HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Mtg 02-13-2013 Item 2ACHULA VISTA
PLANNING
COMMISSION
AGENDA STATEMENT
Item No.: aA
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 a cordance 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
Ranh 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
public 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.
BACKGROUND:
This staff report discusses the general content of Final SEIR 09 -01. SEIR -09 -01 constitutes a
Supplemental 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
Plan Update (GPU) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan Amendment (GDPA). When the
City adopted the GPU and GDPA in 2005, amendments to portions of Otay Ranch Villages 4
and 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
corr e to be referred to as the "Deferral Area." While action on land use was deferred in 2005, the
cert fied 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
differences between what was examined as part of EIR -05 -01 in 2005 for the Preferred
Alternative 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
GPAJGDPA 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 C ity Council in early 2013. A full project description is provided starting on Page 35 of
SEI - 09- 01(attached).
DISCUSSION:
The SEIR assesses the environmental impacts of the City of Chula Vista's General Plan/General
Development Plan Amendments and associated actions. It constitutes a supplemental, program -
level EIR under the provisions of Section 15168 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The EIR
anal3 sis determined whether the land use changes proposed in the GPA/GDPA would result in a
signi scant impact upon the environment, beyond those analyzed in the GPU EIR of 2005. A
signi scant impact on the environment is defined in CEQA as a substantial adverse change in the
physical conditions that exist in the area affected by the proposed Project. When a significant
impa t is identified, the EIR calls out measures or alternatives that would substantially reduce or
eliminate (mitigate) the impact. The EIR also identifies impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less
than 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
polic es 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
contains many of the policies stated in the adopted GP /GDP and GPA/GDPA documents, in
order to demonstrate how potential environmental impacts would be "self mitigated" and, thus,
do not result in a significant impact. In these issue areas no further mitigation is necessary. In
those instances where potential environmental impacts have been identified, mitigation measures
are c /led for in the EIR.
Page 3, Item No.:
Meeting Date: 02/13/13
on the Draft EIR
The public review period for the EIR was from June 8, 2012 to July 24, 2012.
co ent 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.
of
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 SignificantlSelf Mitigated Impacts
Less 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
Sign cant and Unmitigated Impacts
Signicant and unmitigated impacts have been identified in the Final SEIR for the following
issue areas:
The 1. EIR identifies significant and unmitigated community character impacts in the Project area.
Prop sed revisions to the City's adopted land use plan in the East Planning Area would result in
adjus ments 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: 02/13/13
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
limii 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
Sect onal 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.
Al
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 riot be fully mitigated.
Conformance with the objectives and policies in the GP and GPA/GDPA would reduce visual
quality impacts within the Project area, but not to below a level of significance. Impacts remain
significant 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
cond lion was identified as a significant adverse impact, as was the case under the adopted
Gen ral 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 s e conclusion that was reached in FEIR- 05 -01. Similar to the land use impacts described
abov , the Project would not add to the severity of aesthetic impacts, since the development
footp, int 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.
Imp cts 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 energy. None of the energy policies called out in the adopted or amended GP /GDP would
ensure that energy supplies will be available. Because there is no assurance of a long -term supply
of e iergy 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
reac ed in the 2005 FEIR -05 -01 that energy impacts are significant and unmitigated due to the
factors described above.
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
(but not yet adopted) by the City of San Diego. EIR -05 -01 did not analyze traffic impacts within
the City of San Diego. No unmitigated freeway impacts result from the Project.
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
conf Drm with current state guidelines regarding air quality. Thus, the Project would conflict with
an adopted air quality plan and there would be a significant impact. This is the same conclusion
that as reached in the 2005 FEIR- 05 -01.
Noi
The SEIR indicates that traffic increases along Circulation Element roadways will result in noise
increases of over three decibels for receivers. This increase is a significant adverse impact.
Assessing and mitigating potential noise impacts requires a level of analyses that can only occur
when detailed land development plans are available; this will occur at the SPA level. Since this
level of noise analysis is infeasible at the GP /GDP stage, impacts remain significant and not
mited until SPA level noise analyses are conducted. This is the same conclusion that was
rec aged 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 P /GDP. Because the water agencies cannot provide a guarantee of future water supply, the
impact to water supply is considered to be significant and unmitigated. It is important to note,
how ver, 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
appr ved by the Otay Water District for the Village 8 East and Village 9 SPA plans.
The roject's slight increase in demand for water would require corresponding improvements to
wate treatment and distribution facilities. Significant impacts would occur as a result of these
type of projects, the extent of those effects is speculative at this point because the nature and
loca ion of those improvements have not yet been determined. Water supply was identified as an
unm tigated impact within the 2005 FEIR- 05 -01, consistent with the discussion above.
al Revisions to Draft SEIR
Revi ions to the SEIR made as a result of public comment have been summarized on Page 1 of
the EIR. 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
docu ent have resulted in modifications to conclusions regarding the level of significance of
imp ts.
of the Final SEIR 09 -01
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
lever 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 easible 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 E hibit `B" to resolution of approval of SEIR- 09 -01). As described above, the implementation
of the Project will result in unmitigated impacts that would remain significant after the
application of these measures; therefore, in order to approve the Project, the City Council must
adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15043
and 15093 (see Section XII the CEQA Findings).
The City has examined a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed Project, other than the
proposed Project described in the Final SEIR. Based on this examination, the City has
determined that none of the alternatives meet the Project objectives, or are environmentally
sup 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
Ove iding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached to this
staf 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
)roval 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
ula Vista, and establish an 85 acre Regional Technology Park (RTP) on the future
.versity site; and
WHEREAS, in December 2005, the City adopted a comprehensive General Plan
date, amended the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP), and certified
ironmental 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,
. 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
lcuments; 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
15, 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
)raft SEIR -09 -01 and consulted with all responsible and trustee agencies, other
�Igulatory 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
-Irk), conclude that proposed mitigation measures outlined in Final SEIR 09 -01 are
isible 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
;asures. 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
)nitoring 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
OMMISSION of the City of Chula Vista does hereby determine, resolve and order as
llows:
9 $ 91
The findings made in this Resolution are based upon the information and evidence
A forth in Final SEIR 09 -01 and all proceedings and all evidence introduced before the
lanning Commission, in consideration of this SEIR 09 -01 at their public meeting held
a February 13, 2013. The documents, staff report, technical studies, appendices, plans,
)ecifications, other materials and any other documents submitted to the decision - makers
.id documents specified in Public Resources Code Section 21167.6, shall comprise the
:itire 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
REPORTING PROGRAM
A. Adoption of Findings of Fact
MITIGATION MONITORING AND
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 -015 and the Findings of Fact and Statement of
Nerriding Considerations (Exhibit "A" to this Resolution, a copy which is on file with
ie 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
sented by:
Halbert AICP
City Manager/
of Development Services
Approved as to form by:
Glen R. Googins
City Attorney
J: Attomey\ MichaelSh\ LandOfferAgts\ OtayLandCo\ PC\Reso- GPA- GDPA- SEIR4UnivVill- 9.25.12- DCADraft.doc
Exhibit A
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR THE
NDMENTS TO THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN
(GPA- 09 -01) AND OTAY RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
(PCM- 09 -11)
CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
AND
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
January 2013
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
A.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
X.
XI.
