HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013/02/26 Item 11CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA STATEMENT
.`,,,i~ „ cin of
CHUTAVISTA
Item No.:
Meeting ]
ITEM TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST TO: 1)
AMEND THE 2008 LAND OFFER AGREEMENT (LOA)
BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND THE OTAY
LAND COMPANY (OLC) TO PROCESS GENERAL PLAN (GP)
AND OTAY RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (GDP)
AMENDMENTS SEPARATELY FROM PROPOSED
SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLANS; 2) CERTIFY
THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT (SEIIi-09-O1 / SCH2O04081066) FOR AMENDMENTS
TO THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA GP (GPA-09-O1) AND THE
OTAY RANCH GDP (PCM-09-11); AND 3) AMEND THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA GP (GPA-09-O1) AND OTAY RANCH GDP
(PCM-09-11) TO SUPPORT THE UNIVERSITY AND
REGIONAL TECHNOLOGY PARK BY ALLOWING UP TO
6,050 UNITS AND 1.8 MILLION SQUARE FEET OF NON-
RESH)ENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN VILLAGES 8 WEST
AND 9, RESIZING AND RELOCATING THE RTP TO THE
UNIVERSITY SITE AND RESOLVING THE 2005 GENERAL
PLAN UPDATE "DEFERRAL AREA"
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITY
COUNCIL APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE
LAND OFFER AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AND OTAY LAND COMPANY FOR
CONVEYANCE OF 210 ACRES TO THE CITY AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID
AGREEMENT AND ACCEPT THE OFFERS OF DEDICATION
FOR THE 210 ACRES IF SUCH LAND BECOMES AVAILABLE
TO THE CITY PURSUANT TO THE TERMS OF THE FIRST
AMENDMENT TO THE LAND OFFER AGREEMENT
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA CERTIFYING THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SEIR-09-O1/SCH
2004081066) FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF CHULA
11-1
Date, Item No.: f t
SUBMITTED BY
REVIEWED BY
4/STHS VOTE:
SUMMARY
YES _ NO_X_
The project proposes amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GP) and Otay Ranch
General Development Plan (GDP) to implement the terms of the Land Offer Agreement for
Villages 8 West and 9 originally approved in 2008 between the City of Chula Vista and Otay
Land Company (OLC). The accompanying amendments to the LOA provide for the City to
receive land dedicated from OLC in conjunction with action on the GP/GDP Amendments. The
specific amendments are presented in greater detail in the "Proposed Amendments" and
"Analysis" sections below and the specific wording is included in Enclosures 1 and 2.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
In accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) has been prepazed to analyze the
environmental impacts of the proposed amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan and
Otay Ranch General Development Plan.
SEIR-09-O1 is discussed in detail in a companion agenda statement and must be addressed and
acted upon prior to City Council consideration of the General Plan and General Development
Plan Amendments.
Meeting Date: 02/26/13
Page 2 of 21
VISTA GENERAL PLAN (GPA-09-O1) AND OTAY RANCH
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PCM-09-11); MAKING
CERTAIN FINDINGS OF FACT; AND ADOPTING A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITY
COUNCIL APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY'S
GENERAL PLAN AND THE OTAY RANCH GENERAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO REFLECT LAND USE,
CIRCULATION AND POLICY CHANGES FOR
APPROXIMATELY 1,281 ACRES WITHIN THE OTAY RANCH
PLANNED COMMUNITY, INCLUDING ASSOCIATED TEXT,
MAPS AND TABLES
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER f'j fo- G- t%
CITY MANAGER ~ ~ ~ p5
11-2
Date, Item No.: ~l
Meeting Date: 02/26/13
Page 3 of 21
RECOMMENDATION
City Council adopt the resolutions.
BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
On February 13, 2013 the Planning Commission voted 4-0-1-1 to recommend that the City
Council certify the SEIR and approve the project.
DISCUSSION
Background
Since the adoption of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan in 1993, the City of Chula
Vista has maintained a vision of locating a university within the Otay Ranch. This vision is also
reflected in the General Plan. While the properties have been designated "University" with a
secondary residential land use should the University not become a reality, they have been held in
private, rather than public, ownership. In 2001, progress in assembling the land necessary to
locate the University was made with the acquisition of approximately 140 acres of developable
land for university purposes. It was understood that additional acreage was required to realize the
land mass envisioned for the University by the GP and GDP. In 2007, the City began negotiating
with the landowners on a land plan that would be beneficial to the City and carry out the goals of
the GP and GDP with the conveyance of land necessary for the future development of a
University and a Regional Technology Park, while also providing certain benefits to the
landowners.
On April 15, 2008 the City of Chula Vista entered into a Land Offer Agreement (LOA) with
OLC that would allow the City of Chula Vista to accept Irrevocable Offers of Dedication (IODs)
for 50 acres of developable University/Regional Technology Park land if certain entitlements are
approved within the required timeframes. As part of the agreement the City also received an IOD
for an additional 160 acres of mitigation land and one million dollars for University recruitment
and planning purposes was received upon execution of the Land Offer Agreement. A second one
million dollars for the same purpose will be received if such entitlements are approved by the
City.
In August 2009 OLC's application (including the GP and GDP Amendments, Sectional Planning
Area (SPA) Plans for Villages 8 West and 9, Environmental Impact Reports and tentative maps
for both villages) was deemed complete. Since then, staff has been working with OLC to
complete these applications.
This staff report also discusses the general content of Final SEIR 09-01. SEIR-09-O1 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-OS-O1)
originally certified by the City of Chula Vista in December of 2005, as part of the 2005 General
Plan Update and Otay Ranch General Development Plan Amendment (GDPA). When the City
11-3
Date, Item No.: ' ~
Meeting Date: 02/26/13
Page 4 of 21
adopted the General Plan Update (GPU)/and Otay Ranch General Development Plan
Amendment (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 come to be
referred to as the "Deferral Area." While action on land use was deferred in 2005, the certified
EIR analyzed the impacts of amendments within the "Deferral Area" that were proposed as
part of the 2005 General Plan Update Preferred Alternative. SEIR-09-O1 analyzes the differences
between what was examined as part of EIR-OS-O1 in 2005 for the Preferred Altemative 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.
SEIR-09-O1 analyzes all of the GP/GDP land use and policy changes that aze required to realize
the City's vision for the University Villages area. The GP/GDP amendments (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
Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) amendment, 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
GP/GDPA will establish the land use patterns and development intensities necessary for a
successful university. The actual project level planning documents/approvals (SPA plans, etc.)
will come before the City Council in early 2013. A full project description is provided starting on
Page 35 of SEIR-09-O1 (attached).
Certification of SEIR-09-O1 is somewhat unusual, since EIRs in Chula Vista are typically
accompanied with the actual project and associated approval actions. Due to the size and
complexity of the Project, the GPA/GDPA SEIR is going forward several months ahead of the
required planning approvals for the University Villages Project. Staff anticipates that the
GPA/GDPA, Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plans, tentative subdivision maps, and associated
project level EIRs will come before the Planning Commission and City Council for approval in
eazly 2013. Certification of SEIR-09-O1 is an important and necessary first step toward
accomplishing the goal of realizing a university and associated development in Otay Ranch.
Location Existin¢ Site Characteristics and Ownership
The Project site is comprised of approximately 1,281 acres and is generally located south of
Main Street/Rock Mountain Road, east of Heritage Road, north of the Otay River Valley and
west of Salt Creek canyon (see Attachment 1, Locator Map). The project site is within the Otay
Valley parcel of the Otay Ranch planning area. The area is currently in a vacant, natural state and
includes portions of Villages 4, 7, and the Eastern Urban Center (EUC), and all of Village 8,
Village 9 and Planning Area 10 (which includes the University site and a proposed 85-acre
Regional Technology Park (RTP)). The project site involves three land owners including OLC
(portions of Villages 4, 7 and the EUC and all of Village 8 West and 9), JPB Development
(Village 8 East and a portion of Planning Area 10- the University/RTP site) and the City of
Chula Vista (portion of Planning Area 10-the University/RTP site).
11-4
Date, Item No.: ~ ~
Meeting Date: 02/26/13
Page 5 of 21
Project Description
The project proposes amendments to the 2008 LOA between the City of Chula Vista and Otay
Land Company to allow the separate processing of the GP and GDP Amendments from the SPA
Plans for Villages 8 West and 9. The project also proposes amendments to the City of Chula
Vista General Plan and Otay Ranch General Development Plan that would complement and
support the future location of a University and RTP in relation to Villages 8 West and 9. The
amendments would allow up to 6,050 units and 1.8 million squaze feet of non-residential
(commercial and office). In addition, the project would relocate the Regional Technology Park
from Village 8 East to the University site and resize it from 200 to 85 acres. The proposal would
also resolve the "Deferral Area" established within the 2005 General Plan Update (GPU). Some
"clean-up" edits to the Otay Ranch GDP have also been included with the application to address
some administrative discrepancies within the text, tables and graphics. The specific amendments
are presented in greater detail in the "Proposed Amendments" and "Analysis" sections below and
the specific wording is included in Enclosures 1 and 2.
The proposed amendments were designed to complement and facilitate the development of a
University and RTP in conjunction with the development of Villages 8 West and 9, and in which
the City's ownership of land for the University and its related uses is an essential element. The
approval of the Proposed Amendments is the first step in carrying out the development
contemplated by the subject amendments. The next step in the process would require the
approval of the SPA's, EIR's and TM's for Villages 8 West and 9.
Proposed Amendments
First Amendment to the 2008 LOA
It was envisioned in the 2008 LOA that all of the approvals (GP, GDP, SPAS, TMs and EIRs)
would be heard at one hearing, but due w the size and complexity of the project an amendment
to the LOA is being proposed (to be considered by City Council prior to any City Council action
on this project) which allows for the consideration of the General Plan and General Development
Plan Amendments as the first step, to be followed by consideration of the SPA Plans, project
specific EIR's and tentative maps (TM). Therefore, the Proposed Amendments have an effective
term of no longer than two (2) years from its adoption and shall automatically expire, unless the
SPA and related documents for Villages 8 West and 9 are approved by the City and all
applicable statutes of limitations to challenge the SPA documents have expired with no litigation
having been filed. If the Proposed Amendments expire, the General Plan, Zoning, Development
Agreement and other land use regulations, applicable to the project prior to the approval of the
Proposed Amendments shall automatically take effect. Substantial progress on the SPA's, EIR's
and TM's for Villages 8 West and 9 has also taken place and a final hearing on these applications
is expected to occur in Spring 2013.
11-5
Date, Item No.:~_
Meeting Date: 02/26/13
Page 6 of 21
GP / Otav Ranch GDP Amendments
The following is a brief summary of the proposed amendments to the City of Chula Vista
General Plan and the Otay Ranch GDP. For specific language refer to Enclosures 1 and 2 which
contain a strikeoudunderline of all proposed GP and GDP Amendments.
1. Reconfiguration of village boundaries as follows (see Attachments 1 and 2):
• Reconfigure Village 8 to include portions of Villages 4 and 7 that are under OLC's
ownership;
• Separate Village 8 into Village 8 West and Village 8 East based upon ownership (OLC
and JPB);
• Reconfigure Village 9 to include a portion of the EUC based upon ownership; and
2. Amend Land Use Designations as follows (see Attachments 3 - 5):
• Amend GP and GDP land use designations for Villages 8 West and 9 to allow up to 6,050
dwelling units and 1.8 million square feet of non-residential space in order to
accommodate the housing and services needed by the community and to support the
University and RTP; and
• Locate an 85-acre RTP within Planning Area 10 (University and Regional Technology
Park), and adjust the University acreage accordingly.
• Reflect previously adopted 2001 GP and GDP land use designations in Village 8 East
(where the proposed RTP is being relocated from).
3. Revisions to the Circulation Plan- East that include (see Attachment 6):
• Eliminating the La Media Road southerly extension crossing the Otay River Valley;
• Reclassifying a portion of La Media Road from the southern portion of Village 8 West
extending south to the Active Recreation Area from a six lane arterial to "Other Roads";
• Changing the name of Rock Mountain Road to Main Street from the point of existing
Heritage Road easterly to Eastlake Parkway;
• Reclassifying Main Street, easterly of SR-125, from a Town Center Arterial to a Six-
Lane Gateway Street;
• Reclassifying the Main Street/La Media Road Couplet from aSix-Lane Town Center
Arterial to a Four Lane Town Center Arterial within Village 8 West;
11-6
Date, Item No.:
Meeting Date: 02/26/13
Page 7 of 21
• Reclassifying and realigning the segment of La Media road from the Town Center
Arterials at the Main Street/La Media Road Couplet southeasterly to SR-125 as a Four-
Lane Major;
• Clarify that the mid-arterial SR-125 bridge crossing between Village 8 East and 9 is
"pedestrian-only"; and
• Provide that Urban Level of Service (LOS D) is acceptable for Town Center Arterials.
4. Clean-up revisions to the General Plan and Otay Ranch GDP policies and maps affecting the
Project Area that include (see Enclosure 2):
• A general "clean-up" of diagrams, text and tables to the Otay Ranch GDP.
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR-09-O1)
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
analysis determined whether the land use changes proposed in the GPA/GDPA would result in a
significant impact upon the environment, beyond those analyzed in the GPU EIR of 2005. A
significant impact on the environment is defined in CEQA as a substantial adverse change in the
physical conditions that exist in the azea affected by the proposed Project. When a significant
impact 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
policies will be employed over the life of the GP/GDP to shape future development in a way that
ensures that potentially significant environmental impacts are reduced to a less than significant
level In this sense, many of the policies of the GPA/GDPA are "self mitigating." The EIR
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 called for in the EIR.
Comments on the Draft EIR
The public review period for the EIR was from June 8, 2012 to July 24, 2012. Letters of
comment were received on the Draft EIR from the following agencies and individuals:
State Office of Planning and Research (OPR)
Native American Heritage Commission
11-7
Date, Item No.: /
Meeting Date: 02/26/13
Page 8 of 21
Department of Toxic Substances Control
County of San Diego
City of San Diego
SANDAG
San Diego Gas and Electric
The letters and responses aze included in the Final SEIR 09-01 (Attachment 12). All comments
received concerning SEIR-09-O1 have been fully addressed within the Final EIR.
Summary of Environmental Impacts
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.
Less than Significant/Self Mitigated Impacts
Less than significant/selfmitigatwi impacts were identified in the following environmental issue
areas:
• Public Facilities and Services
• Public Utilities (excluding long term water supply)
• Housing (with the exception of growth inducement)
• Global Climate Change
Significant and Unmitigated Impacts
Significant and unmitigated impacts have been identified in the Final SEIR-for the following
issue areas:
Land Use
The SEIR identifies significant and unmitigated community chazacter impacts in the Project azea.
Proposed revisions to the City's adopted land use plan in the East Planning Area would result in
adjustments to the boundazies and overall densities for residential, commercial, industrial, and
public/quasi-public uses. The amount and location of open space and pazklands would also be
adjusted. Presently, the ]and within the Project area is undeveloped, therefore, any proposed
changes would cause an intensification in land use over the existing condition. The Project
would have the potential to cause an adverse effect on the community character of the
surrounding villages within the East Planning Area.
The above referenced community chazacter impacts would be substantially lessened through the
implementation 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
11-8
Date, Item No.:
Meeting Date: 02/26/13
Page 9 of 21
environmental impacts are minimized. Policies such as ensuring that development adheres to
quality design standards, and facilitating compatible land uses help to minimize environmental
impacts. While the adoption of the goals and policies of the GP/GDP and GPA/GDPA would
limit land use impacts, the impacts would not be eliminated. The objectives and policies do not
completely mitigate identified impacts because the development standards that would serve to
limit impacts will be implemented at a later date. The current Project is a GP/GDP amendment,
while the development of design standards is included later during the development of the SPAS.
Until future SPA plans aze 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.
Landform Alternation/Aesthetics
The SEIR identifies potentially significant impacts to landform alternation/aesthetics, since the
policies set forth in the GPA/GDPA could substantially degrade the existing visual chazacter 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 azea. The open rolling hills
encountered in the East would be permanently altered by development and the change from open
areas to developed areas in the Project area constitutes a significant adverse visual impact that
can not be fully mitigated.
Conformance with the objectives and policies in the GP and GPA/GDPA would reduce visual
quality impacts within the Project azea, 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/GDP amendment and the development of design standards is a zoning and specific plan
effort. Until future SPAS are approved and implemented, impacts remain significant.
Additionally, within the Project area, the conversion of open, rolling hills to a developed
condition was identified as a significant adverse impact, as was the case under the adopted
General Plan. Implementation of the mitigation measure called out in SEIR-09-O1 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 same conclusion that was reached in FEIR-OS-O1. Similaz to the land use impacts described
above, the Project would not add to the severity of aesthetic impacts, since the development
footprint is essentially the same as was analyzed in 2005.
Ener~y
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-OS-O1. Direct impacts to
energy would occur if as a result of plan implementation future energy demand outstrips supply.
Impacts to energy are significant because there is no long-term assurance that energy supplies
will be available to meet demand for the life of the GP/GDP (year 2030). Although the programs
and policies contained within the GP/GDP would result in the more efficient use of energy, the
11-9
Date, Item Nor f
Meeting Date: 02/26/13
Page 10 of 21
projected increase in population resulting from the Project would result in an increased demand
for energy. None of the eriergy 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 energy for the life of the GP/GDP as amended, the increased projected energy demand results
in a significant unmitigated impact. The additional density resulting from the GPA/GDPA (880
units) would result in higher energy demands, but does not change the conclusion that was
reached in the 2005 FEIR-OS-01 that energy impacts are significant and unmitigated due to the
factors described above.
Traffic
No significant unmitigated impacts would result within the City of Chula Vista as a result of the
GPA/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-OS-O1 did not analyze traffic impacts within
the City of San Diego. No unmitigated freeway impacts result from the Project.
Air Quality
Because the land use changes contemplated in GP/GDP amendments aze not consistent with land
use assumptions with the State Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS), the Project does not
conform with current state guidelines regazding air quality. Thus, the Project wou]d conflict with
an adopted air quality plan and there would be a significant impact. This is the same conclusion
that was reached in the 2005 FEIR-OS-OI .
Noise
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
mitigated until SPA level noise analyses are conducted. This is the same conclusion that was
reached in the 2005 FEIR-OS-O1.
Water Sunply
The Project would result in significant unmitigated impacts to water supply. Water needs for the
region aze 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 yeaz 2020, and identifies potential new supplies to meet that demand.
11-10
Date, Item No.: ~ ~
Meeting Date: 02/26/13
Page 11 of 21
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 GP/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,
however, that the Project is included within the 2010 UWMP, and therefore consistent with this
document. Also, as part of the prepazation of the University Villages SPA plans, water supply
assessment and verification reports identifying long term water supply for the Project have been
approved by the Otay Water District for the Village 8 East and Village 9 SPA plans.
The Project's slight increase in demand for water would require corresponding improvements to
water treatment and distribution facilities. Significant impacts would occur as a result of
these types of projects, the extent of those effects is speculative at this point because the nature
and location of those improvements have not yet been determined. Water supply was identified
as an unmitigated impact within the 2005 FEIR-OS-O1, consistent with the discussion above.
Additional Revisions to Draft SEIR
Revisions to the SEIR made as a result of public comment have been summarized on Page 1 of
the SEIR. Minor typographical corrections have been made to information contained in the Draft
SEIR; the Final SEIR reflects the corrected information. None of the corrections made to the
document have resulted in modifications to conclusions regazding the level of significance of
impacts.
Findines of the Final SEIR 09-O1
The Final SEIR identified a number of significant environrental 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 regazdless of whether or not these impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant
level. 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-O1).
Conclusions
All feasible mitigation measures with respect to Project impacts for the Project and all associated
actions have been included in the Final SEIR (see Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
in Exhibit "B" to resolution of approval of SEIR-09-O1). 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).
11-11
Date, Item No.: ~~
Meeting Date: 02/26/13
Page 12 of 21
The City has examined a reasonable range of altematives 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 meets the Project objectives, or is environmentally
superior to the Project (see Section XI of the CEQA Findings).
The Final SEIR meets the requirements of the CEQA and, therefore, recommends that the City
Council certifty that the Final SEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and adopt the
Draft Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program attached to this staff report.
ANALYSIS
The following analysis addresses the major issues associated with this project. Minor
amendments, "clean-up" items and the specific remedies for each are presented in the enclosed
strikeout/underline GP and GDPA documents.
1. Reconfiguration of Village Boundaries
Since the adoption of the GDP, ownership of many of the large parcels of land has changed. In
many cases these ownerships no longer align with original village boundaries, causing many of
the regulatory documents to cover "ownerships" rather than villages. Reconfiguring village
boundaries based on ownership would allow these new villages to be developed in a more
predictable manner as envisioned by the GP and GDP.As such, this project proposes to
reconfigure the boundazies of Village 8 to include portions of Villages 4 and 7 based on
ownership and then separate the Village 8 landmass into Village 8 West and East. Similarly, this
project also proposes to add the southern portion of the EUC (22.2 acres owned by OLC that are
located north of Main Street/Hunte Parkway) to the rest of Village 9. Attachment 2 depicts the
existing village boundaries as well as the village boundaries as proposed.
The reconfiguration of village boundazies also requires the redistribution of units within the
affected villages. The proposed GP and Otay Ranch GDP amendments would redistribute the
units based on percentage of ownership and land uses. Attachment 3 details these amendments.
2. General Plan and Otav Ranch General Development Plan Amendments
In December of 2005, the City Council adopted a comprehensive GPU, amended the Otay Ranch
GDP and certified the GPU Environmental Impact Report. As part of the GPU, amendments to
the land uses and policies for portions of Villages 4 and 7, and the entirety of Villages 8, 9 and
the University Campus (Planning Area 10) were deferred by the City ("deferral area"). As
depicted in Attachment 3, the Existing GP Land Use Diagram identified this area with a
crosshatch and a footnote noting that the City Council had deferred final action on provisions
that included portions of Village 4 and 7 as well as all of Villages 8, 9 and 10. Since proposed
land uses were analyzed and considered as part of the 2005 GPU, this report analyzes the current
land use proposals against those of the 2005 GPU.
11-12
Date, Item No.: / i
Meeting Date: 02/26/13
Page 13 of 21
Approval of the proposed project would resolve and remove the "deferral area" by adopting new
GP and GDP Land Use Designations for most of the area, and retaining the land use designations
on Village 8 East that were applicable prior to the GPU. The land uses proposed for OLCs
property are largely those that were analyzed in the 2005 GPU.
In order to carry out the goals of the GP and Otay Ranch GDP with respect to the development
contemplated by the Proposed Amendments, the land necessary for the future development of a
University and RTP would need to be conveyed to the City in accordance with the terms of the
LOA.
