HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 2013-028RESOLUTION NO. 2013-028
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA CERTIFYING THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SEIR 09-01/SCH
2004081066) FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA GENERAL PLAN (GPA-09-O1) AND OTAY RANCH
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PCM-09-11); MAKING
CERTAIN FINDINGS OF FACT; ADOPTING A STATEMENT
OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS; AND ADOPTING A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT
WHEREAS, Otay Land Company LLC, submitted applications requesting approval of
amendments to the Chula Vista General Plan and Otay Ranch General Development Plan
("Project") that will reconfigure existing Otay Ranch village boundaries, increase residential
densities, amend the General Plan Circulation Element in eastern Chula Vista, and establish an
85 acre regional technology park (RTP) on the future university site; and
WHEREAS, in December 2005, the City adopted a comprehensive General Plan Update,
amended the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP), and certified EIR OS-O1 and EIR
90-01; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Title 14 California Code of Regulations (California
Environmental Quality Act Guidelines or CEQA Guidelines) Section 15163 a supplemental
environmental impact report (SEIR 09-01) was prepared for the Project which constitutes a
supplement to the first tier of documents (EIR OS-O1 and EIR 90-01) that evaluates the Project
as it relates to the analysis contained in said environmental documents; and
WHEREAS, SEIR-09-O1 constitutes a programmatic document under the provisions of
Section 15168 and an SEIR under the provisions of Section 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation for SEIR-09-O1 was circulated on January 15, 2010
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15082; and
WHEREAS, an EIR scoping meeting was held on January 26, 2010; and
WHEREAS, Draft SEIR 09-01, together with the technical appendices for the Project,
was issued fora 45 day public review period on June 8, 2012, and was processed through the
State Clearinghouse; and
WHEREAS, the public review period closed on July 24, 2012; and
WHEREAS, during the public comment period, the City received comments on the
Draft SEIR-09-O1 and consulted with all responsible and trustee agencies, other regulatory
agencies and others pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15086 and pursuant to Section 15088,
all comments received were responded to in writing; and
Resolution No. 2013-028
Page No. 2
WHEREAS, the City Council has independently reviewed and considered the contents of
the Final SEIR-09-O1 at a public meeting; and
WHEREAS, to the extent that the Findings of Fact for the Project, dated October 2012
(Exhibit "A" of this Resolution, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk,)
conclude that proposed mitigation measures outlined in Final SEIR 09-01 aze feasible and have
not been modified, superseded or withdrawn, the City of Chula Vista hereby binds itself and the
Applicant and its successors in interest, to implement those measures. These findings aze not
merely information or advisory, but constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into
effect when the City adopts the resolution approving the project. The adopted mitigation
measures contained within the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit "B" of
this Resolution, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk) are expressed as
conditions of approval. Other requirements are referenced in the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program adopted concurrently with these Findings of Fact and will be effectuated
through the process of implementing the Project; and
WHEREAS, this Resolution serves only to certify the Final SEIR 09-01 as required by
CEQA, and not to approve the Project. By sepazate action, the City Council will decide whether
to approve the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista does hereby determine, resolve and order as follows:
L RECORD
The findings made in this Resolution aze based upon the information and evidence set
forth in the Final SEIR 09-01 and all proceedings and all evidence introduced before the City
Council, in consideration of this SEIR 09-01 at their public meeting. The documents, staff
report, technical studies, appendices, plans, specifications, other materials and any other
documents submitted to the decision-makers and documents specified in Public Resources Code
Section 21167.6, shall comprise the entire record of Proceedings for any claims under CEQA.
II. Final SEIR 09-01 CONTENTS
That the final SEIR 09-01 consists of the following:
1. Supplemental EIR for the Project (including technical appendices); and
2. Comments and Responses
(All hereafter collectively referred to as "SEIR 09-01 ")
III. ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS TO FEIR 09-01
1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and
Resolution No. 2013-028
Page No. 3
2. Findings of Fact and Statement of Ovemding Considerations
IV. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
That the City Council does hereby certify that SEIR 09-01, and the Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit "A" to this Resolution, a copy which is
on file with the office of the City Clerk), and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (Exhibit "B" to this Resolution, a copy which is on file with the office of the
City Clerk) are prepared in accordance with the requirement of CEQA (Pub. Resources
Code, §21000 et seq.), the CEQA Guidelines (California Code Regs. Title 14 §15000 et
seq.), and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista.
V. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF CITY COUNCIL
That the City Council finds that the SEIR 09-01 reflects the independent judgment of the
City of Chula Vista City Council.
VL CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT, AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM
A. Adoption of Findings of Fact
The City Council does hereby approve, accepts as its own, incorporate as if set
forth in full herein, and make each and every one of the findings contained in the
Findings of Fact, Exhibit "A" of this Resolution, a copy of which is on file in the
office of the City Clerk.
B. Mitigation Measures Feasible and Adopted
As more fully identified and set forth in SEIR 09-01 and in the Findings of Fact
for this project, which is Exhibit "A" to this Resolution, a copy of which is on file
in the office of the City Clerk, the City Council hereby finds pursuant to Public
Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 that the
mitigation measures described in the above referenced documents are feasible and
will become binding upon the entity (such as the project proponent or the City)
assigned thereby to implement the same.
C. Infeasibility of Alternatives
As more fully identified and set forth in SEIR 09-01 and in the Findings of Fact,
Section XII, for this project, which is Exhibit "A" to this Resolution, a copy of
which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, the City Council hereby finds
pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section
15091 that alternatives to the project, which were identified in SEIR-09-O1, were
not found to reduce impacts to a less than significant level or meet the project
objectives.
Resolution No. 2013-028
Page No. 4
D. Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
As required by the Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the City Council
hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program set forth in
Exhibit "B" of this Resolution, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City
Clerk. The Council further finds that the Program is designed to ensure that,
during project implementation, the permittee/project applicant and any other
responsible parties implement the project components and comply with the
mitigation measures identified in the Findings of Fact and the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program.
VII. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
That the Director of Development Services of the City of Chula Vista is directed after
City Council approval of the Project to ensure that a Notice of Determination is filed with
the County Clerk of the County of San Diego.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista finds that
SEIR 09-01, and the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit "A"
to this Resolution, a copy which is on file with the office of the City Clerk), and the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit "B" to this Resolution, a copy which is on file with
the office of the City Clerk) have been prepared in accordance with the requirement of CEQA
(Pub. Resources Code, §21000 et seq.), CEQA Guidelines (California Code Regs. Title 14
§15000 et seg.), and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista and
therefore, are hereby certified.
Presented by
Gary~IIalbe~t~P.$., AICP ~
Assistant ity Manager/Director of
Development Services
Approved as to form by
Gen R. ogins
Ci Atto y
Resolution No. 2013-028
Page No. 5
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista,
California, this 26th day of February 2013 by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers: Aguilar, Bensoussan, Ramirez, Salas and Cox
NAYS: Councilmembers: None
ABSENT: Councilmembers: None
. ~ ,~
Chery] Cox, M ar
ATTEST:
O
Donna R. Norris, MC, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
I, Donna R. Norris, City Clerk of Chula Vista, Califomia, do hereby certify that the foregoing
Resolution No. 2013-028 was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a
regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 26th day of February 2013.
Executed this 26th day of Februazy 2013.
~~. ~ ~~
Donna R. Norris, CMC, City Clerk
Resolution No. 2013-028
Exhibit N ~~9~`6
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR THE
AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN
(GPA-09-01) AND OTAY RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
(PCM-09-11)
CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
AND
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
January 2013
Resolution No. 2013-028
Page No. 7
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1
II. ACRONYMS 2
lil. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3
IV. BACKGROUND ~ 6
V. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ~ 7
VI. FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA 9
VII. LEGAL EFFECTS OF FINDINGS 11
VIII. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM 11
IX. SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 12
X. CUMULATIVE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 29
XI. FEASIBILITY OF POTENTIAL PROJECT ALTERNATIVES - 36
XII. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIDNS 47
- Resolution No. 2013-028
Page No. 8
BEFORE THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL
RE: Amendments to the Cify of Chula Vista General Plan (GPA-09-01) and Otay Ranch
General Development Ptan (PCM-09-11) Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
(SEIR); SEIR-09-Ot; SCH No. 2004081066.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report prepared for Amendments to the City of
Chula Vista (City) General Plan and Otay Ranch General Development Plan (SEIR) addresses
the potential environmental effects associated with implementation of the project. In addition,
the Final SEIR evaluates four alternatives to the project. These alternatives include the
following: (1) No Project-No Build Alternative; (2) No Project-No Change in Existing Plans
Alternative; (8) Reduced Density Alternative; and (4) La Media Road Alternative.
