Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Mtg 02-13-2013 Item 2A Attch 1 Reso Exhibit AExhibit A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE ENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN (GFA- 09 -01) AND OTAY RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PCM- 09 -11) CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS January 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. NTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND II. ACRONYMS III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION IV. 3ACKGROUND V. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS VI. INDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA VII. -EGAL EFFECTS OF FINDINGS VIII. AITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM IX. SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES X. CUMULATIVE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES XI. EASIBILITY OF POTENTIAL PROJECT ALTERNATIVES XII. 31TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 1 2 3 6 7 9 11 11 12 29 36 47 BEFORE THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL RE: Amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA- 09 -01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM- 09 -11) Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR); SEIR- 09 -01; SCH No. 2004081066 FINDINGS OF FACT I. 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 Fi al SEIR evaluates four alternatives to the project. These alternatives include the followi g: (1) No Project -No Build Alternative; (2) No Project -No Change in Existing Plans Alterna ive; (3) Reduced Density Alternative; and (4) La Media Road Alternative. The Fi al SEIR represents a second tier EIR, in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 21094, and tiers from the certified Program EIR prepared for the City's General Plan Update (EIR #05 -01 /SCH #2004081066) (2005 PEIR). Theseindings have been prepared in accordance with requirements of CEQA (Pub. Resources Code, 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., Title 14, § 15000 et seq.). ACRONYMS ADT average daily trips CEQA California Environmental Quality Act City City of Chula Vista i dB decibel GDPA General Development Plan Amendment GPA I General Plan Amendment gpd gallons per day GPU General Plan Update i LOA Land Offer Agreement i LOS Level Of Service MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program OLC Otay Land Company OWD I Otay Water District PFFP Public Facilities Financing Plan RAQS i Regional Air Quality Standards I RCP Regional Comprehensive Plan RTP Regional Technology Park SAND G San Diego Association of Governments SDAP D San Diego Air Pollution Control District SEIR I Supplemental Environmental Impact Report SPA Sectional Planning Area i SR i State Route I UWMP Urban Water Management Plan WRMPI Water Resources Master Plan 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The pr ject 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 ithin the project area. The project area is an approximately 1,281 -acre area within the Otay Ranch Subarea of the City's Eastern Planning Area that spans multiple existing villages and planning areas, including portions of Villages 4 and 7; the entirety of Village 8 and Village 9; University/Planning Area 10, which includes a proposed 85 -acre Regional Technology Park (RTP); and a portion of the southern edge of the Eastern Urban Center. SEIR Figure 3 -1 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 C1 ange 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 affectin 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 the addition of new goals, objectives, and policies of he 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 eneral Plan Update (GPU). This includes further clarification and explanation of Ilowable 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, hich would create a symbiotic relationship between the economic development and employment opportunities of the RTP and the academic research and university campus activities. The amendments would adopt the University Strategic Framework Policies as means to assure coordinated development among the focus areas. proposed amendments also re- designate the University Village Focus Area of the ern University District from low- medium to medium -high and mixed -use residential use designations uses. The proposed vision for Village 9 (also known as University )e) includes the dedication of 50 net acres for inclusion in a university campus. • Revisions to the Circulation Plan —East that would allow the circulation plan to be consistent with proposed land use changes. These amendments include the following: 1) 3 liminate the southerly extension of La Media Road crossing the Otay River Valley; 2) classification to "Other Roads" that portion of La Media Road south of Village 8 onnecting to the Active Recreation Area; 3) change name of Rock Mountain Road to lain Street from the point of existing Heritage Road easterly to Eastlake Parkway; 4) ,classify Main Street from a Town Center Arterial easterly of State Route (SR -)125 to a ix -lane Gateway; 5) reclassify Main Street /La Media Road Couplet from a Six -lane own Center Arterial to a Four -lane Town Center Arterial within Village 8 West; 6) .classify and realign the segment of La Media Road from the southern end of the Main treet /La Media Road Couplet south easterly to SR -125 as a Four -Lane Major; 7) clarify iat the mid - arterial SR -125 bridge crossing between Village 8 and 9 is "pedestrian - nly"; and 8) provide that Urban Level of Service (Level of Service [LOS] D) is cceptable for Town Center Arterials. I Figures 3 -2 and 3 -3 provide further detail of the proposed amendments. • eduction of University area by 57 acres, for a total University acreage of 383 acres within the project area). Total University acreage in the 2005 General Plan was 40 acres. University acres would be changed through the creation of an 85 -acre RTP and use designation within the Planning Area 10 /University Site; change of 40 acres rom University to Mixed -Use Residential in Village 9; and the conversion of 68 acres of esidential to University in the southern portion of the Planning Area 10 /University Site. • Amendments to the Otay Ranch General Development Plan including revised text, graphics, and an update of maps and statistics. These amendments support the following revisions to the plan: revise the statistical description and policy standards for he proposed villages and the Eastern University Center; locate the 85 -acre RTP within he Planning Area 10 /University Site and accordingly adjust University acreage; add etail 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 TABLE 1 COMPARISON OF LAND USE TYPES WITHIN LAND USE CHANGE AREA *The General Plan land use assumption in this table is a gross estimate and subject to further review and refinement. tThe m aximurn permitted commercial areas may alternatively be measured in square feet up to the maximum projected yield of 1,800, 00 square feet, tAs der icted on SEIR Figure 3 -4, the Land Use Change Area accommodated 175 acres of university area (university is included within the public /quasi- public GP designation, along with other similar types of land uses such as schools) in the 2005 General Plan Update. The project would convert 85 acres of this area into RTP, and 40 acres into residential, leaving 50 acres of Univer ay within the Land Use Change Area. The discretionary actions to be taken by the City Council include the following: • General Plan Amendments • Qtay 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 certification process. PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES As spe�ified in the Final SEIR, the primary goals and objectives of the project are as follows: • �ncourage social interaction and a diverse range of services to promote a mix of uses ithin a village atmosphere; • oster the goal of the 2005 GPU to expand the local economy by providing a broad ange of businesses, facilitate provision of services for a University, provide employment �nd housing opportunities that support an excellent standard of living, and improve the �bility for residents to live and work locally; E Single- family (units) 887 640 Multi- family (units) 5,163 4,530 Commercial (acres) 32.31 17.6 Community Purpose Facility (acres) 10.8 20.1 Middle School (acres) 20.2 25.0 Elementary School (acres) 31.2 20.0 Park (acres) 55.4 50.3 University (acres) 50.Ot 1751 Ind strial /Regional Technology Park 85.0 - *The General Plan land use assumption in this table is a gross estimate and subject to further review and refinement. tThe m aximurn permitted commercial areas may alternatively be measured in square feet up to the maximum projected yield of 1,800, 00 square feet, tAs der icted on SEIR Figure 3 -4, the Land Use Change Area accommodated 175 acres of university area (university is included within the public /quasi- public GP designation, along with other similar types of land uses such as schools) in the 2005 General Plan Update. The project would convert 85 acres of this area into RTP, and 40 acres into residential, leaving 50 acres of Univer ay within the Land Use Change Area. The discretionary actions to be taken by the City Council include the following: • General Plan Amendments • Qtay 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 certification process. PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES As spe�ified in the Final SEIR, the primary goals and objectives of the project are as follows: • �ncourage social interaction and a diverse range of services to promote a mix of uses ithin a village atmosphere; • oster the goal of the 2005 GPU to expand the local economy by providing a broad ange of businesses, facilitate provision of services for a University, provide employment �nd housing opportunities that support an excellent standard of living, and improve the �bility for residents to live and work locally; E • 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 that de- emphasizes the automobile, and places greater �eliance on mass transit and pedestrian circulation; • Target higher- density and higher- intensity development into specific focus areas in order o protect stable residential neighborhoods and to create mixed -use urban environments hat are oriented to transit and pedestrian activity. This targeted development will be well designed, compatible with adjacent areas, and contribute to the continued vitality of the �ity's economy; • Ilow for higher density residential development in order to encourage the development f off - campus student housing within the University Town Center (Village 9) and the Eastern Urban Center adjacent to the University; • �rovide opportunities for higher density development that accommodate off -site Student nd Faculty Housing for the University; • rovide opportunities for goods and services and other ancillary uses necessary to upport the University and RTP to be provided within Planning Area 10 /University Site; • rovide access to, and connections between, the City's open space and trails network nd the regional network, in accordance with the Chula Vista Multiple Species onservation Program Subarea Plan, Chula Vista Greenbelt Master Plan, and Otay alley Regional Park Concept Plan; and • �onserve the City's sensitive biological and other valuable natural resources IV. BACKGROUND In December 2005, the City adopted a comprehensive GPU, amended the Otay Ranch GDP, and ce ified EIR 05 -01 for said actions. As part of the GPU, amendments to land uses for those areas comprising the project area were deferred by the City. While the action on the land uses was deferred, the certified Program EIR (PEIR) analyzed the impacts of the proposed amend ents within this Deferral Area as part of the 2005 GPU Preferred Alternative. Subsequent to approval of the GPU, the City entered into a Land Offer Agreement (LOA) with the Otay Land Company (OLC) on April 9, 2008. The LOA is an agreement between the OLC (owners of property within portions of the Deferral Area) and the City, allowing the future 6 convey nce of land within the project area for the development of land uses compatible with a facility of higher education and for open space in conjunction with the development entitlements for the project. Pursuant to the LOA, all approvals are subject to all applicable legal requirernents, including, but not limited to, CEQA. In Ma, (JPB D SEIR i which the pro The cu sites of 2008, the City also entered into a separate LOA with another land owner ,velopment, who owns the remainder of the Deferral Area) with similar terms. The Final npact analysis contained herein focuses primarily on the properties owned by OLC, re within the Land Use Change Area. Specifically, the document analyzes the impacts of ect which differ from the impacts analyzed in the 2005 EIR as the Preferred Alternative, nulative impact analysis provides a discussion of the potential future buildout of the JPB r the 2008 LOA between the City and JPB. V. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS For poses of CEQA and the findings set forth below, the administrative record of the City Council decision on the environmental analysis of this project shall consist of the following: • he Notice of Preparation and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction ith the project; •he Draft and Final SEIR for the project (EIR #09 -01), including appendices and echnical reports; • �II comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public omment period on the Draft SEIR; • II reports, studies, memoranda, maps, staff reports, or other planning documents relating to the project prepared by the City, consultants to the City, or responsible or rustee agencies with respect to the City's compliance with the requirements of CEQA nd the City's actions on the project; • II documents, comments, and correspondence submitted by members of the public and ublic agencies in connection with this project, in addition to comments on the SEIR for he project; • All documents submitted to the City by other public agencies or members of the public in Ionnection with the SEIR, up through the close of the public hearing; 7 • 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; • �ny documentary or other evidence submitted at workshops, public meetings, and public earings for this project; • � 11 findings and resolutions adopted by City decision makers in connection with this roject, and all documents cited or referred to therein; and • atters of common knowledge to the City which the members of the City Council onsidered regarding this project, including federal, state, and local laws and egulations, and including, but not limited to, the following: The c to the o Chula Vista General Plan; o Relevant portions of the Zoning Code of the City; o Otay Ranch General Development Plan; o Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan; o City of Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan; o Otay Ranch GDP /SRP Final EIR (EIR #90 -01; SCH No. 89010154); and o Any other materials required to be in the record of proceedings by Public Resources Code section 21167.6, subdivision (e). lian of the documents comprising the record of proceedings is Susan Bigelow, Clerk I Comment [Lsi� can co firm ............... Council, whose office is located at 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California 91910. ' The Cit� Council has relied on all of the documents listed above in reaching its decision on the project, even if every document was not formally presented to the City Council or City staff as part of the City files generated in connection with the project. Without exception, any documents set forth above but not found in the project files fall into two categories. Many of them reflect prior planning or legislative decisions with which the City Council was aware in approving the project (see City of Santa Cruz v. Local Agency Formation Commission (1978) 76 Cal.Ap .3d 381, 391 -392 [142 Cal.Rptr. 873]; Dominey v. Department of Personnel Administration (1988)205 Cal.App.3d 729, 738, fn. 6 [252 Cal. Rptr. 620]). Other documents influenc d the expert advice provided to City staff or consultants, who then provided advice to the City Council. For that reason, such documents form part of the underlying factual basis for the City Council's decisions relating to the adoption of the project (see Pub. Resources Code, 8 section 21167.6, subd. (e)(10); Browing- Ferris Industries v. City Council of City of San Jose (1986) 181 Cal. App.3d 852, 866 [226 Cal.Rptr. 5751; Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4`h 144, 153, 155 [39 Cal.Rptr.2d 54]). VI. FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA Public Resources Code section 21002 provides that "public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which Would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects." (Emphasis added.) The same statute states that the procedures required by CEQA "are intendel to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects" (emphasis added). Section 21002 goes on to state that "in the event [that] specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or inore 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 approv g projects for which EIRs are required (see Pub. Resources Code, § 21081, subd. (a); CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)). For each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a proposed project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or more o three permissible conclusions. The first such finding is that "[c]hanges or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR" (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(1)). The second permissible finding is that "[s]uch changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency" (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(2)). The third potential finding is that "[s]peci is economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employ ent opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR" (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(3)). Public Resour es Code section 21061.1 defines "feasible" to mean "capable of being accomplished in a succ ssful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environ ental, social and technological factors." CEQA Guidelines section 15364 adds another factor: `legal" considerations (see also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal. d 553, 565 [276 Cal.Rptr. 410]). The co cept of "feasibility" also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or mitigati n measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project (see City of Del Marv. ity of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417 ['83 Cal.Rptr. 898]). " '(F]easibility' I under (,EQA encompasses 'desirability' to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors" (Ibid.; see also Se quoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.AppAth 704, 715 [29 CaI.Rp r.2d 182]), The C:-QA Guidelines do not define the difference between "avoiding" a significant environ ental effect and merely "substantially lessening" such an effect. The City must therefoi a 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 cons stent 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 p jects" (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002). For pu poses of these findings, the term "avoid" refers to the effectiveness of one or more mitigati n measures to reduce an otherwise significant effect to a less than significant level. In contras , the term "substantially lessen" refers to the effectiveness of such measure or measures to substantially reduce the severity of a significant effect, but not to reduce that effect to a less than significant level. These interpretations appear to be mandated by the holding in Laurel Hills Homeowners Association v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 519 -527 [147 C I.Rptr. 842], in which the Court of Appeal held that an agency had satisfied its obligation to sub tantially lessen or avoid significant effects by adopting numerous mitigation measures, not all f which rendered the significant impacts in question less than significant. Although CEQA Guidelines section 15091 requires only that approving agencies specify that a particul ar significant effect is "avoid[ed] or substantially lessen[ed]," these findings, for purposes of clarity, in each case will specify whether the effect in question has been reduced to a less than significant level or has simply been substantially lessened but remains significant. Moreo r, although section 15091, read literally, does not require findings to address environ ental effects that an EIR identifies as merely "potentially significant," these findings will neverth less fully account for all such effects identified in the Final SEIR. In shod, CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasibl , to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur. Project modifications or alternatives are not required, however, where such changes are infeasi le or where the responsibility for modifying the project lies with some other agency (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a), (b)). With reopect to a project for which significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened either �hrough the adoption of feasible mitigation measures or a feasible environmentally 10 suf the see aisi that, "[t] balancii constitu require: 553,57 alternative, a public agency, after adopting proper findings, may nevertheless approve ;ct if the agency first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the reasons why the agency found that the project's "benefits" rendered "acceptable" its able adverse environmental effects" (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15093, 15043, subd. (b); Pub. Resources Code, § 21081, subd. (b)). The California Supreme Court has stated ie wisdom of approving ... any development project, a delicate task which requires a g of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their mts who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced" (Goleta, supra, 52 Cal.3d 1W LEGAL EFFECTS OF FINDINGS To the extent that these findings conclude that proposed mitigation measures outlined in the Final &:-:1 R 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 measur s. These findings, in other words, are not merely informational or hortatory, but constitu e a binding set of obligations that will come into effect when the City adopts the resoluti n(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 fi dings and will be effectuated through the process of implementing the project. The mit gation 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 throughlthe process of constructing and implementing the project. VIII. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM As requ red by Public Resources Code section 21081.6, subd. (a)(1), the City, in adopting these findings also concurrently adopts a MMRP as prepared by the environmental consultant under the dire tion of the City. The program is designed to ensure that during project implementation, the app icant and any other responsible parties comply with the feasible mitigation measures identifie below. The program is described in the document entitled AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY 0 CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN (GPA- 9 -01) AND OTAY RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PCM-09-1 1) Mitigation Monito ing Reporting Program. The City will use the MMRP to track compliance with project mitigati n measures. The MMRP will be available for public review during the compliance period. The WARP 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 mitigati n measures to guide future decisions. The program includes monitoring team qualific tions, specific monitoring activities, a reporting system, and criteria for evaluating the success of the mitigation measures. SUM IX. SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Y OF EFFECTS The Fi al SEIR identified a number of direct and indirect significant environmental effects (or "impact 3") 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 avoidec by the adoption of feasible mitigation measures or feasible environmentally superior alternat ves. 