XII.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ITRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
CRONYMS
ROJECT DESCRIPTION
ACKGROUND
ECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
INDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA
EGAL EFFECTS OF FINDINGS
LITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
IGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
:UMULATIVE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
EASIBILITY OF POTENTIAL PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
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
General Development Plan (PCM- 09 -11) Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
(SEIR); SEIR- 09 -01; SCH No. 2004081066
FINDINGS OF FACT
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report prepared for Amendments to the City of
Chula Vista (City) General Plan and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (SEIR) addresses
the potential environmental effects associated with implementation of the project. In addition,
the Fin I SEIR evaluates four alternatives to the project. These alternatives include the
followin : (1) No Project -No Build Alternative; (2) No Project -No Change in Existing Plans
Alternat ve; (3) Reduced Density Alternative; and (4) La Media Road Alternative.
The Final SEIR represents a second tier EIR, in accordance with California Environmental
Quality ct (CEQA) Section 21094, and tiers from the certified Program EIR prepared for the
City's G neral Plan Update (EIR #05- 011SCH #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 Regional Comprehensive Plan
RTP
Regional Technology Park
SANDAG
San Diego Association of Governments
SDAPCD
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
2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The pro 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 w thin 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 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
illustrat s 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
ntails 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
eneral Plan Update (GPU). This includes further clarification and explanation of
allowable density and intensity of uses within designated Town Centers. Additional
mendments 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,
hich would create a symbiotic relationship between the economic development and
employment opportunities of the RTP and the academic research and university campus
activities. The amendments would adopt the University Strategic Framework Policies as
a means to assure coordinated development among the focus areas.
The proposed amendments also re- designate the University Village Focus Area of the
Eastern University District from low- medium to medium -high and mixed -use residential
land use designations uses. The proposed vision for Village 9 (also known as University
Village) includes the dedication of 50 net acres for inclusion in a university campus.
Revisions to the Circulation Plan —East that would allow the circulation plan to be
consistent 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)
n-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
(vvithin the project area). Total University acreage in the 2005 General Plan was
2.40 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
f om University to Mixed -Use Residential in Village 9; and the conversion of 68 acres of
esidential 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 (lowing revisions to the plan: revise the statistical description and policy standards for
tie 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
13. 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.
4
TABLE 1
COMPARISON OF LAND USE TYPES WITHIN LAND USE CHANGE AREA
he G
tThe r
1,800
tAs dE
within
Plan l
Unive
ral Plan land use assumption in this table is a gross estimate and subject to further review and refinement.
num permitted commercial areas may alternatively be measured in square feet up to the maximum projected yield of
square feet.
;d on SEIR Figure 3 -4, the Land Use Change Area accommodated 175 acres of university area (university is included
public /quasi- public GP designation, along with other similar types of land uses such as schools) in the 2005 General
ite. The project would convert 85 acres of this area into RTP, and 40 acres into residential, leaving 50 acres of
within the Land Use Change Area.
CRETIONARY ACTION
The discretionary actions to be taken by the City Council include the following:
• General Plan Amendments
• Qtav Ranch GDPA
Subseq ent 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 future 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) a with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines as part of the certification process.
PROJECT GOALS AND
As specified in the Final SEIR, the primary goals and objectives of the project are as follows:
• ncourage social interaction and a diverse range of services to promote a mix of uses
ithin 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
aid housing opportunities that support an excellent standard of living, and improve the
a ility for residents to live and work locally;
5
Single- family (units)
887
640
Multi- family (units)
5,163
4,530
Commercial (acres)
32.31
17.6
Community
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.Ot
1751
Industrial
/Re final Technology Park
85.0
--
he G
tThe r
1,800
tAs dE
within
Plan l
Unive
ral Plan land use assumption in this table is a gross estimate and subject to further review and refinement.
num permitted commercial areas may alternatively be measured in square feet up to the maximum projected yield of
square feet.
;d on SEIR Figure 3 -4, the Land Use Change Area accommodated 175 acres of university area (university is included
public /quasi- public GP designation, along with other similar types of land uses such as schools) in the 2005 General
ite. The project would convert 85 acres of this area into RTP, and 40 acres into residential, leaving 50 acres of
within the Land Use Change Area.
CRETIONARY ACTION
The discretionary actions to be taken by the City Council include the following:
• General Plan Amendments
• Qtav Ranch GDPA
Subseq ent 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 future 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) a with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines as part of the certification process.
PROJECT GOALS AND
As specified in the Final SEIR, the primary goals and objectives of the project are as follows:
• ncourage social interaction and a diverse range of services to promote a mix of uses
ithin 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
aid housing opportunities that support an excellent standard of living, and improve the
a ility 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;
• Target higher- density and higher- intensity development into specific focus areas in order
to protect 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
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
In Dec(
and cei
those a
uses w
amendr
SubseqL
the Otay
(owners
serve the City's sensitive biological and other valuable natural resources.
IIVA
BACKGROUND
fiber 2005, the City adopted a comprehensive GPU, amended the Otay Ranch GDP,
ied EIR 05 -01 for said actions. As part of the GPU, amendments to land uses for
as comprising the project area were deferred by the City. While the action on the land
deferred, the certified Program EIR (PEIR) analyzed the impacts of the proposed
.nts within this Deferral Area as part of the 2005 GPU Preferred Alternative.
ent to approval of the GPU, the City entered into a Land Offer Agreement (LOA) with
Land Company (OLC) on April 9, 2008. The LOA is an agreement between the OLC
of property within portions of the Deferral Area) and the City, allowing the future
6
convey nce 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
requirements, including, but not limited to, CEQA.
In Ma
(JPB D
SEIR i
which
the prc
The cu
sites pi
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
act 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.
V.
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
comment 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
trustee agencies with respect to the City's compliance with the requirements of CEQA
and 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;
•
�Il 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;
• � ny documentary or other evidence submitted at workshops, public meetings, and public
earings 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
regulations, and including, but not limited to, the following:
The c
to the
The City
project,
part of
docume
them re
approvir
Cal.Aoo
the City
the City
o Chula Vista General Plan;
o Relevant portions of the Zoning Code of the City;
c 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).
........
ian of the documents comprising the record of proceedings is Susan Bigelow, Clerk comment [Lsi]: can: c0„snn 11 Council, whose office is located at 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California
91910.
Council has relied on all of the documents listed above in reaching its decision on the
ven if every document was not formally presented to the City Council or City staff as
he City files generated in connection with the project. Without exception, any
is set forth above but not found in the project files fall into two categories. Many of
ect prior planning or legislative decisions with which the City Council was aware in
1 the project (see City of Santa Cruz v. Local Agency Formation Commission (1978) 76
{d 381, 391 -392 [142 Cal.Rptr. 873]; Dominey v. Department of Personnel
ation (1988)205 Cal.App.3d 729, 738, fn. 6 [252 Cal. Rptr. 620]). Other documents
1 the expert advice provided to City staff or consultants, who then provided advice to
;ouncil. For that reason, such documents form part of the underlying factual basis for
,ouncil's decisions relating to the adoption of the project (see Pub. Resources Code,
8
section
(1986)
County
?1167.6, subd. (e)(10); Browing- Ferris Industries v. City Council of City of San Jose
81 Cal. App.3d 852, 866 [226 Cal.Rptr. 575]; Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. v.
if Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4" 144, 153, 155 [39 Cal.Rptr.2d 54]).
VI.
FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA
Public esources 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."
(Empha is added.) The same statute states that the procedures required by CEQA "are
intendec 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 subs antially 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 alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of
one or more significant effects."
The mandate 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 Guidelines, § 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)). he second permissible finding is that "[s]uch changes or alterations are within the
responsi ility 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]pecifib economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of
employrr ent 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 successful 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.3 553, 565 [276 Cal.Rptr. 410]).
