed in Section XI, below. Because there are no applicable or feasible mitigation measures within the control of the City at this time to reduce noise impacts to below a level of significance, impacts to would remain significant and unmitigated. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Consideration will be required should the decision makers choose to approve the project. Impact: ew or expanded supplies Implementation of the project would place greater demands on the existing water supply than analyzed in the 2005 General Plan EIR for the Preferred Alternative, resulting in the potential need for additional water supplies. (Final SEIR Section 5.8.1.4, pages 303 through 305) As show in Table 5.8 -8 of the Final SEIR, the total increase in water usage associated with the project (after applying conservation measure reductions) would equate to 432,358 gallons per day (gpd). While future SPA plans could aim for greater percentage reductions, at this programmatic level of analysis the minimum required reductions are assumed. The 2005 General Ian EIR for the Preferred Alternative estimated total water demands within the Land Use Change Area to be 930,494 gpd. Adding the project's increased land use potential to this amount, total estimated water demands within the Land Use Change Area would be approxirr ately 1.4 million gpd. The 201 OWD UWMP, OWD WRMP, and the 2010 San Diego County Water Authority 2010 UWMP all include the demands of project, as well as other anticipated projects within the Otay Ranch G neral Development Plan area. While OWD will be required to certify the sufficiency of a reliable water supply primarily through the water assessment and verification process (SB -610 certification process), this generally occurs during the SPA level of planning. At this time, long- term water supply is not assured and contracts do not currently exist to sere the City through buildout of the project. Therefore, at this level of analysis, impacts associated with water supply would be significant. 5.8.1.6 -1 For any residential subdivision with 500 or more units or any commercial project of over 500,000 square feet, any CEQA compliance review shall include demonstration of compliance with the requirements of SB 610. 30 5.8.1. 2 For any residential subdivision with 500 or more units, any CEQA compliance review shall include demonstration of compliance with the requirements of SB 221. Findin While Mitigation Measures 5.8.1.6 -1 and 5.8.1.6 -2 are feasible and shall be required as a condition of approval and made binding on the applicant, they would not substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final SEIR. The water supply impact remains significant because there is no assurance that water supply will be available to adequately serve the projected increase in population resulting from the project. Only implementation of the No Project No Build alternative would reduce this impact to below a level of significance. Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make this alternative infeasible. Adoption of the No Project -No Build alterna ive would not achieve any of the objectives of the project as identified in Section 3.3 of the Final SEIR. Additional findings related to the project alternatives are discussed in Section XI, below. Because there are no applicable or feasible mitigation measures within the control of the City at this time to reduce emissions to below a level of significance, impacts to water supply would remain significant and unmitigated. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Consideration will be required should the decision makers choose to approve the project. X. CUMULATIVE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS & MITIGATION MEASURES Cumulative impacts are those which "are considered when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effect of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects" (Pub. Resources Code Section 21082.2 subd. (b)). These "current or probable future" development proposals can affect many of the same natural resources and public infrastructure as development of the project. Potentially significant cumulative impacts are associated with development of the project in conjunction with those projects specifically within the project area as shown on Figure 2 -1 of the SEIR. A detailed discussion of cumulative impacts is included in Section 6.0 of the SEIR. In form lating mitigation measures for the project, regional issues and cumulative impacts have been to en into consideration. Due to the programmatic nature of the analysis contained in the SEIR, most of the mitigation measures adopted for the cumulative impacts are the same as the "project level mitigation measures. The project, along with other related projects, will result in the follo ing irreversible cumulative environmental changes. 31 Impact� Landform Alteration/Visual Quality Section 6.0 of the SEIR included an analysis of cumulative impacts to landform alteration /visual resources. Implementation of the project would contribute to a cumulatively significant impact to the existing visual character of the project area. nation: The visual character of the project area would be affected by the project's contribution to the perma ent alteration of the existing rolling hills that characterize this portion of the City. res: Cumulative visual impacts related to the change in visual character of the project area would be reduced through implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.2.5 -1, as set out in Section 5.2.5 of the Final SEIR. This mitigation measure requires the preparation and submittal of grading and buildin plans that assure conformance to the landform grading guidelines contained in the City's c railing ordinance. Notwithstanding implementation of this mitigation measure, cumulative impacts related to a change in the visual character of the project area cannot be fully mitigated. Notwith standing implementation of this mitigation measure, cumulative impacts related to a change in the visual character of the project area cannot be fully mitigated. The only mitigation available for this impact is the No Project -No Build Alternative. However, this alternative would not meet the goals and objectives of the project as discussed in Section 3.3 of the EIR. Therefore, pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make this alternative infeasible. Additional findings related to the project alternatives are discussed in Section XI, below. Becau�e there are no applicable or feasible mitigation measures within the control of the City at this time to reduce cumulative visual impacts to below a level of significance, these impacts would emain significant and unmitigated. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Consideration will be required should the decision makers choose to approve the project. Impact: Traffic, Circulation and Access: Freeway Mainline and City of Chula Vista Sections 5.4.3.5 and 6.0 of the SEIR included an analysis of cumulative impacts to transportation. As shown in Tables 5.4 -13 and 5.4 -14 of the Final SEIR, one roadway segment within the City is projected to result in a cumulative traffic impact at buildout of the project. Additionally, as shown in Table 5.4 -15 of the Final SEIR, buildout of the project would result in signifi cumulative impacts to 16 freeway mainline segments. 32 Based on the peak hour intersection, segment and freeway analyses, the following cumulative impacts were identified under Year 2030 conditions: City of ghula Vista Roadway • Qtay Valley Road between SR -125 and Street "A" Freeway Mainline Segments 1 -805 • Olympic Parkway/ Orange Avenue to Main Street/Auto Park Dr • Olympic Parkway/ Orange Avenue to Main Street/Auto Park Dr • Main Street/Auto Park Drive to Palm Avenue • Palm Avenue to SR -905 • tay Valley Road to Lonestar Road • tay Valley Road to Lonestar Road • onestar Road to Otay Mesa Road SR -905 • 1 805 to Ocean View Hills Parkway • 1 805 to Ocean View Hills Parkway • Ocean View Hills Parkway to Heritage Road • Ocean View Hills Parkway to Heritage Road • Heritage Road to Britannia Boulevard • Heritage Road to Britannia Boulevard • Britannia Boulevard to La Media Road • Britannia Boulevard to La Media Road • La Media Road to SR -125 5.4.5.1- The City shall collect the appropriate RTCIP funds from the project (Freeway Mainline Segments). 5.4.5. 2 1T mitigate for the significant cumulative impact along Otay Valley Road between SR -125 and Street "A," the applicant shall increase the capacity of this segment to a 5 -Lane Major with three lanes traveling in the westbound direction with the number three lane serving as an auxiliary lane onto the SR -125 NB Ramp on -ramp and two lanes traveling in the eastbound direction, resulting in LOS D operations (City of Chula Vista Roadway Segment). 33 Pursua it to section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Specifically, Mitigation Measures 5.3.5.1 -1 and 5.4-5.2-1 are feasible and shall be required as a condition of approval and made binding on the applica t. Implementation of these measures will reduce significant cumulative impacts to freewa mainline segments and roadway segments within the City to less than significant levels. Traffic, Circulation and Access: City of San Diego Buildou of the project is anticipated to result in significant cumulative traffic impacts at three roadwa s segments within the City of San Diego. Based on the peak hour intersection, segment and freeway analyses, the following cumulative impacts were identified under Year 2030 conditions: City of �an Diego Roadways • Heritage Road between the City Boundary and Avenida de las Vistas • Heritage Road between Avenida de las Vistas and Datsun Street /Otay Valley Road • Heritage Road between Datsun Street/Otay Valley Road and Otay Mesa Road A 5.4.5.2- To mitigate for the significant cumulative impact along Heritage Road between the City Boundary and Otay Mesa Road, the applicant shall increase the capacity of this segment located in the City of San Diego to 6 -Lane Expressway standards. This would result in acceptable LOS D or better operations. Implem ntation of Mitigation Measure 5.4.5.2 -2 would reduce significant cumulative impacts to City of ran Diego roadway segments to below a level of significance. Implementation of this mitigation measure is the responsibility of the City of San Diego and outside the jurisdiction of the City. Therefore, pursuant to section 15091(a)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines, such change or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes can and should be adopted by such other agency; however, at this time, impacts would remain significant and unmitigable. Because there are no applicable or feasible mitigation measures within the control of the City at this tim to reduce emissions to below a level of significance impacts to air quality would remain 34 significa t and unmitigated. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Consideration will be required should the decision makers choose to approve the project. Impact: I Air Quality Section .0 of the SEIR included an analysis of cumulative impacts to air quality. The project is not consistent with the growth projections of the local regional air quality plan. Therefore, increased air emissions associated with the project's buildout would be cumulatively considerable when considered along with emissions associated with the other cumulative projects. i� Because the proposed land use changes would not be consistent with the adopted General Plan upon which the RAQS was based, the project would not conform to the current RAQS, and increased emissions would result in a significant cumulative impact. M Mitigation of this planning impact would require the updating of the RAQS. Finding; Revision of the RAQS would reduce this impact to less than significant. This is the responsibility of SANDAG and outside the jurisdiction of the City. Therefore, pursuant to section 15091(a)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines, such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdicti n of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes can and sho Id be adopted by such other agency; however, at this time, the impact would remain significa t and unmitigable. Because there are no applicable or feasible mitigation measures within the control of the City at this time to reduce emissions to below a level of significance, impacts to air quality would remain s gnificant and unmitigated. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Consideration will be required should the decision makers choose to approve the project. Impact: Air Quality Buildout of the project would result in air quality impacts associated with long -term operation. Once the project is built out, the major source of air pollution will be from project - related traffic. As discussed in Section 6.0 of the SEIR, cumulative impacts related to long -term mobile emissions would be significant. 35 While the project seeks to minimize air quality impacts by promoting mixed land use patterns, creating walkable neighborhoods as encouraged by the General Plan and General development Plan, implementation of the project would result in a cumulatively significant air quality impact. Mitioati n Measures- No miti ation is available to reduce this cumulatively significant impact to less than significant levels. Findi There is no feasible mitigation measure to reduce this impact to below significance. Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. While implementation of the No Project -No Build, No Project-No Change in Existing Plans, or Reduced Density alternative would reduce this impact compared to the project, it would not be to below a level of significance. This is due to the air basin's on- compliance with the criteria pollutant. Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. Adoption of the No Project-No Build alternative would not achieve any of the objectives of the project as identifie in Section 3.3 of the Final SEIR. Additional findings related to the project alternatives are disc ssed in Section XI, below. Because there are no applicable or feasible mitigation measures within the control of the City at this time to reduce emissions to below a level of significance, impacts to air quality would remain significant and unmitigated. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Consideration will be required should the decision makers choose to approve the project. Impact: (Utilities (Water) The project plus cumulative development would incrementally increase regional water consumption, resulting in a significant cumulative impact to water supply. n Although General Plan policies require adequate water supply, and larger projects would require conformance to SB 610 and SB 221, it is not possible to state conclusively at this programmatic level of a ialysis that sufficient water supplies would be available. 36 Mitigation Measure: There i no mitigation available at this programmatic level of review because the extent of improvements and/or the siting of water facility projects are too speculative at this time. There is no feasible mitigation measure to reduce this impact to below significance. Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the SEIR. Implementation of the No Project -No Build would reduce this impact o below a level of significance. Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelir es, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make these alternatives infeasible. This alternative would not achieve the objectives of the project as identifie J in Section 3.3 of the Final SEIR. Additional findings related to the project alternatives are disc issed in Section XI, below. Becaus there are no applicable or feasible mitigation measures within the control of the City at this time to reduce noise impacts to below a level of significance, impacts to would remain significant and unmitigated. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Consideration will be required should the decision makers choose to approve the project. XI. FEASIBILITY OF POTENTIAL PROJECT ALTERNATIVES Because the project will cause significant environmental effects, as outlined above, the City must consider the feasibility of any environmentally superior alternative to the project as finally approved. The City must evaluate whether one or more of these alternatives could avoid or substant'ally lessen the significant environmental effects. Where no significant environmental effects r main after application of all feasible mitigation measures identified in the EIR, the decision makers must still evaluate the project alternatives identified in the EIR. Under these circumst inces, CEQA requires findings on the feasibility of project alternatives. In gene feasibilit significa of mitig, feasibilit than tho the Unit Bureau , in preparing and adopting findings, a lead agency need not necessarily address when contemplating the approval of a project with significant impacts. Where the impacts can be mitigated to an acceptable (insignificant) level solely by the adoption on measures, the agency, in drafting its findings, has no obligation to consider the of environmentally superior alternatives, even if their impacts would be less severe of the projects as mitigated (Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of sity of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376 [253 Cal.Rptr. 426]; Laurel Hills Homeowners n v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515 [147 Cal.Rptr. 842]; Kings County Farm City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692 [270 Cal.Rptr. 650]). Accordingly, for this 37 project, in adopting the findings concerning project alternatives, the City Council considers only those environmental impacts that, for the finally approved project, are significant and cannot be avoided or substantially lessened through mitigation. If project alternatives are feasible, the decision makers must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations with regard to the project. If there is a feasible alternative to the project, the decisior makers must decide whether it is environmentally superior to the project. Proposed project alternatives considered must be ones that "could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project." However, the CEQA Guidelines also require an EIR to examine alternatives 11 capable of eliminating" environmental effects, even if these alternatives "would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives" (CEQA Guidelines, section 15126). The City has properly considered and reasonably rejected project alternatives as "infeasible" pursuan to CEQA. CEQA provides the following definition of the term "feasible" as it applies to the findings requirement: "feasible means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner Nithin a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors" (Pub. Resources Code, section 21061.1). The CEQA Guidelines provide a broader definition of "feasibility" that also encompasses "legal" factors. CEQA Guidelines section 15364 states, "the lack of legal powers of an agency to use in imposing an alternative or mitigation measure may be as great a limitation as any economic, environmental, social, or technological factor" (see also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 565 [276 Cal.Rptr.410]). Accordi gly, "feasibility" is a term of art under CEQA and thus may not be afforded a different meaning as may be provided by Webster's dictionary or any other sources. Moreover, Public Resources Code section 21081 governs the "findings" requirement under CEQA with regard to the feasibility of alternatives. Specifically, no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant effects on the environment that would occur if the project is approved or carried out unless the public agency m ekes one or more of the following findings: "Changes or alternations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substant ally lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR" (CEQA Guidelines, section 15091, subd. (a)(1)). "Such changes or alterations 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" (CEQA Guidelines, section 15091, s bd. (a)(2)). "Specifi employ project economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provisions of ent opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or ernatives identified in the final EIR" (CEQA Guidelines, section 15091, subd. (a)(3)). 38 The co cept of "feasibility" also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417 [183 Cal. Rptr. 898]). " `[F]easibility' under CEQA encompasses `desirability' to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balanci g of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors" (Ibid.; see also Se uoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4`h 704, 715 [29 Cal.Rpt .2d 182]). These findings contrast and compare the alternatives where appropriate in order to demonstrate that the selection of the finally approved project, while still resulting in significant environmental impacts has substantial environmental, planning, fiscal, and other benefits. In rejecting certain alternatives, the decision makers have examined the finally approved project objectives and weighed the ability of the various alternatives to meet objectives. The decision makers believe that the project best meets the finally approved project objectives with the least environmental impact. The det iled discussion in Section IX and Section X demonstrates that all but seven significant environmental effects of the project have been either substantially lessened or avoided through the imposition of existing policies or regulations or by the adoption of additional, formal mitigation measures recommended in the EIR. The remaining unmitigated impacts are the followin : • Lund Use (direct — inability to develop design standards at the programmatic level); • L andform Alterations /Aesthetics (direct and cumulative - change in visual character); • �nergy (cumulative — absence of long term assurance of energy supplies) • I ransportation (cumulative - three roadway segments within the City of San Diego) • it Quality (direct and cumulative — inconsistency with existing RAQS; operation - related l missions) • Boise (direct and cumulative — exposure to excessive noise) • tilities: Water Supply (direct and cumulative — absence of sufficient water supply to s rve the project) With respect to the East Planning Area of the Preferred Alternative, the 2005 PER also identifiec significant and unmitigated impacts for land use, landform alterations /visual quality, energy, ransportation (cumulative freeway segments), air quality, noise, and utilities (water). For eacl of the unmitigated impacts, the SEIR concluded that implementation of the project would n t increase the severity of impacts and would not change the conclusions reached by 39 the analysis contained in the 2005 PEIR. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was previously adopted by City Council for the 2005 PEIR, from which the project's SEIR tiers. Thus, the City can fully satisfy its CEQA obligations by determining whether any alternatives identified in the E EIR are both feasible and environmentally superior with respect to the impacts listed above ( aurel Hills, supra, 83 Cal.App.3d at 519 -527 [147 Cal. Rptr842]; Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 730 -731 [270 Cal. Rptr. 650]; and Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 400-403 [253 Cal. Rptr. 426]). Table 10 -2 in the SEIR (page 425) provides a summary table comparing each of the alternatives. As the following discussion will show, no identified alternati ve qualifies as both feasible and environmentally superior with respect to the unmitigated impacts. To fully account for these unavoidable significant effects and the extent to which particular alternatives might or might not be environmentally superior with respect to them, these findings will not ibcus solely on the impacts listed above, but may also address the environmental merits of the alternatives with respect to all broad categories of impacts — even though such a far - ranging discussion is not required by CEQA. The findings will also assess whether each alternate a is feasible in light of the City's objectives for the project. The City's review of project alternatives is guided primarily by the need to reduce potential impacts associated with the project, while still achieving the basic objectives of the project. Here, the City's primary objective is to comprehensively plan, coordinate, and implement development over a large area. More specific objectives include those previously listed in Section III. The City evaluated four alternatives to the project, which are discussed below (No Project- o Build Alternative, No Project -No Change in Existing Plan Alternative, Reduced Density Iternative, La Media Road Alternative). No Project-No Build Alternative CEQA uidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3)(B) states that the No Project —No Build Alternative "means no build' wherein the existing environmental setting is maintained." The No Project —No Build Alternative presents the scenario where the Land Use Change Area would remain in its present acant condition. Under t �ent No Project —No Build Alternative, the project site would remain as it is today, and no develop would occur. The project site would remain in its present vacant condition. The No Project—No Build Alternative would not allow for the development of the project area as identified in the City's General Plan or Otay Ranch GDP. With respect to the unmitigated impacts discussed in Section 5.0 of the SEIR, the No Project —No Build Alternative would not result in direct or cumulative impacts to land use, landform alteration /visual quality, energy, transpor ation, air quality, noise, or utilities (water). However, impacts to population and housing land us occur because the No Project —No Build Alternative would not contribute to the 40 provision of necessary housing within a smart - growth area as identified in the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP). Although the No Project —No Build Alternative is considered environmentally preferable to the project ecause it would eliminate all unmitigated direct and cumulative impacts, it would not accomp ish any of the goals and objectives of the project, and is therefore not feasible. The No roject —No Build Alternative would not meet any of the basic project objectives as listed in Secti n 3.3 of the SEIR, and in Section III of these Findings of Fact. The No Project —No Build Alternative would not provide housing, conflicting with the housing goals of the General Plan, which recommends that housing be provided for all income groups. It also co flicts with the RCP, which identified this portion of the City for smart - growth planning. Retention of the project site in its existing state would be inconsistent with the approved GPU and exi ting Otay Ranch GDP land use designations for the site. In addition, under this alternati e, key amendments to the City's Circulation Plan -East would not be implemented. Retentio of the site in its current vacant condition would not implement the goals of the General Plan and would require re- evaluation of the existing Otay Ranch GDP. In addition to changes in land usE designations for the Land Use Change Area, the project proposes amendments to General Plan and GDP policies focused on promoting comprehensive uses within the GDP area includinc the provision of roads, parks, schools, water and sewer facilities, and other infrastructure. The reduction in dwelling units within the Otay Ranch GDP area resulting from implementation of the No Project —No Build Alternative would result in a loss of anticipated contributions into the City's development impact fee programs from the dwelling units /structures that would otherwise have made payments upon issuance of building permits. The loss of units under the No Project —No Build Alternative would result in a shortfall of contributions into these impact f e programs and potentially lead to insufficient funding for the remaining public facilities currently identified under these programs. The City would receive lower long -term revenues in the form of property and sales tax resulting from the non - development of the proposed residential areas. Implementation of the No Project —No Build Alternative would not achieve any of the objectives established for the project. Although this alternative would at least temporarily preserve land which is currently not developed, it would amount to a failure to plan the site for eventual development, despite the planned community designation contemplated by the General Plan GDP. The No roject —No Build Alternative is inconsistent with the City's objectives: to plan the project area in a comprehensive manner in a way that deals with the logical extension of public services 41 and utilities; to plan for parks and open space to serve residents; to complete the City's circulation; to create densities sufficient to pay for all required services and infrastructure and to encourage employment opportunities within the City. The alternative also fails to meet objectives favoring an accommodation of future projected population in an area reasonable close to future job - growth areas within the City, as well as the construction of affordable housing consiste t with the City's goals. It also fails to implement to previously approved Otay Ranch GDP. For the e reasons, the City Council concludes that No Project —No Build Alternative is not feasible (see City of Del Mar, supra, 133 Cal.App3d at 417; Sequoyah Hills, supra, 23 Cal. pp.4`h at 715). No Project —No Change in Existing Plans Alternative CEQA Guidelines 15126.6(e)(3)(A) states that when a project is the revision of an existing land use or regulatory plan, policy, or ongoing operation, the "no project" alternative will be the continuation of the existing plan, policy, or operation into the future. The No roject —No Change in Existing Plans Alternative considers the situation where there are no chan es to the City's land use plans and subsequent development projects within the Land Use Change Area portion of the project site. Because the land uses proposed in the 2005 GPU were de erred, this alternative is comprised of the land use plan that existed prior to the 2005 GPU. T iis land use plan is depicted in Figure 10 -1 of the SEIR. Impact The No Project —No Change in Existing Plans Alternative would reduce the available housing within the Land Use Change Area by 4,752 dwelling units compared to the project. This reduction in available housing within the project area would reduce the ability of the City to meet the RCP smart- growth projections. The inconsistency with regional planning would result in potential y significant impacts to land use and population and housing to a greater degree than the proj ct. The dev lopment under this alternative would result in visual quality impacts similar to the project. While reduced in degree, construction of this alternative would still result in the loss of open space and rolling hills, representing a significant and unmitigated impact. Air quali y impacts associated with the No Project —No Change in Existing Plans Alternative would bE reduced because of decreased density and intensity of uses compared to the project. Addition Ily, short -term air quality impacts associated with construction would be slightly reduced. Overall, however, air quality impacts would remain significant and unmitigated due to the alter ative's conflict with the existing RAQS. 42 Althoug it would require less water to serve its projected population, impacts associated with waters pply would remain significant and unmitigated. The traf is analysis conducted for the project indicated that No Project —No Change in Existing Plans Alternative would result in approximately 58,173 ADT fewer than the project. While creating less traffic on the local roadways, this alternative would still result in potentially significant cumulative impacts to City roadway and freeway segments. Becaus this No Project —No Change in Existing Plans Alternative would result in less intense and less dense land uses than the project, traffic noise and change in ambient noise would be less because traffic volumes would not increase to the same extent as the project. As shown in Figure 0 -1, residential land uses under would still be located in proximity to noise generating surroun ing sources, such as the SR -125. Therefore, while less than the project, noise impacts would b potentially significant. The No Project —No Change in Existing Plans Alternative would reduce impacts to landfor /visual quality, transportation, air quality, noise, and utilities (water). However, while slightly reduced, landformlvisual quality and air quality impacts would remain significant and unmitig ted. Impacts to land use and housing and population would be greater than the project. While t e alternative would implement some of the project's objectives, the following objectives would n t be met with this alternative: • Foster the goal of the 2005 GPU to expand the local economy by providing a broad range of businesses, facilitate provision of services for a university, provide employment and housing opportunities that support an excellent standard of living, and improve the ability for residents to live and work locally. • Create Town Center within newly defined boundaries for Village 8 West and Village 9, as encouraged by the GPU's emphasis on providing a mix of diverse land uses that meets community needs. • Dev:nsit op a circulation plan that de- emphasizes the automobile, and places greater reliance on t and pedestrian circulation. • Target higher- density and higher- intensity development into specific focus areas in order to prot ct stable residential neighborhoods and to create mixed -use urban environments that are oriented to transit and pedestrian activity. This targeted development will be well - designed, compatible with adjacent areas, and contribute to the continued vitality of the City's economy. • Allo for higher- density residential development in order to encourage the development of off- ampus student housing within the University Town Center adjacent to the university. 