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 pr ject will result in significant environmental changes with regard to the following issues: land us a, landform alteration /visual quality, energy resources, transportation, air quality, noise, and public utilities (water). These significant environmental changes or impacts are discussed in the Fin I SEIR in Table 1 -1, pages 9 through 21, and Chapter 5, Environmental Impact Analysi , pages 63 through 364. No significant effects were identified for public services (fire protecti n and emergency services, police services, schools, library services, and parks and recreati n), public utilities (wastewater and integrated waste management), housing and popu'at on, and global climate change. The project will result in significant unmitigable impacts to land use, landform alteration /visual quality, energy resources, transportation (cumulative freewa s), air quality, noise, and public utilities (water). Land At the programmatic level, the project does not include design standards necessary to assure that c commu nmunity character issues are addressed. Therefore, direct impacts associated with city character issues would be significant. Due to its overall adherence to the smart- 12 growth principles in the Regional Comprehensive Plan and City's 2005 GPU, cumulative land use im acts associated with the project would be less than significant. Alteration /Aesthetics While c3mpliance with the City's General Plan policies assures that future development projects apply d sign specifications to promote protection of the visual character of the project area, the project does not include a mechanism to assure their implementation. Therefore, direct and cumula ive impacts associated with visual character would be significant. EneraV 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. Theref re, direct and cumulative impacts associated with energy consumption are considered signific nt. Traffic] Circulation, and Access Absent mitigation, approval of the project will result in significant direct impacts along freeway mainlin segments, and significant cumulative impacts along freeway and roadway segments. Air Quolity 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. Additio ally, while the project seeks to minimize air quality impacts by promoting mixed land use pattern 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 vehiculor trips. Noise Notwit standing the project's conformance to General Plan and General Development Plan policie , a direct and cumulative significant impact will occur to existing receivers adjacent to circulat on element roadways where traffic volumes are projected to result in noise level of more than three decibels (dB). 13 Utilitie$ (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. Signific3nt impacts could occur as a result of the construction of these projects; however, at this level o planning, because the extent of those effects is speculative, direct and cumulative impact would be significant. DETAILED ISSUES DISCUSSION Land The project would result in a significant impact to land use if it would: divide or adversely affect the community character of an established 2. onflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation, or an agency with urisdiction over the Proposed Project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating n environmental effect; or 3. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or NCCP. Impact� Adversely affect community character Implementation of the project would result in a significant direct impact to community character because at this programmatic level, the project does not include design specifications required to protect visual impacts. (Final SEIR Section 5.1.3.2, pages 82 through 86). Implementation of the project would result in a change to the community character of the Land Use Change Area compared to that analyzed in the 2005 PER for the Preferred Alternative. Specifically, the project would increase allowable residential uses by 880 units and increases allowable commercial and industrial (RTP) acreage as shown in Table 1 of the EIR. While the project includes amendments to the City's General Plan and the Otay Ranch General Development Plan objectives and policies aimed at providing connectivity and integration between proposed and existing communities, the project does not include design standards necessary to assure that all community character issues are addressed. Compliance with both existing and proposed policies would reduce land use /community character impacts, but not to a level that is considered less than significant. 14 Measures: There i no mitigation contained in the 2005 PER or currently available at this programmatic level ol 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. There is no feasible mitigation measure to reduce this impact to below significance. Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technol gical, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. Only implementation of the No Project -No Build alternative would reduce this impact to below a level of significance. Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considE rations make this alternative infeasible. Adoption of the No Project -No Build alternative would of achieve any of the objectives of the project as identified in Section 3.3 of the Final SEIR. dditional findings related to the project alternatives are discussed in Section XI, below. Until fu ure SPA Plans containing zoning and specific design measures are implemented, there are no Japplicable or feasible mitigation measures within the control of the City at this time to reduce visual impacts to below a level of significance to visual character would remain significant and unmitigated. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Consideration will be require should the decision makers choose to approve the project. Landfokm Alteration /Aesthetics Threshdlds of Siani Threshold 1: Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista or substantially damage scenic 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. Implen space n of the project would allow future construction within currently undeveloped open ig in the permanent alteration of the existing rolling hills. Additionally, future l[, 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 eneral Development Plan requires future projects to perform SPA -level visual analysis and implement landform- grading guidelines. Compliance with these policies would reduce visual impacts, but not to a level that is considered less than significant. TU 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 i • Landscaping concepts that include plantings selected to frame and maintain views. i Findingk While itigation Measure 5.2.5 -1 is feasible and shall be required as a condition of approval and m de binding on the applicant, it would not substantially lessen the significant environ ental effect as identified in the Final SEIR. The impact would only be reduced to less than significant when specific design standards and zoning specifications are developed and applied to subsequent SPA plans. Only implementation of the No Project -No Build alternative would r duce 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 infeasi le this project alternative. Additional findings related to the project alternatives are discussed in Section XI, below. 16 Because there are no applicable or feasible mitigation measures within the control of the City at this tim a 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 Sianificance: The Proposed Project would result in a significant impact to energy if it would: 1. Zuce the available supply of energy resources below a level considered sufficient to t the City's needs or cause a need for new and expanded facilities. Impactl Increased energy demands While f ture 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 significant (Final SEIR Section 5.3.3.2, pages 121 through 125). Cumulative impacts associated with this issue are discuss d in Section X, below. Exnl of the project would allow an increase in development potential within the Land Use Change Area beyond that analyzed in the 2005 PEIR for the Preferred Alternative. Tables .3 -2a and 5.3 -2b of the Final SEIR provide a breakdown of the additional intensity of land us s 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, Genera 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 commu ity design. The Otay Ranch General Development Plan likewise requires future SPA Plans t include a renewable energy conservation plan addressing preservation of energy resourc s. Although these programs and policies would result in more efficient use of energy, they do not ensure that,increased resources will be available when needed. Therefore, because there a e no assurances of a long -term supply of energy in the future, the increase in energy consu ption associated with the project would be significant. 17 Miti Compatibility with City regulations and policies alone will not reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Implementation of the following mitigation measure, as identified in the 2005 P IR, is required to be incorporated into future SPA plans. 5.3.5 -1 Continued focus on the Energy Strategy and Action Plan, which addresses demand side management, energy efficient and renewable energy outreach programs for businesses and residents, energy acquisition, power generation, and distributed energy resources and legislative actions, and continuing implementation of the CO2 Reduction Plan will lessen the impacts from energy. While mitigation measure 5.3.5 -1 is feasible and shall be required as a condition of approval and made binding on the applicant, it would not substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final SEIR. The impact will only be reduced to less than significant when a determination is made assuring energy resources would be available to adequa ely serve the projected increase in population and land uses resulting from implem ntation of the project. Only implementation of the No Project -No Build alternative would reduce this impact to below a level of significance. Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make this alt rnative infeasible. Adoption of the No Project -No Build alternative would not achieve any of he objectives of the project as identified in Section 3.3 of the Final SEIR. Additional findings related to the project alternatives are discussed in Section XI, below. 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 ConsidE ration will be required should the decision makers choose to approve the project. Traffic, ICirculation, and Access Threshdlds of Significance: The Proposed Project would result in a significant traffic impact if it would: esult in traffic which exceeds the significance criteria of the respective jurisdiction. The Tr ffic Impact Analysis analyzed the study area location utilizing the appropriate jurisdictions' significance criteria. Therefore, City, City of San Diego, and County of San Diego roadwa s were analyzed using each jurisdiction's own significance criteria. 