The concept of "feasibility" also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or
mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project (see City of Del
Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417 ['83 Cal.Rptr. 898]). " '[F]easibility'
9
under CEQA encompasses 'desirability' to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable
balancing 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.4th 704, 715 [29
Cal.Rpt .2d 182]),
The CEQA Guidelines do not define the difference between "avoiding" a significant
environmental 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 r of 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" (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
measur s to substantially reduce the severity of a significant effect, but not to reduce that effect
to a less than significant level. These interpretations appear to be mandated by the holding in
Laurel Hills Homeowners Association v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 519 -527
[147 Cal.Rptr. 8421, in which the Court of Appeal held that an agency had satisfied its obligation
to subst ntially lessen or avoid significant effects by adopting numerous mitigation measures,
not all o which rendered the significant impacts in question less than significant.
Although 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 significant level or has simply been substantially lessened but remains significant.
Moreov r, although section 15091, read literally, does not require findings to address
environmental effects that an EIR identifies as merely "potentially significant," these findings will
neverthE 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
infeasible or where the responsibility for modifying the project lies with some other agency
(CEQA uidelines, § 15091, subd. (a), (b)).
With r
either
to a project for which significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened
h the adoption of feasible mitigation measures or a feasible environmentally
10
the pro
"unavo
see als
that, "[1
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
ie 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
constitute 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 ation 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.
VIII.
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
As requi ed by Public Resources Code section 21081.6, subd. (a)(1), the City, in adopting these
findings, also concurrently adopts a MMRP as prepared by the environmental consultant under
the direction of the City. The program is designed to ensure that during project implementation,
the appl cant and any other responsible parties comply with the feasible mitigation measures
identifie below. The program is described in the document entitled AMENDMENTS TO THE
CITY 0 CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN
(GPA- -01) AND OTAY RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PCM-09-1 1) Mitigation
Monitoring 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
mitigation measures to guide future decisions. The program includes monitoring team
qualifications, specific monitoring activities, a reporting system, and criteria for evaluating the
success of the mitigation measures.
IX.
SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
SUMM RY OF EFFECTS
The Final SEIR identified a number of direct and indirect significant environmental effects (or
"impact ") 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
alternati es. 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 io the environmental effects of the project.
The pi
land u
and pt
the Fi
Analv:
protecti
populat
to land
Land U
At the p
that cor
commur
act will result in significant environmental changes with regard to the following issues:
, landform alteration /visual quality, energy resources, transportation, air quality, noise,
is utilities (water). These significant environmental changes or impacts are discussed in
I SEIR in Table 1 -1, pages 9 through 21, and Chapter 5, Environmental Impact
pages 63 through 364. No significant effects were identified for public services (fire
n and emergency services, police services, schools, library services, and parks and
n), public utilities (wastewater and integrated waste management), housing and
n, and global climate change. The project will result in significant unmitigable impacts
ise, landform alteration /visual quality, energy resources, transportation (cumulative
), air quality, noise, and public utilities (water).
'aromatic level, the project does not include design standards necessary to assure
inity character issues are addressed. Therefore, direct impacts associated with
character issues would be significant. Due to its overall adherence to the smart-
12
growth �cts rinciples in the Regional Comprehensive Plan and City's 2005 GPU, cumulative land
use imp associated with the project would be less than significant.
LandfoOm 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 does 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.
Therefore, direct and cumulative impacts associated with energy consumption are considered
significa it.
Traffic, Circulation, and Access
Absent mitigation, approval of the project will result in significant direct impacts along freeway
mainline segments, and significant cumulative impacts along freeway and roadway segments.
Air Quality
Because 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
conform to the current RAQS, and direct and cumulative impacts would be significant.
Additionally, 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 project will result in long -term direct and cumulative emissions from project - related
vehicular trips.
Noise
Notwiths anding 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
increases of more than three decibels (dB).
13
Utilities (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 ol 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).
Impleme tation 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
existing
level th,
to assure that all community character issues are addressed. Compliance with both
nd proposed policies would reduce land use /community character impacts, but not to a
is considered less than significant.
14
Miti
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
commun tv character issues are addressed.
Finding:
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
consider tions 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. A 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 jisual impacts to below a level of significance 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.
Alteration /Aesthetics
Si
Threshold 1: Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista or substantially damage scenic
, including, but not limited to, trees and rock outcroppings;
Threshold 2: Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the City.
Impact:ISubstantially degrade the existing visual character
Implementation of the project would result in a direct significant impact to the existing visual
character 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.
Implem
space
ion:
ation of the project would allow future construction within currently undeveloped open
ulting in the permanent alteration of the existing rolling hills. Additionally, future
15
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 imp ement landform- grading guidelines. Compliance with these policies would reduce visual
impacts but not to a level that is considered less than significant.
Measu
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
views.
Finding:
While Mitigation Measure 5.2.5 -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 would only be reduced to less
than sig ificant when specific design standards and zoning specifications are developed and
applied o subsequent SPA plans. Only implementation of the No Project -No Build alternative
would r uce this impact to below a level of significance. Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the
CEQA uidelines, 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.
]6
Because 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 rernain significant and unmitigated. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Consideration
will be required should the decision makers choose to approve the project.
Energy resources
nificance:
The Proposed Project would result in a significant impact to energy if it would:
1. Reduce 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: Increased energy demands
While fut re development would be required to implement the City's Energy Strategy and Action
Plan, Transit First Plan, and conform to objectives contained in the City's General Plan, there
are no to g -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
discusse I in Section X, below.
mplemeotation 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 5 3 -2a and 5.3 -2b of the Final SEIR provide a breakdown of the additional intensity of
land use and calculates the projected increase in energy demands for the Land Use Change
Area (ad usted for energy efficiency measures). Future SPA Plans would be required to meet
the man atory 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 rot 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
consumption associated with the project would be significant.
17
M
Compatibility 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
significa t when a determination is made assuring energy resources would be available to
adequat ly serve the projected increase in population and land uses resulting from
implementation of the project. Only implementation of the No Project -No Build alternative would
reduce 1his 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 alternative would not achieve
any of the objectives of the project as identified in Section 3.3 of the Final SEIR. Additional
findings elated 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, circulation, and Access
of Si
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 Tra is 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 Chula 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 segment 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, tie impact is significant regardless of intersection LOS.
In
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 Son 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. -5 of the Final SEIR.
If a
may c�
project
the Fin
within 1
by the C
ct exceeds the thresholds in Table 5.4 -5 of the Final SEIR, then the City of San Diego
sider a project to have a significant impact. A significant impact can also occur if a
uses 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.
IN
County of San Diego
The foll wing criteria was utilized to evaluate potential significant impacts based on the County
of San Diego Guidelines for Determining Significance — Transportation and Traffic (2009).
Road Segments
Pursuant to the County's General Plan Public Facilities Element, new development must
provide improvements or other measures to mitigate traffic impacts to avoid:
• f eduction 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
ndings is made pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines. The Public Facilities Element,
however, does not include specific guidelines for determining the amount of additional
t affic that would "significantly impact congestion" on such roads.
The COL 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 site, for purposes of determining whether the development would significantly impact
congesti n on the referenced LOS E and F roads.
The Co nty considers traffic volume increases from public or private projects that result in one
or more pf 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
ir crease congestion on a Circulation Element Road or State Highway currently operating
a LOS E or LOS F, or will cause a Circulation Element Road or State Highway to
o erate at a LOS E or LOS F as a result of the proposed project as identified in
T ble 5.4 -6, or
• T e additional or redistributed ADT generated by the proposed project will cause a
r sidential street to exceed its design capacity.