43 • Provide opportunities for higher density development that accommodates off -site student and acuity housing for the university. • Pro �niversity de opportunities for goods and services and other ancillary uses necessary to support the and RTP to be provided within Planning Area 10. The No Project —No Change in Existing Plans Alternative results in a lower- density and much less intense development than is the project. The project includes a total of 6,050 residential units, wile this alternative includes only 1,298 units. This alternative was designed primarily with Re idential Low Medium and Mixed Use residential designations, rather than the more intense evelopment of the project. It also does not place as much residential use in the Town Centers as envisioned in the project's General Plan and GDP amendments. It does not achieve the primary objective of these plan amendments to foster the development of a University Village which will support the future university anticipated to be located adjacent to the Project on property that will be owned by the City within the University Site /Planning Area 10. In addition it limits the objective of de emphasizing the automobile, and placing greater reliance on transit and pedestrian circulation. Therefore, pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make this alternative infeasible. Reduceld Density Alternative The intention of the Reduced Density Alternative is reduce traffic impacts, as well as potential noise arid air quality impacts associated with SR -125. It order to create such a plan, dwelling units closest to SR -125 would be eliminated. For this alternative, 417 multi - family residential units located primarily along the western boundary of Village 9, closest to SR -125, are removed from the land use plan. The details of this alternative are discussed in Section 10.3 of the SEIR. Impact Development under the Reduced Density Alternative would reduce the amount of housing available within the SPA Plan area by 417 units relative to the project. This would reduce the ability of the City to meet projected housing needs as shown in SANDAG forecasts and in the Growth Management Plan. Additionally, this alternative would result in a lower density ring surrounding a proposed Town Center, creating a conflict with proposed GDP policies. This alternate e's inconsistency with regional and local planning would result in a potentially significa t impact to land use and population and housing a greater degree than the project. While the Reduced Density Alternative would result in the construction of a less dense community, any degree of development would result in a change to the existing aesthetic make up and visual quality of the project site. While the degree of impact would be less as a result of 44 the less e ned development potential under this alternative, the loss of the open space and rolling hills wou d still remain significant unmitigated. While e issions of criteria pollutants under this alternative would be reduced compared to the project, he Reduced Density Alternative would not conform to the existing RAQS. Impacts associated with air quality plan implementation would be significant and unmitigable. Althoug it would require less energy and water to serve its projected population, impacts associat d with energy and water supply would remain significant and unmitigated due to the uncertai ty of available supply. The Reduced Density Alternative would result in a reduction of 3,125 ADT on roadways resulting in a reduction of direct and cumulative impacts as compared to the project. Although this alternative would not eliminate significant freeway impacts, impacts to traffic resulting from the Reduced Density Alternative would be less than the project. Likewise, because this alternate a would remove homes from the noise contour along the SR -125, the number of units affected Iby traffic noise would be also reduced. Findin The Rec uced Density Alternative would reduce the degree of impacts to landformlvisual quality, air quali y, noise, energy, and water supply; impacts would remain significant and unmitigated. Impacts to land use and housing and population that would be greater than the project. Impacts resulting from traffic generation and traffic noise would be reduced. While th alternative would implement some of the project's objectives, the following objectives would n t be met with this alternative: • Develop a circulation plan that de-emphasizes the automobile, and places greater r liance on mass transit and pedestrian circulation. • Target higher- density and higher- intensity development into specific focus areas in order t protect stable residential neighborhoods and to create mixed -use urban environments t iat are oriented to transit and pedestrian activity. This targeted development will be well esigned, compatible with adjacent areas, and contribute to the continued vitality of the ity's economy; low for higher density residential development in order to encourage the development off - campus student housing within the University Town Center (Village 9) and the astern Urban Center adjacent to the university; • �rovide opportunities for higher density development that accommodate off -site student nd faculty housing for the university; 45 The Rec uced Density Alternative results in a less dense development compared to the project. The pro ect includes a total of 6,050 residential units, while this alternative would provide 5,633 ur its. This alternative was designed to reduce density along the SR -125 contour. While this wou d reduce potentially significant traffic generation and noise impacts, it does not place as much residential use in the Town Center areas. It therefore limits the objective of reducing reliance on the automobile and promotion of a walkable community. In addition, by reducing density, the Reduced Density Alternative does not fulfill the objectives associated with building a high de sity community providing interactive opportunities including economics, pedestrian mobility, and university support. Therefore, pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make this alternate a infeasible. La Media Road Alternative The La Media Road Alternative would comprise the same land use plan as the project. However, where the project includes an amendment to the City's Circulation Element that will result in La Media Road terminating at Otay Valley Road, this alternative examines the effect of maintaining La Media Road as currently planned. Impact Like the project, the La Media Road Alternative would result in significant and unmitigable impacts associated with community character due to lack of design guidelines at this level of review. Construction of La Media Road as currently depicted on the City's Circulation Element would result in greater land use and aesthetic /visual quality impacts due to the required disrupti n of additional land uses, especially through preserve land. The long-term energy and water supply needs of the La Media Road Alternative would be the same as the project, resulting in significant and unmitigated impacts due to the uncertainty of energy and water supplies. Construction of the road extension under this alternative would also result in an additional short -term increase in energy demand compared to the project. The alternative would not conform to existing RAQs resulting in a significant and unmitigable impact associated with its failure to conform to the existing plan. Construction of the road extension would result in increased emissions of criteria pollutants during construction compared to the project. As planned, La Media Road would serve as a parallel route to 1 -805 and Heritage Road to the west, and SR -125 to the east. With the project's deletion of this roadway, 65,000 trips expected in the cumulative condition would be rerouted to alternative roads, resulting in those potential impact discussed in Section 5.4 of the SEIR. The construction of the extension, as proposed in this alt rnative, would result in greater direct impacts to La Media Road than the project becaus the extension would allow more vehicles to utilize this roadway as an alternate route to 46 Heritag due to result it project. Road or SR -125. Additionally, it would operate at a LOS F in the cumulative condition le expected increase in traffic along this roadway. Therefore, this alternative would cumulative traffic impacts to La Media Road, an impact that would not occur under the The La edia Road Alternative would result in greater short -term noise impacts than the project due to construction activity required to build the road extension. Additionally, the increase in ADTs along La Media Road segment could increase noise levels for future residents. Therefore, noise irr pacts associated with the road extension would be greater than the project's. The La Media Road Alternative would not result in the lessening of any potentially significant impacts On the contrary, greater impacts would occur to most issue areas. While all project objectives would be met under this alternative, it fails to yield reduced impacts. Therefore, pursua t to section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technoI gical, or other considerations make this alternative infeasible. Environmentally Superior Alternative CEQA requires that an EIR identify the environmentally superior alternative among all of the alternatives considered, including the project. If any No Project alternative is selected as environmentally superior, then the EIR is required to identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. The E comp No Pr comp City's The RE due to inmental analysis of project alternatives presented in the SEIR indicates, through a n of potential impacts from each of the proposed alternative and the project, that the —No Build Alternative would result in the greatest reduction in environmental impacts to the project. However, the No Project —No Build Alternative would not implement the eral Plan, the Otay Ranch GDP, or any project objectives. ced Density Alternative would be considered the environmentally superior alternative potential for reducing impacts while meeting most of the objectives of the Project. 47 MI. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The project would have significant, unavoidable impacts on the following areas, described in detail in Section IX of these Findings of Fact: • I and Use • 1 andform Alterations /Aesthetics • Energy Resources • Transportation • Air Quality • Noise • Water Supply The City has adopted all feasible mitigation measures with respect to these impacts. Although in some instances these mitigation measures may substantially lessen these significant impacts, adoption of the measures will, for many impacts, not fully avoid the impacts. Moreover, the City has examined a reasonable range of alternatives to the project. Based on this examination, the City has determined that none of the alternatives: (1) meets project objectives, and (2) is environmentally preferable to the project. As a result, to approve the project, the City must adopt a "statement of overriding considerations" pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15043 and 15093. This provision allows a lead agency to cite a project's general economic, social, or other benefits as a justification for choosin 3 to allow the occurrence of specified significant environmental effects that have not been avoided. The provision explains why, in the agency's judgment, the project's benefits outweig i the unavoidable significant effects. Where another substantive law (e.g., the California Clean it Act, the Federal Clean Air Act, or the California and Federal Endangered Species Acts) prohibits the lead agency from taking certain actions with environmental impacts, a statement of overriding considerations does not relieve the lead agency from such prohibitions. Rather, the decision -maker has recommended mitigation measures based on the analysis contain d in the Final SEIR, recognizing that other resource agencies have the ability to impose I st ingent standards or measures. 48 CEQA coes not require lead agencies to analyze "beneficial impacts" in an EIR. Rather, EIRs are to locus on potential "significant effects on the environment," defined to be "adverse." (Pub. Resources Code Section 21068.) The Legislature amended the definition to focus on 11 advers " impacts after the California Supreme Court had held that beneficial impacts must also be addressed (See, Wildlife Alive v. Chickening (1976) 18 Cal.3d 190, 206 [132 Cal.Rptr. 377]). Nevertheless, decision - makers benefit from information about project benefits. These benefits can be cited, if necessary, in a statement of overriding considerations (CEQA Guidelines Section 15093). The Cit .finds that the project would have the following substantial benefits. Any one of the reasons for approval cited below is sufficient to justify approval of the project. Thus, even if a court were to conclude that not every reason is supported by substantial evidence, the City Council would stand by its determination that each individual reason is sufficient. The substantial evidence supporting the various benefits can be found in the preceding findings, which are incorporated by reference into this Section, and in the documents found in the Record of Proceedings, as defined in Section IV. Planning and Development The Ot y Ranch area contributes to air pollution in the San Diego air basin. Most of this pollutior is attributable to motor vehicles. The proposed amendments to the General Plan and GDP policies, along with the proposed changes to existing land use designations contained within the project, are designed to minimize reliance on automobile travel and reduce commuter trip leng h, thereby reducing pollutant contributions to regional air quality. The pro ect site has been designated as a smart - growth area in the RCP and in SANDAGs regional growth maps. The GDP provides the opportunity to comprehensively plan development that me is the community needs for a high - density, high- intensity, mixed -use development within the proposed villages. As part of the GDP, the project enforces visions for a multi -modal transportation network that minimizes the number and length of single - passenger vehicle trips, promoting interrelationships between villages and neighboring planning areas. The project is designed to support policies encouraging walking, biking, use of transit, and reduced reliance on automo iles. Jobs, homes, schools, parks, and commercial centers are close by and linked by pedestri n and bicycle routes. Regional Planning The pro ' ect site has been designated as a smart - growth area in the RCP and in SANDAGs regional growth maps identifying the region's needs for housing, jobs, and infrastructure. These benefits area made possible by Otay Ranch's size and scope. The Otay Ranch GDP includes a provision for regional purpose facilities and public services that area typically not undertaken for smaller evelopment projects allowing the project to support these regionally planned programs. 49 The prof c would develop a mix of uses that will result in Town Centers focused on regionally serving ra nt and ancillary support for a regionally serving university site. Needs The project would help meet projected long -term regional needs for housing by providing a wide variety of housing types and prices. In recent years, the cost of housing compared to other uses (e.g., commercial, industrial) has risen disproportionately to the cost of other uses in the Otay Ranch ;ea, reflecting a shortfall in residentially zoned land. The project would help reduce the cost of using by designating an adequate supply of suitable land for residential development. The project increases the housing stock in the City by approximately 6,050 dwelling units, 880 units above the 2005 GPU Preferred Alternative. The project represents a future housing supply f r the region. Phasing will occur in response to market conditions, which will help fulfill the demand for housing. Both the RCP and SANDAG have forecasted a need for increased dwelling units within the project area. The project will enact SANDAG policies by providing a pedestrian and trail system, preservi g open space, offering new homes, increasing the tax base for the City, and providing right-of-way for the regional transit system. 