The following discussion will analyze the amendments to the GP and Otay Ranch GDP within
the project area from west to east.
Amendments to Land Use Designations
Village 8 West
The GP and GDP Land Use Designations in Village 8 West are generally proposed to be
amended from the 2005 GPU analyzed designations of Town Center (TC), Parks (P) and
Residential Low-Medium (RLM) to TC, P, Residential Medium (RM), Residential Medium High
(RMH) and RLM as depicted in Attachments 4 and 5. Village 8 West is proposed to become
denser with amixed-use Town Center that permits between 18 and 45 units to the acre,
surrounded by medium and medium-high density neighborhoods that permit between 6 to 11 and
11-18 units to the acre respectively in part to accommodate the housing and service needs
created by the location of the University and RTP. Lower density single family (3-6 units/acre)
neighborhoods are proposed as Village 8 West approaches the Otay River Valley. Table 1
identifies the proposed changes in Village 8 West from the 2005 GPU land uses to the current
proposal.
TABLE 1
COMPARISON OF LAND USES - 2005 GPU vs. PROPOSAL-VILLAGE 8 WEST
Land Uses
Analyzed in'
2005 GPU/GDP
EIIZ' Proposed.
Project Land
Uses 2005 GPU/GDP EIR
Land Uses vs.
Proposed Project
Land Use Acres' Units Acres Units Acres Units
RLM 132.3 539 67.0 331 -65.3 -208
RM _
0.0 0 26.2 290
--- +26.2 +290
- -
RMH 0.0 0 29.5 530 +29.5 +530
TC 60.5 1,017 40.7 899 -19.8 -118
_
PRK 20.5 0 _ 27.9 0 +7.4 _ 0
PQr _
41.3 _
0 57.0_ 0 +15.7 0
OS 49.7 0 23.5 0 -26.2 0
OSP 15.6 0 15.6 0 0.0 0
11-13
Date, Item No.: /
Meeting Date: 02/26/13
Page 14 of 21
Other 0.0 ~ 0 ~ 32.5 r 0 ~ +32.5 ~ 0
TOTAL 319.9 1,556 319.9 2,050 0.0 +494
1. Estimates land use figures based on OLC Proposed Land Uses/ Gross estimates land
use acres and units of OLC property
2. Includes schools, university, public facilities, and community purpose facility (CPF)
acres
As detailed above, the proposed project would increase the unit count for Village 8 West by
approximately 494 units (from 1,556 to 2,050 units). These increases would increase units counts
in the RM and RMH land use designations. This proposal decreases low density units in the
RLM designation as well as decrease the overall number of units within the Town Center
designation. In addition to the residential units, Village 8 West proposes up to 300,000 squaze-
feet of non-residential (250,000 square feet of retail and 50,000 square feet of office uses)
primazily within its Town Center. While the 2005 GPU did not sepazate the non-residential
square footages between Village 8 West and 9, it did analyze approximately 1.25 million square
feet on non-residential uses. Since the proposals for Village 8 West and Village 9 include 1.8
million square feet of non-residential, this proposal would be a cumulative increase of 550,000
square feet ofnon-residential (commercial and office).
This proposal is supported by a lazge number of General Plan Objectives as well as a number of
GDP Goals and Policies. These objectives, policies and goals are analyzed in detail in the Land
Use section of the accompanying Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR), but a few
of the more pertinent objectives and goals are identified below:
• GP Objective LUT 5 -Designate opportunities for mixed-use areas with higher density
housing that is near shopping, jobs and transit in appropriate locations throughout the
City.
• GP Objective LUT 17 -Plan and coordinate development to be 'compatible and
supportive of planned transit.
• GP Objective LUT 61 -Create balanced communities that can provide a high guality of
life for residents.
• GP Objective LUT 72 -Develop comprehensive, well-integrated, and balanced land uses
within villages and town centers, compatible with the surroundings.
• GP Objective LUT 81 - Develop a higher density, mixed use, transit-oriented town
center positioned at the intersection of Rock Mountain Road (Main Street) and La Media
Road, surrounded by lower density (intensity) residential use and a large community
park and preserve Rock Mountain as an important landform and visual resource.
• GP Objective LUT 88 -Encourage the dedication of land, and other voluntary actions
that facilitate creation of a university campus.
11-14
Date, Item No.: !
Meeting Date: 02/26/13
Page 15 of 21
• GP Policy LUT 88.1- Allow residential and commercial development at densities and
intensities that are at the higher ranges specified in individual land use designation, as
identified in the General Plan for projects that facilitate establishment of a university
through dedication of land and easements and other mechanisms or actions, such as the
construction of necessary improvements, or the inclusion of other project features that
assist in the creation of the university.
• GDP Goal -Promote villages and town center land uses which offer a sense of place to
residents and promotes social interaction.
• GDP Policy - Include a variety of uses and housing types within each village to meet the
needs of residents.
Village 8 East
The 2005 GPU proposed locating a 200-acre RTP in Village 8 East, however, since Village 8
East was part of the "deferral area" its land use designations were not amended as part of the
2005 GPU. As a result, its prior 2001 GP and GDP Land Use Designations remained In general
the 2001 land use designations approved within Village 8 East include a mixed use residential
core surrounded by low-medium residential as depicted in Attachment 6. The GDP amendments
will allot a total of 928 units to Village 8 East which is comprised of 635 low-medium villages
units and 293 medium high residential units within and around the mixed use core as depicted in
Attachment 6. Minor land use policies were also amended to address the new land use
relationships between Villages 8 West and 8 East which are included in Enclosures 1 and 2.
Village 9
The GP and GDP Land Use Designations in Village 9 are generally proposed to be amended
from Residential Low-Medium (RLM), Residential Medium (RM), Town Center (TC), Eastern
Urban Center (EUC), and Public/Quasi Public (PQ) to RLM, RM, Mixed Use Residential
(MUR), TC, EUC and PQ as depicted in Attachments 4 and 5. Village 9 is proposed to become
denser particularly within the EUC (28-60 units/acre) and MUR (10-45 units/acre) land use
districts in part to accommodate the housing and service needs created by the location of the
University and RTP.
Village 9 proposes to locate the highest density/intensity portion of the EUC designated lands
along Main Street. Immediately south of the EUC would be the University Town Center that will
include densities of 18-45 units/acre in a mixed use format. South of the University Town Center
will be MUR designated lands that will include densities of 10-45 units/acre with the potential
for mixed-use should the market support it. RM (6-11) and RLM (3-6) designated lands will be
located south of the MUR areas to reduce the densities as the project approaches the Otay River
Valley to the south. Table 3 identifies the proposed changes in Village 9 from the 2005 GPU
land uses to the current proposal.
11-15
Date, Item No.: l.r
Meeting Date: 02/26/13
Page 16 of 21
TABLE 3
COMPARISON OF LAND USES - 2005 GPU vs. PROPOSAL-VILLAGE 9
Land Uses Analyzed
in 2005 GPU/GDP
EIR Proposed Project
Land Uses 2005 GPU/GDP E1R
Land Uses vs.
Pro osed Project
Land Use Acres Units Acres Units Acres Units
RLM
RM 16.3
40.0 101
437 28.1
15.2 105
_ 161 +11.8
-24.8 +4
___ -276 _
MiJR 0.0 _
0 49.2 792 +49.2
- +792
--
-- -
TC
EUC
PRK 88.9
22.2
29.8 2,756
320
0 44.3
48.3
27.5 1,030
1,912
0 -44.6
+26.1
-2.3 _ -1,726
_+1,592
0
_
P _
113.8 _
0 _
74.8 0 -39.0 0
OS 8.1 0 5.6 0 -2.5 0 _ _
OSP 4.0 0 4.0 0 0.0 0
Other 0.0 0 26.1 0 +26.1 0
TOTAL 408.1 3,614 408.1 4,000 0.0 +386
1. Estimates land use figures based on OLC Proposed Land Uses/ Gross
estimates land use acres and units of OLC property
2. Includes schools, university, public facilities, and CPF acres
As detailed above, the proposed project proposes to increase the unit count for Village 9 by
approximately 386 units (from 3,614 to 4,000 units). This proposal would significantly decrease
the number of units within the town center while increasing the number of units within the EUC
and MUR land use designations. In addition to the residential units identified above, Village 9
proposes up to 1.5 million squaze feet of non-residential (1.2 million square feet of office and
300,000 square feet of retail). While the 2005 GPU did not sepazate the non-residential square
footages between Villages 8 West and 9, it did analyze approximately 1.25 million square feet of
non-residential uses. Since the proposals for Village 8 West and Village 9 include 1.8 million
square feet of non-residential, this proposal would be a cumulative increase of 550,000 square
feet ofnon-residential squaze footage.
As part of the LOA between the City and OLC, Village 9 will also provide 50 net acres of land
for the future University. This land is designated PQ and is located in the very eastern portion of
Village 9.
Village 9 is envisioned to provide many of the services, office space and housing for the future
University, and will also be served by the South Bay Bus Rapid Transit, with a planned transit
station to be located within Village 9 adjacent to the University.
Like Village 8 West, this proposal is supported by a lazge number of GP Objectives as well as a
number of GDP Goals and Policies. These objectives, policies and goals aze analyzed in detail in
the Land Use section of the accompanying Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR),
but a few of the more pertinent objectives and goals are identified below:
11-16
Date, Item No.• ~~
Meeting Date: 02/26/13
Page 17 of 21
• GP Objective LUT 5 -Designate opportunities for mixed-use areas with higher density
housing that is near shopping, jobs and transit in appropriate locations throughout the
City.
• GP Objective LUT 17 -Plan and coordinate development to be compatible and
supportive of planned transit.
• GP Objective LUT 61 -Create balanced communities that can provide a high quality of
life for residents.
• GP Objective LUT 72 -Develop comprehensive, well-integrated, and balanced land uses
within villages and town centers, compatible with the surroundings.
• GP Objective LUT 88 -Encourage the dedication of land, and other voluntary actions
that facilitate creation of a university campus.
• GP Policy LUT88.1- Allow residential and commercial development at densities and
intensities that are at the higher ranges specified in individual land use designation, as
identified in the General Plan for projects that facilitate establishment of a university
through dedication of land and easements and other mechanisms or actions, such as the
construction of necessary improvements, or the inclusion of other project features that
assist in the creation of the university.
• GP Objective LUT 95 -Establish apedestrian-oriented, mixed use Town Center that
serves as the interface, or common meeting ground, of the university, regional technology
park and surrounding residential development and serves the university campus at the
size and location shown on the General Plan as well as the regional technology park
workforce.
• GDP Goal -Promote villages and town center land uses which offer a sense of place to
residents and promotes social interaction.
• GDP Policy - Include a variety of uses and housing types within each village to meet the
needs of residents.
Planning Area 10 -The University and Regional Technology Park
The 2005 GPU proposed an approximately 200-acre RTP land use designation on the eastern
portion of Village 8 (discussed above as Village 8 East) as well as an approximately 440-acre
University designation as shown in Attachment 3 (Existing GP Land Use Designations). The
University Campus consisted of 350 acres on the western parcel and an additional 90 acres
adjacent to Lower Otay Lake.
11-17
Date, Item No.: f~
Meeting Date: 02/26/13
Page 18 of 21
This proposal: 1) resizes the RTP to 85 acres and locates the RTP within the University site; 2)
redesignates approximately 40 acres of land that was designated University in the GPU as Mixed
Use Residential; and, 3) redesignates approximately 68 acres of land that was proposed to be
designated residential in the GPU as University. This shifr of land uses as proposed would result
in approximately 383 acres of University.
As part of the analysis of employment lands for the GPU, it was determined that an additional
150-200 acres of employment lands would be necessazy to provide a sufficient number of high
paying jobs for Chula Vista. Therefore, the GPU proposed to locate a RTP on approximately 200
acres of land in the eastern portion of Village 8. The RTP would be relocated on to the
University site and its acreage would be reduced to 85 acres. To analyze this reduction in RTP
lands, the City contracted with AECOM to re-analyze the need for employment lands and
determine if 85 acres of RTP would be sufficient. AECOM concluded that a change in the
location and size of the RTP could have strategic benefits. Locating the RTP within the
University site would gain users access to the university faculty, facilities and equipment which
would be of high importance in attracting future tenants. Additionally, the past model of building
a technology park for a single user on a large pazcel of land has changed with the "focus often
being to provide incubator space and construct multi-tenant space to accommodate research and
development entrepreneurs with smaller startup firms". In fact, the report noted that floor-azea-
ratios of up to 1.0 were currently being used for planning purposes on other parks within our
region and that the 0.5 assumption for Chula Vista's RTP was well below that. AECOM opined
that due to this changing market with increased intensities, an 85 acre RTP could provide the
same employment estimate as was estimated during the GPU, assuming that the development
was a higher intensity with an increased floor-area-ratio. This proposal would also amend the
allowable FAR for the RTP from its current range of 0.25-.0.'75 to a new range of 0.25-2.0.
In addition to the land use designation amendments for the University and RTP azeas described
above, the proposal also includes a number of new policies directed at ensuring that the
University and RTP develop an organized planning relationship between themselves and the
neighboring villages. The specific language for these policies is included in Enclosures 1 and 2.
3. Amendments to the Circulation Plan -East
The Project proposes a number of amendments to the City's Circulation Plan as depicted in
Attachment 7. Specific language can be found in Enclosures 1 and 2, but an analysis of the most
significant amendments is included below.
Elimination of La Media Road Crossing the Otay River Valley
The proposed project includes the elimination of the southerly crossing of La Media Road over
the Otay River Valley. Discussions regarding the need for this segment of La Media Road started
during the analysis for the 2005 GPU and resulted in the adoption of Policy LUT 14.8 that reads:
`Analyze the need for, timing and ultimate construction of the future La Media Road
Crossing of the Otay Palley as part of the pending updates of plans within the
11-18
Date, Item No.: ~,~
Meeting Date: 02/26/13
Page 19 of 21
surrounding area, such as the City of San Diego's Otay Mesa Community Plan Update.
Factors to be considered in the analysis include existing and forecast traffic volumes and
LOS on the circulation system, and Johnson Canyon Open Space Preserve. "
The elimination of this segment was analyzed in a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by
Linscott Law & Greenspan (LLG) in December 2011. The TIA analyzed 9 scenarios that
included a variety of permutations of the Circulation Element including a scenario that kept La
Media Road and a scenario that removed the portion of La Media Road that crosses the Otay
River Valley. The TIA concluded that the portion of La Media Road that crosses the Otay River
was unnecessary and its removal from the Circulation Plan would not cause implications
elsewhere.
Removal of the La Media Road crossing of the river valley necessitates that a portion of that
right-of--way be redesignated to serve as access to Active Recreation Area (Planning Area 20).
La Media Road from the southern portion of Village 8 West to the Active Recreation area
(Planning Area 20) will be redesignated from a Six Lane Arterial to "Other Roads" as depicted in
Attachment 7.
Provide that Urban Level of Service (LOS D) is acceptable for Town Center Arterials
Realizing that traditional LOS methodologies may have a negative impact on pedestrian and
transit mobility, the 2005 GPU created the Urban Core Circulation Element. The GP states:
"The overall goal of the Urban Core Circulation Element is to support the development
ofgreat places and neighborhoods by providing transportation choices and supporting
those choices with attractive, safe, convenient, and functional infrastructure for all modes
of travel. The Urban Core Circulation Element provides opportunities to make policies
and standards sufficiently flexible to support Transit Oriented Development (TOD) in
select corridors and town centers while maintaining the commitment of new development
to mitigate impacts of new travel demand, and to improve the transit, pedestrian and
bicycle environment.
The Urban Core Circulation Element recognizes that in certain corridors and centers
served by transit, it is acceptable to reduce the vehicle level of service standards that are
applied to suburban areas of the City under certain circumstances ".
The project proposes to allow Urban Level of Service (LOS D) for Town Center Arterials similar
to the LOS allowed for certain classifications of roadway within the Urban Core. The Village 8
West town center will be an urban center with densities of 18-45 units to the acre that is
pedestrian oriented and served by transit. The unique sepazated pair ofone-way streets
encourages pedestrian circulation and fosters a vibrant commercial mixed-use environment.
These provisions would allow for LOS D to be acceptable on Town Center Arterials due to their
urban, pedestrian friendly, multi-modal design much like similaz roadways in western Chula
Vista.
11-19
Date, Item No.:_~
Meeting Date: 02/26/13
Page 20 of 21
4. Clean-up Revisions to Otay Ranch GDP
As specifically detailed in Enclosure 2, this project also includes clean up revisions to the GDP.
These revisions include administrative updates to mapping, text and tables to bring the
documents up to date (i.e. calculation errors, mapping errors, etc.).
DECISION-MAKER CONFLICTS:
Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the City Councilmembers and has found no property
holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property which is subject to this action. Staff is
not independently aware, nor has staff been informed by any City Councilmember, of any other
fact that may constitute a basis for a decision maker conflict of interest in this matter.
CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT
The processing costs for the GP and GDP Amendments as well as the SEIR and all supporting
documents were funded by a developer deposit account.
ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT
The applicant was required to prepare a Fiscal Impact Analysis (FIA) for the proposed project
that analyzed two distinct ongoing fiscal scenarios. A "project level" scenario was prepazed to
analyze the project's individual fiscal impact at buildout. A second, "cumulative" scenazio was
also prepared to analyze the project's fiscal impact in conjunction with other LOAs (i.e. OLC +
JPB) at buildout.
Project FIA
The "project" FIA for the OLC GP and Otay Ranch GDP Amendments (Villages 8 West and 9
combined) estimates that at buildout the City's total expenditures would be approximately
$6,590,900, while the total revenues would be approximately $7,249,200, resulting in an annual
positive fiscal impact to the City of approximately $658,300.
Cumulative FIA
The "cumulative" FIA for the OLC GP and Otay Ranch GDP Amendments in addition to the
2010 JPB LOA estimates that at buildout the City's total expenditures for these areas (Villages 3,
8 West, 8 East, 9 and 10) would be approximately $12,092,900, while the total revenues would
be approximately $12,282,800, resulting in an annual positive fiscal impact to the City of
approximately $189,900.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachments: 1. Locator Map
2. Existing and Proposed Village Boundazies
11-20
Date, Item No.: ~~
Meeting Date: 02/26/13
Page 21 of 21
Enclosures:
3. Existing and Proposed GP Land Use Diagram
4. Existing and Proposed Otay Ranch GDP Land Use Designations
5. Village 8 East GDP Development Table and Land Use Designations
6. GP Circulation Plan-East Amendments
7. Planning Commission Resolution
8. City Council GPA/GDPA Resolution
9. First Amendment to Land Offer Agreement
10. City Council LOA Amendment Resolution
11. City Council Resolution SEIR-09-O1
Exhibit A -Findings of Fact and Statement of Oven•iding
Considerations
Exhibit B -Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
12. Final SEIR-09-O1 (previously provided to the City Council)
1. General Plan Amendment, Village 8 West and Village 9 dated September
2012
General Development Plan Amendment GDPA) Village 8 West and
Village 9 dated September 2012
Prepared by: Scott Donaghe, Principal Planner, Development Services Department
11-21
LOCATION
MAP
ATTACHMENT 1
(~~"~
EXISTING VILLAGE BOUNDARIES
PROPOSED VILLAGE BOUNDARIES
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DIAGRAM
PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DIAGRAM
PROPOSED
GENERAL PLAN LAND USES
WITHIN PROJECT AREA
L LEND
ssemeunu
;. .,, _ PESIEEHIIAL LOW MECUM
Y+k~ItYi RE&I~iiIPLMEDIIM
- RESWEfYtW.ME0IUM HM,H
~s~ RtTNE
MMEOMRE aat~IfRgAI
YuF.OUSE RFSt~ENM1
10MN CENIEII
EASfEFNLW8'.MCFNIfft
VY'JERertY
RE610NKTEGMNOLOGr PNiN Al11P1
RESE4tCH6
ueurea iH0a5TRLLL
QPEII SP11CE. PARRS #
PIMUC ! OUA84PU~.R:
s:. apex RVarF
~ PuaceaREC!~noH
PV9Ua 60VP&eyBlM
:~:.~ hCTNE RELRERTYNI
aaER sMCE PRE9ER4E
ATTACHMENT 3
~~ ~~
EXISTING OTAY RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN LAND USE DIAGRAM
~ ~"
• • Projece Aree " ~'
•
Land Use ~
Change Area vi°°°~ 11
hs4nd ~r
r® ek..,~ r.s.~ cak.. r
.id •
~ _ ww,.kK14M
w..:...ur kWUn
® r
sx
/
w
wc [aatem ~ r
Urban ~ Vlanninq r
.
~
Qw.
.
a~ r„+„^~,,,w. Center 0.r~a SO/ f
~ .~
r
~
C ~ Village 7 ~.: Y "
X ? t
j~
i
•
..
- ~i
ykr#~
,
i ' ~~a •
~ ,
r
;~.
vp~e2 r
illeye'1 ~ r
r
Yiliage9 r ~
>> ,~
-, :- r
,~~
y~~ ~_
t
.
'sue ~
•
-
'Yillapd 8,.
'' Vlllape a _ ~
east i a.. ~ ~..
•
Village D West
'.' ~ i ~ ~s` ~
r
`~.. d`~' ~ +•r
` ~
~r
, ,
~~
~~
Villags 4 "~
~
~
{
r rr•
~ ~w.ao
°~ ~
rr c
~ -
• i
_
._
,.
_...... _. ... _ .. , L. . _ _. .._ ,.. ~ A
-`
...., ~TM
PROPOSED OTAY RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN LAND USE DIAGRAM
• • Project Area
® Land Use
Change Area
1>39snd
®e,~u~o~
. ~,.« ~..
-. a.m.mw ~,w.a.~
...
~.~ ^aw.
at a.rMw T.anaeer rung
oaf Mlk/QW~-tW~k
aw Mu \ re..rw
9Nw 8po~
® 4en NniMwsm
` [J~r
1
ewtam
urban
Canter
.~,
Yiilage 9
VlUaga !
East
TABLE 2
ORGDP VILLAGE * EAST LAND USE TABLE
Village Eight {East)
Dwelling Units Acreage
Approx.
Use
''
Open Po
P~
SF MF Total Dens Res. Park CPF Sch. C'mL Art. Total
Sp.