20
Traffic Models:
Since th 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 M del 3 measures the impacts resulting from implementation of the project compared to
buildout under the Traffic Model 1. (Traffic Model 1 refers to the conditions and traffic volumes
that will tie 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.
Impacts:
As show 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)
n
Based on 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
• 1 -i 05 to Ocean View Hills Parkway
•
Britannia Boulevard to La Media Road
Miticiation Measures:
5.4.5. -1 he City of Chula Vista shall collect the appropriate Regional Transportation
ongestion Improvement Plan funds from the project (Freeway Mainline Segments).
21
in
Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in,
or inco porated 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.
Implementation of this mitigation measure will reduce significant direct impacts to freeway
main14 segments to a less than significant level.
Existing + 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
Existin + Project condition, the following street segments are calculated to operate at a LOS D
or wors 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
addition under this scenario, application of the City's GMP would apply. If the LOS D threshold
is exceeded for more than two hours, then all development may be suspended until acceptable
operating 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
Oleander 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
cumulati a impacts may occur along the corridor.
Mea
1. In th event the GMO threshold is reached at any time prior to the issuance of the building
permit f r the 2,463rd dwelling unit for development east of 1 -805 commencing from April 4,
2011 th applicant may;
Prepare a traffic study that demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, that
e circulation system has additional capacity without exceeding the GMO traffic
reshold standards, or
Demonstrate that other improvements are constructed which provide the additional
;cessary 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
eviates congestion and achieves GMO traffic threshold compliance for Olympic
rkway. The Agreement will identify the deficiencies in transportation infrastructure that
I need to be constructed, the parties that will construct said needed infrastructure, a
reline 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 1a, b, c or d above, then the City may, in its
sole disc etion, 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
satisfacti n of the City Manager.
These measures shall constitute full compliance with growth management objectives and
policies i accordance with the requirements of the General Plan, Chapter 10 with regard to
traffic thr sholds set forth in the GMO.
23
Findi
Pursuar t to section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in,
or incor orated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant effect as
identifieJ in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Specifically, the above described Mitigation
Measure is feasible and shall be required as a condition of approval and made binding on the
applica t. Implementation of this measures will reduce existing + project impacts to less than
signific nt levels.
Air QuOity
Thresholds of Significance:
The Proposed Project would result in a significant impact to air quality if it would:
1. �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
OR to assess the significance of air quality impacts.
4. �xpose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
5. greate objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
Impact: 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 rE presents a direct and significant impact (Section 5.5.3.2, pages 214 through 215).
Cumulat ve impacts associated with this issue are discussed in Section X, below.
BecauSE the proposed land use changes would not be consistent with the adopted General
Plan up n which the RAQS was based, the project would not conform to the current RAQS, and
direct im Dacts would be significant.
24
Mitigation of this planning impact would require the updating of the RAQS to reflect the General
Plan with the project land use changes.
Fin
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
alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the
agenc 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 tirne 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�ent.
Result in an increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -
attain
Implementation 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
requireJ for the development of the project will result in significant air quality impacts from dust
genera ed, fumes, and equipment exhaust adding to an increase in PM,o emissions (Final SEIR
Sectio 5.5.3.2, pages 215 through 221).
The region is not in compliance with the PM,o standards, and the project would increase PM,o
emissions. 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 development projects that could occur are unknown. Upon application for individual
development projects, the City would use the SCAQMD construction thresholds to assess
potential impacts. Additionally, future projects would be required to implement standard dust
and emission control measures during grading operations to reduce potential impacts.
Notwit standing the regulatory requirements for reduced construction emissions, impacts could
remain significant.
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
Mitiaatioh Measures:
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
I
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
environliental effect as identified in the Final SEIR. This mitigation measure would apply to
PM10 fr m 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 attainment with the PM,o 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 basin's non - compliance with the criteria pollutant. Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the
CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make
these a ternative infeasible. Adoption of the No Project -No Build alternative would not achieve
any of he 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.
Becaus 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
s of Si
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� Exposure of people to excessive noise
Implem ntation 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
result in interior noise levels for multi - family residential uses located within the 60 CNEL contour
for roa ways that have the potential to exceed 45 CNEL. These impacts would be considered
significant (Final SEIR Section 5.6.3.2, pages 237 through 250). Cumulative impacts associated
with thi 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:
• Otay Valley Road from La Media Road to SR -125
• Otay 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 in noise impacts due to land uses proposed within noise contours exceeding allowable
limits. S ecifically, 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.
Mitiaatidn Measures:
There i 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
requirec to include project -level exterior analysis to assess the feasibility of reducing noise
levels to outdoor use areas.
Finding
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
infeasib e. 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 din Section XI, below.
Becaus there are no applicable or feasible mitigation measures within the control of the City at
this tim to reduce noise impacts to below a level of significance, impacts to would remain
signific nt and unmitigated. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Consideration will be
require should the decision makers choose to approve the project.
Utilitie$ (Water)
28
The Proposed Project would result in a significant impact to water supplies if it would:
1. Require or result in the construction of new water facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.
2. Require new or expanded supplies or facilities to meet projected needs.
3. Result in the Proposed Project being inconsistent with the Urban Water Management
Plan (UWMP) prepared by the CWA.
Impac : Construction or expansion of new water facilities
Imple entation 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 5.8.1.4, pages 301 through 302). Cumulative
impacts associated with this issue are discussed in Section X, below.
n:
The 0 ay Water District (OWD) Water Resources Master Plan (WRMP; Revised November
2010) defines 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
adequ to level of service to the proposed land uses. Financial responsibility of the facilities is
also i entified. The OWD, through collection of water meter capacity fees, water rates, and
other sources of revenue, funds those facilities identified as CIP projects. Notwithstanding this
planning effort, impacts associated with the construction of new or expanded facilities would be
considered significant at this programmatic level of analysis because the extent of those
impact at this time is too speculative to address. Therefore, direct impacts would be considered
sign ifi ant.
M
There is no mitigation contained in the 2005 PEIR or currently available at this programmatic
level of analysis to address significant impacts associated with the construction or expansion of
water facilities. There is 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.
Findind:
29
There is 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
significa ice. Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal,
social, t chnological, or other considerations make these alternatives infeasible. This alternative
would n t achieve the objectives of the project as identified in Section 3.3 of the Final SEIR.
Addition I 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:) New or expanded supplies
Implem ntation of the project would place greater demands on the existing water supply than
analyze in the 2005 General Plan EIR for the Preferred Alternative, resulting in the potential
need fo additional water supplies. (Final SEIR Section 5.8.1.4, pages 303 through 305)
As shown 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
progranimatic level of analysis the minimum required reductions are assumed. The 2005
General Plan 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
approxii,nately 1.4 million gpd.
The 2010 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 General Development Plan area. While OWD will be required to certify the sufficiency of
a reliab a water supply primarily through the water assessment and verification process (SB -610
certifica ion 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 serve the City through
buildou of the project. Therefore, at this level of analysis, impacts associated with water supply
would be significant.
5.8.1.
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
5.8.1.62 For any residential subdivision with 500 or more units, any CEQA compliance review
shall include demonstration of compliance with the requirements of SB 221.
Find
While Vlitigation 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
Projec -No Build alternative would reduce this impact to below a level of significance. Pursuant
to sect on 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
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 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
Sectio 16.0 of the SEIR.
In formulating mitigation measures for the project, regional issues and cumulative impacts have
been taken 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
"proje t" level mitigation measures. The project, along with other related projects, will result in
the fol owing irreversible cumulative environmental changes.