50 AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN (GPA- 09 -01) AND OTAY RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PCM- 09 -11) MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM I Exhibit B This mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) was prepared for the Amendments to the City of Chula Vista (City) General Plan (General Plan Amendment [GPA]- 09 -01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM- 09 -11) to comply with Public Resources Code section 21081.6, which requires public agencies to adopt such programs to ensure effective implementation of mitigation measures. This monitoring program is dynamic in that it will u dergo changes as additional mitigation measures are identified and additional conditions of a proval are placed on the project throughout the project approval process. Pursuant to Public R sources Code section 21081.6(a)(2), the City of Chula Vista designates the Environment iew Coordinator and the City Clerk as the custodians of the documents or their material ch constitute the record of proceedings upon which its decision is based. T is monitoring program will serve a dual purpose of verifying completion of the mitigation ic entified in the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) and generating information o i the effectiveness of the mitigation measures to guide future decisions. The program includes following: Monitor qualifications Specific monitoring activities Reporting system Criteria for evaluating the success of the mitigation measures Tie project includes a GPA and Otay Ranch General Development Plan Amendment resulting in p licy, circulation, and land use changes affecting the lands within the Project Area. The Project Area is an approximately 1,281 -acre area within the Otay Ranch Subarea of the City's Eastern Planning Area that spans multiple existing villages and planning areas, including portions of illages 4 and 7; the entirety of Village 8 and Village 9; University /Planning Area 10, which ir cludes a proposed 85 -acre Regional Technology Park (RTP); and a portion of the southern edge the Eastern Urban Center (EUC). he Proposed Project will redefine the boundaries within the General Development Plan area to ,eate proposed Villages 8 West and 9 and add 85 acres of RTP within the existing University ite. The 728 acres of land that comprise the proposed villages and RTP are referred to as the _and Use Change Area." Proposed land use designation changes would affect only the Land Use hange Area. The project would re- designate land uses only within the Land Use Change Area. Proposed Project is described in the SEIR text. The SEIR, incorporated herein as referenced, )cused on issues determined to be potentially significant by the City. The issues addressed in ie SEIR include land use, landform alteration /visual quality, energy resources, transportation, it quality, noise, public services, public utilities, housing and population, and global climate range. The environmental analysis concluded that for all of the environmental issues iscussed, some of the significant and potentially significant impacts could be avoided or educed through implementation of recommended mitigation measures. Potentially significant npacts requiring mitigation were identified for land use, landform alteration /visual quality, nergy resources, transportation, air quality, noise, and public utilities (water). Land use npacts, while concluded to be significant, are not included in the MMRP because there are no !asible mitigation measures available at the level of programmatic review that would serve to uce or avoid impacts. ublic Resources Code section 21081.6 requires monitoring of only those impacts identified as gnificant or potentially significant. The monitoring program for the Proposed Project therefore the impacts associated with only the issue areas identified above. mtorine ieam monitoring activities would be accomplished by individuals identified in the attached MMRP e. While specific qualifications should be determined by the City, the monitoring team uld possess the following capabilities: Interpersonal, decision - making, and management skills with demonstrated experience in working under trying field circumstances; Knowledge of and appreciation for the general environmental attributes and special features found in the project area; Knowledge of the types of environmental impacts associated with construction of cost - effective mitigation options; and Excellent communication skills. 2 m Procedural Guidelines rior to any construction activities, meetings should take place between all the parties involved initiate the monitoring program and establish the responsibility and authority of the articipants. Mitigation measures that need to be defined in greater detail will be addressed rior to any project plan approvals in follow -up meetings designed to discuss specific monitoring In addition to the list of mitigation measures, the monitors will have mitigation monitoring r port (MMR) forms, with each mitigation measure written out on the top of the form. Below tie stated mitigation measure, the form will have a series of questions addressing the e ectiveness of the mitigation measure. The monitors shall complete the MMR and file it with t e Mitigation Monitor following the monitoring activity. The Mitigation Monitor will then include the conclusions of the MMR into an interim and final comprehensive construction report to be submitted to the City. This report will describe the major accomplishments of the monitoring program, summarize problems encountered in achieving the goals of the program, evaluate solutions developed to overcome problems, and provide a list of recommendations for future monitoring programs. In addition, and if appropriate, each Environmental Monitor or Environmental Specialist will be required to fill out and submit a daily log report to the Mitigation Monitor. The daily log report will be used to record and account for the monitoring activities of the monitor. Weekly and /or monthly status reports, as determined appropriate, will be generated from the daily logs and compliance reports and will include supplemental material (i.e., memoranda, telephone logs, and letters). This type of feedback is essential for the City to confirm the implementation and effectiveness of the mitigation measures imposed the project. in Case of Noncom ere are generally three separate categories of noncompliance associated with the adopted ns of approval: Noncompliance requiring an immediate halt to a specific task or piece of equipment; Infraction that warrants an immediate corrective action, but does not result in work or task delay; and Infraction that does not warrant immediate corrective action and results in no work or task delay. 3 e are a number of options the City may use to enforce this program should noncompliance inue. Some methods commonly used by other lead agencies include "stop work" orders, and penalties (civil), restitution, permit revocations, citations, and injunctions. It is ntial that all parties involved in the program understand the authority and responsibility of on -site monitors. Decisions regarding actions in case of noncompliance are the ponsibility of the City. MMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ie following table summarizes the potentially significant project impacts and lists the sociated mitigation measures and the monitoring efforts necessary to ensure that the easures are properly implemented. All the mitigation measures identified in the EIR are commended as conditions of project approval and are stated herein in language appropriate r such conditions. In addition, once the City General Plan Update has been approved, and firing various stages of implementation the City will further refine the mitigation measures. 4 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measures Time Frame of Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Agency LANDFORM ALTERATIONIVISUAL QUALITY At this level of programmatic review, the The following mitigation measure, as identified in the GPU Prior to the approval of Sectional City of Chula Vista Proposed Project does not include a EIR, and would apply to future development within the Planning Area (SPA) Plans. (CCV) mechanism to assure the implementation project area: of design guidelines required to promote 5.2.5 -1 Within the East Planning Area, prior to approval of protection of the visual character of the grading plans, the applicant shall prepare grading project area. Therefore, direct and and building plans that conform to the landform cumulative impacts associated with visual grading guidelines contained in the grading resources would be significant. ordinance, Otay Ranch GDP, and General Plan. The plans shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services and the City Engineer. These plans and guidelines shall provide the following that serve to reduce the aesthetic impacts: • A landscape design that addresses streetscapes, provides landscape intensity zones, greenbelt edge treatments, and slope treatment for erosion control. • Grading concepts that ensure manufactured slopes that are contoured and blend and mimic with adjacent natural slopes. • Landscaping concepts that provide for a transition fi-om the manicured appearance of developed areas to the natural landscape in open space areas. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (continued) Monitoring Reporting Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measures Time Frame of Mitigation Agency LANDFORM ALTERATIONIVISUAL QUALITY (cont.) • Landscaping concepts that include plantings selected to frame and maintain views. Notwithstanding implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.2.5 -1, until future SPA Plans are approved, direct and cumulative impacts would remain unmitigated. ENERGY RESOURCES At this level of programmatic review, The following mitigation measure, as identified in the GPU Prior to approval of SPA Plans CCV the Proposed Project does not include EIR, would apply to future development within the project the long -term assurance that energy area: supplies will be available as needed. 5.8.5 -1 Continued focus on the Energy Strategy and Action Therefore, direct and cumulative Plan, which addresses demand side management, impacts associated with energy energy efficient and renewable energy outreach consumption are considered significant. programs for businesses and residents, energy acquisition, power generation, and distributed energy resources and legislative actions, and continuing implementation of the COz Reduction Plan will lessen the impacts from energy. Notwithstanding implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.8.5 -1, until future SPA Plans identify reliable energy resources are available to adequately serve individual projects, direct and cumulative impacts could remain unmitigated. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (continued) Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measures Time Frame of Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Agency TRANSPORTATION - Direct Impacts Direct Impacts Prior to the issuance of building CCV pen-nits. Under Year 2030 conditions, direct Freeway SegInews traffic impacts would occur along the The following is recommended to mitigate the potentially following segments: significant impacts to freeway segments: Freeway Segment Operations 5.4.5.1 -1 The City of Chula Vista shall collect the I -805 between appropriate Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program funds from the Proposed • Olympic Parkway /Orange Project. Avenue to Main Street/Auto Park Drive Main Street/Auto Park Drive to Palm Avenue SR -905 between • 1 -805 to Ocean View Hills Parkway • Britannia Boulevard to La Media Road MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (continued) Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measures Time Fraine of Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Agency TRANSPORTATION (cont.) Cumulative Impacts Cumulative Impacts Prior to the issuance of building CCV Under Year 2030 conditions, Roadway Segments permits. significant cumulative traffic impacts The following is recommended to mitigate the significant would occur as follows: cumulative impacts in the City: Segment Operations (City of Chula 5.4.5.2 -1 To initigate for the significant cumulative impact Vista) along Otay Valley Road between SR -125 and • Otay Valley Road between SR- Street "A," the applicant shall increase the capacity 125 and Street "A" of this segment to a 5 -Lane Major with three lanes traveling in the westbound direction, with the Segment Operations (City of San number three lane serving as an auxiliary lane onto Diego) the SR -125 NB Ramp on -ramp and two lanes • Heritage Road between the City traveling in the eastbound direction, resulting in Boundary and Avenida de las _ LOS D operations. Vistas Implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.4.5.2 -1 identified • Heritage Road between Avenida above would reduce significant cumulative impacts to CCV de las Vistas and Datsun roadway segments to below a level of significance. Street/Otay Valley Road • Heritage Road between Datsun Street /Otay Valley Road and Otay Mesa Road MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (continued) Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measures Time Frame of Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Agency TRANSPORTATION (coat.) Freeway Mainline Operations 5.4.5.2 -2 To mitigate for the significant cumulative impact NA City of San Diego 1 -805 along Heritage Road between the City Boundary and Otay Mesa Road, the applicant shall increase • Olympic Parkway /Orange the capacity of this segment located in the City of Avenue to Main Street/Auto Park San Diego to 6 -Lane Expressway standards. This Drive would result in acceptable LOS D or better operations. e Olympic Parkway /Orange Avenue to Main Street/Auto Park The improvements required to mitigate the impacts along Drove Heritage Road fall within the jurisdiction of the City of San Diego which has a plan for funding and implementation of the • Main Street/Auto Park Drive to facility. Because the improvements cannot be assured at the Palm Avenue time of need, the mitigation measure is considered infeasible. • Palm Avenue to SR -905 Freeway Segments SR -125 Implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.4.5.1 -1, above, • Otay Valley Road to Lonestar Would also apply to cumulative freeway impacts. Road • Otay Valley Road to Lonestar Road • Lonestar Road to Otay Mesa Road MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (continued) Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measures Time Frame of Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Agency TRANSPORTATION (cont.) SR-905 • 1 -805 to Ocean View Hills Parkway • 1 -805 to Ocean View Hills Parkway • Ocean View Hills Parkway to Heritage Road • Ocean View Hills Parkway to Heritage Road • Heritage Road to Britannia Boulevard • Heritage Road to Britannia Boulevard • Britannia Boulevard to La Media Road • Britannia Boulevard to La Media Road • La Media Road to SR -125 10 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (continued) Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measures Time Frame of Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Agency TRANSPORTATION (cont.) Existing + Project Impacts Application of the City's Growth Management Program The following seven roadway segment would apply. In the event the GMO threshold is reached, the impacts were calculated in the Existing following mitigation measure has been identified: + Project condition: • Olympic Parkway between I -805 and 5.4.5.3 -1 Prior to the issuance of the building permit for the Brandywine Avenue 2,463rd dwelling unit for development east of I - - Olympic Parkway between 805 (commencing from April 4, 201 1), the Brandywine Avenue and Heritage applicant may: Road /Paseo Ranchero a. Prepare a traffic study that demonstrates, to • Olympic Parkway between Heritage the satisfaction of the City Engineer, that the Road /Paseo Ranchero and La Media circulation system has additional capacity Road without exceeding the GMO traffic threshold standards; or • Olympic Parkway between La Media b. Demonstrate that other improvements are Road and SR -125 constructed which provide the