LMV 635 635 4.3 148.5 148.5 2,115
MU 5.9** 2.9 8.9 17.7
MH 293 293 14.5 20.2 10.0 30.2 756
OTHER 15.1 9.5 24.6
VILLAGE 8
EAST 635 293 928 5.5 168.7 5.9 2.9 10.0 8.9 15.1 9.5 221.0 2,871
SUBTOTAL
FIGURE 1 -VILLAGE 8 EAST ORGDP LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
~,
~~~ ` ~y Except in Town Center, Buffet and Land Use
~~`` ~~~ 75-rootAvera Buffer PesigntoMinimize
y~ = Along Arterlalse Freeway Imparts
~'~ __ ~ ~
~~
~
~ ~
.lw.w.~. ii:v
~ ~ -
~~
'
~r
r
~.
~r
37 r
!
~~ ~ ~
r,
9~ ![!!f ii"'i
~ ~, ~,;~
_: 1
~ - ~ 4i nos.
l~
8
Valley
.. ~ 1~
ATTACHMENT 5
Figure 5
1. Eliminate La Media Road southerly
extension crossing the Otay River Valley.
2. Reclassify a portion of La Media Road
from the southern portion of Village 8
extending south to the Active Recreation
area from aSix-Lane Arterial to "Other Roads".
3. Change name of Rock Mountain Road
to Main Street from the point of existing
Heritage Road easterly to Eastlake Parkway.
4. Reclassify Main Street from a Town Center
Arterial easterly of SR-125 to a Six-Lane Gateway.
5. Reclassify Main Street/ La Media Road
from aSix-Lane Town Center Arterial to a
Four-Lane Town Center Arterial within
Village 8 West.
6. Reclassify and realign the segment of
La Media Road from the Town Center Arterials
at the Main Street/ La Media Road Couplet
southeasterly to SR-125 as a Four-Lane Major.
7. Clarify that the mid-arterial SR-125 bridge ~'
crossing between Village 8 and 9 is °-~~-,.-
"pedestrian-only".
---
~t
Legend ~_~~ ._--
,~
,,.- Freeway ,
~fl Expressway (7 or 8 lane} ~ (` ='
m 6 Lane Prime ,'
6 Lane Major ain ~+'reet
4 Lane Major -~~..,._._.~..~.,~__.. ~,.~,~r.~
*** Class I Ootlector '
•t1i Gateway Street (6 Lane) ~ _..__......._.
0040 Gateway Street (2!4 Lane}
Town GenterArteriat
Other Raads
• SR1251r~terchange
~`".~.
~.._ --~
i,
~ L.__~._....1
F
1
0
ATTACHMENT 6
ATTACHMENTT
RESOLUTION NO. GPA-09-O1, PCM-09-11
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY. COUNCIL APPROVE AMENDMENTS TO
THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN AND THE OTAY RANCH GENERAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO REFLECT LAND USE, CIRCULATION AND
POLICY CHANGES FOR APPROXIMATELY 1,281 ACRES WITHIN THE
OTAY RANCH PLANNED COMMUNITY, INCLUDING ASSOCIATED TEXT,
MAPS AND TABLES
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista has long had a goal of developing a higher education
presence in the City; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista has solidified this goal by designating land for a
University in the City's General Plan and the Otay Ranch General Development Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City has been working for several yeazs to acquire all of the land necessary
to develop a University; and,
WHEREAS, in 2008 and 2010, the City entered into Land Offer Agreements that provide for
the property necessary to create the University; and,
WHEREAS, the project proposes amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan and
the Otay Ranch General Development Plan that would complement and support the future location of
a University and Regional Technology Park; and,
WHEREAS, the amendments will also resolve the "Deferral Area" established within the
2005 City of Chula Vista General Plan Update and address a number of administrative corrections;
and,
WHEREAS, the subject General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Otay Ranch General
Development Plan Amendments (GDPA) as presented in the Proj ect are necessary to accommodate
the land uses anticipated in the 2008 Land Offer Agreement between the City of Chula Vista and
Otay Land Company and amendment thereto (referred to herein as the LOA First Amendment); and,
WHEREAS, the GPA and GDPA as presented in the Project were designed to complement
and facilitate the development of a University and Regional Technology Park in conjunction with the
development of Villages 8 West and 9, and in which the City's ownership of land for a University
and its related uses is an essential element; and,
WHEREAS, the approval of the proposed amendments is the first step in carrying out the
development contemplated by these Amendments. The next step in the process would require the
approval of the SPA's, EIR's and TM's for Villages 8 West and 9; and,
11-28
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista's current General Plan was last comprehensively
updated in December 2005; and,
WHEREAS, the Otay Ranch General Development Plan was approved on October 23,1993
and most recently updated on Apri13, 2012; and,
WHEREAS, an application to consider amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan
and the Otay Ranch General Development Plan was filed with the City of Chula Vista Development
Services Department in August 2009 by the Otay Land Company (the "Applicant"); and,
WHEREAS, the proposed General Plan and Otay Ranch General Development Plan
Amendments involve portions of the Land Use and Transportation; Economic Development; Public
Facilities and Services Elements, including associated text, maps and tables; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed General Plan Amendments are contained in a document entitled
"General Plan Amendment Villages 8 West and 9", dated September 2012; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Otay Ranch General Development Plan Amendments are
contained in a document. entitled "General Development Plan Amendment (GDPA) Otay Ranch,
Village 8 West and 9", dated September 2012; and,
WHEREAS, the azea of land which is the subject of this Resolution is diagrammatically
represented in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and commonly
known as Villages 4, 8, 9 and 10, and for the purpose of general description consists of 1,281 acres
within the Otay Ranch Planned Community ("Project Site"); and
WHEREAS, The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and has determined that there is
substantial evidence, in light ofthe whole record before the City of Chula Vista, that the project may
have a significant effect on the environment; therefore, a Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report (SEIR-09-02; SCH #2004081066) has been prepared. Certification ofthe SEIR (SEIR-09-O1)
for this Project will be considered by the City Council as a sepazate item; and
WHEREAS, the Development Services Director set the time and place for a hearing on the
Project, and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a
newspaper of general circulation in the City and the mailing to property owners within 500 feet of
the exterior boundaries of the property, at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 6:00 p.m.,
January 23, 2013 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission
and said hearing was thereafter closed; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission having received certain evidence on January 23, 2013
as set forth in the record of its proceedings and incorporated herein by this reference and having
11-29
made certain Findings, as set forth in the City Council Resolution GPA-09-O1, PCM-09-11 also
incorporated herein by this reference recommends that the City Council approve the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION
recommends that the City Council adopt the attached City Council Resolution approving the Project
in accordance with the Findings as set forth in the subject City Council Resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this Planning Commission Resolution be
transmitted to the City Council.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 13th day of February, 2013, by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas, Secretary
Presented by
Gary Halbert, P.E., AICP
Assistant City Manager
Michael Spethman, Chairperson
Approved as to form by
Glen R. Googins
City Attorney
h:\planning\otay_ranch\university_and_south_or_villages\olc\gp-gdpa\agenda_submittals\gpa-09-O1 & pcm-09-11 drag
pc reso.doc
11-30
ATTACHMENT!
RESOLUTION NO. 2013-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL
APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN
AND THE OTAY RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO
REFLECT LAND USE, CIRCULATION AND POLICY CHANGES
FOR APPROXIMATELY 1,281 ACRES WITHIN THE OTAY RANCH
PLANNED COMMUNITY, INCLUDING ASSOCIATED TEXT, MAPS
AND TABLES
I RECITALS
A. Project Site
WHEREAS, the azeas of land which are the subject of this Resolution contain all lands
within the boundaries of Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated into this Resolution by this
reference, and includes approximately 1,281 acres of land generally located south of Main
Street/Rock Mountain Road, east of Heritage Road, west of Salt Creek Canyon and north of the
Otay River Valley within the Otay Ranch Planned Community; and,
B. Project; Application for Discretionary Approvals
WHEREAS, on August 21, 2009, the City of Chula Vista deemed the Otay Land
Company's (the "Applicant") application complete and initiated a General Plan Amendment
(GPA) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan Amendment (GDPA), requesting approval of
amendments to the City's General Plan (the "GPA") and Otay Ranch General Development Plan
(the"Project"); and,
WHEREAS, the proposed GPA for the Project involve portions of the Land Use and
Transportation; Economic Development; Public Facilities and Services; and Environmental
Elements, including associated text, maps and tables; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed GDPA involves portions of Part II of the existing GDP,
including associated text, maps and tables; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed GPA aze contained in a document entitled "General Plan
Amendment, Otay Ranch Village 8 West & Village 9, September 2012" as represented in Exhibit
B attached hereto; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed GDPA aze contained in a document entitled "General
Development Plan Amendment (GDPA), Village 8 West and Village 9 September, 2012" as
represented in Exhibit C attached hereto; and,
C. Prior Discretionary Approvals
11-31
Resolution 2013 - Page 2 of 5
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista's current General Plan was last comprehensively
updated in December 2005; and,
WHEREAS, the Otay Ranch General Development Plan was was approved on October 23,
1993, and most recently updated on Apri13, 2012; and,
WHEREAS, as part of the 2005 General Plan Update land use actions on the Project Area
were deferred; and,
WHEREAS, the GPA and GDPA as presented are necessary to accommodate the land uses
anticipated in the 2008 Land Offer Agreement between the City of Chula Vista and Otay Land
Company, and amendment thereto (referred to herein as the LOA First Amendment); and,
WHEREAS, the GPA and GDPA were designed to complement and facilitate development
of a University and Regional Technology Park in conjunction with the development of Villages 8
West and 9, and in which the City's ownership of land for a University and its related uses is an
essential element; and,
WHEREAS, the approval of the proposed amendments is the first step in carrying out the
development contemplated by these Amendments. The next step in the process would require the
approval of the SPA's, EIR's and TMs for Villages 8 West and 9.
D. Planning Commission Record of Application
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Government Code section 65090, the Planning
Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the GPA and GDPA on February 13, 2013, and
recommended that the City Council adopt the Resolutions approving the GPA and GDPA; and,
WHEREAS, the proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission
at the public hearing on this Project held on February 13, 2013, and the minutes and resolution
resulting there from, aze hereby incorporated into the record subsequent to these proceedings; and
E. City Council Record of Application
WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for the hearing on the GPA and GDPA
and notices of said heazings, together with its purposes given by its publication in a newspaper of
general circulation in the City, at least ten days prior to the hearing; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Government Code section 65090, the City Council held
a duly noticed public hearing on Februazy 19, 2013, on the subject GPA and GDPA;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council hereby finds and determines
as follows:
11-32
Resolution 2013 -
H. COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
Page 3 of 5
The Development Services Director has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with
the California Environmental Quality Act and has determined that there is substantial evidence, in
light of the whole record before the City of Chula Vista, that the project may have a significant
effect on the environment; therefore, a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR-09-02;
SCH #2004081066) has been prepared. Certification of the SEIR (SEIR-09-02) for this project will
be considered by the City Council as a separate item.
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista reviewed, analyzed, considered, approved and
certified a Final SEIR, made certain Findings of Fact, adopted a Statement of Overriding
Considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the GPA and GDPA,
pursuant to CEQA, by Resolution No. 2013-_
III. GENERAL PLAN INTERNAL CONSISTENCY
The City Council hereby finds and determines that the General Plan, as amended, is
internally consistent and shall remain internally consistent following amendments thereof by this
Resolution.
IV. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY
The City Council hereby finds and determines that the General Development Plan, as
amended, is internally consistent and shall remain internally consistent following amendments
thereof by this Resolution.
V. ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AND GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
AMENDMENTS
In light of the findings above, the General Plan and General Development Plan Amendment
provisions are hereby approved and adopted in the form as presented in Exhibits B and C attached
hereto and on file in the City Clerk's Office.
VI. SUNSET PROVISION
This General Plan and General Development Plan approval shall be effective for a term of
no longer than two (2) years from its adoption (the "Term") and shall automatically expire, unless
Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Entitlements are approved by the City and all applicable statutes of
limitations to challenge the SPA Entitlements haue expired with no third party litigation having
been filed. In the event of such third party litigation, the GPA and GDPA entitlements shall not
expire pursuant to this Pazagraph 3.7 of the LOA First Amendment, and the terms and conditions of
Paragraph 3.3(e) of said agreement shall govern If the GPA and GDPA Entitlements expired as
provided herein, the General Plan, General Development Plan, Zoning, Development Agreement
and other land uses regulations, applicable to the Property prior to the approval of the GPA and
GDPA Entitlements (the "Existing Entitlements") shall thereupon take effect. City may, but is not
11-33
Resolution 2013 -
Page 4 of 5
required, to take any appropriate actions, in its sole discretion, it may deem necessary, if any, to
confirm the Existing Entitlements.
Presented by
Gary Halbert, P.E., AICP
Assistant City Manager
Approved as to form by
Glen R. Googins
City Attorney
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California,
this 26th day of February, 2013, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers:
NAYS: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers:
ATTEST:
Donna Norris, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO )
CITY OF CHULA VISTA )
Cheryl Cox, Mayor
I, Donna Norris, City Clerk of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing
Resolution No. was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a regular
meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 26th day of February, 2013.
11-34
Resolution 2013 -
Executed this 19th day of Februazy, 2013.
Donna Norris, City Clerk
Page 5 of 5
h:\planning\otay_ranch\university_and_south_or_villages\olc\gp-gdpa\agenda_submittals\gpa-09-O1 & pcm-0-9-11
draft cc reso.doc
11-35
THE ATTACHED AGREEMENT HAS BEEN REVIEWED
AND APPROVED AS TO FORM BY THE CITY
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND WILL BE
FORMALLY SIGNED UPON APPROVAL BY
THE' CITY COUNCIL
~Gle
City Attorney
Dated: Z 2~ ~~
FIRST AMENDMENT TO
LAND OFFER AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
OTAY LAND COMPANY, LLC AND
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
11-36
Attachment 9
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
276 Fourth Ave.
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Attention: City Clerk
(Space Above For Recorder's Use)
FIRST AMENDMENT TO LAND OFFER AGREEMENT
This FIRST AMENDMENT TO LAND OFFER AGREEMENT ("Amendment") is
entered into and effective as of , 2013, by and between Otay Land Company, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company ("Owner") and the City of Chula Vista, a political
subdivision of the State of California ("City").
RECITALS
A. On or about Apri19, 2008, City and Owner entered into that certain Land Offer
Agreement ("Agreement") subsequently recorded in the San Diego County Recorder's Office on
Apri124, 2008, as Document No. 2008-0218696.
B. City and Owner wish to amend the Agreement in a manner intended to foster the
realization of a quality University campus within Otay Ranch in the near future by providing the
City with ownership of land essential to the development of a University.
C. Unless otherwise defined herein, capitalized terms as used herein shall have the
same meaning as given thereto in the Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals and of the mutual covenants
hereinafter contained and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency
of which is hereby acknowledged, Owner and City agree as follows:
1. Paragraph 1.1. The following shall be added to the end of the fourth (4"') full
pazagraph of the Paragraph 1.1, which paragraph begins with the phrase "'Entitlements' means:":
Entitlements described above in subsection (i), and the associated
California Environmental Quality Act compliance, shall hereafter
be referred as the "GPA Entitlements." Entitlements described
above in subsections (ii) and (iii), and the associated California
Environmental Quality Act compliance, shall hereafter be referred
to as the "SPA Entitlements."
791020.05/SD
256583-00002/9-21 d 2/jac/cam 1 1- 3 7
2. Paza¢raph 2.7. The word "Entitlements" in paragraph 2.7, entitled "Removal of
Encumbrances," shall be replaced by the phrase "GPA Entitlements."
3. Paragraph 2.8. Pazagraph 2.8, entitled "Hazardous Waste Report," shall be
deleted in its entirety and replaced by the following:
Owner provided the City within thirty (30) days of the Effective Date of this
Agreement with a Phase One Hazardous Waste Report on the University Property
and Open Space Property by GeoRemediation, Inc. and dated January 13, 1999.
Owner agrees to provide an update of this report for the respective properties not
less than five (5) days prior to first City Council hearing for the GPA
Entitlements. Owner shall be responsible for the cost of such update. Owner
understands that the City's acceptance of the Offers of Dedication is conditioned
upon the City's approval of said report and the update. The City entered into this
Agreement contingent on the University Property and Open_ Space Property being
free and clear of any environmental condition which would be a violation of any
applicable federal state or local law, ordinance or regulation relating to Hazardous
Material. Owner further understands and agrees that Owner in addition to any
obligations as the property owner, is fully responsible for the administration and
oversight of the environmental condition of the University Property and Open
Space Property until the City has accepted the Offer of Dedications for the
respective properties. If after the City's review of the updated Phase One
Hazazdous Waste Report for said properties, the City determines the
environmental condition of the University Property or Open Space Property is not
acceptable to the City, Owner may in its discretion, cure said condition prior to
the first public hearing for the GPA Entitlements. If Owner decides not to cure the
condition of the University Property or Open Space Property, Owner shall provide
City with written notice of such decision within one (1) day of the first public
heazing for the GPA Entitlements and this Agreement and the Processing
Agreement shall be terminated and the applications submitted for the Project shall
be considered withdrawn by the Owner and any and all hearings for the
Entitlements (including the GPA Entitlements) shall be cancelled. If the Owner
elects to cure the condition of the University Property or Open Space Property but
requires additional time to do so, the public hearings for the GPA Entitlements
will be continued until said condition has been cured by the Owner, provided
however such continuance does not exceed thirty (30) days in which event it shall
be considered as a decision by the Owner not to cure.
4. Pazaeraph 3.2. The following shall be inserted following the first (15t) sentence of
Paragraph 3.2, entitled "Review Period":
Such review shall include thirty (30) days after the final draft for
the GPA Entitlements ("Final Draft GPA Entitlements") and thirty
(30) days after the final draft for the SPA Entitlements ("Final
Draft SPA Entitlements").
791020.05/SD ~o p
256583-00002/9-21-12/jac/caMmsFP1AL ~-ro_3 O
5. Paragraph 3.3. Paragraph 3.3, entitled "Approval of Entitlements," is hereby
deleted and replaced in its entirety with the following:
Paragraph 3.3 AnDroval of Entitlements.
(a) In the event the GPA Entitlements are approved by the City
Council in substantially the form of the Final Draft GPA
Entitlements, Owner agrees that the City may thereafter accept the
Offers of Dedication for the University Property and the Open
Space Property, subject to Pazagraph 3.3 (c) below, after the
expiration of all applicable statutes of limitations to challenge the
GPA Entitlements and any additional time caused by Third Party
Litigation as described in Paragraph 3.3(d) herein. In the event the
City does not approve the GPA Entitlements in substantially the
form of the Final Draft GPA Entitlements on or before March 12,
2013, as such time may be extended as provided in Paragraph 2.8,
all Entitlement applications shall be deemed withdrawn by Owner
and any action taken by the City on the GPA Entitlements shall be
void ab initio and be of no effect. Owner understands that the
City's approval of the GPA Entitlements shall be conditioned to
expire in accordance with the terms set forth in Paragraph 3.7 of
this Agreement.
(b) In the event the City Council does not approve the SPA
Entitlements in substantially the form of the Final Draft SPA
Entitlements on or before June 15, 2013, as such time may be
extended as provided for in Pazagraph 5.9 (Force Majeure), the
GPA Entitlements received by Owner shall expire and be of no
effect. In addition, the University Property and Open Space
Property shall be reconveyed by City to Owner within five (5)
business days following the City's decision not to approve the SPA
Entitlements or failure to act thereon as described above.
(c) Upon acceptance by the City of the Offers of Dedication and
until such time as the SPA Entitlements aze approved by the City
and all applicable statutes of limitations to challenge the SPA
Entitlements have expired (or in the event of Third-Party
Litigation, the entry of a final, non-appealable judgment affirming
the validity of the SPA Entitlements), City (i) will maintain the
University Property and Open Space Property free and clear of all
liens, encumbrances or title exceptions and take all actions
reasonably necessary to prevent or remove such clouds on title,
other than such matters of record when City accepts the Offers of
Dedication; (ii) maintain the University Property and Open Space
Property in the physical condition existing as of the date of
acceptance of the Offers of Dedication; and, (iii) refrain from any
development or physical alteration of the University Property and
79102005/SD
256583-00002/9-21-12/jac/cam/msFINAL ~-~~3 9
Open Space Property, except as required to restore or repair said
Properties to the physical condition which existed at the time of
acceptance of the Offers of Dedication, after consultation with
Owner.
(d) In the event of Third Party Litigation challenging the GPA
Entitlements, City may accept the Offers of Dedication upon entry
of a final, non-appealable judgment affirming the validity of the
GPA Entitlements or other resolution mutually acceptable to the
parties ("Favorable Outcome"). In the event of any outcome to the
Third Party Litigation other than a Favorable Outcome, the parties
agree to meet and confer regarding corrective action necessary to
preserve the GPA Entitlements. In the event Owner or City
determines it is not in Owner's or City's interest to proceed with the
corrective action necessary to preserve the GPA Entitlements, this
Agreement shall tenninate and any GPA Entitlements that have
been approved by the City shall expire and be of no effect. In the
event Owner and City elect to proceed with the corrective action
necessary to preserve the GPA Entitlements, the City shall be
entitled to accept the Offers of Dedication for the University
Property and Open Space Property upon entry of a final, non-
appealable judgment affirming the validity of the GPA
Entitlements.
(e) In the event of Third Party Litigation challenging the SPA
Entitlements which results in any outcome other than a Favorable
Outcome, the parties agree to meet and confer regazding corrective
action necessary to preserve the SPA Entitlements. In the event
Owner or City determines it is not in Owner's or City's interest to
proceed with the corrective action necessary to preserve the SPA
Entitlements, this Agreement shall terminate, and both the SPA
Entitlements and GPA Entitlements that have been approved by
the City shall expire and be of no effect. Within five (5) business
days of such decision, the University Property and Open Space
Property shall be reconveyed by City to Owner.
6. The following shall be added as a new pazaeraph 3.7:
3.7 GPA Entitlements Sunset. The Owner understands and
agrees that the GPA Entitlements for the Project were designed to
complement and facilitate the development of a University and
related uses on the University Property and Open Space Property
in which the City's ownership is an essential element thereof.
Owner understands and agrees that if the GPA Entitlements are
approved by the City, such approval shall be effective for a term of
no longer than two (2) years from its adoption (the "Term") and
shall automatically expire, unless the SPA Entitlements are
79102005/SD
256583-00002/9-21-12/jac/cam/msFINAL 1 i-4 0
approved by the City and all applicable statutes of limitations to
challenge the SPA Entitlements have expired with no Third Party
Litigation having been filed. In the event of such Third Party
Litigation, the GPA Entitlements shall not automatically expire
pursuant to this Paragraph 3.7, and the terms and conditions of
Paragraph 3.3(e) shall govern. If the GPA Entitlements expire as
provided herein, the general plan, zoning, Development Agreement
and other land use regulations, applicable to the Property prior to
the approval of the GPA Entitlements ("Existing Entitlements")
shall thereupon take effect. City may take any appropriate actions,
in its sole discretion, it may deem necessary, if any, to confirm the
Existing Entitlements.
