Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Mtg 02-13-2013 Item 2A Staff ReportC0ULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT Item No.: �A Meeting Date: 02/13/13 TITLE: Public Hearing: Consideration of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR 09 -01) for amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA- 09 -01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM- 09 -11). ROUND: In a cordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) has been prepared to- analyze the environmental impacts of proposed amendments to the City of Chula General Plan and Otay Ranh General Development Plan. CEQA Findings of Fact, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), have been prepared that reflect the conclusions of the Final SEIR. The Final SEIR also contains comments and responses to the comments received during the pub is review period, which ran from June 8, 2012 to July 24, 2012. MMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt: Resolution SEIR -09 -01 of the Planning Commission recommending that the City Council certify the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR 09- 01/SCH2004081066) for amendments to the City of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA -09- 01) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (PCM- 09 -11); making certain findings of fact; adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations; and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program pursuant to 'CEQA. BACKGROUND: Thi staff report discusses the general content of Final SEIR 09 -01. SEIR -09 -01 constitutes a Sup - lemental EIR pursuant to Section 15163 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) A) Guidelines. The subject EIR provides a supplement to the Program EIR (EIR- 05 -01) orig nally certified by the City of Chula Vista in December of 2005, as part of the 2005 General PlaE Update (GPU) and Otay Ranch General Development Plan Amendment (GDPA). When the City adopted the GPU and GDPA in 2005, amendments to portions of Otay Ranch Villages 4 and 7, as well as amendments to all of Villages 8, 9, and 10 were deferred. This area has since Page 2, Item No.: Meeting Date: 02/13/13 to be referred to as the "Deferral Area." While action on land use was deferred in 2005, the ed EIR analyzed the impacts of the proposed amendments within the Deferral Area that proposed as part of the 2005 GPU Preferred Alternative. SEIR -09 -01 analyzes the ,nces between what was examined as part of EIR -05 -01 in 2005 for the Preferred iative and what is now proposed within the Deferral Area (as well as a small portion of the n Urban Center) to accomplish the University Villages Project. SEI -09 -01 analyzes all of the General Plan (GP) /General Development Plan (GDP) land use and ' olicy changes that are required to realize the City's vision for the University Villages area. The GP /GDP amendments (the "Project ") will reconfigure existing Otay Ranch village bou daries, increase residential densities, amend the General Plan Circulation Element in eastern Chu a Vista, and establish an 85 acre regional technology park (RTP) on the future university site. The General Plan amendment (GPA), and GDPA, result in policy, circulation, and land use charges affecting lands within the Project area. All amendments are intended to facilitate and sup fort a university site, and establish appropriate land uses adjacent to the university. The GP GDPA will establish the land use patterns and development intensities necessary for a successful university. The actual project level planning documents /approvals will come before the City Council in early 2013. A full project description is provided starting on Page 35 of SEI -09-01 (attached). DISICUSSION: The SEIR assesses the environmental impacts of the City of Chula Vista's General Plan/General Dev lopment Plan Amendments and associated actions. It constitutes a supplemental, program - leve EIR under the provisions of Section 15168 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The EIR anal sis determined whether the land use changes proposed in the GPA/GDPA would result in a sign ficant impact upon the environment, beyond those analyzed in the GPU EIR of 2005. A sign ficant impact on the environment is defined in CEQA as a substantial adverse change in the phy ical conditions that exist in the area affected by the proposed Project. When a significant imp ct is identified, the EIR calls out measures or alternatives that would substantially reduce or eliminate (mitigate) the impact. The EIR also identifies impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. Mu y of the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan, as well as the proposed GPA/GDPA, serve to mitigate potential environmental impacts, since they call for development that is com atible with surrounding neighborhoods, environmentally sensitive, and sustainable. These policies will be employed over the life of the GP /GDP to shape future development in a way that ensures that potentially significant environmental impacts are reduced to a less than significant level. In this sense, many of the policies of the GPA/GDPA are "self mitigating." The EIR contains many of the policies stated in the adopted GP /GDP and GPA/GDPA documents, in order to demonstrate how potential environmental impacts would be "self mitigated" and, thus, do not result in a significant impact. In these issue areas no further mitigation is necessary. In thos instances where potential environmental impacts have been identified, mitigation measures are alled for in the EIR. Page 3, Item No.: Meeting Date: 02/13/13 ments on the Draft EIR The public review period for the EIR was from June 8, 2012 to July 24, 2012. Letters of comment were received on the Draft EIR from the following agencies and individuals: State Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Native American Heritage Commission Department of Toxic Substances Control County of San Diego City of San Diego SANDAG San Diego Gas and Electric The letters and responses are included in the Final SEIR 09 -01 (Attachment 2). All comments rece ved concerning SEIR -09 -01 have been