additional • Birch Road between La Media Road necessary capacity to comply with the GMO and SR -125 traffic threshold to the satisfaction of the City • La Media Road between Olympic Engineer; or Parkway and Birch Road c. Agree to the City Engineer's selection of an alternative method of maintaining GMO • Eastlake Parkway between Birch traffic threshold compliance; or Road and Hunte Parkway 11 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (continued) Potential Significant Irnpact Mitigation Measures Time Frame of Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Agency TRANSPORTATION (cont.) d. Enter into agreement, approved by the City, with other Otay Ranch developers that alleviates congestion and achieves GMO traffic threshold compliance for Olympic Parkway. The Agreement will identify the deficiencies in transportation infrastructure that will need to be constructed, the parties that will construct said needed infrastructure, a timeline for such construction, and provides assurances for construction, in accordance with the City's customary requirements, for said infrastructure. If GMO compliance cannot be achieved through la, b, c or d above, then the City may, in its sole discretion, stop issuing new building permits within the Project Area after building permits for 2,463 dwelling units have been issued for any development east of 1 -805 after April 4, 201 1, until such time that GMO traffic threshold standard compliance can be assured to the satisfaction of the City Manager. These measures shall constitute full compliance with growth management objectives and policies in accordance with the requirements of the General Plan, Chapter 10 with regard to traffic thresholds set forth in the GMO. 12 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (continued) Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measures Time Frame of Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Agency AIR QUALITY While the Proposed Project seeks to The following mitigation measure, as identified in the GPU Prior to issuance of Grading CCV minimize air quality impacts by EIR, would apply to future development within the project Permits. promoting mixed land use patterns area: creating walkable neighborhoods as 5.6.5 -1 Mitigation of PM 10 impacts requires active dust encouraged by the General Plan, control during construction. As a matter of standard implementation of the Proposed Project practice, the City shall require the following standard would result in a significant direct and construction measures during construction to the cumulative air quality impact due to the extent applicable: Proposed Project's inconsistency with existing Regional Air Quality 1. All unpaved construction areas shall be Standards. sprinkled with water or other acceptable San Diego APCD dust control agents during dust - generating activities to reduce dust emissions. Additional watering or acceptable APCD dust control agents shall be applied during dry weather or windy days until dust emissions are not visible. 2. Trucks hauling dirt and debris shall be properly covered to reduce windblown dust and spills. 3. A 20 -mile- per -hour speed limit on unpaved surfaces shall be enforced. 13 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (continued) Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measures Time Frame of Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Agency AIR QUALITY (cont.) 4. On dry days, dirt and debris spilled onto paved surfaces shall be swept up immediately to reduce resuspension of particulate matter caused by vehicle movement. Approach routes to construction sites shall be cleaned daily of construction - related dirt in dry weather. 5. On -site stockpiles of excavated material shall be covered or watered. 6. Disturbed areas shall be hydroseeded, landscaped, or developed as quickly as possible and as directed by the City and /or APCD to reduce dust generation. 7. To the maximum extent feasible: Heavy -duty construction equipment with modified combustion /fuel injection systems for emissions control shall be utilized during grading and construction activities; Catalytic reduction for gasoline- powered equipment shall be used. 8. Equip construction equipment with prechamber diesel engines (or equivalent) together with proper maintenance and operation to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxide, to the extent available and feasible. 14 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (continued) Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measures Time Frame of Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Agency AIR QUALITY (cont.) _9. Electrical construction equipment shall be used to the extent feasible. 10. The simultaneous operations of multiple construction equipment units shall be minimized (i.e., phase construction to minimize impacts). Notwithstanding implementation of the mitigation measure above, until future SPA Plans identify a reliable water supply to adequately serve individual projects, direct and cumulative impacts would remain unmitigated. 15 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (continued) Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measures Time Frame of Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Agency PUBLIC UTILITIES At this level of programmatic review, it The following mitigation measures, as identified in the GPU Prior to approval of future SPA CCV is not possible to state conclusively that EIR, would apply to future development within the project Plans. sufficient water supplies would be area: available to serve the increased population facilitated by adoption of the Proposed Project. Therefore, direct and 5.14.1.6 -1 For any residential subdivision with 500 or more cumulative impacts would be units or any commercial project of over 500,000 significant. square feet, any CEQA compliance review shall include demonstration of compliance with the requirements of SB 610. 5.14.1.6 -2 For any residential subdivision with 500 or more units, any CEQA compliance review shall include demonstration of compliance with the requirements of SB 22 1. Notwithstanding implennentation of the mitigation measures above, direct and cumulative impacts would remain unmitigated. 16 Attachment 2 was previously provided to The Planning Commission Attachment 3 RESOLUTION NO. 2012 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CERTIFYING THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SEIR 09- 01 /SCH 2004081066) FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN (GPA- 09 -01) AND OTAY RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PCM- 09 -11); MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS OF FACT; ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS; AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT WHEREAS, Otay Land Company LLC, submitted applications requesting gal of amendments to the Chula Vista General Plan and Otay Ranch General )pment Plan ( "Project ") that will reconfigure existing Otay Ranch village aries, increase residential densities, amend the General Plan Circulation Element in 1 Chula Vista, and establish an 85 acre regional technology park (RTP) on the university site; and WHEREAS, in December 2005, the City adopted a comprehensive General Plan [plate, amended the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP), and certified EIR 5 -01 and EIR 90 -01; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Title 14 California Code of Regulations California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines or CEQA Guidelines) Section 15163 a upplemental environmental impact report (SEIR 09 -01) was prepared for the Project vhich constitutes a supplement to the first tier of documents (EIR 05 -01 and EIR 90 -01) hat evaluates the Project as it relates to the analysis contained in said environmental locuments; and WHEREAS, SEIR -09 -01 constitutes a programmatic document under the isions of Section 15168 and an SEIR under the provisions of Section 15163 of the A Guidelines; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation for SEIR -09 -01 was circulated on January 151 2010 pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15082; and WHEREAS, an EIR scoping meeting was held on January 26, 2010; and WHEREAS, Draft SEIR 09 -01, together with the technical appendices for the ject, was issued for a 45 day public review period on June 8, 2012, and was processed )ugh the State Clearinghouse; and WHEREAS, the public review period closed on July 24, 2012; and WHEREAS, during the public comment period, the City received comments on ie Draft SEIR -09 -01 and consulted with all responsible and trustee agencies, other ;gulatory agencies and others pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15086 and pursuant Section 15088, all comments received were responded to in writing; and WHEREAS, the City Council has independently reviewed and considered the s of the Final SEIR -09 -01 at a public meeting; and WHEREAS, to the extent that the Findings of Fact for the Project, dated October 012 (Exhibit "A" of this Resolution, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City 'lerk), conclude that proposed mitigation measures outlined in Final SEIR 09 -01 are �asible and have not been modified, superseded or withdrawn, the City of Chula Vista ereby binds itself and the Applicant and its successors in interest, to implement those ieasures. These findings are not merely information or advisory, but constitute a binding at of obligations that will come into effect when the City adopts the resolution approving ie project. The adopted mitigation measures contained within the Mitigation Monitoring nd Reporting Program (Exhibit "B" of this Resolution, a copy of which is on file in the ffice of the City Clerk) are expressed as conditions of approval. Other requirements are -,ferenced in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted concurrently iith these Findings of Fact and will be effectuated through the process of implementing ie Project; and WHEREAS, this Resolution serves only to certify the Final SEIR 09 -01 as uired by CEQA, and not to approve the Project. By separate action, the City Council 1 decide whether to approve the Project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL of City of Chula Vista does hereby determine, resolve and order as follows: UIM121- 1 The findings made in this Resolution are based upon the information and evidence forth in the Final SEIR 09 -01 and all proceedings and all evidence introduced before City Council, in consideration of this SEIR 09 -01 at their public meeting. The .uments, staff report, technical studies, appendices, plans, specifications, other rerials and any other documents submitted to the decision - makers and documents cified in Public Resources Code Section 21167.6, shall comprise the entire record of ceedings for any claims under CEQA. Final SEIR 09 -01 CONTENTS That the final SEIR 09 -01 consists of the following: 1. Supplemental EIR for the Project (including technical appendices); and 2. Comments and Responses (All hereafter collectively referred to as "SEIR 09 -01 ") ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS TO FEIR 09 -01 1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and 2. Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT That the City Council does hereby certify that SEIR 09 -01, and the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit "A" to this Resolution, a copy which is on file with the office of the City Clerk), and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit "B" to this Resolution, a copy which is on file with the office of the City Clerk) are prepared in accordance with the requirement of CEQA (Pub. Resources Code, §21000 et seq.), the CEQA Guidelines (California Code Regs. Title 14 §15000 et seq.), and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF CITY COUNCIL That the City Council finds that the SEIR 09 -01 reflects the independent judgment of the City of Chula Vista City Council. CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT, AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM A. Adoption of Findings of Fact The City Council does hereby approve, accepts as its own, incorporate as if set forth in full herein, and make each and every one of the findings contained in the Findings of Fact, Exhibit "A" of this Resolution, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk. B. Mitigation Measures Feasible and Adopted As more fully identified and set forth in SEIR 09 -01 and in the Findings of Fact for this project, which is Exhibit "A" to this Resolution, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, the City Council hereby finds pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 that the mitigation measures described in the above referenced documents are feasible and will become binding upon the entity (such as the project proponent or the City) assigned thereby to implement the same. C. Infeasibility of Alternatives As more fully identified and set forth in SEIR 09 -01 and in the Findings of Fact, Section XII, for this project, which is Exhibit "A" to this Resolution, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, the City Council hereby finds pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 that alternatives to the project, which were identified in SEIR- 09 -01, were not found to reduce impacts to a less than significant level or meet the project objectives. D. Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program As required by the Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program set forth in Exhibit `B" of this Resolution, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk. The Council further finds that the Program is designed to ensure that, during project implementation, the permittee /project applicant and any other responsible parties implement the project components and comply with the mitigation measures identified in the Findings of Fact and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION That the Director of Development Services of the City of Chula Vista is directed after City Council approval of the Project to ensure that a Notice of Determination is filed with the County Clerk of the County of San Diego. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City of Chula Tista finds that SEIR 09 -01, and the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding ',onsiderations (Exhibit "A" to this Resolution, a copy which is on file with the office of Ze City Clerk), and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit "B" to lis Resolution, a copy which is on file with the office of the City Clerk) have been repared in accordance with the requirement of CEQA (Pub. Resources Code, §21000 et eq.), CEQA Guidelines (California Code Regs. Title 14 §15000 et seq.), and the .nvironmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista and therefore, are hereby by: 1 Halbert, PE, AICP stant City Manager/ ctor of Development Services Approved as to form by: Glen R. Googins City Attorney CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT Item: Q Meeting Date: 2/_13/13 TITLE: Public Hearing: Consideration of amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA- 09 -01) and the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM- 09 -11) to reflect land use, circulation and policy changes for approximately 1,281 acres of land located south of Main Street/Rock Mountain Road, east of Heritage Road, west of the Salt Creek canyon and north of the Otay River Valley within the Otay Ranch Planned Community. Applicant: Otay Land Company. [TTED BY: Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director DUCTION The project proposes amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GP) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) to implement the terms of the Land Offer Agreement between the City of Chula Vista and the Otay Land Company (OLC) for Villages 8 West and 9. In addition, the City added the relocation of the Regional Technology Park from Village 8 East to the University site and the removal of the "Deferral Area" established within the 2005 GPU. Some "clean -up" edits to the GDP have also been included with the application to address administrative errors. The specific amendments are presented in greater detail in the "Proposed Amendments" and "Analysis" sections below and the specific wording is included in Enclosures 1 and 2. ROUND Sine the adoption of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan in 1993, the City of Chula Visa has maintained a vision of locating a university within the Otay Ranch. This vision is also reflected in the General Plan. While the properties have been designated "University" with a secondary residential land use should the University not become a reality, they have been held