7. Pazaeraoh 3.4. The final sentence of Pazagraph 3.4 shall be deleted and replaced
in its entirety with the following:
The City shall return the Irrevocable Offers of Dedication to the
Owner, or, in the event City has previously accepted the
Irrevocable Offers of Dedication, City shall promptly reconvey the
University Property and Open Space Property to Owner.
8. Pazaarauh 3.9. The third and fourth sentences in Pazagraph 3.9, entitled
"Endowment," shall be deleted and replaced in its entirety with the following:
In the event the SPA Entitlements aze approved by the City and all
applicable statutes of limitations to challenge the SPA Entitlements
have expired with no legal challenge having been filed or upon
entry of a final, non-appealable judgment affirming the validity of
the SPA Entitlements or other resolution mutually acceptable to
the parties, Escrow Agent will immediately and automatically
release the Escrow Amount to the City. However, if the City does
not approve the Entitlements, or if this Agreement terminates for
any reason, Escrow Agent will immediately and automatically
release the Escrow Amount to the Owner.
9. Paragraph 5.19. The following shall be added to the end of Paragraph 5.19,
entitled "Termination":
In the event the Offers of Dedication have been accepted by the
City and any of the termination events described above occur and
the Agreement is terminated, City shall reconvey the University
Property and Open Space Property to Owner within five (5)
business days of the termination event. If the City is required to
reconvey the University Property and Open Space Property to the
Owner for any of the reasons set forth in this Agreement, any SPA
Entitlements and GPA Entitlements that have been approved by
the City shall expire and be of no effect.
79102005/SD - S
256583-00002/9-21-12/jac/cam/msFINAl ~ -yam 4
10. No Further Modification. Except as set forth in this Amendment, all of the terms
and provisions of the Agreement shall remain unmodified and in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been executed as of the day and yeaz
first above written.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a political
subdivision of the State of California
OTAY LAND COMPANY, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company
EXECUTED BY
Cheryl Cox, Mayor
Attested
By:
Donna Norris, Cites
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Glenn R. Googins, City Attorney
EXECUTED BY
Paul J. Borden, President
791020.05/SD
256583-00002/9-2412/jadcaMmsFINAL 1-~-4 2
Attachment 10
RESOLUTION NO. 2013-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL
APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE LAND OFFER
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND OTAY
LAND COMPANY FOR CONVEYANCE OF 210 ACRES TO THE
CITY AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID
AGREEMENT AND ACCEPT THE OFFERS OF DEDICATION FOR
THE 210 ACRES IF SUCH LAND BECOMES AVAILABLE TO THE
CITY PURSUANT TO THE TERMS OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT
TO THE LAND OFFER AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, in adopting the Otay Ranch General Development Plan in 1993 the City of
Chula Vista (City) formally declared its intent to plan for and pursue an institution(s) of higher
learning (Universit(ies)) within its municipal boundazies; and
WHEREAS, the updated City of Chula Vista General Plan in December 2005 recognized
the many benefits of a Regional Technology Park, which would be associated with the
Universit(ies); and
WHEREAS, on or about Apri19, 2008, City and Otay Land Company (Owner) entered into
that certain Land Offer Agreement (Agreement) subsequently recorded in the San Diego County
Recorder's Office on Apri124, 2008, as Document No. 2008-0218696; and
WHEREAS, under the terms of the Agreement, Owner would agree to convey 210 acres,
50 acres of which will be utilized as a portion of the proposed "University/Regional Technology
Pazk"; and
WHEREAS, City and Owner wish to amend the Agreement (Amended Agreement) in a
manner intended to foster the realization of a quality University campus within Otay Ranch in the
neaz future by providing the City with ownership of land essential to the development of a
University and its associated mitigation land at an eazlier stage then what was originally provided
by the Agreement; and
WHEREAS, with the approval of the proposed Amended Agreement, the transfer of
ownership to the City of the 210 acres would occur with the approval of amendments to the
General Plan (GPA-09-O1), General Development Plan (PCM-09-I1) and certification of the
associated Environmental Impact Report; provided however, said General Plan and General
Development Plan approval shall be effective for a term of no longer than two (2) yeazs from its
adoption and shall automatically expire, unless the related Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan is
approved by the City.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista
does hereby approve the First Amendment to the Land Offer Agreement between the City of Chula
Vista and Otay Land Company for conveyance of 210 acres to the City for aUniversity/Regional
11-43
Resolution 2013 -
Page 2 of 3
Technology Park and associated mitigation purposes, a copy of which shall be kept on file in the
Office of the City Clerk.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor of the City of Chula Vista is hereby
authorized and directed to execute said First Amendment to the Land Offer Agreement on behalf of
the City of Chula and to accept the Offer(s) to Dedicate the 210 acres should such offer become
available to the City pursuant to the terms of the First Amendment to the Land Offer Agreement.
Presented by
Gary Halbert, P.E., AICP
Assistant City Manager
Approved as to form by
Glen R. Googins
City Attorney
11-44
Resolution 2013 -
Page 3 of 3
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California,
this 26th day of February, 2013, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers:
NAYS: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers:
ATTEST:
Donna Norris, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Cheryl Cox, Mayor
I, Donna Norris, City Clerk of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing
Resolution No. was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a regular
meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 26th day of February, 2013.
Executed this day of , 2013.
Donna Norris, City Clerk
11-45
Item 11
RESOLUTION N0.2012
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA CERTIFYING THE FINAL
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT (SEHi 09-01/SCH 2004081066) FOR
AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
GENERAL PLAN (GPA-09-O1) AND OTAY RANCH
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PCM-09-11);
MAHING CERTAIN FINDINGS OF FACT;
ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS; AND ADOPTING A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA
ENVHtONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
WHEREAS, Otay Land Company LLC, submitted applications requesting
approval of amendments to the Chula Vista General Plan and Otay Ranch General
Development Plan ("Project") that will reconfigure existing Otay Ranch village
boundazies, 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; and
WHEREAS, in December 2005, the City adopted a comprehensive General Plan
Update, amended the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP), and certified EIR
OS-O1 and EIR 90-O1; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Title 14 California Code of Regulations
(California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines or CEQA Guidelines) Section 15163 a
supplemental environmental impact report (SEIR 09-01) was prepared for the Project
which constitutes a supplement to the first tier of documents (EIR OS-O1 and EIR 90-01)
that evaluates the Project as it relates to the analysis contained in said environmental
documents; and
WHEREAS, SEIR-09-O1 constitutes a programmatic document under the
provisions of Section 15168 and an SEIR under the provisions of Section 15163 of the
CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Prepazation for SEIR-09-O1 was circulated on January
15, 2010 pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15082; and
WHEREAS, an EIR scoping meeting was held on January 26, 2010; and
WHEREAS, Drafr SEIR 09-01, together with the technical appendices for the
Project, was issued fora 45 day public review period on June 8, 2012, and was processed
through the State Clearinghouse; and
11-46
WHEREAS, the public review period closed on July 24, 2012; and
WHEREAS, during the public comment period, the City received comments on
the Draft SEIR-09-O1 and consulted with all responsible and trustee agencies, other
regulatory agencies and others pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15086 and pursuant
to Section 15088, all comments received were responded to in writing; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has independently reviewed and considered the
contents of the Final SEIR-09-O1 at a public meeting; and
WHEREAS, to the extent that the Findings of Fact for the Project, dated October
2012 (Exhibit "A" of this Resolution, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City
Clerk), conclude that proposed mitigation measures outlined in Final SEIR 09-01 are
feasible and have not been modified, superseded or withdrawn, the City of Chula Vista
hereby binds itself and the Applicant and its successors in interest, to implement those
measures. These fmdings are not merely information or advisory, but constitute a binding
set of obligations that will come into effect when the City adopts the resolution approving
the project. The adopted mitigation measures contained within the Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program (Exhibit "B" of this Resolution, a copy of which is on file in the
office of the City Clerk) aze expressed as conditions of approval. Other requirements are
referenced in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted concurrently
with these Findings of Fact and will be effectuated through the process of implementing
the Project; and
WHEREAS, this Resolution serves only to certify the Final SEIR 09-01 as
required by CEQA, and not to approve the Project. By separate action, the City Council
will decide whether to approve the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL of
the City of Chula Vista does hereby determine, resolve and order as follows:
L RECORD
The findings made in this Resolution are based upon the information and evidence
set forth in the Final SEIR 09-01 and all proceedings and all evidence introduced before
the City Council, in consideration of this SEIR 09-01 at their public meeting. The
documents, staff report, technical studies, appendices, plans, specifications, other
materials and any other documents submitted to the decision-makers and documents
specified in Public Resources Code Section 21167.6, shall comprise the entire record of
Proceedings for any claims under CEQA.
II. Final SEIR 09-O1 CONTENTS
That the final SEIR 09-01 consists of the following:
1. Supplemental EIR for the Project (including technical appendices); and
11-47
2. Comments and Responses
(All hereafter collectively referred to as "SEIR 09-01")
III. ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS TO FEIIt 09-O1
1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and
2. Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
IV. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLLANCE WITH CALIFORNIA
ENVHtONMENTAL 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) aze prepazed 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.
V. 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.
VI. CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT, AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM
A. Adoption of Findings of Fact
The City Council does hereby approve, accepts as its own, incorporate as
if set forth in full herein, and make each and every one of the findings
contained in the Findings of Fact, Exhibit "A" of this Resolution, a copy
of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk.
B. Mitigation Measures Feasible and Adopted
As more fully identified and set forth in SEIR 09-01 and in the Findings of
Fact for this project, which is Exhibit "A" to this Resolution, a copy of
which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, the City Council hereby
finds pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA
Guidelines Section 15091 that the mitigation measures described in the
above referenced documents aze feasible and will become binding upon
the entity (such as the project proponent or the City) assigned thereby to
implement the same.
11-48
C. Infeasibility of Alternatives
As more fully identified and set forth in SEIR 09-O1 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-O1, 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.
VII. 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
Vista finds that SEIR 09-01, and the Findings of Fact and Statement of Ovemding
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) have 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 the
Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista and therefore, are hereby
certified.
Presented by:
Gazy Halbert, PE, AICP
Assistant City Manager/
Director of Development Services
Approved as to form by:
Glen R. Googins
City Attorney
11-49
Exhibit A
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTALIMPACT REPORT
FOR THE
AMENDMENTS 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
11-50
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
II. ACRONYMS
ill. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
IV. BACKGROUND
V. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
VI. FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA
VII. LEGAL EFFECTS OF FINDINGS
VIII. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM '
IX. SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
X. CUMULATIVE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
XI. FEASIBILITY OF POTENTIAL PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
XII. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
1
2
3
6
7
9
11
11
12
29
36
47
11-51
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 Final SEIR evaluates four alternatives to the project. These alternatives include the
following: (1) No Project-No Build Alternative; (2) No Project-No Change in Existing_ Plans
Alternative; (3) Reduced Density Alternative; and (4) La Media Road Altemative.
The Final SEIR represents a second tier EIR, in accordance with California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) Section 21094, and tiers from the certified Program EIR prepared for the
City's General Plan Update (EIR #05-01/SCH #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.).
1
11-52
11.
ACRONYMS
ADT average daily trips
CEQA California Environmental Quality Ad
City City of Chula Vsta
d8 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
SANDAL San Diego Association of Governments
SDAPCD San Diego Air Pollution Con[rol District
SEIR Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
SPA Sectional Planning Area
SR State Rouie
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
WRMP Water Resources Master Plan
2
11-53
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project includes a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Otay Ranch General Development
Plan Amendment (GDPA) resulting in policy, circulation, and land use changes affecting the
lands within the project area. The project area is an approximately 1,281-acre area within the
Otay Ranch Subarea of the City's Eastem 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 incudes a proposed 85-acre Regional Technology Park
(RTP); and a portion of the southern edge of the Eastern Urban Center. SEIR Figure 3-1
illustrates the boundaries of the project area.
The project will redefine the boundaries within the General Development Plan area to create
proposed Villages 8 West and 9 and add 85 acres of RTP within the existing University Site.
The 728 acres of land that comprise the proposed villages and RTP are referred to as the "Land
Use Change Area.° Proposed land use designation changes would affect only the Land Use
Change Area. The project would re-designate land uses only within the Land Use Change Area.
The project also includes General Plan and General Development Plan policy amendments
affecting the entire project area, as well as revisions to the City's Circulation Plan-East.
Altogether, the project includes the following component parts:
Revisions to General Plan policies and maps affecting the project area. This component
entails modification of existing, or fhe addition of new goals, objectives, and policies of
the General Plan to assure the "development of comprehensive, well-integrated, and
balanced land uses' within the Otay Ranch Subarea as first envisioned in the 2005
General Plan Update (GPU). This includes further clarifcation and explanation of
allowable density and intensity of uses within designated Town Centers. Additional
amendments to the General Plan would designate the 85-acre RTP within a University
Focus Area, one of four other focus areas that make up the Eastern University District,
which would create a symbiotic relationship between the economic development and
employment opportunities of the RTP and the academic research and university campus
activities. The amendments would adopt the University Strategic Framework Policies as'
a means to assure coordinated development among the locus 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)
11-54
eliminate the southerly extension of La Media Road crossing the Otay River Valley; 2)
reclassification to "Other Roads" that portion of La Media Road south of Village 8
connecting to the Active Recreation Area; 3) change name of Rock Mountain Road to
Main Street from the point of existing Heritage Road easterly to Eastlake Parkway; 4)
reclassify Main Street from a Town Center Arterial easterly of State Route (SR-)125 to a
Six-lane Gateway; 5) reclassify Main Street/La Media Road Couplet from aSix-lane
Town Center Arterial to a Four-lane Town Center Arterial within Village 8 West; 6)
reclassify and realign the segment of La Media Road from the southern end of the Main
StreetiLa Media Road Couplet south easterly to SR-125 as a Four-Lane,Major; 7) clarify
that the mid-arterial SR-125 bridge crossing between Village 8 and 9 is "pedestrian-
only'; and 8) provide that Urban Level of Service (Level of Service [LOS] D) is
acceptable for Town Center Arterials.
SEIR Figures 3-2 and 33 provide further detail of the proposed amendments.
• Reduction of University area by 57 acres, for a total University acreage of 383 acres
(within [he project area). Total University acreage in [he 2005 General Plan was
440 acres. University acres would be changed through the creation of an 85-acre RTP
land use designation within the Planning Area 10/University Site; change of 40 acres
from University to Mixed-Use Residential in Village 9; and the conversion of 68 acres of
Residential to University in the southern portion of the Planning Area 10/University Site.
Amendments to the Otay Ranch General Development Plan including revised text,
graphics, and an update of maps and statistics. These amendments support the
following revisions to the plan: revise the statistical description and policy standards for
the proposed villages and the Easlem University Center, locate the 85-acre RTP vrithin
the Planning Area tONniversity Site and accordingly adjust University acreage; add
detail regarding the requirement for the University Strategic Framework Policies; and
reflect land uses previously approved in 2001 within the Village 8 East area.
• Land use changes affecting the Land Use Change Area. Individual land uses for
proposed Village 8 West, Village 9, and the RTP are detailed in SEIR Tables 3-2 and
3-3. The plans are focused around village-level mixed-use proposals to implement GPU
concepts. Overall, the project would account for changes in the allowable land uses as-
shown in Table 1, below.
4
11-55
TABLE 1
COMPARISON OF LAND USE TYPES WITHIN LAND USE CNANOE AREA
Single-family (units) _ 887 640
Multi-family (units) 5,163 4,530
Commercial (acres) 32.3} 17.6
Community Purpose Facility (acres) 10.8 20.1
Middle School (acres) 2D.2 25.0
Elementary School (acres) 31,2 20.0
Park (acres) 55.4 50.3
University (acres) 50.0# 175$
Inrinstrial/Regional Technolocv Park 85.0 -
'The General Plan /antl use assumption h thls table is a gross esfxnale and subf eU to funher revrew antl relhement.
tThe maxYnum permitted commamWl areas may attematively be meazuretl h square reel up to the maxtrnum projectetl yleltl of
1,600,000 square feel.
$AS depicted on SEIR Fgure 3-4, the Land Use Change Area accommotlaletl 175 acres or university area (university is hchtletl
withn the public/quasFpublic GP designation, abng wdh other sinllar types of land uses such as xhools) in the 2005 General
Plan Update. The project would convert 85 acres of this area into RTP, antl 40 acres info resitlenlial, leaving 50 acres of
Univarstty wRhh the Land Use Ghenge Area.
DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS
The discretionary actions to be taken by the City Council include the following:
• General Plan Amendments
• Otay Ranch GDPA
Subsequent actions to implement the project would be subject to the approval of a Sectional
Planning Area (SPA) plan, Tentative Map, and/or formal design review. While future actions will
require 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 compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines as part of the certifcation process.
PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
As specifed in the Final SEIR, the primary goals and objectives of the project are as follows:
• Encourage social interaction and a diverse range of services to promote a mix of uses
within 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
and housing opportunities that support an excellent standard of living, and improve the
ability for residents to live and work locally;
11-56
• Create 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
meets community needs;
Develop a circulation plan thaF de-emphasizes the automobile, and places greater
reliance 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
City'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;
• Provide opportunities for higher density development that accommodate off-site Student
and Eaculty Housing for the University;
• Provide opportunities for goods and services and other ancillary uses necessary to
support the University and RTP to be provided within Planning Area 10/University Site;
• Provide access to, and connections between, the City's open space and trails network
and the regional network, in accordance with the Chula Usta Multiple Species
Conservation Program Subarea Plan, Chula Vista Greenbelt Master Plan, and Otay
Valley Regional Park Concept Plan; and
Conserve the City's sensitive biological and other valuable natural resources.
IV.
BACKGROUND
In December 2005, the City adopted a comprehensive GPU, amended the Otay Ranch GDP,
and certified EIR 05-01 for said actions. As part of the GPU, amendments to land uses for
those areas comprising the project area were deferzed by the City. While the action on the land
uses was deferred, the certified Program EIR (PEIR) analyzed the impacts of the proposed
amendments within this Deferral Area as part of the 2005 GPU Preferzed Alternative.
Subsequent to,approval of the GPU, the City entered into a Land Offer Agreement (LOA) with
the Otay Land Company (OLC) on April 9, 2008. The LOA is an agreement between the OLC
(owners of property within portions of the Deferral Area) and the City, allowing the future
11-57
conveyance of land within the project area for the development of land uses compatible with a
facility of higher education and for open space in conjunction with the development entitlements
for the project. Pursuant to the LOA, all approvals are subject to all applicable legal
requirements, incuding, but not limited to, CEQA.
In May 2008, the City also entered into a separate LOA with another land owner
(JPB Development, who owns the remainder of the Deferral Area) with similar terms. The Final
SEIR impact analysis contained herein focuses primarily on the properties owned by OLC,
which are within the Land Use Change Area. Specifically, the document analyzes the impacts of
the project which differ from the impacts analyzed in the 2005 EIR as the Preferred Alternative.
The cumulative impact analysis provides a discussion of the potential future buildout of the JPB
sites per the 2008 LOA between the City and JPB.
v.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
For purposes of CEQA and the fndings set forth below, the administrative record of the City
Council decision on the environmental analysis of this project shall consist of the following:
• The Notice of Preparation and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction
with the project;
• The Draft and Final SEIR for the project (EIR #09-01), including appendices and
technical reports;
• All comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public
comment period on the Draft SEIR;
• All reports, studies, memoranda, maps, staff reports, or other planning documents
relating to the project prepared by the City, consultants to the City, or responsible or
trustee agencies with respect to the Cites compliance with the requirements of CEQA
and the City's actions on the project;
All documents, comments, and correspondence submitted by members of the public and
public agencies in connection with this project, in addition to comments on the SEIR for
the project;
• Atl documents submitted to the City by other public agencies or members of the public in
connection with the SEIR, up through the close of the public hearing;
7
11-58
Minutes and verbatim transcripts of all workshops, the scoping meeting, other public
meetings, and public hearings held by the City, or videotapes where transcripts are not
available or adequate;
• Any documentary or other evidence submitted at workshops, public meetings, and public
hearings for this project;
• All Endings and resolutions adopted by City decision makers in connection with this
project, and all documents cited or referted to therein; and
• Matters of common knowledge to the City which the members of the City Council
considered regarding this project, including federal, state, and local laws and
regulations, and including, but not limited to, the following:
o Chula Vista General Plan;
- o Relevant portions of the Zoning Code of the City;
o Otay Ranch General Development Plan;
o Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan;
o City of Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan;
o Otay Ranch GDP/SRP Final EIR (EIR #90-01; SCH No. 89010154); and
o Any other materials required to be in the record of proceedings by Public
Resources Code section 21167.6, subdivision (e).
The custodian of the documents comprising the record of proceedings is Susan Bigelow, Clerk , {_commenY [LSl]_cip•:cnnem__.J
to the City Council, whose office is located at 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California 91910;. _,,
The City Council has relied on all of the documents listed above in reaching its decision on the
project, even if every document was not formally presented to the City Council or City staff as.
part of the City files generated in connection with the project. Without exception, any
documents set forth above but not found in the project files fall into two categories. Many of
them reflect prior planning or legislative decisions with which the City Council was aware in
approving the project (see Gity of Santa Cruz v. Local Agency Formation Commission (1978) 76
Cal.App.3d 381, 391-392 [142 Cal.Rptr. 873]; Dominey v. Department of Personnel
Administration (1988)205 Cal.App.3d 729, 738, fi. 6 [252 Cal. Rplr. 620]). Other documents
influenced the expert advice provided to City staff or consultants, who then provided advice to
the City Council. For that reason, such documents form part of the underlying factual basis for
fhe City Council's decisions relating to the adoption of the project {see Pub. Resources Code,
8
11-59
section 21167.6, subd. (e)(10); Browrng-Ferris Industries v. City Council of City of San Jose
(1986) 181 Cal. App.3d 852, 866 [226 Cal.Rptr. 575]; Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. v.
County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4'" 144, 153, 155 [39 Cal.Rptr.2d 54]).
VI.
FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA
Public Resources Code section 21002 provides that "public agencies should not approve
projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available
which would substantral/y lessen the signifcant environmental effects of such projects"
(Emphasis added.) The same statute states that the procedures required by CEQA "are
intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of
proposed projects and the feasible altematives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid
or substantially lessen such significant effects" (emphasis added). Section 21002 goes on to
state that "in the event [that] specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such
project 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 signifcant 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 Ending is that "[c]hanges or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the
significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR" (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd.