fully addressed within the Final EIR. i of Environmental Im The following discussion contains a summary of the impact conclusions for the Final EIR. The impacts are identified and divided into two categories: less than significant /self mitigated; and significant and unmitigated. than Significant/Self Mitigated Impacts Less than significant/self mitigated impacts were identified in the following environmental issue Public Facilities and Services Public Utilities (excluding long term water supply) Housing (with the exception of growth inducement) Global Climate Change and Unmitigated Impacts Sig 'ficant and unmitigated impacts have been identified in the Final SEIR for the following issu areas: The SEIR identifies significant and unmitigated community character impacts in the Project area. Proposed revisions to the City's adopted land use plan in the East Planning Area would result in adjustments to the boundaries and overall densities for residential, commercial, industrial, and pub/'c/quasi-public uses. The amount and location of open space and parklands would also be adju ted. Presently, the land within the Project area is undeveloped; therefore, any proposed Page 4, Item No.: Meeting Date: 02/13/13 charges would cause an intensification in land use over the existing condition. The Project would have the potential to cause an adverse effect on the community character of the surrounding villages within the East Planning Area. The above referenced community character impacts would be substantially lessened through the imp ementation of the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan, and proposed GP /GDPA. The goals and policies of the GP /GDP and GPA/GDPA would ensure that dev lopment occurring in the Project area is compatible with surrounding areas and that environmental impacts are minimized. Policies such as ensuring that development adheres to qual ty design standards, and facilitating compatible land uses help to minimize environmental impacts. While the adoption of the goals and policies of the GP /GDP and GPA/GDPA would limil land use impacts, the impacts would not be eliminated. The objectives and policies do not com letely mitigate identified impacts because the development standards that would serve to limit impacts will be implemented at a later date. The current Project is a GP /GDP amendment, while the development of design standards is included later during the development of the Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plans. Until future SPA plans are approved and zoning specifications are implemented (hearing anticipated in early 2013), impacts remain significant and unmitigated. This is the same conclusion that was reached in the 2005 GPU EIR and the Proj ct would not add to the severity of this already identified impact, since the development foot rint is essentially the same. Lan4orm Alternation/Aesthetics The SEIR identifies potentially significant impacts to landform alternation/aesthetics, since the poli ies set forth in the GPA/GDPA could substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the Project area. In the Project area, development in accordance with the GPA/GDPA would significantly change the visual character of the area. The existing character in eastern Otay Ranch would be changed from an undeveloped area to an urban area. The open rolling hills encountered in the East would be permanently altered by development and the change from open area to developed areas in the Project area constitutes a significant adverse visual impact that can iot be fully mitigated. Conformance with the objectives and policies in the GP and GPA/GDPA would reduce visual quality impacts within the Project area, but not to below a level of significance. Impacts remain significant because of the lack of specific design standards at this time. The current Project is a GP/ DP amendment and the development of design standards is a zoning and specific plan effort. Until future SPAs are approved and implemented, impacts remain significant. Additionally, within the Project area, the conversion of open, rolling hills to a developed condition was identified as a significant adverse impact, as was the case under the adopted General Plan. Implementation of the mitigation measure called out in SEIR -09 -01 reduces the significant landform alteration and aesthetics impacts; however, the open, rolling hills would be permanently altered by development and the impact remains significant and unavoidable. This is the same conclusion that was reached in FEIR- 05 -01. Similar to the land use impacts described above, the Project would not add to the severity of aesthetic impacts, since the development footprint is essentially the same as was analyzed in 2005. Page 5, Item No.: Meeting Date: 02/13/13 The Project would result in increased energy consumption since it proposes a slightly greater density (880 units) than what was analyzed in the 2005 GPU FEIR- 05 -01. Direct impacts to energy would occur if as a result of plan implementation future energy demand outstrips supply. Imp cts to energy are significant because there is no long -term assurance that energy supplies will be available to meet demand for the life of the GP /GDP (year 2030). Although the programs and policies contained within the GP /GDP would result in the more efficient use of energy, the proj cted increase in population resulting from the Project would result in an increased demand for nergy. None of the energy policies called out in the adopted or amended GP /GDP would ens re that energy supplies will be available. Because there is no assurance of a long -term supply of energy for the life of the GP /GDP as amended, the increased projected energy demand results in a significant unmitigated impact. The additional density resulting from the GPA/GDPA (880 unit) would result in higher energy demands, but does not change the conclusion that was readied in the 2005 FEIR -05 -01 that energy impacts are significant and unmitigated due to the factors described above. No significant unmitigated impacts would result within the City of Chula Vista as a result of the GPAJGDPA. Unmitigated impacts would occur on Heritage