in private, rather than public, ownership. In 2001, progress in assembling the land necessary to locate the University was made with the acquisition of approximately 140 acres of developable lan for university purposes. It was understood that additional acreage was required to realize the Ian mass envisioned for the University by the GP and GDP. In 2007, the City began negotiating witl i the landowners on a land plan that would be beneficial to the City and carry out the goals of the GP and GDP with the conveyance of land necessary for the future development of a Uni ersity and a Regional Technology Park while also providing certain benefits to the [GPA -09 -01 & PCM -09 -11 Page 2, Item Meeting Date: 2/13/13 On April 15, 2008 the City of Chula Vista entered into a Land Offer Agreement (LOA) with 01 C that would allow the City of Chula Vista to accept Irrevocable Offers of Dedication (IODs) for 50 acres of developable University/Regional Technology Park land if certain entitlements are approved within the required timeframes. As part of the agreement the City also received an IOD for an additional 160 acres of mitigation land and one million dollars for University recruitment and planning purposes was received upon execution of the Land Offer Agreement. A second one million dollars for the same purpose will be received if such entitlements are approved by the In August 2009 OLC's application (including the GP and GDP Amendments, Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plans for Villages 8 West and 9, Environmental Impact Reports and tentative maps fot both villages) was deemed complete. It was envisioned in the LOA that all of the approvals would be heard at one hearing, but due to the size and complexity of the project an amendment to he LOA is being proposed (to be considered by City Council prior to any City Council action on this project) which allows for the consideration of the General Plan and General Development Plan Amendments as the first step, to be followed by consideration of the SPA Plans, project specific EIR's and tentative maps (TM). Substantial progress on the SPA's, EIR's and TM's for Vi lages 8 West and 9 has also taken place and a final hearing on these applications is expected to )ccur in the spring. AL REVIEW In accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) has been prepared to analyze the environmental impacts of the proposed amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan and Ot y Ranch General Development Plan. -09 -01 is discussed in detail in a companion agenda statement and must be addressed and upon prior to Planning Commission consideration of the General Plan and General lonment Plan Amendments. TION t the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and adopt a resolution recommending the City Council approve a resolution amending the City of Chula Vista General Plan and Otay Ranch General Development Plan. ON 1. Location, Existing Site Characteristics, and Ownership The Project site is comprised of approximately 1,281 acres and is generally located south of Min Street/Rock Mountain Road, east of Heritage Road, north of the Otay River Valley and west of Salt Creek canyon (see Attachment 1, Locator Map). The project site is within the Otay Valley parcel of the Otay Ranch planning area. The area is currently in a vacant, natural state and includes portions of Villages 4, 7, and the Eastern Urban Center (EUC), and all of Village 8, Vi lage 9 and Planning Area 10 (which includes the University site and a proposed 85 -acre [GPA -09 -01 & PCM -09 -11 ] Page 3, Item Meeting Date: 2/13/13 ial Technology Park (RTP)). The project site involves three land owners including OLC ins of Villages 4, 7 and the EUC and all of Village 8 West and 9), JPB Development ;e 8 East and a portion of Planning Area 10- the University/RTP site) and the City of Vista (portion of Planning Area 10 -the University/RTP site). 2. Project Description The project proposes amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan and Otay Ranch General Development Plan that would complement and support the future location of a University and RTP in relation to Villages 8 West and 9. The amendments would allow up to 6,050 units and 1.8 million square feet of non - residential (commercial and office). In addition, the project would relocate the Regional Technology Park from Village 8 East to the University site and resize it from 200 to 85 acres. The proposal would also resolve the "Deferral Area" established within the 2005 General Plan Update (GPU). Some "clean -up" edits to the Otay Ranch GDP have also been included with the application to address some administrative discrepancies within the text, tables and graphics. The specific amendments are presented in gr Ziniz er detail in the "Proposed Amendments" and `'Analysis" sections below and the specific w is included in Enclosures 1 and 2. proposed amendments were designed to complement and facilitate the development of a iversity and RTP in conjunction with the development of Villages 8 West and 9, and in which City's ownership of land for the University and its related uses is an essential element. The )roval of the Proposed Amendments is the first step in carrying out the development itemplated by the subject amendments. The next step in the process would require the )roval of the SPA'S, EIR's and TM's for Villages 8 West and 9. Therefore, the Proposed iendments have an effective term of no longer than two (2) years from its adoption and shall omatically expire, unless the SPA and related documents for Villages 8 West and 9 are )roved by the City and all applicable statutes of limitations to challenge the SPA documents 7e expired with no litigation having been filed. If the Proposed Amendments expire, the neral Plan, Zoning, Development Agreement and other land use regulations, applicable to the ject prior to the approval of the Proposed Amendments shall automatically take effect. OPOSED AMENDMENTS following is a brief summary of the proposed amendments to the City of Chula Vista ;ral Plan and the Otay Ranch GDP. For specific language refer to Enclosures 1 and 2 which tin a strikeout /underline of all proposed GP and GDP Amendments. / Otav Ranch GDP Reconfiguration of village boundaries as follows: • Reconfigure Village 8 to include portions of Villages 4 and 7 that are under OLC's ownership; • Separate Village 8 into Village 8 West and Village 8 East based upon ownership (OLC and JPB); [GSA -09 -01 & PCM -09 -1 I] Page 4, Item Meeting Date: 2/13/13 • Reconfigure Village 9 to include a portion of the EUC based upon ownership; and • Reconfigure the University to include an 85 -acre RTP. 2. Amend Land Use Designations as follows: • Amend GP and GDP land use designations for Villages 8 West and 9 to allow up to 6,050 dwelling units and 1.8 million square feet of non - residential space in order to accommodate the housing and services needed by the community and to support the University and RTP; and • Locate an 85 -acre RTP within Planning Area 10 (University and Regional Technology Park), and adjust the University acreage accordingly. • Reflect previously adopted 2001 GP and GDP land use designations in Village 8 East (where the proposed RTP is being relocated from). 3. I Revisions to the Circulation Plan- East that include: • Eliminating the La Media Road southerly extension crossing the Otay River Valley; • Reclassifying a portion of La Media Road from the southern portion of Village 8 West extending south to the Active Recreation Area from a six lane arterial to "Other Roads "; • Changing the name of Rock Mountain Road to Main Street from the point of existing Heritage Road easterly to Eastlake Parkway; • Reclassifying Main Street, easterly of SR -125, from a Town Center Arterial to a Six - Lane Gateway Street; • Reclassifying the Main Street/La Media Road Couplet from a Six -Lane Town Center Arterial to a Four Lane Town Center Arterial within Village 8 West; • Reclassifying and realigning the segment of La Media road from the Town Center Arterials at the Main Street/La Media Road Couplet southeasterly to SR -125 as a Four - Lane Major; • Clarify that the mid - arterial SR -125 bridge crossing between Village 8 East and 9 is "pedestrian- only "; and • Provide that Urban Level of Service (LOS D) is acceptable for Town Center Arterials. 4. Clean -up revisions to the General Plan and Otay Ranch GDP policies and maps affecting the Project Area that include: • A general "clean -up" of diagrams, text and tables to reflect GP and Otay Ranch GDP Amendments since 2005. [GPA -09 -01 & PCM -09 -11 YSIS Page 5, Item Meeting Date: 2/13/13 following analysis addresses the major issues associated with this project. Minor dments, "clean -up" items and the specific remedies for each are presented in the enclosed out /underline GP and GDPA documents. 1. Reconfiguration of Village Boundaries Since the adoption of the GDP, ownership of many of the large parcels of land has changed. In many cases these ownerships no longer align with original village boundaries, causing many of the regulatory documents to cover "ownerships" rather than villages. Reconfiguring village boundaries based on ownership would allow these new villages to be developed in a more predictable manner as envisioned by the GP and GDP.As such, this project proposes to reconfigure the boundaries of Village 8 to include portions of Villages 4 and 7 based on ownership and then separate the Village 8 landmass into Village 8 West and East. Similarly, this project also proposes to add the southern portion of the EUC (22.2 acres owned by OLC that are located north of Main Street/Hunte Parkway) to the rest of Village 9. Attachment 2 depicts the ex! sting village boundaries as well as the village boundaries as proposed. reconfiguration of village boundaries also requires the redistribution of units within the ted villages. The proposed GP and Otay Ranch GDP amendments would redistribute the based on percentage of ownership and land uses. Attachment 3 details these amendments. 2. General Plan and Otay Ranch General Development Plan Amendments In December of 2005, the City Council adopted a comprehensive GPU, amended the Otay Ranch GDP and certified the GPU Environmental Impact Report. As part of the GPU, amendments to the land uses and policies for portions of Villages 4 and 7, and the entirety of Villages 8, 9 and the University Campus (Planning Area 10) were deferred by the City ( "deferral area "). As de icted in Attachment 3, the Existing GP Land Use Diagram identified this area with a cr ( )sshatch and a footnote noting that the City Council had deferred final action on provisions that included portions of Village 4 and 7 as well as all of Villages 8, 9 and 10. Since proposed lar d uses were analyzed and considered as part of the 2005 GPU, this report analyzes the current lar d use proposals against those of the 2005 GPU. )roval of the proposed project would resolve and remove the "deferral area" by adopting new and GDP Land Use Designations for most of the area, and retaining the land use designations Village 8 East that were applicable prior to the GPU. The land uses proposed for OLCs perty are largely those that were analyzed in the 2005 GPU. In order to carry out the goals of the GP and Otay Ranch GDP with respect to the development co templated by the Proposed Amendments the land necessary for the future development of a University and RTP would need to be conveyed to the City in accordance with the terms of the LOA. following discussion will analyze the amendments to the GP and Otay Ranch GDP within project area from west to east. [GPA -09 -01 & PCM -09 -11 ] to Land Village 8 West Page 6, Item Meeting Date: 2/13/13 The GP and GDP Land Use Designations in Village 8 West are generally proposed to be amended from the 2005 GPU analyzed designations of Town Center (TC), Parks (P) and Residential Low - Medium (RLM) to TC, P, Residential Medium (RM), Residential Medium High ( H) and RLM as depicted in Attachments 4 and 5. Village 8 West is proposed to become denser with a mixed -use Town Center that permits between 18 and 45 units to the acre, Surrounded by medium and medium -high density neighborhoods that permit between 6 to 11 and 11 18 units to the acre respectively in part to accommodate the housing and service needs created by the location of the University and RTP. Lower density single family (3 -6 units /acre) ne ghborhoods are proposed as Village 8 West approaches the Otay River Valley. Table 1 id ntifies the proposed changes in Village 8 West from the 2005 GPU land uses to the current nr nosal. TABLE 1 COMPARISON OF LAND USES - 2005 CPU vs. PROPOSAL- VILLAGE 8 WEST RLM 132.3 539 67.0 331 -65.3 -208 RM 11 0.0 0 26.2 290 +26.2 +290 ............................... ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... ............................................................................................................................. RMH 0.0 0 29.5 530 +29.5 +530 TC 60.5 1,017 40.7 899 19.8 -118 ............................... ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................................... PRK 20.5 0 27.9 0 +7.4 0 -PQ� 41.3 0 57.0 0 +15.7 0 ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................... OS 49.7 0 23.5 0 -26.2 ............................... 0 ........ OSP15.6 0 15. 6 0..............................._ 0. �.............................................. _ _ ......... �.............................. ......................................................................................................................................................... Other 0.0 ............................... 0 ............................_ 32.5 0 +32.5 0 +494 TOTAL 319.9 1 1,556 319.9 2,050 0.0 1. Estimates land use figures based on OLC Proposed Land Uses/ Gross estimates land use acres and units of OLC property 2. Includes schools, university, public facilities, and community purpose facility (CPF) acres As detailed above, the proposed project would increase the unit count for Village 8 West by approximately 494 units (from 1,556 to 2,050 units). These increases would increase units counts in the RM and RMH land use designations. This proposal decreases low density units in the M designation as well as decrease the overall number of units within the Town Center designation. In addition to the residential units, Village 8 West proposes up to 300,000 square- feet of non - residential (250,000 square feet of retail and 50,000 square feet of office uses) primarily within its Town Center. While the 2005 GPU did not separate the non - residential sq are footages between Village 8 West and 9, it did analyze approximately 1.25 million square feet on non - residential uses. Since the proposals for Village 8 West and Village 9 include 1.8 million square feet of non - residential, this proposal would be a cumulative increase of 550,000 square feet of non - residential (commercial and office). [GPA -09 -01 & PCM -09 -11 Page 7, Item Meeting Date: 2/13/13 Th s proposal is supported by a large number of General Plan Objectives as well as a number of G11P Goals and Policies. These objectives, policies and goals are analyzed in detail in the Land Us section of the accompanying Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR), but a few of he more pertinent objectives and goals are identified below: • GP Objective LUT 5 — Designate opportunities for mixed -use areas with higher density housing that is near shopping, jobs and transit in appropriate locations throughout the City. • GP Objective LUT 17 — Plan and coordinate development to be compatible and supportive of planned transit. • GP Objective LUT 61— Create balanced communities that can provide a high quality of life for residents. • GP Objective LUT 72 —Develop comprehensive, well - integrated, and balanced land uses within villages and town centers, compatible with the surroundings. • GP Objective LUT 81 — Develop a higher density, mixed use, transit- oriented town center positioned at the intersection of Rock Mountain Road (Main Street) and La Media Road, surrounded by lower density (intensity) residential use and a large community park, and preserve Rock Mountain as an important landform and visual resource. • GP Objective LUT 88 — Encourage the dedication of land, and other voluntary actions that facilitate creation of a university campus. • GP Policy LUT88.1- Allow residential and commercial development at densities and intensities that are at the higher ranges specified in individual land use designation, as identified in the General Plan for projects that facilitate establishment of a university through dedication of land and easements and other mechanisms or actions, such as the construction of necessary improvements, or the inclusion of other project features that assist in the creation of the university. • GDP Goal — Promote villages and town center land uses which offer a sense of place to residents and promotes social interaction. • GDP Policy — Include a variety of uses and housing types within each village to meet the needs of residents. 