(a)(1)). The second permissible finding is that "[s]uch changes or alterations are within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the fnding.
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
"[sppecifc economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of
employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or
project alternatives identified in the final EIR" (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(3)). Public
Resources Code section 21061.1 defnes "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 o(Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990)
52 Ca1.3d 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
Marv. City of San Diego (1982) 133 CaLApp.3d 410, 417 ['83 CaLRpir. 898]). "'[F]easibility'
11-60
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 Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715 (29
Cal.Rptr.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 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" (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002).
For purposes of these findings, the term "avoid" refers to the effectiveness of one or more
mitigation measures to reduce an otherwise significant effect to a less than significant level. In
contrast, the term "substantially lessen" refers to the effectiveness of such measure or
measures to substantially reduce the severity of a signifcant effect, but not to reduce that effect
to a less than signifcant level. These interpretations appear to be mandated by the holding in
Laurel Hifis Homeowners Association v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 519-527
[147 Cal.Rptr. 842], in which the Court of Appeal held that an agency had satisfied its obligation
to substantially lessen or avoid significant effects by adopting numerous mitigation measures,
not all of which rendered the significant impacts in question less than signifcant.
Although CEQA Guidelines section 15091 requires only that approving agencies specify that a
particular significant effect is "avoid[ed] or substantially lessen[edJ," 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 signifcant.
Moreover, although section 15091, read literally, does not require fhdings to address
environmental effects that an EIR identifies as merely "potentially signifcant," these findings will
nevertheless 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 signifcant 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 Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a), (b)).
V~~th respect to a project for which significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened
either through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures or a feasible environmentally
t0
~~-61
superior alternative, a public agency, after adopting proper findings, may nevertheless approve
the project if the agency frst adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the
specific reasons why the agency found that the project's "benefits" rendered "acceptable" its
"unavoidable adverse environmental effects" (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15093, 15D43, subd. (b);
see also Pub. Resources Code, § 21081, subd. (b)). The California Supreme Court has stated
that, "[t]he wisdom of approving ...any development project, a delicate task which requires a
balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their
constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply
requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced" (Goleta, supra, 52 Cal.3d
553, 576).
VII.
LEGAL EFFECTS OF FINDINGS
To the extent that these findings conclude that proposed mitigation measures outlined in the
Final SEIR 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 Endings, 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 fndings and wilt be effectuated through the process of implementing the project.
The mitigation 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 the process of wnstructing and implementing the project.
VIII.
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
As required by Public Resources Code section 21D81.6, 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 applicant and any other responsible parties comply with the feasible mitigation measures
identified below. The program is described in the document entitled AMENDMENTS TO THE
C1Ty OF CHULA VISTA GENER4L PLAN
11
~~-62
(GPA-09-O1j AND OTAY RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PCM-09-11)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 mitigation measures for the project and generating information on the effectiveness of the
mitigation measures to guide future decisions. The program includes monitoring team
qualifcations, specifc monitoring activities, a reporting system, and criteria for evaluating the
success of the mitigation measures.
IX.
SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
SUMMARY OF EFFECTS
The Final SEIR identified a number of direct and indirect significant environmental effects (or
"impacts") resulting from the project. Some of these significant effects can be fully avoided
through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures. Others cannot be fully mitigated or
avoided by the adoption of feasible mitigation measures or feasible environmentally superior
alternatives. However, these effects are outweighed by overriding considerations set forth in
Section XII below. This Section (IX) presents in greater detail the City Council's findings with
respect to the environmental effects of the project.
The project will result in significant environmental changes with regard to the following issues:
land use, landfonn alteration/visual quality, energy resources, transportation, air quality, noise,
and public utilities (water). These significant environmental changes or impacts are discussed in
the Final SEIR in Table 1-t, pages 9 through 21, and Chapter 5, Environmental Impact
Analysis, pages 63 through 364. No significant effects were identified for public services (fire
protection and emergency services, police services, schools, library services, and parks and
recreation), public utilities (wastewater and integrated waste management), housing and'
population, and global climate change. The project will result in significant unmitigable impacts
to land use, landform alteration/visual quality, energy resources, transportation (cumulative
freeways), air quality, noise, and public utilities (water).
Land Use
At the programmatic level, the project does not include design standards necessary to assure
that community character issues are addressed. Therefore, direct impacts associated with
community character issues would be significant. Due to its overall adherence to the smart-
12
11-63
growth principles in the Regional Comprehensive Plan and City's 2005 GPU, cumulative land
use impacts associated with the project would be less than signifcant.
Landform Alteration/Aesthetics
While compliance with the City's General Plan policies assures that future development projects
apply design specifcafions to promote protection of the visual character of the project area, the
project does not inGUde 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
significant.
Traffic, Circulation, and Access
Absent mitigation, approval of the project will result in significant direct impacts along freeway
mainline segments, and signifcant 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
Notwithstanding 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 (d6).
13
11-64
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.
Signthcant impacts could occur as a result of the construction of these projects; however, at this
level of planning, because the extent of those effects is speculative, direct and cumulative
impacts would be significant. _
DETAILED ISSUES DISCUSSION
Land Use
Thresholds of Significance:
The project would result in a signiflcant impact to land use if ii would:
1. Physically divide or adversely affect the community character of an established
community; - -
2. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation, or an agency with
jurisdiction 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).
Explanation:
Implementation of the project would result in a change to the community character of the Land
Use Change Area compared to that analyzed in the 2005 PEIR for the Prefened 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 Oiay Ranch General
Development Plan objectives and policies aimed at providing connectivity and integration
between proposed and existing communities, the project does not include design standards
necessary to assure that all commundy character issues are addressed. Compliance with both
existing and proposed policies would reduce land use/community character impacts, but not to a
level that Is considered less than significant
14
11-65
Mitigation Measures
There is no mitigation contained in the 2005 PEIR or currently available at this programmatic
level of analysis to address significant impacts associated with community character. Future
projects shall be required to include design standards necessary to assure that these
community character issues are addressed.
Findin
There is no feasible mifigation 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
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.
Until future SPA Plans containing zoning and specific design measures are implemented, there
are no applicable or feasible mitigation measures within the control of the City at this time to
reduce visual impacts to below a level of significance to visual character would remain
significant and unmitigated. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Consideration will be
required should the decision makers choose to approve the project.
Landform AlterationlAesthetics
Thresholds of Significance:
`~ Threshold 1: Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista or substantially damage scenic
j resources, including, but not limited to, trees and rock outcroppings;
Threshold 2: Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the City
Impact: Substantially degrade the existing visual character
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.
Explanation:
Implementation of the project would allow future construction within currently undeveloped open
space resulting in the permanent alteration of the existing rolling hills. Additionally, future
IS
11-66
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 projeGs to perform SPA-level visual analysis
and implement landform-grading guidelines. Compliance with these policies would reduce visual
impacts, but not to a level that is considered less than significant.
Mitigation Measures:
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.
Findin
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 6e reduced to less
than significant when specific design standards and zoning specifications are developed and
applied to subsequent SPA plans. Only implementation of the No Project-Nc Build alternative
would reduce this impact to below a level of significance. Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the
CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make
infeasible this project alternative. Additional findings related to the project alternatives are
discussed in Section XI, below.
16
~~-67
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 remain significant and unmitigated. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Consideration
will be required should the decision makers choose to approve the project.
Energy Resources
Thresholds of Sionifcance:
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
meet the City's needs or cause a need for new and expanded facilities.
Impact: Increased energy demands
While future 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 long-term assurances that energy supplies will be available as needed. Therefore, direct
impacts associated with energy consumption are considered signifcant (Final SEIR
Section 5.3.3.2, pages 121 through 125). Cumulative impacts associated with this issue are
discussed in Section X, below.
Explanation:
Implementation of the project would allow an increase in development potential within fhe 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 uses and calculates the projected increase in energy demands for the Land Use Change
Area (adjusted for energy efficiency measures). Future SPA Plans would be required to meet
the mandatory energy standards of the City including: City of Chula Vista Energy Code
(Municipal Code sections 15.26, et seq.); CCR Title 24 Part 6 California Energy Code; Part 11
California Green Building Standards; and the City's Green Building Standards. Additionally,
General Plan policies seek to reduce mobile-source energy consumption by optimizing traffic
flow, directing higher-density housing within walking distance of transit facilities, promoting use
of alternatives to vehicular travel, and generally reducing vehicle trip length through improved
community design. The Otay Ranch General Development Plan likewise requires future SPA
Plans to include a renewable energy conservation plan addressing preservation of energy
resources. Although these programs and policies would result in more effcient use oT energy,
they do not 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
11-68
Mitigation Measures
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
20D5 PEIR, 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 COz
Reduction Plan will lessen the impacts from energy.
Findin
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 signifcant
environmental effect as identified in the Final SEIR. The impact will only be reduced to less than
significant when a determination is made assuring energy resources would be available to
adequately serve the projected increase in population and land uses resulting from
implementation of the project. Only implementation'ofthe No Project-No Build alternative would
reduce this impact to below a level of signifcance. Pursuant to section 15091 (a}(3) of the
CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make
this altemative 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
f ndings related to the project alternatives are discussed in Section XI, below.
Because there are no applicable or feasible mitigation measures within the control of the City at
this time to reduce impacts to energy resources to below a level of significance to energy
resources would remain significant and unmitigated. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding
Consideration will be required should the decision makers choose to approve the project.
Traffic, Circulation, and Access
Thresholds of Significance:
The Proposed Project would result in a significant traffic impact if it would:
1. Result in traffic which exceeds the sign~cance criteria of the respective jurisdiction.
The Traffic Impact Analysis analyzed the study area location utilizing the appropriate
jurisdictions' signifcance criteria. Therefore, City, City of San Diego, and County of San Diego
roadways were analyzed using each jurisdiction's own signifcance criteria.
IS
~~-69
City of Chula Vista
Street Links/Segments
a. Project-specifc (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 (AD'S to the segment.
b. 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, the impact is signifcant regardless of intersection LOS.
Intersections
a. 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.
b. Cumulative impact 'rf only (i) is met.
City o(San Diego
According to the City of San Diego's Significance Determination Thresholds (2007), a project is
considered to have a signifcant impact if the project traffic has decreased the operations of
surrounding roadways by aCity-defined threshold. For projects deemed complete on or after
January 1, 2007, the City defined threshold by roadway type or intersection is shown in
Table 5.4-5 of the Final SEIR.
If a project exceeds the thresholds in Table 5.4-5 of the Final SEIR, then the City of San Diego
may consider a project to have a significant impact. A significant impact can also occur if a
project causes the LOS to degrade from D to E, even if the allowable increases in Table 5.4-5 of
the Final SEIR are not exceeded. A feasible mitigation measure is identifed to return the impact
within the City of San Diego thresholds, or the impact is considered signifcant and unmitigated
by the City of San Diego.
19
~~-~~
County of San Diego
The following criteria was utilized to evaluate potential significant impacts based on the County
of San Diego Guidelines for Determining Signrficance-Transportation and Traffc (20Dg).
Road Seamenfs
Pursuant to the County's General Plan Public Facilities Element, new development must
provide improvements or other measures to mitigate traffic impacts to avoid:
• Reduction in LOS below C for on-site Circulation Element roads;
• Reduction in LOS below D for off-site and on-site abutting Circulation Element roads;
and
• "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
findings is made pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines. The Public Facilities Element,
however, does not include specific guidelines for determining the amount of additional
traffic that would "significantly impact congestion" on such roads.
The County 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
congestion on the referenced LOS E and F roads,
The County considers traffic volume increases from public or private projects that result in one
or more of the following criteria to have a significant traffic volume or level of service impact on a
road segment:
• The additional or redistributed ADT generated by the proposed project will significantly
increase congestion on a Circulation Element Road or State Highway currently operating
at LOS E or LOS F, or will cause a Circulation Element Road or State Highway to
operate at a LOS E or LOS F as a result of the proposed project as identified in
Table 5.4-6, or
• The additional or redistributed ADT generated by the proposed project will cause a
residential street to erceed its design capacity.
20
~~-7~
Traffic Models:
Since the 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 Cumulaiive Impacts (Traffic Model 7).
Traffic Model 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 be implemented under Year 2030 buildout of the existing condition.)
Traffic Model 7 measures the impacts associated with buildout of the project, remaining land
uses within the project area (including the proposed JPB LOA land uses), City of San Diego-
proposed Otay Mesa Community Plan Update, and County G land uses. Impacts associated
with Traffc Model 7 are discussed in Section X, below.
Impacts: - -
As shown on Tables 5.4-12 of the Final SEIR, four freeway mainline segments are projected to
result in significant direct impacts at buildout of the project (Traffic Model 3). {SEIR Section
5.4.3.3, pages 162 through 174)
Explanation:
Based on the peak hour intersection, segment and freeway analyses, the following direct
impacts were identifed under Year 2030 conditions:
I-805 between
• Olympic ParkwaylOrange Avenue to Main Street/Auto Park Drive
• Main Street/Auto Park Drive to Palm Avenue
SR-905 between
• f-805 to Ocean View Hills Parkway
• Britannia Boulevard to La Media Road
Mitioation Measures:
5.4.5. -1 The City of Chula Vista shall collect the appropriate Regional Transportation
Congestion Improvement Plan funds from the project (Freeway Mainline Segments).
21
~~-72
Finding:
Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the CECA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in,
or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant effect as
identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Specifically, Mitigation Measure 5.4.5.1-1 is
feasible and shall be required as a condition of approval and made binding on the applicant.
Implementation of this mitigation measure will reduce significant direct impacts to freeway
mainline segments to a less than significant level.
Existing + Project
An Existing + project analysis was conducted that measures the Proposed Project's buildout
traffc 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
Proposed Project was added.
Impact
Seven roadway segment impacts were calculated in the Existing + project condition. Under the
Existing + Project condition, the following street segments are calculated to operate at a LOS D
or worse conditions in the City:
• Olympic Parkway between I-8D5 and Brandywine Avenue -LOS F
• Olympic Parkway between Brandywine Avenue and Heritage Road/Paseo Ranchero -
LOS F
• Olympic Parkway between Heritage Road/Paseo Ranchero and La Media Road -LOS
F
• 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 -LOSE
• Eastlake Parkway between Birch Road and Hunte Parkway- LOS E
Explanation
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
11-73
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 Projec[ 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
cumulative impacts may occur along the corridor.
Mitiaation Measures:
1. In the event the GMO threshold is reached at any time prior to the issuance of the building
permit for the 2,463rd dwelling unit for development east of 1-605 commencing from April 4,
2011 the applicant may;
a. Prepare a traffic study that demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, that
the circulation system has additional capacity without exceeding the GMO traffic -
thresholdstandards, or
b. Demonstrate that other improvements are constructed which provide the additional
necessary capacity to comply with the GMO traffic threshold to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer, or
c. Agree to the City Engineer's selection of an alternative method of maintaining GMO
traffic threshold compliance, or
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 1a, b, c or d above, then the City may, in its
sole discretion, stop issuing new building permits within the Project Area after building permits
for 2,463 dwelling units have been issued for any development east of 1-805 after April 4, 2011,
until such time that GMO traffic threshold standard compliance can be assured to the
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
traffc thresholds set forth in the GMO.
23
11-74
Findin
Pursuant to section 95099(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in,
or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant effect as
identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Specifically, the above described Mitigation
Measure is feasible and shall be required as a condition of approval and made binding on the
applicant. Implementation of this measures will reduce existing + project impacts to less than
signifcant levels.
Air Quality
Thresholds of Significance:
The Proposed Project would result in a significant impact to air quality if it would:
1. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
2. Uolate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air
quality 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
SEIR to assess the significance of air quality impacts.
4. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
5. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
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 represents a direct and signifcant impact (Section 5.5.3.2, pages 294 through 215).
Cumulative impacts associated with this issue are discussed in Section X, below.
Explanation:
Because the proposed land use changes would not be consistent with the adopted General
Plan upon which the RAQS was based, the project would not conform to the current RAQS, and
direct impacts would be significant.
Mitigation Measures:
24
11-75
Mitigation of this planning impact would require the updating of the RAQS to reflect the General
Plan with the project land use changes.
Findin
Revision of the RAQS would reduce this impact to less than significant. This is the responsibility
of the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAL) 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
agency making the finding. Such changes can and should be adopted by such other agency;
however, at this time, the impact would remain significant and unmitigable.
Because there are no applicable or feasible mitigation measures within the control of the City at
this time to reduce emissions to below a level of signifcance, impacts to air quality would
remain significant and unmitigated. Adoption of a Statement of Overciding Consideration will be
required should the decision makers choose to approve the project.
Impact: Result in an increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
attainment.
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
required for the development of the project will result in signifcant air quality impacts from dust
generated, fumes, and equipment exhaust adding to an increase in PM,o emissions (Final SEIR
Section 5.5.3.2, pages 215 through 221).
Explanation:
The region is not in wmpliance 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 SCAOMD 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.
Notwithstanding 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
~~-~6
Mitigation Measures:
5.5.5-1 Mitigation of PMrc 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:
1. 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 propedy 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 debds 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 combustionlfuel injection
systems for emissions control shall be utilized during grading and construction
activities.
• Catalytic reduction for gasoline-powered equipment shall be used.
B. 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 fo the extent feasible.
10. The simultaneous operations of multiple construction equipment units shall be
minimized (i.e., phase construction to minimize impacts).
26
~~-~~
Finding:
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 fhe signifcant
environmental effect as identified in the Final SEIR. This mitigation measure would apply to
PM,o from construction activities and would reduce impacts to less than signifcant. 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 Project-No Change in Existing Plans, and Reducetl Density aliernatives 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 non-compliance with the criteria pollutant. Pursuant to section 15o91(a)(3) of the
CEQA Guidelines, specifc economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make
these 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
Endings related to the project alternatives are discussed in Section XI, below.
Because there are no applicable or feasible mitigation measures within the control of the City at
this time to reduce emissions to below a level of significance, -impacts to air quality would
remain significant and unmitigated. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Consideration will be
required should the decision makers choose to approve the project.
Noise
Thresholds of Sionificance:
The Proposed Project would result in significant noise impacts it it would:
1. Result in exposure of people to excessive noise.
2. Result in the generation of excessive noises.
3. Expose people residing or working within an established Airport Influence Area to
excessive noise levels.
Impact: Exposure of people to excessive noise
Implementation of the project would result in a direct increase greater than three dB in traffic
noise beyond that contemplated in the 2005 General Plan EIR for the Preferred Project along
two road segments. Additionally, as shown in Figure 5.6-5 of the Final EIR, the project could
result in infector noise levels for multi-family residential uses located within the 60 CNEL contour
for roadways 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 this issue are discussed in Section X, below.
27
11-78
Exalanation:
Due fo proposed changes in land uses, implementation of the project would result in a direct
increase greater than three d6 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 compaiibifity guidelines as
contained in the General Plan. These guidelines reflect the levels of noise exposure Shat 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. Specifcally, as shown in Figure 5.6-3 of the Final SEIR, there are residential and mixed-
use areas exceeding 65 CNEL. This represents a potentially significant impact. - -
Mitigation Measures
There is no mitigation contained in the 2005 PEIR or currently available at this programmatic
level of analysis to address significant impacts associated with noise. Future projects would be
required to include project-level exerior analysis to assess the feasibility of reducing noise
levels to outdoor use areas.
Finding
There is no feasible mitigafion measure to reduce this impact to below significance.
Implementation of the No Project-No Build, No Project-No Change in Existing Plans, and the
Reduced Density alternatives would reduce this impact due to the removal of residential uses
from noise generating sources. Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines,
specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make these alternatives
infeasible. Each alternative would not achieve the objectives of the project as identified in
Section 3.3 of the Final SEIR. Additional fndings 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.
Utilities (Water)
28
~~-~9
Thresholds of Significance:
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.
Impact: Construction or expansion of new water facilities
Implementation 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. _ _.
Explanation:
The Otay Water District (OWD) Water Resources Master Plan (WRMP; Revised November
2010) defines and describes the new wafer 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 aSub-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
adequate level of service to the proposed land uses. Financial responsibility of the facilities is
also identifed. 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
impacts at this time is too speculative to address. Therefore, direct impacts would be considered
significant.
Mitigation Measures:
There is no mitigation contained in the 2005 PEIR or currently available at this programmatic
level of analysis to address significant impacts associated with 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.
Finding
29
11-80
There is no feasible mitigation measure to reduce this impact to below signifcance.
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 altematives infeasible. This alternative
would not achieve the objectives of the project as identified in Section 3.3 of the Final SEIR.
Additional findings related to the project alternatives are discussed in Section Xi, below.
Because there are no applicable or feasible mitigation measures within the control of the City at
this time to reduce noise impacts to below a level of significance, impacts to would remain
significant and unmitigated. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Consideration will be
required should the decision makers choose to approve the project.
Impact: New or expanded supplies
Implementation of the project would place greater demands on the existing water supply than
analyzed in the 2005 General Plan EIR for the Preferred Alternative, resulting in the potential
need for additional water supplies. {Final SEIR Section 5.8.1.4, pages 303 through 305)
Explanation
As shown in Table 5.8-B 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). tNhile future SPA plans could aim for greater percentage reductions, at this
programmatic 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
approximately 1.4 million gpd.
The 2010 OWD UWMP, OWD WRMP, and the 2D10 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 Pian area. While OWD will be required to certify the sufficiency of
a reliable water supply primarily through the water assessment and verifcation process (S8-610
certification process), this generally occurs during the SPA level of planning. At this time, long-
term water supply is not assured and contracts do not currently exist to serve the City through
buildout of the project. Therefore, at this level of analysis, impacts associated with water supply
would be significant.
M itioation: ,
5.8.1.6-1 For any residential subdivision with 500 or more units or any commercial project of
over 500,000 square feet, any CEQA compliance review shall include demonstration
of compliance with the requirements of SB 61 D.
30
~~-8~
5.8.1.6-2 For any residential subdivision with 500 or more units, any CEQA compliance review
shall include demonstration of compliance with the requirements of SB 221.
Finding
While Mitigation Measures 5.8.1.6-1 and 5.8.1.6-2 are feasible and shall be required as a
condition of approval and made binding on the applicant, they would not substantially lessen the
significant environmental effect as identifed in the Final SEIR. The water supply impact remains
sign cant because there is no assurance that water supply will be available to adequately serve
the projected increase in. population resulting from the project. Only implementation of the No
Project-No Build alternative would reduce this impact to below a level of significance. Pursuant
to section 15D91 (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 idenfrfied in Section 3.3 of
the Final SEIR. Additional fndings 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 signifcant 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 signifcant cumulative impacts are associated with
development of the project in conjunction with those projects specifically within the project area
as shown on Figure 2-1 of the SEIR, A detailed discussion of cumulative impacts is included in
Section 6.0 of the SEIR.