Road just south of the City limit wit in the City of San Diego. Most of the traffic impacts along this portion of Heritage Road are due to increases in development intensity within Otay Mesa, that are currently being planned (but not yet adopted) by the City of San Diego. EIR -05 -01 did not analyze traffic impacts within the City of San Diego. No unmitigated freeway impacts result from the Project. Air Because the land use changes contemplated in GP /GDP amendments are not consistent with land use assumptions with the State Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS), the Project does not conf 6rm. with current state guidelines regarding air quality. Thus, the Project would conflict with an adopted air quality plan and there would be a significant impact. This is the same conclusion that was reached in the 2005 FEIR- 05 -01. Noi The SEIR indicates that traffic increases along Circulation Element roadways will result in noise increases of over three decibels for receivers. This increase is a significant adverse impact. Assessing and mitigating potential noise impacts requires a level of analyses that can only occur when detailed land development plans are available; this will occur at the SPA level. Since this leve of noise analysis is infeasible at the GP /GDP stage, impacts remain significant and not miti ate until SPA level noise analyses are conducted. This is the same conclusion that was reac ed in the 2005 FEIR- 05 -01. Page 6, Item No.: Meeting Date: 02/13/13 The Project would result in significant unmitigated impacts to water supply. Water needs for the region are determined by the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) and stated in their Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). The UWMP is primarily a forecast of future water demand and does not provide any guarantee of future water supply. The UWMP analyzes historic and current water demands for the San Diego region, compares water supplies with demands through the year 2020, and identifies potential new supplies to meet that demand. Long-term water supply cannot be assured because there are no contracts with water agencies to provide Chula Vista (or other cities) with a guaranteed source of water through the build -out of the (-'TP /GDP. Because the water agencies cannot provide a guarantee of future water supply, the impact to water supply is considered to be significant and unmitigated. It is important to note, how ver, that the Project is included within the 2010 UWMP, and, therefore, consistent with this doetment. Also, as part of the preparation of the University Villages SPA plans, water supply asse sment and verification reports identifying long term water supply for the Project have been app ved by the Otay Water District for the Village 8 East and Village 9 SPA plans. The Project's slight increase in demand for water would require corresponding improvements to water treatment and distribution facilities. Significant impacts would occur as a result of these type3 of projects, the extent of those effects is speculative at this point because the nature and loca ion of those improvements have not yet been determined. Water supply was identified as an unmitigated impact within the 2005 FEIR- 05 -01, consistent with the discussion above. itional Revisions to Draft SEIR Revisions to the SEIR made as a result of public comment have been summarized on Page 1 of the EIR. Minor typographical corrections have been made to information contained in the Draft SEIR; the Final SEIR reflects the corrected information. None of the corrections made to the doc4ment have resulted in modifications to conclusions regarding the level of significance of s of the Final SEIR 09 -01 The'; Final SEIR identified a number of significant environmental effects (or "impacts ") that wou�d result from the proposed Project. Some impacts cannot be avoided by the adoption of feasible mitigation measures or feasible environmentally superior alternatives. In order to app�ove the proposed Project, a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) must be adopted in accordance with CEQA. Pursuant to CEQA, an EIR can be determined to be adequate and a prof ct approved, even if significant unmitigated impacts are identified and an SOC is required. The purpose of an EIR is to disclose to the public all environmental impacts associated with a project regardless of whether or not these impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant leve 1. The Statement of Overriding Considerations is included as a part of the proposed "Findings of Fact" (Exhibit "A" to resolution of approval of SEIR- 09 -01). Page 7, Item No.: Meeting Date: 02/13/13 ns All easible mitigation measures with respect to Project impacts,for the Project and all associated actions have been included in the Final SEIR (see Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in E Khibit `B" to resolution of approval of SEIR- 09 -01). As described above, the implementation of Ihe Project will result in unmitigated impacts that would remain significant after the application of these measures; therefore, in order to approve the Project, the City Council must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15043 and 15093 (see Section XII the CEQA Findings). The City has examined a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed Project, other than the proposed Project described in the Final SEIR. Based on this examination, the City has determined that none of the alternatives meet the Project objectives, or are environmentally sup rior to the Project (see Section XI of the CEQA Findings). The Final SEIR meets the requirements of the CEQA and staff, therefore, recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council certify that the Final SEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and adopt the Draft Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached to this staff report n Planning Commission Resolution SEIR 09 -01 Exhibit A - Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Exhibit B - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Final SEIR 09-01 (previously provided to the Planning Commission) Draft CC resolution