18 City of Chula Vista Project - specific (direct) impact if all the following criteria are met: i. Level of service is LOS D, LOS E, or LOS F. ii. Project trips comprise 5 percent or more of total segment volume. iii. Project adds greater than 800 average daily trips (ADT) to the segment. Cumulative impact, if only (i) is met. However, if the intersections along a LOS D or LOS E segment all operate at LOS D or better, the segment impact is considered not significant, since intersection analysis is more indicative of actual roadway system operations than street segment analysis. If the segment LOS is LOS F, the impact is significant regardless of intersection LOS. Project - specific (direct) impact, if all the following criteria are met: i. Level of service is LOS E or LOS F. ii. Project trips comprise 5 percent or more of entering volume. Cumulative impact if only (i) is met. City of San Diego Accord ng to the City of San Diego's Significance Determination Thresholds (2007), a project is considered to have a significant impact if the project traffic has decreased the operations of surrounding roadways by a City- defined threshold. For projects deemed complete on or after Januar 1, 2007 ' the City defined threshold by roadway type or intersection is shown in Table .4 -5 of the Final SEIR. If a prc may cc project the Fin within I by the ect exceeds the thresholds in Table 5.4 -5 of the Final SEIR, then the City of San Diego nsider a project to have a significant impact. A significant impact can also occur if a ,auses the LOS to degrade from D to E, even if the allowable increases in Table 5.4 -5 of it SEIR are not exceeded. A feasible mitigation measure is identified to return the impact ie City of San Diego thresholds, or the impact is considered significant and unmitigated ;ity of San Diego. IRE Countylof San Diego The following criteria was utilized to evaluate potential significant impacts based on the County of San iego Guidelines for Determining Significance — Transportation and Traffic (2009). Pursua t to the County's General Plan Public Facilities Element, new development must provide improvements or other measures to mitigate traffic impacts to avoid: • Reduction in LOS below C for on -site Circulation Element roads; • Reduction in LOS below D for off -site and on -site abutting Circulation Element roads; • 'Significantly impacting congestion" on roads that operate at LOS E or F. If impacts annot be mitigated, the project cannot be approved unless a statement of overriding endings is made pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines. The Public Facilities Element, however, does not include specific guidelines for determining the amount of additional traffic that would "significantly impact congestion" on such roads. The County has created guidelines, summarized in Table 5.4 -6 of the Final SEIR, to evaluate likely t affic 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 C unty considers traffic volume increases from public or private projects that result in one or mor of the following criteria to have a significant traffic volume or level of service impact on a road s ament: • 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 • IThe additional or redistributed ADT generated by the proposed project will cause a idential street to exceed its design capacity. 20 T 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 oriel 3) and Cumulative Impacts (Traffic Model 7). Traffic Model 3 measures the impacts resulting from implementation of the project compared to buildoui under the Traffic Model 1. (Traffic Model 1 refers to the conditions and traffic volumes that will be implemented under Year 2030 buildout of the existing condition.) Traffic Model 7 measures the impacts associated with buildout of the project, remaining land uses within the project area (including the proposed JPB LOA land uses), City of San Diego- proposed Otay Mesa Community Plan Update, and County G land uses. Impacts associated with Traffic Model 7 are discussed in Section X, below. Im As sho n on Tables 5.4 -12 of the Final SEIR, four freeway mainline segments are projected to result i significant direct impacts at buildout of the project (Traffic Model 3). (SEIR Section 5.4.3.3, pages 162 through 174) Based n the peak hour intersection, segment and freeway analyses, the following direct impact were identified under Year 2030 conditions: 1 -805 between • Olympic Parkway /Orange Avenue to Main Street/Auto Park Drive • Main Street /Auto Park Drive to Palm Avenue SR -9051 between • 1-805 to Ocean View Hills Parkway • Britannia Boulevard to La Media Road M 5.4.5. -' I The City of Chula Vista shall collect the appropriate Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Plan funds from the project (Freeway Mainline Segments). Pill Fin Pursue nt to section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant effect as identifie,d 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. Imple entation of this mitigation measure will reduce significant direct impacts to freeway mainli a segments to a less than significant level. + Project An Existing + Project analysis was conducted that measures the Proposed Project's buildout traffic volumes added to the existing traffic volumes and roadway configuration. While the Proposed Project is not anticipated to reach full buildout until after the Year 2030, this analysis presumed the existing environment as the baseline condition to which full buildout of the Propo ed Project was added. 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 wore conditions in the City: • Olympic Parkway between 1 -805 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 — LOS E • Eastlake Parkway between Birch Road and Hunte Parkway — LOS E The proposed Project is anticipated to be built in phases over a period of up to twenty years. This phasing would not require the construction of all of the circulation improvements at once. In addition, under this scenario, application of the City's GMP would apply. If the LOS D threshold is exc eded 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 thresho ds are projected to be reached or exceeded, and whether mitigation measures are necess ry to remain compliant with the requirements of the GMP along Olympic Parkway. The study concluded that the segment of westbound Olympic Parkway between Heritage Road and Oleand r Avenue during peak hours would be the first to fall below GMO traffic threshold standards as traffic volumes increase over time with the Proposed Project and other projects east of 1 -805. The analysis demonstrated that GMO thresholds would not be reached along Olympit 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. n Measures: 1. In t e event the GMO threshold is reached at any time prior to the issuance of the building permit or the 2,463rd dwelling unit for development east of 1 -805 commencing from April 4, 2011 t e applicant may; Prepare a traffic study that demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, that circulation system has additional capacity without exceeding the GMO traffic eshold standards, or . Demonstrate that other improvements are constructed which provide the additional ecessary capacity to comply with the GMO traffic threshold to the satisfaction of the Jty Engineer, or Agree to the City Engineer's selection of an alternative method of maintaining GMO threshold compliance, or . Enter into agreement, approved by the City, with other Otay Ranch developers that Ileviates congestion and achieves GMO traffic threshold compliance for Olympic 'arkway. The Agreement will identify the deficiencies in transportation infrastructure that fill need to be constructed, the parties that will construct said needed infrastructure, a meline for such construction, and provides assurances for construction, in accordance Pith 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 satisfa tion of the City Manager. These easures shall constitute full compliance with growth management objectives and policie in accordance with the requirements of the General Plan, Chapter 10 with regard to traffic thresholds set forth in the GMO. 23 Find Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or inco porated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant effect as identifi d in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Specifically, the above described Mitigation Measure is feasible and shall be required as a condition of approval and made binding on the applica t. Implementation of this measures will reduce existing + project impacts to less than signific nt levels. Air Quolity Thresh6lds of Si The Proposed Project would result in a significant impact to air quality if it would: 1. Ponflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. 2. �uality iolate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air violation. 3. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the roject region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality tandard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone recursors). The City uses the SCAQMD thresholds shown in Table 5.5 -4 of the Final EIR to assess the significance of air quality impacts. 4. lExpose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. 5. Preate objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Impact� Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan The pr ject is not consistent with the growth projections of the local regional air quality plan, which epresents a direct and significant impact (Section 5.5.3.2, pages 214 through 215). CumuI tive impacts associated with this issue are discussed in Section X, below. lankon: Becaus the proposed land use changes would not be consistent with the adopted General Plan u on which the RAQS was based, the project would not conform to the current RAQS, and direct i pacts would be significant. 24 Mitiglith on of this planning impact would require the updating of the RAQS to reflect the General Plan the project land use changes. Findi Revision of the RAQS would reduce this impact to less than significant. This is the responsibility of the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) and outside the jurisdiction of the City. T qerefore, 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; howev r, at this time, the impact would remain significant and unmitigable. Becau a 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 remair significant and unmitigated. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Consideration will be requirE d should the decision makers choose to approve the project. Impac : Result in an increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attain ent. 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 requir d for the development of the project will result in significant air quality impacts from dust generated, fumes, and equipment exhaust adding to an increase in PM,o emissions (Final SEIR Sectio 5.5.3.2, pages 215 through 221). The region is not in compliance with the PM,o standards, and the project would increase PM,o emissi Dns. The project would result in a short -term significant fugitive dust impact as a result of constriction emissions. At this programmatic level of analysis, the exact number and timing of future development projects that could occur are unknown. Upon application for individual development projects, the City would use the SCAQMD construction thresholds to assess potential impacts. Additionally, future projects would be required to implement standard dust and emission control measures during grading operations to reduce potential impacts. Notwit istanding the regulatory requirements for reduced construction emissions, impacts could remain significant. Opera ional 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 n 5.5.5 -1 Mitigation of PMio 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 properly covered to reduce windblown dust and spills. 3. A 20- mile - per -hour speed limit on unpaved surfaces shall be enforced. 4. On dry days, dirt and debris spilled onto paved surfaces shall be swept up immediately to reduce resuspension of particulate matter caused by vehicle movement. Approach routes to construction sites shall be cleaned daily of construction - related dirt in dry weather. 5. On -site stockpiles of excavated material shall be covered or watered. 6. Disturbed areas shall be hydroseeded, landscaped, or developed as quickly as possible and as directed by the City and/or SDAPCD to reduce dust generation. 7. To the maximum extent feasible: • Heavy -duty construction equipment with modified combustion /fuel injection systems for emissions control shall be utilized during grading and construction activities. • Catalytic reduction for gasoline - powered equipment shall be used. 8. Equip construction equipment with prechamber diesel engines (or equivalent) together with proper maintenance and operation to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxide, to the extent available and feasible. 9. Electrical construction equipment shall be used to the extent feasible. 