31
Impactk Landform Alteration /Visual Quality
Section 6.0 of the SEIR included an analysis of cumulative impacts to landform alteration /visual
resour s. Implementation of the project would contribute to a cumulatively significant impact to
the existing visual character of the project area.
n:
The vi ual 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.
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
building plans that assure conformance to the landform grading guidelines contained in the
City's grading 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.
Notwithstanding 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
availab a 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, echnological, or other considerations make this alternative infeasible. 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 cumulative visual impacts to below a level of significance, these impacts
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: 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.
Additio ally, 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 Chula Vista Roadway
• Otay Valley Road between SR -125 and Street "A"
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
• -805 to Ocean View Hills Parkway
• -805 to Ocean View Hills Parkway
• cean View Hills Parkway to Heritage Road
• cean View Hills Parkway to Heritage Road
• eritage Road to Britannia Boulevard
• eritage Road to Britannia Boulevard
• ritannia Boulevard to La Media Road
• ritannia Boulevard to La Media Road
• a Media Road to SR -125
5.4.5.1 1 The City shall collect the appropriate RTCIP funds from the project (Freeway Mainline
Segments).
5.4.5.
! -lTo 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
ACrhula Vista Roadway Segment).
33
Pursua it to section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in,
or inco -porated 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
freeway mainline segments and roadway segments within the City to less than significant levels.
Traffic, Circulation and Access: City of San Diego
Buildo t of the project is anticipated to result in significant cumulative traffic impacts at three
roadw ys segments within the City of San Diego.
Based n the peak hour intersection, segment and freeway analyses, the following cumulative
impact were identified under Year 2030 conditions:
City of San 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
5.4.5.2-2 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.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.4.5.2 -2 would reduce significant cumulative impacts to
City of San Diego roadway segments to below a level of significance. Implementation of this
mitigat on measure is the responsibility of the City of San Diego and outside the jurisdiction of
the Ci y. Therefore, pursuant to section 15091(a)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines, such
changes 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.
Becaue there are no applicable or feasible mitigation measures within the control of the City at
this ti e to reduce emissions to below a level of significance impacts to air quality would remain
34
signifi
requir
it and unmitigated. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Consideration will be
should the decision makers choose to approve the project.
Impact:) Air Quality
Section 6.0 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
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 RAIDS, and
increased emissions would result in a significant cumulative impact.
Mitioatidn Measures:
Mitigation of this planning impact would require the updating of the RAQS.
Revision of the RAQS would reduce this impact to less than significant. This is the responsibility
of SAN AG 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 sh uId 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.
Impact:) Air Quality
Buildou of the project would result in air quality impacts associated with long -term operation.
Once th project is built out, the major source of air pollution will be from project - related traffic.
As disc ssed in Section 6.0 of the SEIR, cumulative impacts related to long -term mobile
emissic
would be significant.
35
While t e 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, im lementation of the project would result in a cumulatively significant air quality impact.
easures:
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
alternate es identified in the Final EIR. While implementation of the No Project -No Build, No
Project- o 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 roject -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 disc ssed in Section XI, below.
Becaus there are no applicable or feasible mitigation measures within the control of the City at
this tim a 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
requirec should the decision makers choose to approve the project.
Impact:) Utilities (Water)
The pr ject plus cumulative development would incrementally increase regional water
consum ti on, resulting in a significant cumulative impact to water supply.
Lx ian ion:
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 analysis that sufficient water supplies would be available.
36
There is no mitigation available at this programmatic level of review because the extent of
improv ments 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,
technol gical, 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 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
identifiE d in Section 3.3 of the Final SEIR. Additional findings related to the project alternatives
are discussed in Section XI, below.
Becaus there are no applicable or feasible mitigation measures within the control of the City at
this tim to reduce noise impacts to below a level of significance, impacts to would remain
signific nt 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
substa tially lessen the significant environmental effects. Where no significant environmental
effects -emain after application of all feasible mitigation measures identified in the EIR, the
decisior makers must still evaluate the project alternatives identified in the EIR. Under these
circums ances, CEQA requires findings on the feasibility of project alternatives.
In general, in preparing and adopting findings, a lead agency need not necessarily address
feasibility when contemplating the approval of a project with significant impacts. Where the
significE nt impacts can be mitigated to an acceptable (insignificant) level solely by the adoption
of mitig tion measures, the agency, in drafting its findings, has no obligation to consider the
feasibility of environmentally superior alternatives, even if their impacts would be less severe
than those of the projects as mitigated (Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of
the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376 [253 Cal.Rptr. 426]; Laurel Hills Homeowners
Association v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515 [147 Cal.Rptr. 842]; Kings County Farm
Bureau v. 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 projec 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
decision 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 tie 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 tec nological 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) 2 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
meaninc as may be provided by Websters dictionary or any other sources. Moreover, Public
Resources Code section 21081 governs the "findings' requirement under CEQA with regard to
the feas bility 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
mikes c ne or more of the following findings:
"Chang s or alternations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or
substan lially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR" (CEQA
Guidelines, section 15091, subd. (a)(1)).
"Such c anges 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, subd. (a)(2)).
"Specifi
employe
project
economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provisions of
ent opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or
Iternatives 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
balance ig of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors" (Ibid.; see
also S quoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.41h 704, 715 [29
Cal.Rptr.2d 182]).
These f endings 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 de ailed discussion in Section IX and Section X demonstrates that all but seven significant
environ ental 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
mitigati n measures recommended in the EIR. The remaining unmitigated impacts are the
followin :
• I-and Use (direct — inability to develop design standards at the programmatic level);
• I-andform Alterations /Aesthetics (direct and cumulative - change in visual character);
• Energy (cumulative — absence of long term assurance of energy supplies)
• Transportation (cumulative - three roadway segments within the City of San Diego)
• � ir Quality (direct and cumulative — inconsistency with existing RAQS; operation - related
missions)
• Eloise (direct and cumulative — exposure to excessive noise)
• � tilities: Water Supply (direct and cumulative — absence of sufficient water supply to
erve the project)
With respect to the East Planning Area of the Preferred Alternative, the 2005 PER also
identified significant and unmitigated impacts for land use, landform alterations /visual quality,
energy, transportation (cumulative freeway segments), air quality, noise, and utilities (water).
For ea h of the unmitigated impacts, the SEIR concluded that implementation of the project
would of 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 Cit can fully satisfy its CEQA obligations by determining whether any alternatives identified
in the EIR are both feasible and environmentally superior with respect to the impacts listed
above Laurel 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, 4 0 -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
alternative qualifies as both feasible and environmentally superior with respect to the
unmitigated impacts.
To full 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 focus solely on the impacts listed above, but may also address the environmental merits
of the Iternatives 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
alternative 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, tie 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 No Build Alternative, No Project -No Change in Existing Plan Alternative, Reduced
Density Alternative, 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 Aternative presents the scenario where the Land Use Change Area would remain in its
present vacant condition.
Under the No Project —No Build Alternative, the project site would remain as it is today, and no
development 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,
transpo lation, air quality, noise, or utilities (water). However, impacts to population and housing
land u e occur because the No Project —No Build Alternative would not contribute to the
40
provisi on of necessary housing within a smart- growth area as identified in the Regional
Compr hensive Plan (RCP).
the No Project —No Build Alternative is considered environmentally preferable to the
project because it would eliminate all unmitigated direct and cumulative impacts, it would not
accom lish any of the goals and objectives of the project, and is therefore not feasible.