The Final SEIR represents a second tier EIR, in accordance with Cal'rfornia Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) Section 21094, and tiers from the certified Program EIR prepared for the
City's General Plan Update (EIR #05-01/SCH #2004081066) (2005 PEIR).
These findings have been prepared in accordance with requirements of CEQA (Puh. Resources
Code, § 21000 et seq,) and the CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Reg s., Title 14, § 15000 et seq.).
Resolution No. 2013-028
Page No. 9
u.
ACRONYMS
ADT average daily tops
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
City City of Chula Usta
dB decibel
GDPA General Development Plan Amendment
GPA Gene21 Plan Amendment
gpd gallons per day
GPU General Plan Update
LOA Land Offer Agreement
LOS Level Of Service
MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
OLC Otay Land Company
OWD Otay Water District
PFFP Public Facilities Financing Plan
RAQS Regional Air Quality Standards
RCP Regional Comprehensive Plan
RTP Regional Technology Park
SANDAG San Diego Association of Governments
SDAPCD San Diego Air Pollution Control District
SEIR Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
SPA Sectional Planning Area
SR State Roue
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
WRMP Water Resources Master Plan
2
Resolution No. 2013-028
Page No. 10
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project includes a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Otay Ranch General Development
Plan Amendment (GDPA) resulting in policy, circulation, and land use changes affecting the
lands within the project area. The project area is an approximately 1,281-acre area within the
Otay Ranch Subarea of the City's Eastem Planning Area that spans multiple existing villages
and planning areas, including portions of Villages 4 and 7; the entirety of Village 8 and Village 9;
University/Planning Area 10, which includes a proposed 85-acre Regional Technology Park
(RTP); and a portion of the southern edge of the Eastern Urban Center. SEIR Figure 3-1
illustrates the boundaries of the project area.
The project will redefne the boundaries within the General Development Plan area to create
proposed Vllages 8 West and 9 and add 85 acres of RTP within the existing University Site.
The 728 acres of land that comprise the proposed villages and RTP are referred to as the "Land
Use Change Area" Proposed land use designation changes would affect only the Land Use
Change Area. The project would re-designate land uses only within the Land Use Change Area.
The project also includes General Plan and General Development Plan policy amendments
affecting the entire project area, as well as revisions to the City's Circulation Plan-East.
Altogether, the project includes the following component parts:
Revisions to General Plan policies and maps affecting the project area. This component
entails modifcation of existing, or the addition of new goals, objectives, and policies of
the General Plan to assure the "development of comprehensive, well-integrated, and
balanced land uses° within the Otay Ranch Subarea as first envisioned in the 2005
Generel Plan Update (GPU). This incudes further cladfcation and explanation of
allowable density and intensity oT uses within designated Town Centers. Additional
amendments to the General Plan would designate the 85-acre RTP within a University
Focus Area, one of four other focus areas that make up the Eastern University District,
which would create a symbiotic relationship between the economic development and
employment opportunities of the RTP and the academic research and university campus
activities. The amendments would adopt the University Strategic Framework Policies as'
a means to assure coordinated development among the focus areas.
The proposed amendments also re-designate the University Village Focus Area of the
Easfern University District from low-medium to medium-high and mixed-use residential
land use designations uses. The proposed vision for Village 9 (also known as University
Village) includes the dedication of 50 net acres for inclusion in a university campus.
• Revisions to the Circulation Plan-East chat would allow the circulation plan-to be
consistent with proposed land use changes. These amendments include the following: i)
Resolution No. 2013-028
Page No. 11
eliminate the southerly extension of La Media Road crossing the Otay River Valley; 2)
reclassification to "Other Roads" that portion of La Media Road south of Village 8
connecting to the Active Recreation Area; 3) change name of Rock Mountain Road to
Main Street from the point of existing Heritage Road easterly to Eastlake Parkway; 4)
reclassify Main Street from a Town Center Arterial easterly of State Route (SR-)125 to a
Six-lane Gateway; 5) reclassify Main StreeULa Media Road Couplet from aSix-lane
Town Center Arterial to a Four-lane Town Center Arterial within Village 8 West; 6)
reclassify and realign fhe segment of La Media Road from the southern end of the Main
Street/La Media Road Couplet south easterly to SR-125 as a Four-Lane Major; 7) clarify
that the mid-arterial SR-125 bridge crossing between Village 8 and 9 is °pedestdan-
only"; and 8) provide that Urban Level of Service (Level of Service [LOS) D) is
acceptable for Town Center Arterials.