10. The simultaneous operations of multiple construction equipment units shall be minimized (i.e., phase construction to minimize impacts). Wo Findi While mitigation measure 5.5.5 -1 is feasible and shall be required as a condition of approval and made binding on the applicant, it would not substantially lessen the significant environ ental 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 significant. However, impacts resulting from daily operation would remain significant until the region is determined to be in attainment with the PM10 standard. While implementation of the No Project -No Build, No Project-No Change in Existing Plans, and Reduced Density alternatives 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 CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make these a ternative infeasible. Adoption of the No Project -No Build alternative would not achieve any of he objectives of the project as identified in Section 3.3 of the Final SEIR. Additional findingE 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 1111 The Proposed Project would result in significant noise impacts if it would: Result in exposure of people to excessive noise. Result in the generation of excessive noises. Expose people residing or working within an established Airport Influence Area to excessive noise levels. Impactk Exposure of people to excessive noise Implem ntation of the project would result in a direct increase greater than three dB in traffic noise b yond that contemplated in the 2005 General Plan EIR for the Preferred Project along two rod segments. Additionally, as shown in Figure 5.6 -5 of the Final EIR, the project could result i interior noise levels for multi - family residential uses located within the 60 CNEL contour for roa ways that have the potential to exceed 45 CNEL. These impacts would be considered signific nt (Final SEIR Section 5.6.3.2, pages 237 through 250). Cumulative impacts associated with thi issue are discussed in Section X, below. 27 n: Due to proposed changes in land uses, implementation of the project would result in a direct increas greater than three dB in traffic noise beyond that contemplated in the 2005 General Plan El for the Preferred Alternative along the following two road segments: • ptay Valley Road from La Media Road to SR -125 • ptay Valley Road from SR -125 to Otay Villa Road. Table .6 -1 of the Final SEIR contains the exterior land use -noise compatibility guidelines as contain d in the General Plan. These guidelines reflect the levels of noise exposure that are generally considered to be compatible with various types of land use. Pursuant to the General Plan, r sidential, school, or park receptors are required to be within contours of 65 dB or less. Based n 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. Specifically, 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. There i3 no mitigation contained in the 2005 PEIR or currently available at this programmatic level of analysis to address significant impacts associated with noise. Future projects would be required to include project -level exterior analysis to assess the feasibility of reducing noise levels to outdoor use areas. Findi There is no feasible mitigation measure to reduce this impact to below significance. Implementation of the No Project -No Build, No Project -No Change in Existing Plans, and the RedUCE d 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 Sectior 3.3 of the Final SEIR. Additional findings related to the project alternatives are discus ed 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. Utilitie$ (Water) 28 The Proposed Project would result in a significant impact to water supplies if it would: 1. Require or result in the construction of new water facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. 2. Require new or expanded supplies or facilities to meet projected needs. 3. Result in the Proposed Project being inconsistent with the Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) prepared by the CWA. Impac : Construction or expansion of new water facilities Implementation of the project would result in an increase in water consumption beyond that analyz d 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. The 0 ay Water District (OWD) Water Resources Master Plan (WRMP; Revised November 2010) defines and describes the new water facilities that are required to accommodate forecasted growth within the entire OWD area, including the land uses that are part of the project. Construction associated with the forecasted growth could result in significant impacts. OWD typically requires developers, at a planning level, to prepare a Sub -Area Master Plan for a specific development project to assure consistency with the WRMP. This document defines and describes all the water system facilities to be constructed to provide an acceptable and adequate level of service to the proposed land uses. Financial responsibility of the facilities is also i entified. The OWD, through collection of water meter capacity fees, water rates, and other sources of revenue, funds those facilities identified as CIP projects. Notwithstanding this planni g 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 signifi ant. 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 I acilities. 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. 29 There s no feasible mitigation measure to reduce this impact to below significance. Implem ntation of the No Project -No Build would reduce this impact to below a level of significance. Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social technological, or other considerations make these alternatives infeasible. This alternative would rot achieve the objectives of the project as identified in Section 3.3 of the Final SEIR. Additio al findings related to the project alternatives are discussed in Section XI, below. Becaus there are no applicable or feasible mitigation measures within the control of the City at this tim to reduce noise impacts to below a level of significance, impacts to would remain signific nt and unmitigated. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Consideration will be required should the decision makers choose to approve the project. Impacts New or expanded supplies Imp lem ntation of the project would place greater demands on the existing water supply than analyz d in the 2005 General Plan EIR for the Preferred Alternative, resulting in the potential need fo additional water supplies. (Final SEIR Section 5.8.1.4, pages 303 through 305) n: As shown in Table 5.8 -8 of the Final SEIR, the total increase in water usage associated with the project (after applying conservation measure reductions) would equate to 432,358 gallons per day (gpd). While future SPA plans could aim for greater percentage reductions, at this 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 approxi nately 1.4 million gpd. The 20 10 OWD UWMP, OWD WRMP, and the 2010 San Diego County Water Authority 2010 UWMP all include the demands of project, as well as other anticipated projects within the Otay Ranch eneral Development Plan area. While OWD will be required to certify the sufficiency of a reliab a water supply primarily through the water assessment and verification process (SB -610 certific tion process), this generally occurs during the SPA level of planning. At this time, long- term water supply is not assured and contracts do not currently exist to serve the City through buildou of the project. Therefore, at this level of analysis, impacts associated with water supply would e significant. Miti 5.8.1 For any residential subdivision with 500 or more units or any commercial project of over 500,000 square feet, any CEQA compliance review shall include demonstration of compliance with the requirements of SB 610. 30 5.8.1. -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. n While Mitigation Measures 5.8.1.6 -1 and 5.8.1.6 -2 are feasible and shall be required as a conditi 3n of approval and made binding on the applicant, they would not substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final SEIR. The water supply impact remains significant because there is no assurance that water supply will be available to adequately serve the projected increase in population resulting from the project. Only implementation of the No Projec -No Build alternative would reduce this impact to below a level of significance. Pursuant to sec ion 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 Fir al SEIR. Additional findings related to the project alternatives are discussed in Section XI, below. Becau 3e 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 remair significant and unmitigated. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Consideration will be required should the decision makers choose to approve the project. X. CUMULATIVE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS & MITIGATION MEASURES Cumulative impacts are those which "are considered when viewed in connection with the effects of pas 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" devel pment proposals can affect many of the same natural resources and public infrastructure as development of the project. Potentially significant cumulative impacts are associated with level pment 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 Sectioln 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 "proje t" level mitigation measures. The project, along with other related projects, will result in the fol owing irreversible cumulative environmental changes. 31 Impact: Landform Alteration /Visual Quality Sectiorl 6.0 of the SEIR included an analysis of cumulative impacts to landform alteration /visual resour es. Implementation of the project would contribute to a cumulatively significant impact to the exiting visual character of the project area. The vi ual character of the project area would be affected by the project's contribution to the perma ent alteration of the existing rolling hills that characterize this portion of the City. Cumulative visual impacts related to the change in visual character of the project area would be reduced through implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.2.5 -1, as set out in Section 5.2.5 of the Final SEIR. This mitigation measure requires the preparation and submittal of grading and buildin plans that assure conformance to the landform grading guidelines contained in the City's railing ordinance. Notwithstanding implementation of this mitigation measure, cumulative impact related to a change in the visual character of the project area cannot be fully mitigated. Notwithstanding implementation of this mitigation measure, cumulative impacts related to a change in the visual character of the project area cannot be fully mitigated. The only mitigation availa le 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 -emain significant and unmitigated. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Consideration will be required should the decision makers choose to approve the project. Impact: Traffic, Circulation and Access: Freeway Mainline and City of Chula Vista Sections 5.4.3.5 and 6.0 of the SEIR included an analysis of cumulative impacts to transportation, As shown in Tables 5.4 -13 and 5.4 -14 of the Final SEIR, one roadway segment within the City is projected to result in a cumulative traffic impact at buildout of the project. Additi nally, as shown in Table 5.4 -15 of the Final SEIR, buildout of the project would result in signifi ant cumulative impacts to 16 freeway mainline segments. 32 Based n the peak hour intersection, segment and freeway analyses, the following cumulative impact were identified under Year 2030 conditions: City of Phula Vista Roadway • ptay Valley Road between SR -125 and Street "A" Mainline Segments 1 -805 • Dlympic Parkway/ Orange Avenue to Main StreeVAuto Park Dr • Dlympic Parkway/ Orange Avenue to Main Street/Auto Park Dr • Main Street/Auto Park Drive to Palm Avenue • alm Avenue to SR -905 .12 • Dtay Valley Road to Lonestar Road • Dtay Valley Road to Lonestar Road • onestar Road to Otay Mesa Road • -805 to Ocean View Hills Parkway • -805 to Ocean View Hills Parkway • cean View Hills Parkway to Heritage Road • cean View Hills Parkway to Heritage Road • eritage Road to Britannia Boulevard • eritage Road to Britannia Boulevard • ritannia Boulevard to La Media Road • ritannia Boulevard to La Media Road • a Media Road to SR -125 Miticlation Measures: 5.4.5.1-1 The City shall collect the appropriate RTCIP funds from the project (Freeway Mainline Segments). 