In 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
"project" level mitigation measures. The project, along with other related projects, will result in
the following irreversible cumulative environmental changes.
3t
11-82
Impact: Landform AlterationNisual Quality
Section 6.0 of the SEIR included an analysis of cumulative impacts to landform alteration/visual
resources. Implementation of the project would contribute to a cumulatively significant impact to
the existing visual character of the project area.
Explanation:
The visual character of the project area would be affected by the project's contribution to the
permanent alteration of the existing rolling hills that characterize this portion of the City.
Mitigation Measures:
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 landfonn 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.
Finding:
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
available for this impact is the No Project-No Build Alternative. However, this alternative would
not meet the goals and objectives of the project as discussed in Section 3.3 of the EIR.
Therefore, pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal,
social, technological, or other considerations make this alternative infeasible. Additional findings
related to the project alternatives are discussed in Section XI, below.
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.
Additionally, as shown in Table 5.4-15 of the Final SEIR, buildout of the project would result in
significant cumulative impacts to 16 freeway mainline segments.
32
11-83
F~colanation:
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"
Freeway Mainline Segments
I-805
Olympic Parkway/ Orange Avenue io Main StreeUAuto Park Dr
• Olympic Parkway/ Orange Avenue to Main StreeUAuto Park Dr
• Main StreeUAuto Park Drive to Palm Avenue
• Palm Avenue to SR-905.
SR-125
• Otay Valley Road to Lonestar Road
• Olay Valley Road to Lonestar Road
• Lonestar Road to Otay Mesa Road
SR-905
• I-805 to Ocean View Hills Parkway
• I-805 to Ocean View Hills Parkway
• Ocean Uew Hills Parkway to Heritage Road
• Ocean Uew 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
MRigation Measures: -
5.4.5.1-1 The City shall collect the appropriate RTCIP funds from the project (Freeway Mainline
Segments).
5.4.5. 2-1To mitigate for the significant cumulative impact along Otay Valley Road between
SR-125 and Street "A," the applicant shall increase the capacity of this segment to a
5-Lane Major with three lanes traveling in the westbound direction with the number
_ - -three lane serving as an auxiliary lane onto the SR-125 NB Ramp on-ramp and
two lanes traveling in the eastbound direction, resulting in LOS D operations (City of
Chula Vista-Roadway Segment)
33
11-84
Finding:
Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(1) of the CE4.4 Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in,
or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant effect as
identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Specifcally, 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
applicant. Implementation of these measures will reduce signifcant cumulative impacts to
freeway mainline segments and roadway segments within the City to less than signifcant levels.
Impact: Traffic, Circulation and Access: City of San Diego
Buildout of the project is anticipated to result in significant cumulative trafFc impacts at three
roadways segments within the City of San Diego.
Explanation:
Based on the peak hour intersection, segment and freeway analyses, the following cumulative
impacts were identifed under Year 2030 conditions:
City of San Diego Roadways
Heritage Road between the City Boundary and Avenida de Ias Vistas
Heritage Road between Avenida de Ias Ystas and Datsun Street/Otay Valley Road
Heritage Road between Datsun Street/Otay Valley Road and Otay Mesa Road
Mitigation Measures:
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.
Finding:
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
mitigation measure is the responsibility of the City of San Diego and outside the jurisdiction of
the City. Therefore, pursuant to section 15091 (a)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines, such
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, ai this time, impacts would remain significant and unmitigable.
Because there are no applicable or feasible mitigation measures within the control of the Cify at
this time to reduce emissions to below a level of significance impacts to air quality would remain
34
11-85
signifcant and unmitigated. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Consideration will be
required 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
projects.
Explanation:
Because the proposed land use changes would not be consistent with the adopted General
Plan upon which the RAQS was based, the project would not conform to the current RAQS, and
increased emissions would result in a significant cumulative impact.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation of this planning impact would require the updating of the RAQS
Finding:
Revision of the RAQS would reduce this impact to less than significant. This is the responsibility
of 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
jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the fnding. Such changes can
and should be adopted by such other agency; however, at this time, the impact would remain
signifcant 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 signifcance, 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
Buildout of the project would result in air qualdy impacts associated with long-term operation.
Once the project is built out, the major source of air pollution will be from project-related traffic.
As discussed in Section 6.0 of the SEIR, cumulative impacts related to long-term mobile
emissions would be significant.
35
11-86
Explanation:
While the project seeks to minimize air quality impacts by promoting mixed land use patterns,
creating walkable neighborhoods as encouraged by fhe General Plan and General development
Plan, implementation of the project would result in a cumulatively significant air quality impact.
Mitigation Measures:
No mitigation is available to reduce this cumulatively significant impact to Tess than signifcant
levels.
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 identifed in the Final EIR. While implementation of the No Project-No Build, No
Project-No Change in Existing Plans, or Retluced 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 non-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 altematives identifed in the Final EIR. 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 (o air qualify would
remain significant and unmitigated. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Consideration will be
required should the decision makers choose to approve the project.
Impact: Utilities (Water)
The project plus cumulative development would incrementally increase regional water
consumption, resulting in a significant cumulative impact to water supply.
Explanation:
Although General Plan policies require adequate water supply, and larger projects would require
conformance to SB 610 and SB 221, ii is not possible to state conclusively at this programmatic
level of analysis that sufficient water supplies would be available.
3G
11-87
Mitigation Measure
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 ai this time.
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 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 CE4A
Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make these
alternatives infeasible. This alternative would not achieve the objectives of the project as
identified in Section 3.3 of the Final SEIR. Additional findings related to the project alternatives
are discussed in Section XI, below.
Because there are no applicable or feasible mitigation measures within the control of the.City at
this time to reduce noise impacts to below a level of significance, impacts to would remain
significant and unmitigated. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Consideration will be
required should the decision makers choose to approve the project.
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 fnally
approved. The City must evaluate whether one or more of these alternatives could avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effects. Where no significant environmental
effects remain after application of all feasible mitigation measures identified in the EIR, the
decision makers must still evaluate the project altematives identifed in the EIR. Under these
circumstances, CEQA requires fndings 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
signifcant impacts can be mitigated to an acceptable (insignifcant) level solely by the adoption
of mitigation measures, the agency, in drafting its findings, has no obligation to consider the
feasibility of environmentally superior altematives, 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
11-88
project, in adopting the findings concerning project altematives, the City Council considers only
those environmental impacts that, for the finally approved project, are significant and cannot be
avoided or substantially lessened through mitigation.
If project alternatives are feasible, the decision makers must adopt a Statement of Overriding
Considerations with regard to the project. If there is a feasible alternative to the project, the
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 altematives
"capable of eliminating" environmental effects, even iT these altematives "would impede to some
degree the attainment of the project objectives" (CEQA Guidelines, section 15126).
The City has properly considered and reasonably rejected project alternatives as "infeasible°
pursuant to CEQA. CEGA provides the following defnition of the term "feasible" as it applies to
the fndings requirement: "feasible means capable of being accomplished in a successtul
manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social,
and technological factors" (Pub. Resources Code, section 21061.1). The CEQA Guidelines
provide a broader definition of "feasibility" that also encompasses "legal" factors. CEQA
Guidelines section 15364 states, 'Yhe lack of legal powers of an agency to use in imposing an
alternative or mitigation measure may be as great a limitation as any economic, environmental,
social, or technological factor' (see also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors
(1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 565 [276 Cal.Rptr.410j).
Accordingly, °feasibility" is a term of art under CEQA and thus may not be afforded a different
meaning as may be provided by Webster's dictionary or any other sources. Moreover, Public
Resources Code section 21081 governs the "findings° requirement under CEQA with regard to
the feasibility of altematives. Specifcally, 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
makes one or more of the following fndings:
"Changes or alternations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the fnal EIR° (CEQA
Guidelines, section 15091, subd. {a)(1)).
"Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public
agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such
other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency" (CEQA Guidelines, section
15091, subd. (a)(2)). '
"Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provisions of
employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or
project alternatives identified in the final EIR" (CEQA Guidelines, section 15091, subd. (a)(3)).
38
11-89
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 (City of Del Marv.
City of San Diego (1982) 133 CaLApp.3d 410, 417 (183 Cal. Rptr. 898]). "'[F]easibility' 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 Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4'" 704, 715 [29
CaLRptc2d 182]).
These findings contrast and compare the alternatives where appropriate in order to demonstrate
that the selection of the f natty approved project, while still resulting in significant environmental
impacts, has substantial environmental, planning, focal, and other benefits. In rejecting certain
altematives, the decision makers have examined the fnally approved project objectives and
weighed the ability of the various altematives to meet objectives. The decision makers believe
that the project best meets the finally approved project objectives with the least environmental
impact.
The detailed discussion in Section IX and Section X demonstrates that all buf seven significant
environmental effects of the project have been either substantially lessened or avoided through
the imposition of existing policies or regulations or by the adoption of additional, formal
mitigation measures recommended in the EIR. The femaining unmitigated impacts are the
following:
• Land Use (direct- inability to develop design standards at the programmatic level);
• Landform 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)
• Alr Quality (direct and cumulative -inconsistency with existing RAQS; operation-related
emissions)
• Noise (direct and cumulative -exposure to excessive noise)
• Utilities: Water Supply (direct and cumulative -absence of sufficient water supply to
serve the project)
With respect to the Easi Planning Area of the Preferred Alternative, the 2005 PEIR also
identified significant and unmitigated impacts for land use, landform alterationsNisual quality,
energy, transponation (cumulative freeway segments), air quality, noise, and utilities (water).
For each of the unmitigated impacts, the SEIR concluded that implementation of the project
would not increase the severity of impacts and would not change the conclusions reached by
39
11-90
the analysis contained in the 2005 PEIR. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was
previously adopted by City Council for the 2005 PEIR, from which the project's SEIR tiers. Thus,
the City can fully satisfy its CEQA obligations by determining whether any altematives identified
in the SEIR are both feasible and environmentally superior with respect to the impacts listed
above (Laurel Hills, supra, 63 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. 650J; and Laurel
Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d
376, 400-403 [253 Cal. Rptr. 426J). Table 10-2 in the SEIR (page 425) provides a summary
table comparing each of the altematives. As the following discussion will show, no identified
alternative qualifies as both feasible and environmentally superior with respect to the
unmitigated impacts.
To fully account for these unavoidable significant effects and the extent to which particular
alternatives might or might not be environmentally superior with respect to them, these f ndings
will not focus solely on the impacts listed above, but may also address the environmental merits
of the alternatives with respect to all broad categories of impacts -even though such afar-
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, the City's primary objective is to comprehensively plan, coordinate, and implement
development over a large area. More specific objectives include those previously listed in
Section 111. The City evaluated four alternatives to the project, which are discussed below (No
Project-No Build Altemative, No Project-No Change in Existing Plan Altemative, Reduced
Density Altemative, La Media Road Alternative).
No Project-No Build Alternative
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3)(B) states that the No Project-No Build Alternative
"means'no build' wherein the existing environmental setting is maintained' The No Project-No
Build Alternative presents the scenario where the Land Use Change Area would remain in its
present 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
identifed in the City's General Plan or Otay Ranch GDP. Wflh respect to the unmitigated
impacts diswssed 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 alteratioNvisual quality, energy,
transportation, air quality, noise, or utilities (water). However, impacts to population and housing
land use occur because the No Project-No Build Alternative would not contribute to the
40
11-91
provision of necessary housing within asmart-growth area as identifed in the Regional
Comprehensive Plan (RCP).
Although 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
accomplish any of the goals and objectives of the project, and is therefore not feasible.
Findings:
The No Project-No Build Altemative would not meet any of the basic project objectives as listed
in Section 3.3 of the SEIR, and in Section III of these Findings of Fact.
The No Project-No Build Alternative would not provide housing, conflicting with the housing
goals of the General Plan, which recommends that housing be provided for all income groups. It
also conflicts with the RCP, which identified this portion of the City for smart-growth planning.
Retention of the project site in its existing state would be inconsistent with the approved GPU
and 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.-
Retention 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
including the provision of roads, parks, schools, water and sewer facilities, and other
infrastructure. The reduction in dwelling units within the Otay Ranch GDP area resulting from
implementation of the NoProject-No Build Alternative would result in~a loss of anticipated
contributions into the City's development impact fee programs from the dwelling units/structures
that would otherwise have made payments upon issuance of building permits. The loss of units
under the No Project-No Build Altemative would result in a shortfall of contributions into these
impact fee programs and potentially lead to insufficient funding for the remaining public facilities
currently identified under these programs.
The City would receive lower long-term revenues in the form of property and sales tax resulting
from the non-development of the proposed residential areas.
Implementation of the No Project-No Build Alternative would not achieve any of the objectives
established for the project. Although this alternative would at least temporarily preserve land
which is currently not developed, it would amount to a failure to plan the site for eventual
development, despite the planned community designation contemplated by the General Plan
GDP.
The No Project-No Build Altemative is inconsistent with the City's objectives: to plan the project
area in a comprehensive manner in a way that deals with the logical extension of public services
41
11-92
and utilities; to plan for parks and open space to serve residents; to complete the City's
circulation; to create densities sufficient to pay for all required services and infrastructure and to
encourage employment opportunities within the City. The altemative 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
consistent with the City's goals. It also fails to implement to previously approved Otay Ranch
GDP.
For these reasons, the City Council concludes that No Project-No Build Altemative is not
feasible (see City of Det Mar supra, 133 Cal.App3d at 417; Sepuoyah Hi/IS, supra,
23 CaLApp.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 regulatory plan, policy, or ongoing operation, the "no project" alternative will be the
continuation of the existing plan, policy, or operation into the future.
The No Project-No Change in Existing Plans Altemative considers the situation where there are
no changes 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 deferred, this altemative is comprised of the land use plan that existed prior to the 2D05
GPU. This 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 project.
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 quality impacts associated with the No Project-No Change in Existing Plans Alternative
would be reduced because of decreased density and intensity of uses compared to the project.
Additionally, short-term air quality impacts associated with construction would be slightly
reduced. Overall, however, air quality impacts would remain signifcant and unmitigated due to
the alternative's conflict with the existing RAQS.
42
11-93
Although it would require less water to serve its projected population, impacts associated with
water supply would. remain significant and unmitigated.
The traffic analysis conducted for the project indicated that No Project-No Change in Existing
Plans Altemative would result in approximately 58,173 ADT fewer than the project. While
creating less traffic on the local roadways, this altemative would still result in potentially
significant cumulative impacts to City roadway and freeway segments.
Because this No Project-No Change in Existing Plans Altemative would result in less intense
and less dense land uses than the project, traffc noise and change in ambient noise would be
less because traffc volumes would not increase to the same extent as the project. As shown in
Figure 10-1, residential land uses under would still be located in proximity to noise generating
surrounding sources, such as the SR-125. Therefore, while less than the project, noise impacts
would be potentially significant.
Findings:
The No Project-No Change in Existing Plans Alternative would reduce impacts to
landform/visual quality, transportation, air quality, noise, and utilities (water). However, while
slightly reduced, landform/visual quality and air quality impacts would remain signifcant and
unmitigated. Impacts io land use and housing and population would be greater than the project.
While the altemative would implement some of the project's objectives, the following objectives
would nol be met with this alternative:
Foster the goal of the 2005 GPU to expand the local economy by providing a broad range of
businesses, facilitate provision of services for a university, provide employment and housing
opportunities that support an excellent standard of living, and improve the ability for
residents to live and work locally.
Create Town Center within newly defined boundaries for Village 8 West and Village 9, as
encouraged by the GPU's emphasis on providing a mix of diverse land uses that meets
community needs.
• Develop a circulation plan that de-emphasizes the automobile, and places greater reliance
on 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
City's economy.
• Allow for higher-density residential development in order to encourage the development of
off-campus student housing within the University Town Center adjacent to the university.
43
11-94
Provide opportunities for higher density development that accommodates off-site student
and faculty housing for the university.
Provide opportunities for goods and services and other ancillary uses necessary to support
the university and RTP to be provided within Planning Area 10.
The No Project-No Change in Existing Plans Alternative results in slower-density and much
less intense development than is the project. The project includes a total of 6,050 residential
units, while this altemative includes only 1,298 units. This altemative was designed primarily
with Residential Low Medium and Mixed Use residential designations, rather than the more
intense development oT 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, specifc economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make this
altemative infeasible.
Reduced Density Alternative
The Intention of the Reduced Density Altemative is reduce traffic impacts, as well as potential
noise and air quality impacts associated with SR-125. It order to create. such a plan, dwelling
units closest to SR-125 would be eliminated. For this alternative, 417 multi-family residential
units located primarily along the western boundary of Village 9, closest to SR-125, are removed
from the land use plan.
The details of this alternative are discussed in Section 10.3 of the SEIR.
I_~
Development under the Reduced Density Altemative 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
Growlh Management Plan. Additionally, this alternative would result in a lower density ring
surrounding a proposed Town Center, creating a conflict with proposed GDP policies. This
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 the Reduced Density Altemative would result in the construction of a less dense
community, any degree of development would result in a change to the existing aesthetic make
up and visual quality of the project site. While the degree of impact would be less as a result of
44
11-95
the lessened development potential under this alternative, the loss of the open space and rolling
hills would still remain signifcant 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 signifcant and unmitigated due to the
uncertainty of available supply.
The Reduced Density Alternative would result in a reduction of 3,125 ADT on roadways
resulting in a reduction of direct and cumulative impacts as compared to the project. Although
this altemative would not eliminate significant freeway impacts, impacts [o traffc resulting from
the Reduced 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 traic noise would be also reduced.
Findings:
The Reduced Density Alternative would reduce the degree of impacts to landform/visual 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 traffc generation and traffic noise would be reduced.
While the alternative would implement some of the project's objectives, the tollowing objectives
would not be met with this altemative:
Develop a circulation plan that deemphasizes the automobile, and places greater
reliance 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
City'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;
Provide opportunities for higher density development that accommodate off-site student
and faculty housing for the university;
45
11-96
The Reduced Density Alternative results in a less dense development compared to the project.
The project includes a total of 6,050 residential units, while this alternative would provide
5,633 units. This ahemative was designed to reduce density along the SR-125 contour. While
this would reduce potentially significant traffic generation and noise impacts, it does not place as
much residential use in the Town Center areas. It therefore limits the objective of reducing
reliance on the automobile and promotion of a walkable community. In addition, by reducing
density, the Reduced Density Alternative does not fulfill the objectives associated with building a
high density community providing interactive opportunities including economics, pedestrian
mobility, and university support. Therefore, pursuant to section 15D91(a)(3) of the CEQA
Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make this
alternative infeasible.
La Media Road Alternative
The La Media Road Alternative would comprise the same land use plan as the project.
However, where the project includes an amendment to the City's Circulation Element that will
result in La Media Road terminating at Otay Valley Road, thisalternative examines the effect of
maintaining La Media Road as currently planned. -
Impact
Like the project, the La Media Road Alternative would result in significant and unmitigable
impacts associated with community character due to lack of design guidelines at this level of
review. Construction of La Media Road as currently depicted on the City's Circulation Element
would result in greater land use and aesthetic/visual quality impacts due to the required
disruption of additional land uses, especially through preserve land.
The long-term energy and water supply needs of the La Media Road Alternative would be the
same as the project, resulting in signifcant and unmitigated impacts due to the uncertainty of
energy and water supplies. Construction of the road extension under this alternative would also
result in an additional short-term increase in energy demand compared to the project.
The alternative would not conform to existing RAOs resulting in a significant and unmitigable
impact associated with its failure to conform to the existing plan. Construction of the road
extension would result in increased emissions of criteria pollutants during construction
compared to the project.
As planned, La Media Road would serve as a parallel route to I-805 and Heritage Road to the
west, and SR-125 to the east. With the project's deletion of this roadway, 65,000 trips expected
in the cumulative condition would be rerouted to altemafive roads, resulting in those potential
impacts discussed in Section 5.4 of the SEIR. The construction of the extension, as proposed in
this alternative, would result in greater direct impacts to La Media Road than the project
because the extension would allow more vehicles to utilize this roadway as an alternate route to
46
11-97
Heritage Road or SR-125. Additionally, it would operate at a LOS F in the cumulative condition
due to the expected increase in traffic along this roadway. Therefore, this altemative would
result in cumulative traffic impacts to La Media Road, an impact that would not occur under the
project.
The La Media Road Altemative 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 impacts associated with the road extension would be greater than the project's.
Findinos:
The La Media Road Altemative 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 altemative, it fails to yield reduced impacts. Therefore,
pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social,
technological, or other considerations make this altemative infeasible.
Environmentally Superior Altemative
CEQA requires that an EIR identify the environmentally superior alternative among all of the
alternatives considered, including the project. If any No Project alternative is selected as
environmentally superior, then the EIR is required to identify an environmentally superior
altemative among the other al[ematives.
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 Altemative would result in the greatest reduction in environmental impacts
compared to the project. However, the No Project-No Build Altemative would not implement the
Cdy s General Plan, the Otay Ranch GDP, or any project objectives.
The Reduced Density Alternative would be considered the environmentally superior altemative
due to its potential for reducing impacts while meeting most of the objectives of the Project.
47
11-98
XII.
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The project would have significant, unavoidable impacts on the following areas, described in
detail in Section IX of these Findings of Fact:
• Land Use
• Landiorm 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 signifcant impacts,
adoption of the measures will, for manyimpacts, not fully avoid the impacts.
Moreover, the City has examined a reasonable range of alternatives to the project. Based on
this examination, the City has determined that none of the alternatives: (1) meets project
objectives, and (2) is environmentally preferable to the project.
As a result, to approve the project, the City must adopt a "statement of overriding
considerations" pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15043 and 15093. This provision allows
a lead agency to cite a project's general economic, social, or other benefits as a justification for
choosing to allow the occurrence of specified significant environmental effects that have not
been avoided. The provision explains why, in the agency's judgment, the project's benefts
outweigh 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) prohibits the lead agency from taking certain actions with environmental impacts, a
statement of overriding considerations does not relieve the lead agency from such prohibitions.
Rather, the decision-maker has recommended mitigation measures based on the analysis
contained in the Final SEIR, recognizing that other resource agencies have the ability to impose
more stringent standards or measures.
48
11-99
CEQA does not require lead agencies to anatyze "beneficial impacts" in an EI R. 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, lMldlife Alive v. Chickering (1976) 18 Cal.3d 190, 206 [132 CaLRptr. 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 City ,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
Counal would stand by its determination that each individual reason is sufficient. The
substantial evidence supporting the various benefits can be found in the preceding fndings,
which are incorporated by reference into this Section, and in the documents found in Ehe Record
of Proceedings, as defined in Section IV.