SEIR Figures 3-2 and 3-3 provide further detail of the proposed amendments.
Reduction 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
440 acres. University acres would be changed through the creation of an 85-acre RTP
land use designation within the Planning Area 9DlUniversity Site; change of 40 acres
from University to Mixed-Use Residential in Village 9; and the conversion of 68 acres of
Residential to University in the southern portion of the Planning Area 10/University Site.
Amendments to the Otay Ranch General Development Plan including revised teM,
graphics, and an update of maps and statistics. These amendments support the
following revisions to the plan: revise the statistical description and policy standards for
the proposed villages and the Eastern University Center, locate the 85-acre RTP within
the Planning Area tONniversity Site and accordingly adjust University acreage; add
detail regarding the requirement for the University Strategic Framework Policies; and
reflect land uses previously approved in 2001 within the Village 8 East area.
Land use changes affecting the Land Use Change Area. Individual land uses for
proposed Village 8 West, Village 9, and the RTP are detailed in SEIR Tables 3-2 and
3-3. The plans are fowsed 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
Resolution No. 2013-028
Page No. 12
TABLE t
COMPARISON OF LAND USE TYPES WITHIN IJ+ND USE CHANGE AREA
Multi-family (units)
Commercial (acres)
Community Purpose Facility (acres)
Middle School (acres)
Elementary School (acres)
Park (acres)
5,163 4,530
32.31 17.6
10.8 20.1
20,2 25.0
31.2 20.0
55.4 50.3
50.0$ 175$
`The General Plan lantl use assumpixm In th5 table is a grass eamale ana suofec, m m,me, ,m,ew anu ,nnm~~=~n.
tThe maxtrnum permitted commem101 areas may aXemallvely De measured M square feet up to 0e maxFnum pmleded yield of
1,600,000 square feet.
$As tlepided on SEIR Figure 3<, the Lantl Use Change Area accommodatetl 115 acres of university area (unNerslly 6 ncWtletl
within the publiclquasi-While GP designation, abng with othtt s'vnllar types of lantl uses such as schook) In the 2005 Geneal
Plan Uptlate. The project woultl tonvan 85 acres of Ihis area into RTP, antl 40 aces Into residential, leaving 50 acres of
University within Ne Lantl Use Change Area.
DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS
The discretionary actionsto be taken by the City Council include the following:
• General Plan Amendments
• Otay Ranch GDPA
Subsequent actions to implement the project would be subject to the approval of a Sectional
Planning Area (SPA) plan, Tentative Map, and/or formal design review. While future actions will
require future environmental review, once certified, this SEIR can be relied upon for relevant
environment analysis. The City Council will determine whether the Final SEIR is complete and
in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines as part of the certifcation process.
PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
As specified in the Final SEIR, the primary goals and objectives of the project are as follows:
Encourage social interaction and a diverse range of services to promote a mix of uses
within a village atmosphere;
• Foster the goal of the 2005 GPU to expand the local economy by providing a broad
range of businesses, facilitate provision of services for a University, provide employment
and housing opportunities that support an excellent standard of living, and improve the
ability for residents to Live and work locally;
Resolution No. 2013-028
Page No. 13
• 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
reliance on mass transit and pedestrian circulation;
Target higher-0ensily and higher-intensity development into specific focus areas in order
to protect stable residential neighborhoods and to create mixed-use urban environments
that are oriented to transit and pedestrian activity. This targeted development will be well
designed, compatible with adjacent areas, and contribute to the continued vitality of the
City's economy;
• Allow for higher density residential development in order to encourage the development
of off-campus student housing within the University Town Center ~Ilage 9) and the
Eastern Urban Center adjacent to the University;
• Provide opportunities for higher density development that accommodate off-site Student
and Faculty Housing for the University;
• Provide opportunities for goods and services and other ancillary uses necessary to
support the University and RTP to be provided within Planning Area 10/University Site;
• Provide access Yo, and connections between, the City's open space and trails network
and the regional network, in accordance with the Chula Vista Multiple Species
Conservation Program Subarea Plan, Chula Vista Greenbelt Master Plan, and Otay
Valley Regional Park Concept Plan; and
• Conserve the City's sensitive biological and other valuable natural resources.
IV.