5.4.5. -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). AW 33 Fi Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in, or incol,porated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant effect as identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Specifically, Mitigation Measures 5.3.5.1 -1 and 5.4.5.21 are feasible and shall be required as a condition of approval and made binding on the applicant. Implementation of these measures will reduce significant cumulative impacts to freeway mainline segments and roadway segments within the City to less than significant levels. Impact: Traffic, Circulation and Access: City of San Diego Buildo t of the project is anticipated to result in significant cumulative traffic impacts at three roadw ys segments within the City of San Diego. Based n the peak hour intersection, segment and freeway analyses, the following cumulative impact were identified under Year 2030 conditions: City of San Diego Roadways • Heritage Road between the City Boundary and Avenida de las Vistas • Heritage Road between Avenida de las Vistas and Datsun Street /Otay Valley Road • Heritage Road between Datsun Street/Otay Valley Road and Otay Mesa Road M 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. Fin 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, at this time, impacts would remain significant and unmitigable. Becau a there are no applicable or feasible mitigation measures within the control of the City at this tim to reduce emissions to below a level of significance impacts to air quality would remain 34 significa t and unmitigated. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Consideration will be required should the decision makers choose to approve the project. Impact:1 Air Quality Section 6.0 of the SEIR included an analysis of cumulative impacts to air quality. The project is not consistent with the growth projections of the local regional air quality plan. Therefore, increased air emissions associated with the project's buildout would be cumulatively considerable when considered along with emissions associated with the other cumulative Because the proposed land use changes would not be consistent with the adopted General Plan upon which the RAQS was based, the project would not conform to the current RAQS, and increased emissions would result in a significant cumulative impact. n Mitigation of this planning impact would require the updating of the RAQS. Fi Revisio i of the RAQS would reduce this impact to less than significant. This is the responsibility of SAN DAG 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 jurisdic ion of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes can and sh uld be adopted by such other agency; however, at this time, the impact would remain significant and unmitigable. Because there are no applicable or feasible mitigation measures within the control of the City at this time to reduce emissions to below a level of significance, impacts to air quality would remain significant and unmitigated. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Consideration will be required should the decision makers choose to approve the project. Impac# Air Quality Buildo t of the project would result in air quality impacts associated with long -term operation. Once the project is built out, the major source of air pollution will be from project - related traffic. As discussed in Section 6.0 of the SEIR, cumulative impacts related to long -term mobile emissi would be significant. 35 n: While th project seeks to minimize air quality impacts by promoting mixed land use patterns, creating walkable neighborhoods as encouraged by the General Plan and General development Plan, im lementation of the project would result in a cumulatively significant air quality impact. Miti No mite ation is available to reduce this cumulatively significant impact to less than significant 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, technol gical, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. While implementation of the No Project -No Build, No Project- o Change in Existing Plans, or Reduced Density alternative would reduce this impact compared to the project, it would not be to below a level of significance. This is due to the air basin's on- compliance with the criteria pollutant. Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasib a the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final El R. Adoption of the No Project -No Build alternative would not achieve any of the objectives of the project as identife in Section 3.3 of the Final SEIR. Additional findings related to the project alternatives are dis ussed in Section XI, below. BecausA there are no applicable or feasible mitigation measures within the control of the City at this tim a. to reduce emissions to below a level of significance, impacts to air quality would remain ignificant and unmitigated. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Consideration will be requireq should the decision makers choose to approve the project. Impactl Utilities (Water) The p ject plus cumulative development would incrementally increase regional water cons ption, resulting in a significant cumulative impact to water supply. Although General Plan policies require adequate water supply, and larger projects would require conforniance to SB 610 and SB 221, it is not possible to state conclusively at this programmatic level of analysis that sufficient water supplies would be available. 36 M There i no mitigation available at this programmatic level of review because the extent of improv ments and/or the siting of water facility projects are too speculative at this time. Fi There i 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 CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make these alternatives infeasible. This alternative would not achieve the objectives of the project as identified in Section 3.3 of the Final SEIR. Additional findings related to the project alternatives are dis ussed in Section XI, below. Because there are no applicable or feasible mitigation measures within the control of the City at this tim to reduce noise impacts to below a level of significance, impacts to would remain significant and unmitigated. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Consideration will be requirec should the decision makers choose to approve the project. E4 FEASIBILITY OF POTENTIAL PROJECT ALTERNATIVES Because the project will cause significant environmental effects, as outlined above, the City must consider the feasibility of any environmentally superior alternative to the project as finally approved, The City must evaluate whether one or more of these alternatives could avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects. Where no significant environmental effects -emain after application of all feasible mitigation measures identified in the EIR, the decisior makers must still evaluate the project alternatives identified in the EIR. Under these circums ances, CEQA requires findings on the feasibility of project alternatives. In general, in preparing and adopting findings, a lead agency need not necessarily address feasibili y when contemplating the approval of a project with significant impacts. Where the significant impacts can be mitigated to an acceptable (insignificant) level solely by the adoption of mitigation measures, the agency, in drafting its findings, has no obligation to consider the feasibility of environmentally superior alternatives, even if their impacts would be less severe than these of the projects as mitigated (Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the Uni ersity of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376 [253 Cal.Rptr. 426]; Laurel Hills Homeowners Associa ion v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515 [147 Cal.Rptr. 842]; Kings County Farm Bureau . City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692 [270 Cal.Rptr. 650]). Accordingly, for this 37 project, n adopting the findings concerning project alternatives, the City Council considers only those a vironmental 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 Consid rations with regard to the project. If there is a feasible alternative to the project, the decisior makers must decide whether it is environmentally superior to the project. Proposed project alternatives considered must be ones that "could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the pro ect." However, the CEQA Guidelines also require an EIR to examine alternatives "capabl of eliminating" environmental effects, even if these alternatives "would impede to some degree he attainment of the project objectives' (CEQA Guidelines, section 15126). The City has properly considered and reasonably rejected project alternatives as "infeasible" pursua t to CEQA. CEQA provides the following definition of the term "feasible" as it applies to the findings requirement: "feasible means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner 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, "the lack of legal powers of an agency to use in imposing an alternat ve or mitigation measure may be as great a limitation as any economic, environmental, social, r technological factor" (see also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 2 Cal.3d 553, 565 [276 Cal.Rptr.410]). 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 Resour es Code section 21081 governs the "findings" requirement under CEQA with regard to the fea ibility of alternatives. Specifically, no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for whi h an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant effects on the environ ent that would occur if the project is approved or carried out unless the public agency m ekes ne or more of the following findings: "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 final EIR" (CEQA Guidelines, section 15091, subd. (a)(1)). I "Such thanges 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 15091,1subd. (a)(2)). "Spe project economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provisions of ent opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or ternatives identified in the final EIR" (CEQA Guidelines, section 15091, subd. (a)(3)). 38 The concept of "feasibility" also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or mitigatio i measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417 [183 Cal. Rptr. 898]). " '[F]easibility' under CEQA encompasses 'desirability' to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors" (Ibid.; see also Se uoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.41h 704, 715 [29 Cal.Rpt .2d 182]). These fi idings contrast and compare the alternatives where appropriate in order to demonstrate that the selection of the finally approved project, while still resulting in significant environmental impacts has substantial environmental, planning, fiscal, and other benefits. In rejecting certain alternate es, the decision makers have examined the finally approved project objectives and weighed the ability of the various alternatives to meet objectives. The decision makers believe that the project best meets the finally approved project objectives with the least environmental impact. The det iled discussion in Section IX and Section X demonstrates that all but seven significant environmental effects of the project have been either substantially lessened or avoided through the imposition of existing policies or regulations or by the adoption of additional, formal mitigate n measures recommended in the EIR. The remaining unmitigated impacts are the followin : • Land Use (direct — inability to develop design standards at the programmatic level); • (andform Alterations /Aesthetics (direct and cumulative - change in visual character); • (nergy (cumulative — absence of long term assurance of energy supplies) • �ransportation (cumulative - three roadway segments within the City of San Diego) • � ir Quality (direct and cumulative — inconsistency with existing RAQS; operation - related missions) • Noise (direct and cumulative — exposure to excessive noise) • �tilities: Water Supply (direct and cumulative — absence of sufficient water supply to erve the project) With respect to the East Planning Area of the Preferred Alternative, the 2005 PER also identified significant and unmitigated impacts for land use, landform alterations /visual quality, energy, transportation (cumulative freeway segments), air quality, noise, and utilities (water). For ea h of the unmitigated impacts, the SEIR concluded that implementation of the project would �ot increase the severity of impacts and would not change the conclusions reached by 39 the analysis contained in the 2005 PEIR. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was previously adopted by City Council for the 2005 PEIR, from which the project's SEIR tiers. Thus, the City can fully satisfy its CEQA obligations by determining whether any alternatives identified in the EIR are both feasible and environmentally superior with respect to the impacts listed above laurel Hills, supra, 83 Cal.App.3d at 519 -527 [147 Cal. Rptr842]; Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 730 -731 [270 Cal. Rptr. 650]; and Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 40D-403 [253 Cal. Rptr. 426]). Table 10 -2 in the SEIR (page 425) provides a summary table comparing each of the alternatives. As the following discussion will show, no identified alternat ve qualifies as both feasible and environmentally superior with respect to the unmitigated impacts. To fully account for these unavoidable significant effects and the extent to which particular alternat ves might or might not be environmentally superior with respect to them, these findings will not focus solely on the impacts listed above, but may also address the environmental merits of the Iternatives with respect to all broad categories of impacts — even though such a far - ranging discussion is not required by CEQA. The findings will also assess whether each alterna ive is feasible in light of the City's objectives for the project. The Ci y'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, he City's primary objective is to comprehensively plan, coordinate, and implement develo ment over a large area. More specific objectives include those previously listed in Sectior III, The City evaluated four alternatives to the project, which are discussed below (No Project No Build Alternative, No Project -No Change in Existing Plan Alternative, Reduced Densit Alternative, La Media Road Alternative). No Prdiect -No Build Alternative CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3)(B) states that the No Project —No Build Alternative "mean `no build' wherein the existing environmental setting is maintained." The No Project —No Build P Iternative presents the scenario where the Land Use Change Area would remain in its 0 Under develc The N, identifi impact result land vacant condition. No Project —No Build Alternative, the project site would remain as it is today, and no ent would occur. The project site would remain in its present vacant condition. Project —No Build Alternative would not allow for the development of the project area as �d in the City's General Plan or Otay Ranch GDP. With respect to the unmitigated 3 discussed in Section 5.0 of the SEIR, the No Project —No Build Alternative would not n direct or cumulative impacts to land use, landform alteration /visual quality, energy, )rtation, air quality, noise, or utilities (water). However, impacts to population and housing se occur because the No Project —No Build Alternative would not contribute to the 40 provisio of necessary housing within a smart - growth area as identified in the Regional Compr hensive Plan (RCP). Althoug i the No Project —No Build Alternative is considered environmentally preferable to the project )ecause it would eliminate all unmitigated direct and cumulative impacts, it would not accom lish any of the goals and objectives of the project, and is therefore not feasible. Fin The No Project—No Build Alternative would not meet any of the basic project objectives as listed in Secti n 3.3 of the SEIR, and in Section III of these Findings of Fact. The No Project —No Build Alternative would not provide housing, conflicting with the housing goals ol the General Plan, which recommends that housing be provided for all income groups. It also conflicts with the RCP, which identified this portion of the City for smart - growth planning. Retenti n 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 Genera Plan and GDP policies focused on promoting comprehensive uses within the GDP area includin j the provision of roads, parks, schools, water and sewer facilities, and other infrastructure. The reduction in dwelling units within the Otay Ranch GDP area resulting from implementation of the No Project —No Build Alternative would result in a loss of anticipated contributions into the City's development impact fee programs from the dwelling units /structures that would otherwise have made payments upon issuance of building permits. The loss of units under the No Project —No Build Alternative would result in a shortfall of contributions into these impact fee programs and potentially lead to insufficient funding for the remaining public facilities current! identified under these programs. The Cit would receive lower long -term revenues in the form of property and sales tax resulting from tho non - development of the proposed residential areas. Implementation of the No Project —No Build Alternative would not achieve any of the objectives establis ed 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 develop ent, despite the planned community designation contemplated by the General Plan GDP. The No Project —No Build Alternative is inconsistent with the City's objectives: to plan the project area in comprehensive manner in a way that deals with the logical extension of public services ICI and utili ies; to plan for parks and open space to serve residents; to complete the City's circulation; to create densities sufficient to pay for all required services and infrastructure and to encourage employment opportunities within the City. The alternative also fails to meet objectiv s favoring an accommodation of future projected population in an area reasonable close to uture job - growth areas within the City, as well as the construction of affordable housing consiste t with the City's goals. It also fails to implement to previously approved Otay Ranch 1' For the a reasons, the City Council concludes that No Project —No Build Alternative is not feasible (see City of Del Mar, supra, 133 Cal.App3d at 417; Sequoyah Hills, supra, 23 Cal.A pp.4th 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 Alternative 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 d ferred, this alternative is comprised of the land use plan that existed prior to the 2005 GPU. his 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 tie Land Use Change Area by 4,752 dwelling units compared to the project. This reducti n in available housing within the project area would reduce the ability of the City to meet the RC smart - growth projections. The inconsistency with regional planning would result in potenti Ily significant impacts to land use and population and housing to a greater degree than the 0roi ct. The de elopment 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 opens ace and rolling hills, representing a significant and unmitigated impact. Air quality impacts associated with the No Project —No Change in Existing Plans Alternative would tie 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 reduce . Overall, however, air quality impacts would remain significant and unmitigated due to the alte native's conflict with the existing RAQS. 42 Althoug it would require less water to serve its projected population, impacts associated with waters tply would remain significant and unmitigated. The traffic analysis conducted for the project indicated that No Project —No Change in Existing Plans Alternative would result in approximately 58,173 ADT fewer than the project. While creatinc less traffic on the local roadways, this alternative would still result in potentially significant cumulative impacts to City roadway and freeway segments. Becauso this No Project —No Change in Existing Plans Alternative would result in less intense and less dense land uses than the project, traffic noise and change in ambient noise would be less because traffic volumes would not increase to the same extent as the project. As shown in Figure Fe -1, residential land uses under would still be located in proximity to noise generating surroung sources, such as the SR -125. Therefore, while less than the project, noise impacts would potentially significant. The ND Project —No Change in Existing Plans Alternative would reduce impacts to landfor Ivisu =al quality, transportation, air quality, noise, and utilities (water). However, while slightly reduced, landformlvisual quality and air quality impacts would remain significant and unmitig ted. Impacts to land use and housing and population would be greater than the project. While t e alternative would implement some of the project's objectives, the following objectives would riot be met with this alternative: • Fos er the goal of the 2005 GPU to expand the local economy by providing a broad range of bus nesses, facilitate provision of services for a university, provide employment and housing opp rtunities that support an excellent standard of living, and improve the ability for resipents to live and work locally. • Cre to Town Center within newly defined boundaries for Village 8 West and Village 9, as enc uraged by the GPU's emphasis on providing a mix of diverse land uses that meets co munity needs. • De elop a circulation plan that de- emphasizes the automobile, and places greater reliance on Iransit and pedestrian circulation. • Tar et higher- density and higher- intensity development into specific focus areas in order to pro 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 s economy. • All tmpus for higher- density residential development in order to encourage the development of student housing within the University Town Center adjacent to the university. 43 • Pro ide opportunities for higher density development that accommodates off -site student an faculty housing for the university. Pro ide opportunities for goods and services and other ancillary uses necessary to support the university and RTP to be provided within Planning Area 10. The Nc Project —No Change in Existing Plans Alternative results in a lower- density and much less int nse development than is the project. The project includes a total of 6,050 residential units, while this alternative includes only 1,298 units. This alternative was designed primarily with Residential Low Medium and Mixed Use residential designations, rather than the more intense development of the project. It also does not place as much residential use in the Town Center 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 Nhich 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 additio , 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 Guideli es, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make this alternative infeasible. Density Alternative The intention of the Reduced Density Alternative 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 th land use plan. The detoils of this alternative are discussed in Section 10.3 of the SEIR. Impact Uevelo ment under the Reduced Density Alternative would reduce the amount of housing available within the SPA Plan area by 417 units relative to the project. This would reduce the ability of the City to meet projected housing needs as shown in SANDAG forecasts and in the Growth Management Plan. Additionally, this alternative would result in a lower density ring surrounding a proposed Town Center, creating a conflict with proposed GDP policies. This 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 Alternative would result in the construction of a less dense commur ity, any degree of development would result in a change to the existing aesthetic make up and visual quality of the project site. While the degree of impact would be less as a