Community Planning and Development
The Otay Ranch area contributes to air pollution in the San Diego air basin. Most of this
pollution 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 length, thereby reducing pollutant contributions to regional air quality.
The project site has been designated as asmart-growth area in the RCP and in SANDAGs
regional growth maps. The GDP provides the opportunity to comprehensively plan development
that meets the community needs for ahigh-density, high-intensity, mixed-use development
within the proposed villages. As part of the GDP, the project enforces visions for amulti-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
automobiles. Jobs, homes, schools, parks, and commercial centers are close by and linked by
pedestrian and bicycle routes.
Comprehensive Regional Planning
The project site has been designated as asmart-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 development projects allowing the project to support these regionally planned programs.
49
11-100
The project would develop a mix of uses that will result in Town Centers focused on regionally
serving transit and ancillary support for a regionally serving university site.
Housing 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 ofher uses in the Otay
Ranch area, 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 project increases the housing stock in the City by approximately 6,050 dwelling units,
880 units above the 2005 GPU Preferred Alternative. The project represents a future housing
supply 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 Ciiy, and providing
right-of-way for the regional transit system.
50
11-101
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.
Introduction
This mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) was prepared for the Amendments
to the City of Chula Vista (City) General Plan (General Plan Amendment [G PA)-09-O1) 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.
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
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
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 (EUC).
1
11-102
The Proposed 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 Proposed Project is described in the SEIR text. The SEIR, incorporated herein as referenced,
it 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
change. 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
impacts requiring mitigation were identified for land use, landform alteration/visual quality,
energy 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
reduce or avoid impacts.
Public Resources Code section 21081.6 requires monitoring of only those impacts identified as
significant or potentially significant. The monitoring program for the Proposed Project therefore
addresses the impacts associated with only the issue areas identified above.
Mitigation Monitoring Team
The monitoring activities would be accomplished by individuals identified in the attached MMRP
table. While specific qualifications should be determined by the City, the monitoring team
should possess the following capabilities:
• Interpersonal, decision-making, and management skills with demonstrated experience in
working under trying field circumstances;
• Knowledge of and appreciation for the general environmental attributes and special
features found in the project area;
• Knowledge of the types of environmental impacts associated with construction of cost-
effective mitigation options; and
• Excellent communication skills.
2
11-103
Pro>?ram Procedural Guidelines
Prior to any construction activities, meetings should take place between all the parties involved
to initiate the monitoring program and establish the responsibility and authority of the
participants. Mitigation measures that need to be defined in greater detail will be addressed
prior to any project plan approvals in follow-up meetings designed to discuss specific monitoring
effects.
~ In 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
the stated mitigation measure, the form will have a series of questions addressing the
effectiveness 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
li Mitigation Monitor. The daily log report will be used to record and account for the monitoring
activities of the monitor. Weekly and/or monthly status reports, as determined appropriate,
will be generated from the daily logs and compliance reports and will include supplemental
material (i.e., memoranda, telephone logs, and letters). This type of feedback is essential for
the City to confirm the implementation and effectiveness of the mitigation measures imposed
on the project.
Actions in Case of Noncompliance
There are generally three separate categories of noncompliance associated with the adopted
conditions 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
11-104
There 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.
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The following- table summarizes the potentially significant project impacts and lists the
associated mitigation measures and the monitoring efforts necessary to ensure that the
measures are properly implemented. All the mitigation measures identified in the EIR are
recommended as conditions of project approval and are stated herein in language appropriate
for such conditions. In addition, once the City General Plan Update has been approved, and
during various stages of implementation the City will further ref ne the mitigation measures.
4
11-105
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
I
J
0
rn
Potential Significant Impact
LANDFORM ALTERATIONNLSV~}L ~~
Mitigation Measures 'l nne Frame of Mitigation
QUALIT.x Monitoring Reporthig
Agency
At this Level of prograttunatic review, the The fallowing mitigation measure, as identified in the GPU ~ Prior to [he 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 i 5.2.51 Within the East Planning Area, prior to approval of
protection of the visual character ofthe grading plans, the applicant shall prepare gading
project azea. Therefore, direct and ~ 'and building plans that conform to the landfonn
cumulative impacts associated with visual ~
grading guidelines contained in the grading
resources would be significant. ~ ordinance, Otay Ranch GDP, and General Plan. The
plans shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the
Director of Development Services and the City
j Engineer These plans and guidelines shall provide
the following that serve to reduce the aesthetic
~ impacts:
• A landscape desigu that addresses streetscapes,
provides landscape intensity zones, greenbelt
edge treannents, and slope treatment for erosion
control. ~
• Grading concepts that ensure mazmfactured
slopes that u~e contoured and blend and mimic i
with adjacent natural slopes.
• Landscaping concepts that provide for a
hansition from the manicured appearance of
developed areas to the natural landscape in open
space areas.
5
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
I
0
J
~ Monitoring Reporting
Potential Significant Impact j Mitigation Measm'es Tvne Frame of Mitigation Agency
• 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 umnitigated.
j
ENERGX~RE~OURCES 9 , ' - ''
At Utis level of prograznmafic 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 die project
the long-teen assurance that energy area:
supplies will be available as needed.
5.8.5-1 Continued focus mt the Energy Strategy and Action
Therefm'e, direct and cumulative Plan, which addresses demand side management,
impacts associated with energy energy efficient and renewable energy ouh'each
consumption are considered significant, programs for businesses and residents, energy I
acquisition, power generatioq and distributed energy ~
resources and legislative actions, and continuing
itnplementationofihe COZ Reduction Plan will i
lessen the impacts font energy. ~ ~ i
i
NotwiUtstanding implementation of Mitigation Measure
5.8.5-1, until future SPA Plans identify reliable energy
resources are available to adequately serve individual
projects, du'ect and cwnulative impacts could remain
munitigated.
6
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
J
0
w
Monitoring Reporting
Potential Significant hnpact Mitigation Measures Tune Frame of Mitigation Agency
Direct Impacts Direct Impacts Prior to the issuance of building CCV
permits.
Under Year 2030 conditions, dect Freeway Segments
traffic impacts would occur along Che
The following is recommended to mitigate the potentially
following segments: significant impacts to freeway segments:
Freeway Segment Operations 5.4.5.1-1 The City of Chula Vista shall collect the
I-805 between appropriate Regional Transportation Congestion
Improvement Program funds fiom the Proposed
• Olympic Parkway/Orange Project.
~
Avenue to Main StreeUAuto Park
Drive
• Main StreeUAuto Park Drive to
Palm Avenue
SR-905 between
• I-805 to Ocean View Hills
Parkway
• Britannia Boulevard to La Media
Road
7
MITIGATION tMONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Monitoring Repotting
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measures Tune Frame of Mitigation ~ Agency
Cumulative Impacts Cumulative Impacts
Under Year 2030 conditions, Roadway Segments
significant cunulative traffic impacts The following is recommended to mitigate the sigtifcant
would occur as follows:
cumulative impacts in the CiTy:
Segment Operations (City of Chula
5.4.5.2-I 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 itt the westbound direction, with the
I Segment Operations (City aJSan number three lane serving as an auxiliary lane onto
o Diego) the SR-125 NB Rantp at-ramp and [wo lanes
~ • Heritage Road between the City [raveling in the eastbound direction, resulting in
Boundary and Avenida de las ~ _ LOS D operations.
Vistas lementation of Mitigation Measure 5.4.5.2-I identified
Im
p
~ above would reduce significant cumulative impacts to CCV
• Heritage Road between Avenida
de las Vistas and Datsun i roadway segments to below a level of significance.
Street/Otay Valley Road
• Heritage Road between Datsun
Street/Otay Valley Road and
Otay Mesa Road
Prior to the issuance of building
permits.
CCV
8
DIITIGATION MONITORING ANll REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
J
I
J
0
Potential Significant Impact
Mitigation Measures ''
Titne Frame of Mitigation Monitoring Reporting
Agency
TRANSPORTATION (cont.)
~
', .
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
I-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 StreeUAuto 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 StreeUAuto Park The improvements required to mitigate the impacts along
Drove Heritage Road fall within the jurisdiction of the Ciry of San
Diego which has a plan for funding and implementation of the
• Main StreeUAuto Park Drivo to I 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 Segn:erets
SR-I25 j hnplemeotation of Mitigation Measure 5.4.5.1-1, above,
• Otay Valley Road to Lonestar ( would also apply to cumulative fi~eeway impacts.
Road
• Otay Valley Road to Lonestar
Road
• Lonestar Road to Otay Mesa
Road
9
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
'~ Monitoring Reporting
Potential Significant Impact ~ Mitigation Measures Tune Frame of Mitigation Agency
SR-905
• I-805 to Ocean View Hills
Parkway
• I-805 to Ocean View Hills
Parkway I
i
• Ocean View Hills Parkway to
Heritage Road
• Ocean View Hills Parkway to I
Heritage Road
J I
• Heritage Road to Britannia li
Boulevard '
• Heritage Road to Britannia
Boulevard
• Britannia Boulevard to La Media li
Road
• Britannia Boulevard to La Media
Road i
• La Media Road to SR-125
10
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
J
J
I
J
N
Monitoring Reporting
Potential Significant flnpact Mitigation Measures Tune Frame of Mitigation Agency
Existing + project Impacts Application of the City's Growth Management Program
The following seven roadwa se nent would apply. In the event the GMO threshold is reached, the
impacts were calculaCed in the Existine followhng mitigation measurehas been identified:
+ Proiect condition: i
• Olympic Parkway between I-805 and
Brandywine Avenue
• Olympic Parkway between
Brandywine Avenue and Heritage
Road/Paseo Ru~chero
• Olympic Parkway between Heritage
Road/Paseo Ranchero and La Media
Road
• Olympic Parkway between La Media
Road and SR-125
• Bitch Road between La Media Road
and SR-125
• La Media Road between Olytnpic
Parkway and Birch Road
• Eastlake Parkway between Bitch
Road and Hunte Parkway
5.4.5.3-1 Prior to the issuance of the building permit fm' the
2,463rd dwelling unit for development east of 1-
305 (commencing froth April 4, 2011), the
applicant tnay:
a. Prepare a traffic study that demonstrates, to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer, that the
circulation system has additional capacity
without exceeding fire GMO traffic tln'eshold
standards; or
b. Demonstrate that other improvements are
constructed which provide the additional
necessary. capacity to comply with the GMO
h'affic tlu'eshold to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer; or
c. Agree to the City Engineer's selection of an
alternative method of maintaining GMO
traffic threshold compliance; or
11
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
J
W
~ Monitoring Reporting
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measurea ~, Time Frame of Mitigation Agency
d. Enter into agreement, approved by the City,
with other Otay Ranch developers that
alleviates congestion and achieves GMO
traffic ttu~eshold 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 infrastructtn~e.
If GMO compliance cannot be achieved tlu~ough I 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 fm~ any
development east of 1-805 after April 4, 2011, until such time
that GMO traffic ttueshold 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 tlmeslholds set forth in the GMO.
12
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
f
I
a
Monitoring Reporting
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measures Tnne Fratne of Mitigation Agency
While the Proposed Project seeks to The following mitigation measure, as identified in the GPU
minimize air quality impacts by EIR, would apply to future development within the project
promoting mixed land use patterns area:
creating walkable neighborhoods as S.G.S-I Mitigation of PMio 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 requn'e the following standard
would result in a significant direct and constuction measures during construction to the
cwnulative 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 dusC 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 hauliue dirt and debris shall be properly
covered to reduce windblown dust and spills.
3. A 20-mile-per-hour speed lunit on unpaved
surfaces shall be enforced.
Prior to issuance of Grading
Permits.
CCV
13
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
J
J
I
J
N
Potentia] Significant Impact
Mitigation Meastu'es
Thne Frame of Mitigation Monitoring Reporting
Agency
AIR QUAliITX (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
consruction sites shall be cleaned daily of j
consnvetimrrelated dut in dry weather. I
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. I
I
7. To the tnaxitnutn extent feasible: Heary-duty
i
construction equipment with modified
combustion/fuel injection systems for emissions
control shall be utilized during grading and
constructioi activities; Catalytic reduction for
gaso]ine-powered equipment shall be used.
8. Equip consruction 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)
I Monitoring Reporting
i
Potential Significant Impact i Mitigation Measut'es Thne Fratne of Mitigation Agency
,9. Electrical construction equipment shall be used
to the extent feasible.
rn
10. The simultaneous operations of multiple
coustruction equipment units shall be minimized
(i.e., phase construction to minimize impacts).
Notwithstanding impiementation of the mitigation measm'e
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)
J
I
J
J
Monitoring Reporting
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measures Time Frame of Mitigation Agency
At this level of programmatic review, it The following mitigation measures, as identified in the GPU Prior to approval of futw'e SPA j CCV
is not possible to state conclusively that EIR, would apply to future development within the project I Plans. I
sufficient water supplies would be area: ~ l
available to serve the increased
population facilitated by adoption of the i
Proposed Project. Therefore, direct and 5.14.1.6-1 For any residential subdivision with 500 or more
cumulative hnpacts would be units or any commercial project of over 500,000
significant. square feet, any CEQA compliance review shall j ~
include demonstration of compliance with the j
requirements of SB 610. ~
5.14.1.6-2 Far any residential subdivision with 500 or more
units, any CEQA compliance review shall include
demonstration of compliance with the
~
requirements of SB 221. ~
~
Notwithstanding hnplementation of the mitigation measures {
above, dvect and cumulative impacts would remaht
unmitigated. ~ j
16
RESOLUTION NO. 2013-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITY
COUNCIL APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE
LAND OFFER AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AND OTAY LAND COMPANY FOR
CONVEYANCE OF 210 ACRES TO THE CITY AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID
AGREEMENT AND ACCEPT THE OFFERS OF DEDICATION
FOR THE 210 ACRES IF SUCH LAND BECOMES
AVAILABLE TO THE CITY PURSUANT TO THE TERMS OF
THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE LAND OFFER
AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, in adopting the Otay Ranch General Development Plan in 1993 the City of
Chula Vista (City) formally declared its intent to plan for and pursue an institution(s) of higher
learning (Universit(ies)) within its municipal boundazies; and
WHEREAS, the updated City of Chula Vista General Plan in December 2005 recognized
the many benefits of a Regional Technology Pazk, which would be associated with the
Universit(ies); and
WHEREAS, on or about April 9, 2008, City and Otay Land Company (Owner) entered
into that certain Land Offer Agreement (Agreement) subsequently recorded in the San Diego
County Recorder's Office on Apri124, 2008, as Document No. 2008-0218696; and
WHEREAS, under the terms of the Agreement, Owner would agree to convey 210 acres,
50 acres of which will be utilized as a portion of the proposed "University/Regional Technology
Park"; and
WHEREAS, City and Owner wish to amend the Agreement (Amended Agreement) in a
manner intended to foster the realization of a quality University campus within Otay Ranch in
the near future by providing the City with ownership of land essential to the development of a
University and its associated mitigation land at an earlier stage then what was originally provided
by the Agreement; and
WHEREAS, with the approval of the proposed Amended Agreement, the transfer of
ownership to the City of the 210 acres would occur with the approval of amendments to the
General Plan (GPA-09-01), General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) and certification of the
associated Environmental Impact Report; provided however, said General Plan and General
Development Plan approval shall be effective for a term of no longer than two (2) years from its
adoption and shall automatically expire, unless the related Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan
is approved by the City.
11-118
Resolution 2013 -
Page 2 of 2
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista
does hereby approve the First Amendment to the Land Offer Agreement between the City of
Chula Vista and Otay Land Company for conveyance of 210 acres to the City for a
University/Regional Technology Park and associated mitigation purposes, a copy of which shall
be kept on file in the Office of the City Clerk.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor of the City of Chula Vista is hereby
authorized and directed to execute said First Amendment to the Land Offer Agreement on behalf
of the City of Chula and to accept the Offer(s) to Dedicate the 210 acres should such offer
become available to the City pursuant to the terms of the First Amendment to the Land Offer
Agreement.
Presented by Approved as to form
Gary Halbert, P.E., AICP
Assistant City Manager n
11-119
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-O1) 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
approval of amendments to the Chula Vista General Plan and Otay Ranch General
Development Plan ("Project") that 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; and
WHEREAS, in December 2005, the City adopted a comprehensive General Plan
Update, amended the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP), and certified EIR
OS-O1 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
supplemental environmental impact report (SEIR 09-01) was prepared for the Project
which constitutes a supplement to the first tier of documents (EIR OS-O1 and EIR 90-01)
that evaluates the Project as it relates to the analysis contained in said environmental
documents; and
WHEREAS, SEIR-09-O1 constitutes a programmatic document under the
provisions of Section 15168 and an SEIR under the provisions of Section 15163 of the
CEQA 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, an EIR scoping meeting was held on January 26, 2010; and
WHEREAS, Draft SEIR 09-01, together with the technical appendices for the
Project, was issued fora 45 day public review period on June 8, 2012, and was processed
through the State Clearinghouse; and
11-120
WHEREAS, the public review period c]osed on July 24, 2012; and
WHEREAS, during the public comment period, the City received comments on
the Draft SEIR-09-O1 and consulted with all responsible and trustee agencies, other
regulatory agencies and others pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15086 and pursuant
to Section 15088, all comments received were responded to in writing; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has independently reviewed and considered the
contents of the Final. SEIR-09-O1 at a public meeting; and
WHEREAS, to the extent that the Findings of Fact for the Project, dated October
2012 (Exhibit "A" of this Resolution, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City
Clerk), conclude that proposed mitigation measures outlined in Final SEIR 09-01 are
feasible and have not been modified, superseded or withdrawn, the City of Chula Vista
hereby binds itself and the Applicant and its successors in interest, to implement those
measures. These findings are not merely information or advisory, but constitute a binding
set of obligations that will come into effect when the City adopts the resolution approving
the project. The adopted mitigation measures contained within the Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program (Exhibit "B" of this Resolution, a copy of which is on file in the
office of the City Clerk) are expressed as conditions of approval. Other requirements are
referenced in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted concurrently
with these Findings of Fact and will be effectuated through the process of implementing
the Project; and
WHEREAS, this Resolution serves only to certify the Final SEIR 09-01 as
required by CEQA, and not to approve the Project. By separate action, the City Council
will decide whether to approve the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL of the
City of Chula Vista does hereby determine, resolve and order as follows:
I. RECORD
The findings made in this Resolution are based upon the information and evidence
set forth in the Final SEIR 09-01 and all proceedings and all evidence introduced before
the City Council, in consideration of this SEIR 09-01 at their public meeting. The
documents, staff report, technical studies, appendices, plans, specifications, other
materials and any other documents submitted to the decision-makers and documents
specified in Public Resources Code Section 21167.6, shall comprise the entire record of
Proceedings for any claims under CEQA.
IL 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
11-121
2. Comments and Responses
(All hereafter collectively referred to as "SEIR 09-01 ")
III. ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS TO FEIR 09-01
1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and
2. Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
IV. 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 seg.), the CEQA
Guidelines (California Code Regs. Title 14 §15000 et seq.), and the
Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista.
V. 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.
VI. CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT, AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM
A. Adoption of Findings of Fact
The City Council does hereby approve, accepts as its own, incorporate as
if set forth in full herein, and make each and every one of the findings
contained in the Findings of Fact, Exhibit "A" of this Resolution, a copy
of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk.
B. Mitigation Measures Feasible and Adopted
As more fully identified and set forth in SEIR 09-01 and in the Findings of
Fact for this project, which is Exhibit "A" to this Resolution, a copy of
which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, the City Council hereby
finds pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA
Guidelines Section 15091 that the mitigation measures described in the
above referenced documents are feasible and will become binding upon
the entity (such as the project proponent or the City) assigned thereby to
implement the same.
11-122
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-O1, 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.
VII. 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
Vista finds 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) have 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 the
Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista and therefore, are hereby
certified.
Presented by:
Gary Halbert, PE, AICP
Assistant City Manager/
Director of Development Services
11-123
RESOLUTION NO.2013-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITY
COUNCIL APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY'S
GENERAL PLAN AND THE OTAY RANCH GENERAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO REFLECT LAND USE,
CIRCULATION AND POLICY CHANGES FOR
APPROXIMATELY 1,281 ACRES WITHIN THE OTAY
RANCH PLANNED COMMUNITY, INCLUDING
ASSOCIATED TEXT, MAP S AND TABLES
I RECITALS
A. Project Site
WHEREAS, the areas of land which are the subject of this Resolution contain all lands
within the boundaries of Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated into this Resolution by this
reference, and includes approximately 1,281 acres of land generally located south of Main
Street/Rock Mountain Road, east of Heritage Road, west of Salt Creek Canyon and north of the
Otay River Valley within the Otay Ranch Planned Community; and
B. Project; Application for Discretionazy Approvals
WHEREAS, on August 21, 2009, the City of Chula Vista deemed the Otay Land
Company's (the "Applicant") application complete and initiated a General Plan Amendment
(GPA) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan Amendment (GDPA), requesting approval of
amendments to the City's General Plan (the "GPA") and Otay Ranch General Development Plan
(the"Project"); and
WHEREAS, the proposed GPA for the Project involve portions of the Land Use and
Transportation; Economic Development; Public Facilities and Services; and Environmental
Elements, including associated text, maps and tables; and
WHEREAS, the proposed GDPA involves portions of Part II of the existing GDP,
including associated text, maps and tables; and
WHEREAS, the proposed GPA are contained in a document entitled "General Plan
Amendment, Otay Ranch Village 8 West & Village 9, September 2012" as represented in
Exhibit B attached hereto; and
WHEREAS, the proposed GDPA are contained in a document entitled "General
Development Plan Amendment (GDPA), Village 8 West and Village 9 September, 2012" as
represented in Exhibit C attached hereto; and
11-124
Resolution 2013 -
Page 2
C. Prior Discretionary Approvals
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista's current General Plan was last comprehensively
updated in December 2005; and
WHEREAS, the Otay Ranch General Development Plan was was approved on October
23, 1993, and most recently updated on April 3, 2012; and
WHEREAS, as part of the 2005 General Plan Update land use actions on the Project Area
were deferred; and
WHEREAS, the GPA and GDPA as presented are necessary to accommodate the land
uses anticipated in the 2008 Land Offer Agreement between the City of Chula Vista and Otay
Land Company, and amendment thereto (referred to herein as the LOA First Amendment); and,
WHEREAS, the GPA and GDPA were designed to complement and facilitate
development of a University and Regional Technology Park in conjunction with the
development of Villages 8 West and 9, and in which the City's ownership of land for a
University and its related uses is an essential element; and
WHEREAS, the approval of the proposed amendments is the first step in carrying out
the development contemplated by these Amendments. The next step in the process would
require the approval of the SPA's, EIR's and TMs for Villages 8 West and 9; and
D. Planning Commission Record of Application
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Government Code section 65090, the Planning
Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the GPA and GDPA on February 13, 2013,
and recommended that the City Council adopt the Resolutions approving the GPA and GDPA;
and
WHEREAS, the proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning
Commission at the public hearing on this Project held on February 13, 2013, and the minutes
and resolution resulting there from, are hereby incorporated into the record subsequent to these
proceedings; and
E. City Council Record of Application
WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for the hearing on the GPA and GDPA
and notices of said hearings, together with its purposes given by its publication in a newspaper of
general circulation in the City, at least ten days prior to the hearing; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Government Code section 65090, the City Council
held a duly noticed public hearing on February 19, 2013, on the subject GPA and GDPA.