Fin
The No Project—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 oll the General Plan, which recommends that housing be provided for all income groups. It
also conflicts with the RCP, which identified this portion of the City for smart - growth planning.
Retenti in of the project site in its existing state would be inconsistent with the approved GPU
and existing Otay Ranch GDP land use designations for the site. In addition, under this
alternative, key amendments to the City's Circulation Plan -East would not be implemented.
Retenti n 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
includin 3 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
implem ntation of the No Project —No Build Alternative would result in a loss of anticipated
contribu ions into the City's development impact fee programs from the dwelling units /structures
that WOL Id 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
current, identified under these programs.
The Cit would receive lower long -term revenues in the form of property and sales tax resulting
from th non - development of the proposed residential areas.
Implem ntation 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 comprehensive manner in a way that deals with the logical extension of public services
41
and util ties; 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
consist nt 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" 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 egulatory plan, policy, or ongoing operation, the "no project" alternative will be the
continuE tion 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 is 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
potentially significant impacts to land use and population and housing to a greater degree than
the proj ct.
The development 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 qual
would b
Addition
reduced
the alter
ly impacts associated with the No Project —No Change in Existing Plans Alternative
reduced because of decreased density and intensity of uses compared to the project.
illy, short -term air quality impacts associated with construction would be slightly
Overall, however, air quality impacts would remain significant and unmitigated due to
iative's conflict with the existing RAQS.
42
Although it would require less water to serve its projected population, impacts associated with
waters pply would remain significant and unmitigated.
The traffic 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 les 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 - 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 potentially significant.
The No Project —No Change in Existing Plans Alternative would reduce impacts to
landfor /visuad quality, transportation, air quality, noise, and utilities (water). However, while
slightly reduced, landform /visual quality and air quality impacts would remain significant and
unmitigated. 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 not be met with this alternative:
•
Foster the goal of the 2005 GPU to expand the local economy by providing a broad range of
busi iesses, facilitate provision of services for a university, provide employment and housing
opportunities that support an excellent standard of living, and improve the ability for
resi ents 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
com unity needs,
• Dev lop a circulation plan that de- emphasizes the automobile, and places greater reliance
on t nsit and pedestrian circulation.
•
Target higher- density and higher- intensity development into specific focus areas in order to
protect 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 -c mpus student housing within the University Town Center adjacent to the university.
43
• Pro ide opportunities for higher density development that accommodates off -site student
and faculty housing for the university.
• Pro ide opportunities for goods and services and other ancillary uses necessary to support
the niversity 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, while this alternative includes only 1,298 units. This alternative was designed primarily
with Residential Low Medium and Mixed Use residential designations, rather than the more
intense development 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.
Reduced 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 detoils of this alternative are discussed in Section 10.3 of the SEIR.
Impact
Uevelop ent 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 Aanagement Plan. Additionally, this alternative would result in a lower density ring
surrounding a proposed Town Center, creating a conflict with proposed GDP policies. This
alternative's inconsistency with regional and local planning would result in a potentially
significant impact to land use and population and housing a greater degree than the project.
While
commu
up and
Reduced Density Alternative would result in the construction of a less dense
any degree of development would result in a change to the existing aesthetic make
aal quality of the project site. While the degree of impact would be less as a result of
44
the less ned development potential under this alternative, the loss of the open space and rolling
hills wo Id still remain significant unmitigated.
While emissions of criteria pollutants under this alternative would be reduced compared to the
project, the Reduced Density Alternative would not conform to the existing RAQS. Impacts
associated with air quality plan implementation would be significant and unmitigable.
Although it would require less energy and water to serve its projected population, impacts
associated with energy and water supply would remain significant and unmitigated due to the
uncertainty of available supply.
The Re Juced Density Alternative would result in a reduction of 3,125 ADT on roadways
resultinc in a reduction of direct and cumulative impacts as compared to the project. Although
this alte native would not eliminate significant freeway impacts, impacts to traffic resulting from
the Rec uced Density Alternative would be less than the project. Likewise, because this
alternative would remove homes from the noise contour along the SR -125, the number of units
affected by traffic noise would be also reduced.
Findin
The Reduced Density Alternative would reduce the degree of impacts to landformlvisual quality,
air quality, 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;
!velop a circulation plan that de- emphasizes the automobile, and places greater
iance on mass transit and pedestrian circulation,
rget higher- density and higher- intensity development into specific focus areas in order
protect stable residential neighborhoods and to create mixed -use urban environments
it are oriented to transit and pedestrian activity. This targeted development will be well
signed, compatible with adjacent areas, and contribute to the continued vitality of the
y's economy;
• A low for higher density residential development in order to encourage the development
ol off - campus student housing within the University Town Center (Village 9) and the
E 3stern Urban Center adjacent to the university;
,ide opportunities for higher density development that accommodate off -site student
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, he Reduced Density Alternative does not fulfill the objectives associated with building a
high de isity community providing interactive opportunities including economics, pedestrian
mobility, and university support. Therefore, pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA
Guidelin s, 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.
Howeve , 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
ng 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
disruptio of additional land uses, especially through preserve land.
The Ion -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 alte native would not conform to existing RAQs resulting in a significant and unmitigable
impact ssociated with its failure to conform to the existing plan. Construction of the road
extensioi would result in increased emissions of criteria pollutants during construction
compared to the project.
As plan
west, ai
in the c
impacts
this alt(
becaus(
ed, La Media Road would serve as a parallel route to 1 -805 and Heritage Road to the
J SR -125 to the east. With the project's deletion of this roadway, 65,000 trips expected
mulative condition would be rerouted to alternative roads, resulting in those potential
iiscussed in Section 5.4 of the SEIR. The construction of the extension, as proposed in
native, would result in greater direct impacts to La Media Road than the project
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
he 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.
Findi
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,
pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social,
technol gical, or other considerations make this alternative infeasible.
mentally Superior Alternative
CEQA r quires that an EIR identify the environmentally superior alternative among all of the
alternate ies considered, including the project. If any No Project alternative is selected as
environmentally superior, then the EIR is required to identify an environmentally superior
alternate a among the other alternatives.
The environmental analysis of project alternatives presented in the SEIR indicates, through a
comparison of potential impacts from each of the proposed alternative and the project, that the
No Project—No Build Alternative would result in the greatest reduction in environmental impacts
compar d to the project. However, the No Project —No Build Alternative would not implement the
City's G neral Plan, the Otay Ranch GDP, or any project objectives.
The Reduced Density Alternative would be considered the environmentally superior alternative
due to its potential for reducing impacts while meeting most of the objectives of the Project.
47
xll.
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The proj ct would have significant, unavoidable impacts on the following areas, described in
detail in ection IX of these Findings of Fact:
• Land Use
• L ndform 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.
Moreove , 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
choosinc to allow the occurrence of specified significant environmental effects that have not
been av ided. The provision explains why, in the agency's judgment, the project's benefits
outweigI the unavoidable significant effects. Where another substantive law (e.g., the California
Clean Air Act, the Federal Clean Air Act, or the California and Federal Endangered Species
Acts) pr hibits the lead agency from taking certain actions with environmental impacts, a
stateme t of overriding considerations does not relieve the lead agency from such prohibitions.
Rather, he decision -maker has recommended mitigation measures based on the analysis
contained in the Final SEIR, recognizing that other resource agencies have the ability to impose
more stri gent standards or measures.
48
CEQA coes not require lead agencies to analyze "beneficial impacts" in an EIR. Rather, EIRs
are to focus on potential "significant effects on the environment," defined to be "adverse.'