result of 44 the less ned development potential under this alternative, the loss of the open space and rolling hills wou d still remain significant unmitigated. While emissions of criteria pollutants under this alternative would be reduced compared to the project, he Reduced Density Alternative would not conform to the existing RAQS. Impacts associated with air quality plan implementation would be significant and unmitigable. Although it would require less energy and water to serve its projected population, impacts associated with energy and water supply would remain significant and unmitigated due to the uncertairity 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 alte native would not eliminate significant freeway impacts, impacts to traffic resulting from the Re uced Density Alternative would be less than the project. Likewise, because this alternate e would remove homes from the noise contour along the SR -125, the number of units affected by traffic noise would be also reduced. Fin The Rec uced Density Alternative would reduce the degree of impacts to landformlvisual quality, air quali y, noise, energy, and water supply; impacts would remain significant and unmitigated. Impacts to land use and housing and population that would be greater than the project. Impacts resulting from traffic generation and traffic noise would be reduced. While t e alternative would implement some of the project's objectives, the following objectives would n t be met with this alternative: • evelop a circulation plan that de- emphasizes the automobile, and places greater eliance on mass transit and pedestrian circulation. • arget higher- density and higher- intensity development into specific focus areas in order o protect stable residential neighborhoods and to create mixed -use urban environments hat are oriented to transit and pedestrian activity. This targeted development will be well esigned, compatible with adjacent areas, and contribute to the continued vitality of the s economy; )w for higher density residential development in order to encourage the development off - campus student housing within the University Town Center (Village 9) and the stern Urban Center adjacent to the university; • � rovide opportunities for higher density development that accommodate off -site student nd faculty housing for the university; 45 The RE duced Density Alternative results in a less dense development compared to the project. The pr ject includes a total of 6,050 residential units, while this alternative would provide 5,633 L nits. This alternative was designed to reduce density along the SR -125 contour. While this wo Ad 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 d nsity community providing interactive opportunities including economics, pedestrian mobilit , and university support. Therefore, pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guideli ies, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make this alterna ive infeasible. La Media Road Alternative The Le Media Road Alternative would comprise the same land use plan as the project. However, where the project includes an amendment to the City's Circulation Element that will result in La Media Road terminating at Otay Valley Road, this alternative examines the effect of maintaining La Media Road as currently planned. Im act Like the project, the La Media Road Alternative would result in significant and unmitigable impacts associated with community character due to lack of design guidelines at this level of review. Construction of La Media Road as currently depicted on the City's Circulation Element would result in greater land use and aesthetic /visual quality impacts due to the required disrupti n of additional land uses, especially through preserve land. The long-term energy and water supply needs of the La Media Road Alternative would be the same as the project, resulting in significant and unmitigated impacts due to the uncertainty of energy and water supplies. Construction of the road extension under this alternative would also result ir an additional short -term increase in energy demand compared to the project. The alternative would not conform to existing RAQs resulting in a significant and unmitigable impact associated with its failure to conform to the existing plan. Construction of the road extension would result in increased emissions of criteria pollutants during construction compar d to the project. As plan west, ai in the c this alt( because ed, La Media Road would serve as a parallel route to 1 -805 and Heritage Road to the d SR -125 to the east. With the project's deletion of this roadway, 65,000 trips expected mulative condition would be rerouted to alternative roads, resulting in those potential discussed in Section 5.4 of the SEIR. The construction of the extension, as proposed in rnative, would result in greater direct impacts to La Media Road than the project the extension would allow more vehicles to utilize this roadway as an alternate route to 46 Heritage Road or SR -125. Additionally, it would operate at a LOS F in the cumulative condition due tote expected increase in traffic along this roadway. Therefore, this alternative would result in cumulative traffic impacts to La Media Road, an impact that would not occur under the project. The La Media Road Alternative would result in greater short -term noise impacts than the project due to donstruction 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. Fi The La Media Road Alternative would not result in the lessening of any potentially significant impacts On the contrary, greater impacts would occur to most issue areas. While all project objectives would be met under this alternative, it fails to yield reduced impacts. Therefore, pursua to section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technol gical, or other considerations make this alternative infeasible. CEQA i alternat environ alternat The en compar No Proj compar City's C The Re due to 1 Superior Alternative sires that an EIR identify the environmentally superior alternative among all of the > considered, including the project. If any No Project alternative is selected as itally superior, then the EIR is required to identify an environmentally superior among the other alternatives. ronmental analysis of project alternatives presented in the SEIR indicates, through a on of potential impacts from each of the proposed alternative and the project, that the ct —No Build Alternative would result in the greatest reduction in environmental impacts d to the project. However, the No Project —No Build Alternative would not implement the neral Plan, the Otay Ranch GDP, or any project objectives. iced Density Alternative would be considered the environmentally superior alternative potential for reducing impacts while meeting most of the objectives of the Project. 47 XII. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The pr ject would have significant, unavoidable impacts on the following areas, described in detail i Section IX of these Findings of Fact: • and Use • andform Alterations /Aesthetics • nergy Resources • rransportation • kir Quality • qoise • Nater Supply The City has adopted all feasible mitigation measures with respect to these impacts. Although in some instances these mitigation measures may substantially lessen these significant impacts, adoption of the measures will, for many impacts, not fully avoid the impacts. Moreov r, the City has examined a reasonable range of alternatives to the project. Based on this ex urination, the City has determined that none of the alternatives: (1) meets project objectiv s, and (2) is environmentally preferable to the project. Asa iesult, 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 E gency 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 benefits outweigi the unavoidable significant effects. Where another substantive law (e.g., the California Clean Air Act, the Federal Clean Air Act, or the California and Federal Endangered Species Acts) prohibits the lead agency from taking certain actions with environmental impacts, a stateME nt of overriding considerations does not relieve the lead agency from such prohibitions. Rather, the decision -maker has recommended mitigation measures based on the analysis contain d in the Final SEIR, recognizing that other resource agencies have the ability to impose more st ingent standards or measures. 48 CEQA does not require lead agencies to analyze "beneficial impacts" in an EIR. Rather, EIRs are to focus on potential "significant effects on the environment," defined to be "adverse." (Pub. Resources Code Section 21068.) The Legislature amended the definition to focus on "adverse' impacts after the California Supreme Court had held that beneficial impacts must also be addressed (See, Wildlife Alive v. Chickening (1976) 18 Cal.3d 190, 206 [132 Cal.Rptr. 377]). Neverth less, decision - makers benefit from information about project benefits. These benefits can be pited, 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 Council would stand by its determination that each individual reason is sufficient. The substantial evidence supporting the various benefits can be found in the preceding findings, which are incorporated by reference into this Section, and in the documents found in the Record of Proceedings, as defined in Section IV. Planning and Development The Otay Ranch area contributes to air pollution in the San Diego air basin. Most of this pollutior is attributable to motor vehicles. The proposed amendments to the General Plan and GDP p licies, along with the proposed changes to existing land use designations contained within t e project, are designed to minimize reliance on automobile travel and reduce commuter trip leng h, thereby reducing pollutant contributions to regional air quality. The project site has been designated as a smart- growth area in the RCP and in SANDAGs regiona growth maps. The GDP provides the opportunity to comprehensively plan development that mE ets the community needs for a high- density, high- intensity, mixed -use development within the proposed villages. As part of the GDP, the project enforces visions for a multi -modal transpo lation network that minimizes the number and length of single - passenger vehicle trips, promoti g interrelationships between villages and neighboring planning areas. The project is design Ed 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. Regional Planning The project site has been designated as a smart - growth area in the RCP and in SANDAGs regional growth maps identifying the region's needs for housing, jobs, and infrastructure. These benefits area made possible by Otay Ranch's size and scope. The Otay Ranch GDP includes a provisi n for regional purpose facilities and public services that area typically not undertaken for smalle development projects allowing the project to support these regionally planned programs. 49 The pro ect would develop a mix of uses that will result in Town Centers focused on regionally serving ransit and ancillary support for a regionally serving university site. Needs The pro ect would help meet projected long -term regional needs for housing by providing a wide variety f housing types and prices. In recent years, the cost of housing compared to other uses (e.g., cc mmercial, industrial) has risen disproportionately to the cost of other uses in the Otay Ranch rea, reflecting a shortfall in residentially zoned land. The project would help reduce the cost of iousing by designating an adequate supply of suitable land for residential development. The pro ect increases the housing stock in the City by approximately 6,050 dwelling units, 880 units above the 2005 GPU Preferred Alternative. The project represents a future housing supply for the region. Phasing will occur in response to market conditions, which will help fulfill the dem 3nd for housing. Both the RCP and SANDAG have forecasted a need for increased dwelling units within the project area. The project will enact SANDAG policies by providing a pedestrian and trail system, preserving open space, offering new homes, increasing the tax base for the City, and providing right-of-way for the regional transit system. 50