8 East 2005 GPU proposed locating a 200 -acre RTP in Village 8 East, however, since Village 8 t was part of the "deferral area" its land use designations were not amended as part of the 5 GPU. As a result, its prior 2001 GP and GDP Land Use Designations remained. In general 2001 land use designations approved within Village 8 East include a mixed use residential [GPA -09 -01 & PCM -09 -11 ] Page 8, Item Meeting Date: 2/13/13 surrounded by low- medium residential as depicted in Attachment 6. The GDP amendments allot a total of 928 units to Village 8 East which is comprised of 635 low- medium villages and 293 medium high residential units within and around the mixed use core as depicted in chment 6. Minor land use policies were also amended to address the new land use ionships between Villages 8 West and 8 East which are included in Enclosures 1 and 2. U Th-. GP and GDP Land Use Designations in Village 9 are generally proposed to be amended frorn Residential Low - Medium (RLM), Residential Medium (RM), Town Center (TC), Eastern Ur an Center (EUC), and Public /Quasi Public (PQ) to RLM, RM, Mixed Use Residential (MUR), TC, EUC and PQ as depicted in Attachments 4 and 5. Village 9 is proposed to become denser particularly within the EUC (28 -60 units /acre) and MUR (10 -45 units /acre) land use di ricts in part to accommodate the housing and service needs created by the location of the U �Liversity and RTP. Vi lage 9 proposes to locate the highest density /intensity portion of the EUC designated lands alc ng Main Street. Immediately south of the EUC would be the University Town Center that will include densities of 18 -45 units /acre in a mixed use format. South of the University Town Center wi l be MUR designated lands that will include densities of 10 -45 units /acre with the potential for mixed -use should the market support it. RM (6 -11) and RLM (3 -6) designated lands will be located south of the MUR areas to reduce the densities as the project approaches the Otay River Valley to the south. Table 3 identifies the proposed changes in Village 9 from the 2005 GPU lad uses to the current proposal. TABLE 3 COMPARISON OF LAND USES - 2005 GPU vs. PROPOSAL- VILLAGE 9 RLM 16.3 101 28.1 105 +11.8 +4 ................................. ...................................................__.............. RM ............... .............................................................................................. 40.0 437 ........................................................ 15.2 ............................................. 161 ........................ -24.8 ........ ...... ............... ............................... -276 ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... ...................................................................................................................................................................... MUR 0.0 0 49.2 792 +49.2 ............................... +792 _ _ _ TC ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................................................... - _ - . 88.9 _ 2,756 _ _ 44.3 _ ___ _ 1,030 ___ _ _..__ -44.6 -1,726 ............................... EUC 22.2 320 48.3 1,912 PRK 29.8 0 27.5 0 . -2.3 ..____ - - -__ -- 0 ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................................................... PQz 113.8 0 74.8 0 -39.0 ............................... 0 OS 8.1 0 5.6 0 -2.5 0 ..0............................ .............I............OSP. ....... .........4.0................... 0 ............................... 4. 0........................................ 0.......................................... 0.. 0................................................ Other 0.0 0 26.1 0 +26.1 0 TOTAL 408.1 3,614 408.1 4,000 0.0 +386 1. Estimates land use figures based on OLC Proposed Land Uses/ Gross estimates land use acres and units of OLC property 2. Includes schools, university, public facilities, and CPF acres detailed above, the proposed project proposes to increase the unit count for Village 9 by )roximately 386 units (from 3,614 to 4,000 units). This proposal would significantly decrease number of units within the town center while increasing the number of units within the EUC [GPA -09 -01 & PCM -09 -11 Page 9, Item Meeting Date: 1/23/13 and MUR land use designations. In addition to the residential units identified above, Village 9 proposes up to 1.5 million square feet of non - residential (1.2 million square feet of office and 300,000 square feet of retail). While the 2005 GPU did not separate the non - residential square fo tages between Villages 8 West and 9, it did analyze approximately 1.25 million square feet of non-residential uses. Since the proposals for Village 8 West and Village 9 include 1.8 million square feet of non - residential, this proposal would be a cumulative increase of 550,000 square feet of non - residential square footage. part of the LOA between the City and OLC, Village 9 will also provide 50 net acres of land the future University. This land is designated PQ and is located in the very eastern portion of late 9. Village 9 is envisioned to provide many of the services, office space and housing for the future University, and will also be served by the South Bay Bus Rapid Transit, with a planned transit station to be located within Village 9 adjacent to the University. Village 8 West, this proposal is supported by a large number of GP Objectives as well as a fiber of GDP Goals and Policies. These objectives, policies and goals are analyzed in detail in Land Use section of the accompanying Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR), a few of the more pertinent objectives and goals are identified below: • GP Objective LUT 5 — Designate opportunities for mixed -use areas with higher density housing that is near shopping, jobs and transit in appropriate locations throughout the City. • GP Objective LUT 17 — Plan and coordinate development to be compatible and supportive of planned transit. • GP Objective LUT 61— Create balanced communities that can provide a high quality of life for residents. • GP Objective LUT 72 —Develop comprehensive, well - integrated, and balanced land uses within villages and town centers, compatible with the surroundings. • GP Objective LUT 88 — Encourage the dedication of land, and other voluntary actions that facilitate creation of a university campus. • GP Policy LUT88.1- Allow residential and commercial development at densities and intensities that are at the higher ranges specified in individual land use designation, as identified in the General Plan for projects that facilitate establishment of a university through dedication of land and easements and other mechanisms or actions, such as the construction of necessary improvements, or the inclusion of other project features that assist in the creation of the university. • GP Objective LUT 95 — Establish a pedestrian- oriented, mixed use Town Center that serves as the interface, or common meeting ground, of the university, regional technology [GPA -09 -01 & PCM -09 -11 ] Pl Page 10, Item Meeting Date: 1/23/13 park, and surrounding residential development and serves the university campus at the size and location shown on the General Plan as well as the regional technology park workforce. • GDP Goal — Promote villages and town center land uses which offer a sense of place to residents and promotes social interaction. • GDP Policy — Include a variety of uses and housing types within each village to meet the needs of residents. Area 10 — The University and Regional Technology Park Th 2005 GPU proposed an approximately 200 -acre RTP land use designation on the eastern portion of Village 8 (discussed above as Village 8 East) as well as an approximately 440 -acre University designation as shown in Attachment 3 (Existing GP Land Use Designations). The U iversity Campus consisted of 350 acres on the western parcel and an additional 90 acres adjacent to Lower Otay Lake. %s proposal: 1) resizes the RTP to 85 acres and locates the RTP within the University site; 2) rec esignates approximately 40 acres of land that was designated University in the GPU as Mixed U Residential; and, 3) redesignates approximately 68 acres of land that was proposed to be de ignated residential in the GPU as University. This shift of land uses as proposed would result in pproximately 383 acres of University. As part of the analysis of employment lands for the GPU, it was determined that an additional 15)-200 acres of employment lands would be necessary to provide a sufficient number of high paying jobs for Chula Vista. Therefore, the GPU proposed to locate a RTP on approximately 200 acres of land in the eastern portion of Village 8. The RTP would be relocated on to the Ur iversity site and its acreage would be reduced to 85 acres. To analyze this reduction in RTP lards, the City contracted with AECOM to re- analyze the need for employment lands and de ermine if 85 acres of RTP would be sufficient. AECOM concluded that a change in the location and size of the RTP could have strategic benefits. Locating the RTP within the Ur iversity site would gain users access to the university faculty, facilities and equipment which would be of high importance in attracting future tenants. Additionally, the past model of building a chnology park for a single user on a large parcel of land has changed with the "focus often be rig to provide incubator space and construct multi - tenant space to accommodate research and development entrepreneurs with smaller start up firms ". In fact, the report noted that floor-area- ratios of up to 1.0 were currently being used for planning purposes on other parks within our region and that the 0.5 assumption for Chula Vista's RTP was well below that. AECOM opined that due to this changing market with increased intensities, an 85 acre RTP could provide the same employment estimate as was estimated during the GPU, assuming that the development was a higher intensity with an increased floor- area - ratio. This proposal would also amend the allowable FAR for the RTP from its current range of 0.25 -.0.75 to a new range of 0.25 -2.0. In addition to the land use designation amendments for the University and RTP areas described ab ve, the proposal also includes a number of new policies directed at ensuring that the [GPA -09 -01 & PCM -09 -11 ] Page 11, Item Meeting Date: 1/23/13 ,,rsity and RTP develop an organized planning relationship between themselves and the boring villages. The specific language for these policies is included in Enclosures 1 and 2. 3. Amendments to the Circulation Plan - East 'he Project proposes a number of amendments to the City's Circulation Plan as depicted in chment 7. Specific language can be found in Enclosures 1 and 2, but an analysis of the most i2nificant amendments is included below. inc the Otav River Vall proposed project includes the elimination of the southerly crossing of La Media Road over Otay River Valley. Discussions regarding the need for this segment of La Media Road started -ing the analysis for the 2005 GPU and resulted in the adoption of Policy LUT 14.8 that reads: "Analyze the need for, timing and ultimate construction of the future La Media Road Crossing of the Otay Valley as part of the pending updates of plans within the surrounding area, such as the City of San Diego's Otay Mesa Community Plan Update. Factors to be considered in the analysis include existing and forecast traffic volumes and LOS on the circulation system, and Johnson Canyon Open Space Preserve. " The elimination of this segment was analyzed in a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by Li scoff Law & Greenspan (LLG) in December 2011. The TIA analyzed 9 scenarios that included a variety of permutations of the Circulation Element including a scenario that kept La Media Road and a scenario that removed the portion of La Media Road that crosses the Otay River Valley. The TIA concluded that the portion of La Media Road that crosses the Otay River was unnecessary and its removal from the Circulation Plan would not cause implications Re oval of the La Media Road crossing of the river valley necessitates that a portion of that rig it-of-way be redesignated to serve as access to Active Recreation Area (Planning Area 20). La Media Road from the southern portion of Village 8 West to the Active Recreation area (Pl nning Area 20) will be redesignated from a Six Lane Arterial to "Other Roads" as depicted in A achment 7. that Urban Level of Service (LOS D) is acceptable for Town zing that traditional LOS methodologies may have a negative impact on pedestrian and it mobility, the 2005 GPU created the Urban Core Circulation Element. The GP states: "The overall goal of the Urban Core Circulation Element is to support the development of great places and neighborhoods by providing transportation choices and supporting those choices with attractive, safe, convenient, and functional infrastructure for all modes of travel. The Urban Core Circulation Element provides opportunities to make policies and standards sufficiently flexible to support Transit Oriented Development (TOD) in select corridors and town centers while maintaining the commitment of new development [GPA -09 -01 & PCM -09 -11 ] to Page 12, Item Meeting Date: 1/23/13 to mitigate impacts of new travel demand, and to improve the transit, pedestrian and bicycle environment. The Urban Core Circulation Element recognizes that in certain corridors and centers served by transit, it is acceptable to reduce the vehicle level of service standards that are applied to suburban areas of the City under certain circumstances ". project proposes to allow Urban Level of Service (LOS D) for Town Center Arterials similar .e LOS allowed for certain classifications of roadway within the Urban Core. The Village 8 t town center will be an urban center with densities of 18 -45 units to the acre that is ;strian oriented and served by transit. The unique separated pair of one -way streets iurages pedestrian circulation and fosters a vibrant commercial mixed -use environment. ,e provisions would allow for LOS D to be acceptable on Town Center Arterials due to their n, pedestrian friendly, multi -modal design much like similar roadways in western Chula 4. Clean -up Revisions to Otay Ranch GDP specifically detailed in Enclosure 2, this project also includes clean up revisions to the GDP. ;se revisions include administrative updates to mapping, text and tables to bring the uments up to date (i.e. calculation errors, mapping errors, etc.). S ff has reviewed the property holdings of the Planning Commissioners and has found no pr perty holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property that is subject to this action. f is not independently aware, nor has staff been informed by any Planning Commission fiber, of any other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision maker conflict of interest in matter. IMPACT The applicant was required to prepare a Fiscal Impact Analysis (FIA) for the proposed project that analyzed two distinct scenarios. A "project level" scenario was prepared to analyze the project's individual fiscal impact at buildout. A second, "cumulative" scenario was also prepared to analyze the project's fiscal impact in conjunction with other LOAs (i.e. OLC + JPB) at iect FIA e "project" FIA for the OLC GP and Otay Ranch GDP Amendments (Villages 8 West and 9 nbined) estimates that at buildout the City's total expenditures would be approximately 590,900, while the total revenues would be approximately $7,249,200, resulting in an annual >itive fiscal impact to the City of approximately $658,300. [GPA -09 -01 & PCM -09 -11 ] Page 13, Item Meeting Date: 1/23/13 T "cumulative" FIA for the OLC GP and Otay Ranch GDP Amendments in addition to the 2010 JPB LOA estimates that at buildout the City's total expenditures for these areas (Villages 3, 8 West, 8 East, 9 and 10) would be approximately $12,092,900, while the total revenues would be approximately $12,282,800, resulting in an annual positive fiscal impact to the City of ap roximately $189,900. processing costs for the GP and ORGDP Amendments as well as all supporting documents funded by a developer deposit account. 