(Pub. Resources Code Section 21068.) The Legislature amended the definition to focus on
"adverse" 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
substan ial evidence supporting the various benefits can be found in the preceding findings,
which a e incorporated by reference into this Section, and in the documents found in the Record
of Proc edings, 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 project 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 pro ect would develop a mix of uses that will result in Town Centers focused on regionally
serving �ransit and ancillary support for a regionally serving university site.
Needs
The pro ect would help meet projected long -term regional needs for housing by providing a wide
variety f housing types and prices. In recent years, the cost of housing compared to other uses
(e.g., cc mmercial, industrial) has risen disproportionately to the cost of other uses in the Otay
Ranch rea, reflecting a shortfall in residentially zoned land. The project would help reduce the
cost of housing by designating an adequate supply of suitable land for residential development.
The pr 'ect 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 for the region. Phasing will occur in response to market conditions, which will help fulfill
the demand for housing.
Both th 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 ig open space, offering new homes, increasing the tax base for the City, and providing
right-of-way for the regional transit system.
50
Exhibit B
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
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
undergo changes as additional mitigation measures are identified and additional conditions of
approval are placed on the project throughout the project approval process. Pursuant to Public
Resources Code section 21081.6(a)(2), the City of Chula Vista designates the Environment
Review Coordinator and the City Clerk as the custodians of the documents or their material
which constitute the record of proceedings upon which its decision is based.
his monitoring program will serve a dual purpose of verifying completion of the mitigation
lentified in the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) and generating information
n the effectiveness of the mitigation measures to guide future decisions. The program includes
the following:
Monitor qualifications
Specific monitoring activities
Reporting system
Criteria for evaluating the success of the mitigation measures
The project includes a GPA and Otay Ranch General Development Plan Amendment resulting in
policy, circulation, and land use changes affecting the lands within the Project Area. The Project
rea 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
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
the Eastern Urban Center (EUC).
e Proposed Project will redefine the boundaries within the General Development Plan area to
'ate proposed Villages 8 West and 9 and add 85 acres of RTP within the existing University
e. 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.
he Proposed Project is described in the SEIR text. The SEIR, incorporated herein as referenced,
f cused on issues determined to be potentially significant by the City. The issues addressed in
the SEIR include land use, landform alteration /visual quality, energy resources, transportation,
it quality, noise, public services, public utilities, housing and population, and global climate
change. The environmental analysis concluded that for all of the environmental issues
iscussed, some of the significant and potentially significant impacts could be avoided or
r duced through implementation of recommended mitigation measures. Potentially significant
impacts requiring mitigation were identified for land use, landform alteration /visual quality,
nergy resources, transportation, air quality, noise, and public utilities (water). Land use
impacts, while concluded to be significant, are not included in the MMRP because there are no
f asible mitigation measures available at the level of programmatic review that would serve to
duce or avoid impacts.
lic Resources Code section 21081.6 requires monitoring of only those impacts identified as
ificant or potentially significant. The monitoring program for the Proposed Project therefore
ddresses the impacts associated with only the issue areas identified above.
n Monitorine T
ie monitoring activities would be accomplished by individuals identified in the attached MMRP
ble. While specific qualifications should be determined by the City, the monitoring team
d 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
rt Excellent communication skills.
2
ram 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
ffects.
I 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
t e stated mitigation measure, the form will have a series of questions addressing the
ffectiveness of the mitigation measure. The monitors shall complete the MMR and file it with
tie 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
t 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,
valuate 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
tie City to confirm the implementation and effectiveness of the mitigation measures imposed
n the project.
ions in Case of Noncomoli
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
here are a number of options the City may use to enforce this program should noncompliance
antinue. Some methods commonly used by other lead agencies include "stop work" orders,
nes and penalties (civil), restitution, permit revocations, citations, and injunctions. It is
ssential that all parties involved in the program understand the authority and responsibility of
ie on -site monitors. Decisions regarding actions in case of noncompliance are the
sponsibility of the City.
UMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
he following table summarizes the potentially significant project impacts and lists the
ssociated mitigation measures and the monitoring efforts necessary to ensure that the
Measures 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
uring 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 ALTERATION/VISUAL
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
protection of the visual character of the
5.2.5 -I Within the East Planning Area, prior to approval of
project area. Therefore, direct and
grading plans, the applicant shall prepare grading
cumulative impacts associated with visual
r
and building plans that conform to the landform
resources would be significant.
grading guidelines contained in the grading
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 from 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 (coat.)
• 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.
Therefore, direct and cumulative
5.8.5 -1 Continued focus on the Energy Strategy and Action
impacts associated with energy
Plan, which addresses demand side management,
consumption are considered significant.
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 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
Dii -ect Impacts
Prior to the issuance of building
CCV
Under Year 2030 conditions, direct
Freeway SegmentS
permits.
traffic impacts would occur along the
The following is recommended to mitigate the potentially
following segments:
significant impacts to freeway segments:
Fi -eeway Segment Operations
5.4.5.1 -1 The City of Chula Vista shall collect the
I -805 between
appropriate Regional Transportation Congestion
• Olympic Parkway /Orange
Improvement Program funds from the Proposed
Avenue to Main Street/Auto Park
Project.
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 Frame of Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
TRANSPORTATION (coat.)
Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative Impacts
Prior to the issuance of building
CCV
Under Year 2030 conditions,
Roadway Segments
permits.
significant cumulative traffic impacts
would occur as follows:
The following is recommended to mitigate the significant
cumulative impacts in the City:
Segmew Operations (City, of Chula
l�ista) �
5.4.5.2 -I To mitigate for the significant cumulative impact
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
Operations (City ofSai�
traveling in the westbound direction, with the
Diego)
Diego)
number three lane serving as an auxiliary lane onto
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
de [as Vistas and Datsun
above would reduce significant cumulative impacts to CCV
roadway segments to below a level of significance.
Street /Otay Valley Road
• Heritage Road between Datsun
Street /Otay Valley Road and
Otay Mesa Road
I
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
along Heritage Road between the City Boundary
1 -805
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 -1-ane Expressway standards. This
Drive
would result in acceptable LOS D or better
operations.
• 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
�
I
I
I
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
Mitigation Measures Tire Frame of Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
TRANSPORTATION (coat.)
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 1-
• Olympic Parkway between
805 (commencing from April 4, 2011), 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 Impact
Mitigation Measures
Time Frame of Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
TRANSPORTATION (coat.)
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 I, until such time
that GMO traffic threshold standard compliance call 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 PM10 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
I
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.)
,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 221.
Notwithstanding implementation of the mitigation measures
above, direct and cumulative impacts would remain
unmitigated.
16
The pro ect would develop a mix of uses that will result in Town Centers focused on regionally
serving ran sit 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 area, reflecting a shortfall in residentially zoned land. The project would help reduce the
cost of ousing by designating an adequate supply of suitable land for residential development.