11-125
Resolution 2013 -
Page 3
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council hereby finds and
determines as follows:
II. COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
The Development Services Director has reviewed the proposed project for compliance
with the California Environmental Quality Act and has determined that there is substantial
evidence, in light of the whole record before the City of Chula Vista, that the project may have a
significant effect on the environment; therefore, a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
(SEIR-09-02; SCH #2004081066) has been prepared. Certification of the SEIR (SEIR-09-02) for
this project will be considered by the City Council as a separate item.
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista reviewed, analyzed, considered, approved
and certified a Final SEIR, made certain Findings of Fact, adopted a Statement of Overriding
Considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the GPA and GDPA,
pursuant to CEQA, by Resolution No. 2013-
III. GENERAL PLAN INTERNAL CONSISTENCY
The City Council hereby finds and determines that the General Plan, as amended, is
internally consistent and shall remain internally consistent following amendments thereof by this
Resolution.
IV. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY
The City Council hereby finds and determines that the General Development Plan, as
amended, is intemally consistent and shall remain internally consistent following amendments
thereof by this Resolution.
V. ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AND GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
AMENDMENTS
In light of the findings above, the General Plan and General Development Plan
Amendment provisions are hereby approved and adopted in the form as presented in Exhibits B
and C attached hereto and on file in the City Clerk's Office.
VI. SUNSET PROVISION
This General Plan and General Development Plan approval shall be effective for a term
of no longer than two (2) years from its adoption (the "Term") and shall automatically expire,
unless Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Entitlements are approved by the City and all applicable
statutes of limitations to challenge the SPA Entitlements have expired with no third party
litigation having been filed. In the event of such third party litigation, the GPA and GDPA
entitlements shall not expire pursuant to this Paragraph 3.7 of the LOA First Amendment, and
the terms and conditions of Paragraph 3.3 (e) of said agreement shall govern. If the GPA and
11-126
Resolution 2013 -
Page 4
GDPA Entitlements expired as provided herein, the General Plan, General Development Plan,
Zoning, Development Agreement and other land uses regulations, applicable to the Property
prior to the approval of the GPA and GDPA Entitlements (the "Existing Entitlements") shall
thereupon take effect. City may, but is not required, to take any appropriate actions, in its sole
discretion, it may deem necessary, if any, to confirm the Existing Entitlements.
Presented by
Gary Halbert, P.E., AICP
Assistant City Manager
Approved as to form by
G
~~ City mey
11-127
J~if~,~iPaT~~. fl-T/~/~~f /
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
276 Fourth Ave.
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Attention: City Clerk
(Space Abover or itccorucr s u se, .
FIRST AMENDMENT TO LAND OFFER AGREEMENT
This FIRST AMENDMENT TO LAND OFFER AGREEMENT ("Amendment") is
entered into and effective as of , 2013, by and between Otay Land Company, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company ("Owner") and the City of Chula Vista, a political
subdivision of the State of Califomia ("City").
RECITALS
A. On or about Apri19, 2008, City and Owner entered into that certain Land Offer
Agreement ("Agreement") subsequently recorded in the San Diego County Recorder's Office on
Apri124, 2008, as Document No. 2008-0218696.
B. City and Owner wish to amend the Agreement in a manner intended to foster the
realization of a quality University campus within Otay Ranch in the neaz future by providing the
City with ownership of land essential to the development of a University.
C. Unless otherwise defined herein, capitalized terms as used herein shall have the
same meaning as given thereto in the Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals and of the mutual covenants
hereinafter contained and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency
of which is hereby acknowledged, Owner and City agree as follows:
1. Paragraph 1.1. The following shall be added to the end-the fourth (4~h) full
paragraph of the Paragraph 1.1, which paragraph begins with the phrase "'Entitlements' means:":
Entitlements described above In subsection (i), and the associated
California Environmental Quality Act compliance, shall hereafter
be referred as the "GPA Entitlements. Entitlements described
above in subsections (ii) and (iii), and the associated California
Environmental Quality Act compliance, shall hereafter be referred
to as the "SPA Entitlements".
256583-000022-26-13/jadcjb
ij
2. Paragraph 2.7. The word "Entitlements" in paragraph 2.7; entitled "Removal of
Encumbrances,",shall be replaced by the phrase "GPA Entitlements."
3. Paragraph 2.8. Paragraph 2.8, entitled "Hazazdous Waste Report," shall be
deleted in its entirety and replaced by the following:
Owner provided the City within thirty (30) days of the Effective Date of this
Agreement with a Phase One Hazardous Waste.Report on the University Property
and Open Space Property by GEOCON INCORPORATED and dated February
21, 2013, February 22, and February 2013. Owner agrees to provide an update of
. this report for the respective properties not less than five (5) days prior to first
City Council hearing for the GPA Entitlements. Owner shall be responsible for
the cost of such update. Owner understands that the City's acceptance of the
Offers of Dedication is conditioned upon the City's approval of said reports, any
_ . updates if submitted to the City and City's approval of the condition of the
University Property. and Open Space Property. The City entered into this
Agreement contingenton the University Property and Open Space Property being
free and clear of any environmental condition which would be a violation of any
applicable federal state or local law, ordinance or regulation relating to Hazardous
Material. Owner further understands and agrees that Owner in addition to any
obligations as the property owner, is fully responsible for the administration and
oversight of the environmental condition of the University Property and Open
Space Property until the City has accepted the Offer of Dedications for the
respective properties. If after the City's review of the updated Phase One
Hazardous Waste Report for said properties, the City determines the
envirorinrental cohdition of the University Property or Open Space Property is not
acceptable to the City, Owner may in its discretion, cure said condition in
accordance with the terms agreed upon by the Owner and City, as more fully set_
forth in the "Addendum to Land Offer Agreement" attached hereto as Exhibit I .
Any minor amendments to the Addendum maybe executed by the Mayor after
approval by the City Attorney as to form. If Owner decides not to cure the
condition of the University Property or Open Space Property, Owner shall provide
-City with written notice of such decision asset forth in the Addendum to Land
Offer Agreement and this Agreement and the Processing Agreement shall be
terminated and the applications submitted for the Project shall be considered
withdrawn by the Owner and any and all hearings for the Entitlements (including
the GPA Entitlements) shall be cancelled. City shall promptly reconvey the
University Property and/or Open Space Property, as maybe applicable, as
. provided in Paragraph 5.19 and the Endowment refunded pursuant to
- . Paragraph 3.9. If the Owner elects to cure the condition of the University
' Property or Open Space Property but requires additional time to do so, the terms
of the Addendum to Land Offer Agreement shall set forth the time frames for
such cure. The Owner understands and agrees that future public hearings for the
Entitlements (other than the GPA Entitlements) for the Project may be impacted
by the terms of said Addendum.
_. _.~791020.07(SD -_ -~_--
' 256583-000028-26-13Qac/cjb
4. Pazagraph 3.2. The following shall inserted following the first (1st) sentence of
Paragraph 3.2, entitled "Review Period":
Such review shall include thirty (30) days after the final draft for
the GPA Entitlements ("Final Draft GPA Entitlements") and thirty
(30) days-after the final draft for the SPA Entitlements ("Final
Draft SPA Entitlements").
5. Pazagraph 3.3. Paragraph 3.3, entitled "Approval of Entitlements," is hereby
.deleted and replaced in its entirety with the following:
Pazagraph 3.3 Approval of Entitlements.
(a) In the cvent the GPA Entitlements aze approved by the City
. Council.in substantially the form of the Final Draft GPA
Entitlements, Owner agrees that the City may thereafter accept the
Offers of Dedication for the University Property and the Open
Space Property, subject to Paragraph 3.3(c) below, after the
expiration of all applicable statutes of limitations to challenge the
GPA Entitlements and any additional time caused by Third Party
Litigation as described in Patagraph 3.3(d) herein. In the event the
Citydoes not approve the GPA Entitlements in substantially the
form of the Final Draft GPA Entitlements on or before February
26, 2013, as such time may be extended as provided in Paragraph
2.8, all Entitlement applications shall be deemed withdrawn by
Owner and any action taken by the City on the GPA Entitlements
shall be void ab initio and be of no effect..Owner understands that
the City's approval of the GPA Entitlements shall be conditioned
to expire in accordance with the terms set forth in Paragraph 3.7 of
this Agreement.
(b) In the event the City Council does not approve the SPA
Entitlements in substantially the form of the Final Draft SPA
Entitlements on or before June 15, 2013, as such time may be
extended as provided for in Pazagmph 5.9 (Force Majeure), the
' GPA Entitlements received by Owner shall expire and be of no
effect. In addition, the University Property and Open Space
Property shall be reconveyed by City to Owner within five (5)
. business days following the City's decision not to approve the SPA
Entitlements or failure to act thereon as described above.
(c) Upon acceptance by the City of the Offers of Dedication and.
until such time as the SPA Entitlements aze approved by the City
and aII applicable statutes of limitations to challenge the SPA
Entitlements have expired (or in the event of Third-Party
Litigation, the entry of a final, non-appealable judgment affirming
the validity of the SPA Entitlements), City (i) will maintain the
256583-000022-26~I3/jac/cjb
~'
University Property,and Open Space-Property free and clear of all
liens, encumbrances or title exceptions and take all actions
reasonably necessary to prevent or remove such clouds on title,
other than such matters of record when City accepts the Offers of .
Dedication; (ii) maintain the University Property and Open Space
Property in the physical condition existing as of the date of
acceptance of the Offers of Dedication; and, (iii) refrain from any
development or physical alteration of the University Property and
Open Space Property, except as required to restore or repair said
Properties to the physical condition which existed at the time of
acceptance of the Offers of Dedication, after consultation with
Owner.
(d) In the event of Third Party Litigation challenging the GPA
.Entitlements, City may accept the Offers of Dedication upon entry
of a final, non-appealable judgment affirming the validity of the
GPA Entitlements or other resolution mutually acceptable to the
parties ("Favorable Outcome"). In the event of any outcome to the
Third Parry Litigation other than a Favorable Outcome, the parties
agree to meet and confer regarding corrective action necessary to
preserve the GPA Entitlements. In the event Owner or City.
determines it is not in Owner's or City's interest to proceed with the
corrective action necessary to preserve the GPA Entitlements, this
Agreement shall terminate and any GPA Entitlements that have
been approved by the City shall expire and be of no effect. In the
event Owner and City elect to proceed with the corrective action
necessary to preserve the GPA'Entitlements, the City shall be
entitled to accept the Offers of Dedication for the University
Property and Open Space Property upon entry of a final, non-
appealable judgment affirming the validity of the GPA
Entitlements.
(e) In the event of Third Party Litigation challenging the SPA
Entitlements which results in any outcome other than a Favorable
Outcome, the parties agree to meet and confer regarding corrective
action necessary to preserve the SPA Entitlements. In the event
Owner or City determines it is not in Owner's or City's interest to
proceed with the corrective action necessazy to preserve the SPA
Entitlements, this Agreement shall terminate, and both the SPA
Entitlements and GPA Entitlements that have been approved by
the City shall expire and be of no effect. Within five (5) business
days of such decision, the University Properly and Open.Space
Property shall be reconveyed by City to Owner...
191020.O1/SD_.. _. _-__..-.---__-. - - _._. _. -_-.. --.- __..--_.
256583-0000212-26-13/jac/cjb -Q
r
,.
6. The following shall be added as a new pazaQraph 3.7
3.7 GPA Entitlements Sunset. The Owner understands and
agrees that the GPA Entitlements for the Project were designed to
complement and facilitate the development of a University and
related uses on the University Property and Open Space Property
in which the City's ownership is an essential element thereof.
Owner understands and agrees that if the GPA Entitlements are
approved by the City, such approval shall be effective for a term of
no longer than two (2) years from. its adoption (the "Term") and
shall automatically expire, unless the SPA Entitlements are
approved by the City and all applicable statutes of limitations to
challenge the SPA Entitlements have expired with no Third Party
Litigation having been filed. In the event of such Third Party
Litigation, the GPA Entitlements shall not automatically expire
pursuant to this Paragraph 3.7, and the terms and conditions of
Paragraph 3.3(e) shall govern. If the GPA Entitlements expire as
provided herein, the general plan, zoning, Development Agreement
grid other land use regulations, applicable to the Property prior to
the approval of the GPA Entitlements ("Existing Entitlements")
shall thereupon take effect. City may take any appropriate actions,
in its sole discretion, it may deem necessary, if any, to confirm the'
Existing Entitlements.
7. Pazaaraph 3.4. The final sentence of Paragraph 3.4 shall be deleted and replaced
in its entirety with the following:
The City shall return the Irrevocable Offers of Dedicatioh to the
Owner, or, in the event City has previously accepted the
Irrevocable Offers of Dedication, City shall promptly reconvey the
University Property and Open Space Property to Owner.
$. Paraarauh 3.9. The third and fourth sentences in Pazagraph 3.9, entitled
"Endowment," shall be deleted and replaced in its entirety with the following:
In the event the SPA Entitlements are approved by the City and all
applicable statutes of limitations to challenge the SPA Entitlements
have expired with no legal challenge having been filed or upon
entry of a final, non-appealable judgment affirming the validity of
the SPA Entitlements or other resolution mutually acceptable to
the parties, Escrow Agent will immediately and automatically
release the Escrow Amount to the City. However, if the City does
- not approve the Entitlements, or if this Agreement terminates for
any reason, Escrow Agent will immediately and automatically
release the Escrow Amount to the, Owner.
297ozo.ovso ~- ~ - ~~
25658]A0002l2-26-73/jaUcjb
ADDENDUM TO LAND OFFER AGREEMENT
This ADDENDUM TO LAND OFFER AGREEMENT ("Addendum") is entered into
and effective as of , 2013, by and between Otay Land Company, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company ("Owner") and the City of Chula Vista, a political subdivision of the .
State of California ("City").
RECITALS
A. On or about Apri19; 2008, City and Owner entered into that certain Land Offer
Agreement ("LOA") subsequently recorded in the San Diego County Recorder's Office on April
24, 2008, as Document No. 2008-0218696.
B. Under the terms of the LOA the Owner agreed to convey to the City 50 acres for
"University/Regional Technology Pazk" uses ("University Property") and 160 acres for "open
space/mitigation land" ("Mitigation Land"), should entitlements for the property be approved by
the City for the development of Villages 8 East and Village 9 ("Project").
C. On February 26, 2013, the City and Owner entered into that certain First
Amendment to the LOA ("LOA Amendment"), in order to expedite the development of a quality
University campus within Otay Ranch by providing the: City with ownership of the University
Property and Mitigation Land in accordance with the terms set forth in the LOA Amendment,.
such conveyance now occurring upon the approval of amendments to the General Plan and Otay
Ranch General Development Plan ("GPA Entitlements").
D. In accordance with pazagraph 2.8 of the LOA Amendment, prior to first City
Council hearing on amendments to the GPA Entitlements, Owner provided the City with a Phase
1 Environmental Assessment ("ESA") prepared by GEOCON Incorporated for the fol]owing
sites: the University Property, dated February 21, 2013; a portion of the Mitigation Land
consisting of a 101 acre site, located east of Proctor Valley and north of Lower Otay Lakes,
dated February 22, 2013; and a portion of the Mitigation'Land consisting of approximately 60
acres, located in the River Valley, ("River Valley Mitigation Land") dated February 2013.
E. The City's acceptance of the University Property and Mitigation Land is
conditioned upon the City's approval of said ESAs in that the City entered into the LOA and the
LOA Amendment contingent on the University Property and Mitigation Land being free and ,
clear of any environmental condition which would be a violation of any applicable federal state
or local law, ordinance or regulation relating to Hazazdous Material.
F. The City has reviewed the ESAs for the University Property and Mitigation Land
and has determined that additional information is required to assess the envirorunental condition
of the said properties and until such time as additional information is obtained by the City, said
properties cannot be considered acceptable to the City. .
G. The Owner has agreed to provide additional information regazding the condition
of the University Property and Mitigation Land but requires additional time to do so. The parties
desire to hold the public hearing for the above described GPA Entitlements prior to the City
256583-000022-26-13/jaclldr~
r;
evaluating the additional information regazding the condition of said properties; provided
.however, the provisions as set forth herein aze performed by the Owner in the time frames set
forth herein. -
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals and of the mutual covenants
hereinafter contained and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency
of which'is hereby acknowledged, Owner and City agree as follows:
1. 50-Acre University Property. The Parties agree that based on the results of the ESA
prepared for the 50-acre University Property, the potential exists for onsite soils to be impacted
with pesticide concentrations above the California Department of Toxic Substances Control's
(DTSC) screening levels for residential and school land uses. The potential existence of
pesticides is consistent with historic farming operations in Otay Ranch.
a. Within seventy-five (75) days of the effective Date of this Addendum, Owner
shall conduct to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director (or their designee),
additional soil testing on the University Property to determine if residual pesticides, herbicides,
and/or azsenic are present on site ("Assessment"). The Assessment shall be prepared by a
Registered Environmental Assessor and in accordance with all applicable DTSC standards
and/or protocols. The Assessment shall include analysis for organochlorine pesticides that
include compounds including, but not limited to, toxaphene, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
(DDT), dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (DDE), dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane (DDD),
which have been historically identified at properties in the site vicinity. The concentrations of
the contaminants shall be compared to DTSC soil screening levels for residential and school land
uses.
If levels of contamination exceeding the DTSC screening levels are found on site, the
Owner shall prepaze a delineation plan to the satisfaction of the Development Services
Director (or their designee) concurrently with the the Assessment described in pazagraph
1(a) above. The delineation will include a recommended protocol for remediating the
contaminates identified in the Assessment: The Parties acknowledge that the delineation
will not include the level of detail normally associated with a Soils Reuse Plan, but will
include recommendations and protocols to be implemented for handling the
contamination, if any, on the site which may be included with the grading and
development of the University Property and will include a determination of the
suitability of the soils for on-site or off-site reuse, any special handling provisions and an
outline of the procedure for the proper remediation and disposal of the contaminated
soils, either on site or off site. If a Soils Reuse Plan is needed, the Owner shall cooperate
with the City at no additional Owner expense, with the City processing of such plan with
the DTSC, County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health, and Regiohal
water Quality Control Boazd (RWQCB) as may be required by applicable law.
b. If the Assessment or delineation is not completed to the City's satisfaction thirty
30 days before the first City Council hearing to consider approval of the SPA for the Project, the
Parties agree that the date of said City Council hearing will be continued until the Assessment
and the delineation , if required, is submitted and approved by the City and the condition of the
University Property is deemed acceptable by the City. If the Assessment or the delineation is
. _ . _ . _-800615.04/SD -----~-- --
256583-000028-26-13/jacfldr
f'
not submitted and approved by the City on or before June 30, 2013, as may be extended by
mutual consent of the parties; such failure shall be considered a decision by Owner not to cure.
In this event or in the event the City determines the condition of the University Property is
unacceptable after reviewing the Assessment or the delineation, this Addendum, LOA, First
Amended LOA and Processing Agreement shall be terminated in accordance with the provisions
of the LOA and First Amended LOA; and all applications submitted for the Project shall be
considered withdrawn by the Owner and any and all hearings for the SPA; tentative maps and
other associate approvals for Village 8 and 9 shall be cancelled, and the Endowment refunded
pursuant to Paragraph 3.9 of the LOA.
2. Mitigation Land. As described in the results of the ESA for the River Valley Mitigation
Land; a portion of said site ("FUDS site") is located within a former used defense site (FUDS)
associated with the former Brown Field Bombing Range. Based on the historical use of the ]and
as a munitions response site and the discovery of munitions debris. during site investigations
conducted by U.S. Amy Corps of Engineers, there is a~potential for military munitions to be
present in the subsurface. Owner understands that the City will not accept title to the FUDS site
tmtil such property has been determined not to contain munitions debris or any such munitions
debris, if discovered, has been remediated to the. City's approval as described in paragraph 2(a) -
below. If munitions debris is present and the Owner should decide not to cure the FUDS site, the
Owner shall provide the City with mitigation property of an equivalent size to the FUDS site .
located within the Otay Ranch Preserve, in a condition acceptable to the City. This obligation to
cure or provide equivalent property to'the City shall be a tentative map condition for any
subdivision of-property within the Project and must be completed prior to the first final map
approved withih the Project.
a. If the Owner decides to cure munitions debris, if any, found on the FUDS site, the
Owner shall incoordination with U.S. Amy Corps of Engineers, perform all the necessary
remediation measures to clear the site, to the satisfaction the Development Services Director (or
- , their designee), of all potential munitions debris associated with the designated FUDS area prior
to the approval of the first final map within the Project. If the Owner decides not to cure the
FUDS site, fee title to the equivalent mitigation acreage described above must be provided to the
City prior to the first final map approved within the Project. ,
Additional Considerations.
a.' The Owner shall provide an access easement to the City and County of San Diego
(and its authorized agents, assigns and contractors) authorizing access to the Mitigation Land for
the purposes of biological maintenance and monitoring within thirty (30) days of City's written
request. The access easement will be subject to review and approval by the City and County
prior to recordation and contain standard provisions including but not limited to provisions
protecting Owner from liability reasonably acceptable to the parties.
b. Paragraph Section 3b not included herein.
80065504/SD ~ _
256583-000022-2fi-13(7ndld~ - _3
~f
c. Following City acceptance of title to said property, Owner shall install the
following property markers within thirty (30) days of the City's written request for the University
Property and Mitigation Land:
• Permanent standardized mazkers at the corners of the properties;
• Permanent standardized line of sight mazkers along property, boundazies; and,
• Map the corners of the properties using sub-meter GIS coordinates
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been executed as of the day and yeaz
first above written.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a political
subdivision of the State of California
EXECUTED BY
OTAY LAND COMPANY, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company
EXECUTED BY
Cheryl Cox, Mayor
Attested By
Donna Norris City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Glen R. Googins, City Attorney
800655.04/SD
256583-000028-26-13/jacAdr
i tc~~
Paul J.:
-4-