1. Locator Map 2. Existing and Proposed Village Boundaries 3. Existing and Proposed GP Land Use Diagram 4. Existing and Proposed Otay Ranch GDP Land Use Designations 5. Village 8 East GDP Development Table and Land Use Designations 6. GP Circulation Plan -East Amendments 7. Planning Commission Resolution 8. Draft City Council GPA /GDPA Resolution 1. General Plan Amendment, Village 8 West and Village 9 dated September 2012 2. General Development Plan Amendment GDPA) Village 8 West and Village 9 dated September 2012 by. Scott Donaghe, Principal Planner, Development Services Department %I EXISTING VILLAGE BOUNDARIES PROPOSED VILLAGE BOUNDARIES 6 .; ..... Village 7 Vi Village 4 ll ` : = >• Village Village 8 East 8 West Eastern Urban Center Village 9 Un ATTACHMENT 2 STING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DIAGRAM PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DIAGRAM PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN LAND USES WITHIN PROJECT AREA LEGEND RMDiwnAL Ht54RHHU LUW MEDIUM "� Rtsu�NnuMEmw REEL "Al. MEDIUM HIGH COAQAERCUU. �'3. REYfU: MuEC UBEi.UMMERGl4 SPECIAL PLANNING AREA ':I;NGNi A%xEUU3E'fE:gIYNTUd. TOM CEWER E0.SYiRN IR'iBPM CERTER UNWRVIN - REGXIV/ T "VIRIM/X1 PMH((RTP) IINQU TRUE ",,,'`- LRIREUWCIk:TRULL OPEN SPACE, PARKS 8 PUBLIC I QUASMUBUC UPE.H PACE. xme RECRP(bH ( �': +)PF.H 3ML.F. PPEEF.RVE ATTACHMENT 3 EXISTING OTAY RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN LAND USE DIAGRAM .. ._ PROPOSED OTAY RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN LAND USE DIAGRAM • ♦ Project Area Land Use Village 11 Change Area • • Leasnd °, • •at WwnurMnC.nw .: repro C-w � • Mwr,NUwm Eastern f , "• wae.midvdi- Urban Planning • aaa a..aemw�rauwn Center Area ig/ ala 11! a.e, dr.wear ►mot niversity • M : '� 1111E hew a a.n..Ken 00, s►an s w w E1�MMk henry. Village • 4 D • • illage'4 • tw• Village 24 r .......... (I� aoam ATTACHMENT 4 TABLE 2 ORGDP VILLAGE * EAST LAND USE TABLE Village Eight (East) Use Dwelling Units Acreage Approx. Pop. SF MF Total Dens Res. Park CPF+ Sch. C'ml. open Art. Total LMV 635 635 4.3 148.5 148.5 2,115 MU 5.9 ** 2.9 8.9 17.7 MH 293 293 14.5 20.2 10.0 30.2 756 OTHER 15.1 9.5 24.6 VILLAGE 8 EAST SUBTOTAL 635 293 928 5.5 168.7 5.9 2.9 10.0 8.9 15.1 9.5 221.0 2,871 FIGURE 1- VILLAGE 8 EAST ORGDP LAND USE DESIGNATIONS ATTACHMENT 5 P 1. Eliminate La Media Road southerly extension crossing the Otay River Valley. 2. Reclassify a portion of La Media Road from the southern portion of Village 8 extending south to the Active Recreation area from a Six -Lane Arterial to "Other Roads ". 3. Change name of Rock Mountain Road to Main Street from the point of existing Heritage Road easterly to Eastlake Parkway. 4. Reclassify Main Street from a Town Center Arterial easterly of SR -125 to a Six -Lane Gateway 5. Reclassify Main Street/ La Media Road from a Six -Lane Town Center Arterial to a Four -Lane Town Center Arterial within Village 8 West. 6. Reclassify and realign the segment of La Media Road from the Town Center Arterials at the Main Street! La Media Road Couplet southeasterly to SR -125 as a Four -Lane Major. 7. Clarify that the mid - arterial SR -125 bridge ' crossing between Village 8 and 9 is "pedestrian-only". ........... . fi w 4 m $ Legend . Freeway Expressway (T or 8 Lane) a! 6 Lane Prime 6 Lane Major —3-14 Lane Major ** k Class I Collector t!F! Gateway Street (6 Lane) t J Gateway Street (214 Lane) Town Center Arterial — Other Roads • SR125Interchange span *. as __ ATTACHMENT 6 ATTACHMENT 7 RESOLUTION NO. GPA- 09 -01, PCM -09 -11 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN AND THE OTAY RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO REFLECT LAND USE, CIRCULATION AND POLICY CHANGES FOR APPROXIMATELY 1,281 ACRES WITHIN THE OTAY RANCH PLANNED COMMUNITY, INCLUDING ASSOCIATED TEXT, MAPS AND TABLES WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista has long had a goal of developing a higher education ,e in the City; and, WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista has solidified this goal by designating land for a Unive sity in the City's General Plan and the Otay Ranch General Development Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City has been working for several years to acquire all of the land necessary to develop a University; and, WHEREAS, in 2008 and 2010, the City entered into Land Offer Agreements that provide for the pr perry necessary to create the University; and, WHEREAS, the project proposes amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan and the Olay Ranch General Development Plan that would complement and support the future location of a University and Regional Technology Park; and, WHEREAS, the amendments will also resolve the "Deferral Area" established within the 2005 ity of Chula Vista General Plan Update and address a number of administrative corrections; and, WHEREAS, the subject General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan Amendments (GDPA) as presented in the Project are necessary to accommodate the land uses anticipated in the 2008 Land Offer Agreement between the City of Chula Vista and Otay Land Company and amendment thereto (referred to herein as the LOA First Amendment); and, WHEREAS, the GPA and GDPA as presented in the Project were designed to complement and f acilitate the development of a University and Regional Technology Park in conjunction with the development of Villages 8 West and 9, and in which the City's ownership of land for a University and its related uses is an essential element; and, WHEREAS, the approval of the proposed amendments is the first step in carrying out the >ment contemplated by these Amendments. The next step in the process would require the it of the SPA's, EIR's and TM's for Villages 8 West and 9; and, WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista's current General Plan was last comprehensively in December 2005; and, WHEREAS, the Otay Ranch General Development Plan was approved on October 23,1993 and m st recently updated on April 3, 2012; and, WHEREAS, an application to consider amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan and the Otay Ranch General Development Plan was filed with the City of Chula Vista Development Services Department in August 2009 by the Otay Land Company (the "Applicant "); and, WHEREAS, the proposed General Plan and Otay Ranch General Development Plan Amendments involve portions of the Land Use and Transportation; Economic Development; Public Facilities and Services Elements, including associated text, maps and tables; and, WHEREAS, the proposed General Plan Amendments are contained in a document entitled al Plan Amendment Villages 8 West and 9 ", dated September 2012; and WHEREAS, the proposed Otay Ranch General Development Plan Amendments are contained in a document entitled "General Development Plan Amendment (GDPA) Otay Ranch, Villag 8 West and 9 ", dated September 2012; and, WHEREAS, the area of land which is the subject of this Resolution is diagrammatically presented in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and commonly iown as Villages 4, 8, 9 and 10, and for the purpose of general description consists of 1,281 acres ithio the Otay Ranch Planned Community ( "Project Site "); and WHEREAS, The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and has determined that there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the City of Chula Vista, that the project may have significant effect on the environment; therefore, a Supplemental Environmental Impact Repo (SEIR- 09 -02; SCH #2004081066) has been prepared. Certification of the SEIR (SEIR- 09 -01) for this Project will be considered by the City Council as a separate item; and WHEREAS, the Development Services Director set the time and place for a hearing on the Project, and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City and the mailing to property owners within 500 feet of the ex erior boundaries of the property, at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and and as set WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 6:00 p.m., 23, 2013 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission i hearing was thereafter closed; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission having received certain evidence on January 23, 2013 forth in the record of its proceedings and incorporated herein by this reference and having 2 made in Findings, as set forth in the City Council Resolution GPA- 09 -01, PCM -09 -11 also ;d herein by this reference recommends that the City Council approve the Project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION recomraends that the City Council adopt the attached City Council Resolution approving the Project in accordance with the Findings as set forth in the subject City Council Resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this Planning Commission Resolution be itted to the City Council. PASS D AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VIST , CALIFORNIA, this 13th day of February, 2013, by the following vote, to -wit: AYES: ►flAil ABSTAIN: ATTEST: ian4 Vargas, Secretary by Gary albeit, P.E., AICP Assis ant City Manager h:� PC ).doc Michael Spethman, Chairperson Approved as to form by Glen R. Googins City Attorney _ranch \university_md_south or villages \olc \gp -gdpa \agenda submittals \gpa -09 -01 & pcm -09 -11 draft 3 ATTACHMENT 8 RESOLUTION NO. 2013- )LUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL ,OVING AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN THE OTAY RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO ,ECT LAND USE, CIRCULATION AND POLICY CHANGES APPROXIMATELY 1,281 ACRES WITHIN THE OTAY RANCH 1NED COMMUNITY, INCLUDING ASSOCIATED TEXT, MAPS TABLES I RECITALS Project Site 'WHEREAS, the areas of land which are the subject of this Resolution contain all lands within the boundaries of Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated into this Resolution by this reference, and includes approximately 1,281 acres of land generally located south of Main Street/Rock Mountain Road, east of Heritage Road, west of Salt Creek Canyon and north of the Otay River Valley within the Otay Ranch Planned Community; and, Project; Application for Discretionary Approvals 'WHEREAS, on August 21, 2009, the City of Chula Vista deemed the Otay Land Company's (the "Applicant ") application complete and initiated a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan Amendment (GDPA), requesting approval of amendments to the City's General Plan (the "GPA ") and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (the "Pr ject "); and, WHEREAS, the proposed GPA for the Project involve portions of the Land Use and Transportation; Economic Development; Public Facilities and Services; and Environmental Elements, including associated text, maps and tables; and, HEREAS, the proposed GDPA involves portions of Part II of the existing GDP, associated text, maps and tables; and, WHEREAS, the proposed GPA are contained in a document entitled "General Plan Amendrnent, Otay Ranch Village 8 West & Village 9, September 2012" as represented in Exhibit B attached hereto; and, EREAS, the proposed GDPA are contained in a document entitled "General it Plan Amendment (GDPA), Village 8 West and Village 9 September, 2012" as in Exhibit C attached hereto; and, Prior Discretionary Approvals 2013- Page 2of5 WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista's current General Plan was last comprehensively in December 2005; and, HEREAS, the Otay Ranch General Development Plan was was approved on October 23, 1993, d most recently updated on April 3, 2012; and, as part of the 2005 General Plan Update land use actions on the Project Area were deferred; and, HEREAS, the GPA and GDPA as presented are necessary to accommodate the land uses icip ted in the 2008 Land Offer Agreement between the City of Chula Vista and Otay Land mpa iy, and amendment thereto (referred to herein as the LOA First Amendment); and, HEREAS, the GPA and GDPA were designed to complement and facilitate development of a University and Regional Technology Park in conjunction with the development of Villages 8 West and 9, and in which the City's ownership of land for a University and its related uses is an essential element; and, 'HEREAS, the approval of the proposed amendments is the first step in carrying out the tent contemplated by these Amendments. The next step in the process would require the of the SPA's, EIR's and TMs for Villages 8 West and 9. Planning Commission Record of Application 'HEREAS, pursuant to California Government Code section 65090, the Planning ion held a duly noticed public hearing on the GPA and GDPA on February 13, 2013, and nded that the City Council adopt the Resolutions approving the GPA and GDPA; and, WHEREAS, the proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at the public hearing on this Project held on February 13, 2013, and the minutes and resolution resulting there from, are hereby incorporated into the record.subsequent to these proceedings; and City Council Record of Application WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for the hearing on the GPA and GDPA and notices of said hearings, together with its purposes given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, at least ten days prior to the hearing; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to California Government Code section 65090, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on February 19, 2013, on the subject GPA and GDPA; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council hereby finds and determines as fo 2013- II. CE WITH CEQA Page 3 of 5 The Development Services Director has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and has determined that there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the City of Chula Vista, that the project may have a significant effect o the environment; therefore, a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR- 09 -02; SCH #2004081066) has been prepared. Certification of the SEIR (SEIR- 09 -02) for this project will be considered by the City Council as a separate item. III. Resol IV. V. provisi hereto VI. no ion Sectio limital been f expire and ott. GDPA he City Council of the City of Chula Vista reviewed, analyzed, considered, approved and a Final SEIR, made certain Findings of Fact, adopted a Statement of Overriding ations and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the GPA and GDPA, to CEQA, by Resolution No. 2013- PLAN INTERNAL CONSISTENCY City Council hereby finds and determines that the General Plan, as amended, is consistent and shall remain internally consistent following amendments thereof by this DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY City Council hereby finds and determines that the General Development Plan, as is internally consistent and shall remain internally consistent following amendments this Resolution. PTION OF GENERAL PLAN AND GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN light of the findings above, the General Plan and General Development Plan Amendment are hereby approved and adopted in the form as presented in Exhibits B and C attached l on file in the City Clerk's Office. PROVISION This General Plan and General Development Plan approval shall be effective for a term of er than two (2) years from its adoption (the "Term ") and shall automatically expire, unless al Planning Area (SPA) Entitlements are approved by the City and all applicable statutes of ins to challenge the SPA Entitlements have expired with no third party litigation having .ed. In the event of such third party litigation, the GPA and GDPA entitlements shall not >ursuant to this Paragraph 3.7 of the LOA First Amendment, and the terms and conditions of ph 3.3(e) of said agreement shall govern. If the GPA and GDPA Entitlements expired as d herein, the General Plan, General Development Plan, Zoning, Development Agreement er land uses regulations, applicable to the Property prior to the approval of the GPA and Entitlements (the "Existing Entitlements ") shall thereupon take effect. City may, but is not 2013- Page 4 of 5 ire , to take any appropriate actions, in its sole discretion, it may deem necessary, if any, to irm the Existing Entitlements. by Approved as to form by Gary H lbert, P.E., AICP Glen R. Googins Assistant City Manager City Attorney PASSE , APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, this 26; day of February, 2013, by the following vote: YES: Councilmembers: AYS: Councilmembers: SENT: Councilmembers: STAIN: Councilmembers: Cheryl Cox, Mayor ATTEST: Donna Morris, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO CITY OF CHULA VISTA I, Donr a Norris, City Clerk of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolu ion No. was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a regular meetinj F, of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 26th day of February, 2013. Resolution 2013 - this 19th day of February, 2013. Donna Norris, City Clerk Page 5 of 5 ranch \university_and_south_or villages\ olc\ gp - gdpa \agenda_submittals \gpa -09 -01 & pcm- 0 -9 -11 draft cc