The pro ect 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 for 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,
preserving 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
uction
Exhibit B
his mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) was prepared for the Amendments
the City of Chula Vista (City) General Plan (General Plan Amendment [GPA]- 09 -01) and Otay
anch General Development Plan (PCM- 09 -11) to comply with Public Resources Code
action 21081.6, which requires public agencies to adopt such programs to ensure effective
nplementation of mitigation measures. This monitoring program is dynamic in that it will
ndergo changes as additional mitigation measures are identified and additional conditions of
pproval are placed on the project throughout the project approval process. Pursuant to Public
esources Code section 21081.6(a)(2), the City of Chula Vista designates the Environment
eview Coordinator and the City Clerk as the custodians of the documents or their material
rhich constitute the record of proceedings upon which its decision is based.
i
this monitoring program will serve a dual purpose of verifying completion of the mitigation
identified in the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) and generating information
on the effectiveness of the mitigation measures to guide future decisions. The program includes
the following:
Monitor qualifications
Specific monitoring activities
Reporting system
Criteria for evaluating the success of the mitigation measures
"he project includes a GPA and Otay Ranch General Development Plan Amendment resulting in
)olicy, circulation, and land use changes affecting the lands within the Project Area. The Project
krea is an approximately 1,281 -acre area within the Otay Ranch Subarea of the City's Eastern
Manning Area that spans multiple existing villages and planning areas, including portions of
tillages 4 and 7; the entirety of Village 8 and Village 9; University /Planning Area 10, which
ncludes a proposed 85 -acre Regional Technology Park (RTP); and a portion of the southern edge
the Eastern Urban Center (EUC).
Proposed Project will redefine the boundaries within the General Development Plan area to
ate proposed Villages 8 West and 9 and add 85 acres of RTP within the existing University
The 728 acres of land that comprise the proposed villages and RTP are referred to as the
nd Use Change Area." Proposed land use designation changes would affect only the Land Use
Inge Area. The project would re- designate land uses only within the Land Use Change Area.
the Proposed Project is described in the SEIR text. The SEIR, incorporated herein as referenced,
focused on issues determined to be potentially significant by the City. The issues addressed in
the SEIR include land use, landform alteration /visual quality, energy resources, transportation,
air quality, noise, public services, public utilities, housing and population, and global climate
dhange. The environmental analysis concluded that for all of the environmental issues
discussed, some of the significant and potentially significant impacts could be avoided or
reduced through implementation of recommended mitigation measures. Potentially significant
i pacts requiring mitigation were identified for land use, landform alteration /visual quality,
nergy resources, transportation, air quality, noise, and public utilities (water). Land use
impacts, while concluded to be significant, are not included in the MMRP because there are no
feasible mitigation measures available at the level of programmatic review that would serve to
duce or avoid impacts.
lic Resources Code section 21081.6 requires monitoring of only those impacts identified as
ificant or potentially significant. The monitoring program for the Proposed Project therefore
ddresses the impacts associated with only the issue areas identified above.
itieation Monitorine T
ie monitoring activities would be accomplished by individuals identified in the attached MMRP
ble. While specific qualifications should be determined by the City, the monitoring team
ould possess the following capabilities:
Interpersonal, decision - making, and management skills with demonstrated experience in
working under trying field circumstances;
o Knowledge of and appreciation for the general environmental attributes and special
features found in the project area;
4 Knowledge of the types of environmental impacts associated with construction of cost-
effective mitigation options; and
Excellent communication skills.
K
ram Procedural Gi
or 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
rticipants. Mitigation measures that need to be defined in greater detail will be addressed
or to any project plan approvals in follow -up meetings designed to discuss specific monitoring
16 addition to the list of mitigation measures, the monitors will have mitigation monitoring
report (MMR) forms, with each mitigation measure written out on the top of the form. Below
t e stated mitigation measure, the form will have a series of questions addressing the
ectiveness of the mitigation measure. The monitors shall complete the MMR and file it with
the 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,
ill be generated from the daily logs and compliance reports and will include supplemental
aterial (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
n the project.
Noncompliance
re are generally three separate categories of noncompliance associated with the adopted
nditions of approval:
Noncompliance requiring an immediate halt to a specific task or piece of equipment;
I
M 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
here are a number of options the City may use to enforce this program should noncompliance
continue. Some methods commonly used by other lead agencies include "stop work" orders,
fines and penalties (civil), restitution, permit revocations, citations, and injunctions. It is
essential that all parties involved in the program understand the authority and responsibility of
the on -site monitors. Decisions regarding actions in case of noncompliance are the
responsibility of the City.
UMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
he following table summarizes the potentially significant project impacts and lists the
ssociated mitigation measures and the monitoring efforts necessary to ensure that the
ieasures 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
ng 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 ALTERATION /VISUAL
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
protection of the visual character of the
5.2.5 -1 Within the East Planning Area, prior to approval of
project area. Therefore, direct and
grading plans, the applicant shall prepare grading
cumulative impacts associated with visual
and building plans that conform to the landform
resources would be significant
grading guidelines contained in the grading
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 from 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 ALTERATION/VISUAL
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.
Therefore, direct and cumulative
5.8.5 -1 Continued focus on the Energy Strategy and Action
impacts associated with energy
Plan, which addresses demand side management,
consumption are considered significant.
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 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
Dii-ect Impacts
Prior to the issuance of building
CCV
Under Year 2030 conditions, direct
Freeway Segments
permits.
traffic impacts would occur along the
following segments:
The following is recommended to mitigate the potentially
significant impacts to freeway segments:
Freelvay Segment Operations
5.4.5.1 -1 The City of Chula Vista shall collect the
I -805 between
appropriate Regional Transportation Congestion
• Olympic Parkway /Orange
Improvement Program funds from the Proposed
Avenue to Main Street/Auto Park
Project.
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 Frame of Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
TRANSPORTATION (coat.)
Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative Impacts
Prior to the issuance of building
CCV
Under Year 2030 conditions,
Roadway Segments
peen its.
significant cumulative traffic impacts
j The following is recommended to mitigate the significant
would occur as follows:
cumulative impacts in the City:
Segiuew Opera1ioi7s (City of Chula
5.4.5.2 -1 To mitigate 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 Operatio>7s (City ofSaii
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 Mainli"e 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
• Olympic Parkway /Orange
operations.
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
Freeviwy 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 lmpact
Mitigation Measures
Time Frame of Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
TRANSPORTATION, (coat.)
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 (coat.)
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 1-
• 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
• Eastlake Parkway between Birch
alternative method of maintaining GMO
Road and Hunte Parkway
traffic threshold compliance; or
11
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
Mitigation Measures
Time Frame of Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
TRANSPORTATION (coat.)
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 infiastructure.
If GMO compliance 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
jthat 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
encouraged by the General Plan,
5.6.5 -1 Mitigation of PM 10 impacts requires active dust
implementation of the Proposed Project
control during construction. As a matter of standard
would result in a significant direct and
practice, the City shall require the following standard
cumulative air quality impact due to the
construction measures during construction to the
Proposed Project's inconsistency with
extent applicable:
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 hnpact
Mitigation Measures
Time Frame of Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting
Agency
FAIR 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.
i
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 221.
Notwithstanding implementation 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
,al of amendments to the Chula Vista General Plan and Otay Ranch General
)pment Plan ( "Project ") that will reconfigure existing Otay Ranch village
cries, increase residential densities, amend the General Plan Circulation Element in
► 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
rovisions of Section 15168 and an SEIR under the provisions of Section 15163 of the
'EQA 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, an EIR scoping meeting was held on January 26, 2010; and
WHEREAS, Draft SEIR 09 -01, together with the technical appendices for the
eject, 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
Draft 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 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
-lasible 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
leasures. These findings are not merely information or advisory, but constitute a binding
-.t 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
1-ferenced in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted concurrently
iith these Findings of Fact and will be effectuated through the process of implementing
le 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:
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
serials 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
REPORTING PROGRAM
A. Adoption of Findings of Fact
MITIGATION MONITORING AND
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
'ista 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
le City Clerk), and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit `B" to
its 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: Approved as to form by:
Halbert, PE, AICP
stant City Manager/
ctor of Development Services
Glen R. Googins
City Attorney