BACKGROUND
fn December 2005, the City adopted a comprehensive GPU, amended the Otay Ranch GDP,
and certified EIR 05-01 for said actions. As part of the GPU, amendments to land uses for
those areas comprising the project area were deferred by the City. While the action on the land
uses was deferred, the certified Program EIR (PEIR) analyzed the impacts of the proposed
amendments 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
Resolution No. 2013-028
Page No. 14
conveyance of land within the project area for the development of land uses compatible with a
facility of higher education and for open space in conjunction with the development entitlements
for the project. Pursuant to the LOA, all approvals are subject to all applicable legal
requirements, including, but not limited to, CEQA.
In May 2008, the City also entered into a separate LOA with another land owner
(JPB Development, who owns the remainder of the Deferral Area) with similar terms. The Flnal
SEIR impact analysis contained herein focuses primarily on the properties owned by OLC,
which are within the Land Use Change Area. Specifcally, the document analyzes the impacts of
the project which differ from the impacts analyzed in the 2005 EIR as the Preferred Alternative,
The cumulative impact analysis provides a discussion of the potential future buildout of the JPB
sites per the 2008 LOA between the City and JPB.
Y.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
For purposes of CEQA and the findings set forth below, the administrative record of the City
Council decision on the environmental analysis of this project shall consist of the following:
• .The Notice of Preparation and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction
with the project;
• The Draft and Final SEIR for the project (EIR #09-Ot), including appendices and
technical reports;
• All comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public
comment period on the Draft SEIR;
• All reports, studies, memoranda, maps, staff reports, or other planning documents
relating to the project prepared by the City, consultants to the City, or responsible or
trustee agencies wish respect to the City's compliance with the requirements of CEQA
and the City's actions on the project;
• All documents, comments, and correspondence submitted by members of the public and
public agendes in connection with this project, in addition to comments on the SEIR for
the project;
• All documents submitted to the City by other public agencies or members of the public in
connection with fhe SEIR, up through the close of the public hearing;
7
Resolution No. 2013-028
Page No. 15
• Minutes and verbatim transcripts of all workshops, the scoping meeting, other public
meetings, and public hearings held by the City, or videotapes where transcripts are not
available or adequate;
• Any documentary or other evidence submitted at workshops, public meetings, and public
hearings for this project;
• All fndings and resolutions adopted by City decision makers in connection with this
project, and all dowments cited or referred to therein; and
• Matters of common knowledge to the City which the members of the City Council
considered regarding this project, including federal, state, and local laws and
regulations, and including, but not limited to, the following:
o Chula Vista General Plan; -
o Relevant portions of the Zoning Code of the City,
o Otay Ranch General Development Plan;
o Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan;
o City of Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan;
o Otay Ranch GDP/SRP Final EIR (EIR #90-01; SCH No. 89010154); and
o Any other materials required to be in the record of proceedings by Public
ResourcesCode section 21167.6, subdivision (e).
The custodian of the documents comprising the record of proceedings is ,'Susan Bigelow, Clerk commenc trsii:c~: co„s,,,, J
to the City Council, whose office is located at 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California 91910; ,
The City Council has relied on all of the documents listed above in reaching its decision on the
project, even if every document was not formally presented to the City Council or City staff as.
part of the City files generated in connection. with the project. Without exception, any
documents set forth above but not found in the project files fall into two categories. Many of
them reflect prior planning or legislative decisions with which the City Council was aware in
approving the project (see City of Santa Cruz v. Local Agency Formation Commission (1978) 76
Cal.App.3d 381, 391-392 [142 Cal.Rptr. 873]; Dominey v. Department of Personnel
Administration (1988)205 CalApp.3d 729, 738, fi. 6 [252 Cal. Rptr, fi20]). Other documents
influenced [he expert advice provided to City staff or consuRants, 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 fhe project (see Pub. Resources Code,
Resolution No. 2013-028
Page No. 16
section 21167.6, subd. (e)(10); Browmg-Ferris Industries v. City Council of City of San Jose
(1986) 181 Cal. App.3d 852, 666 [226 CaLRptr. 575]; Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. v.
County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4" 144, 153, 155 [39 Cal.Rptr.2d 54]).
VI.
FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA
Public Resources Code section 21002 provides that "pub(ic agencies should not approve
projects as proposed if there are feasible altematives or feasible mitigation measures availatrle
which would substantially lessen the signifcant environmental effects of such projects."
(Emphasis added.) The same statute states that the procedures required by CEQA "are
intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of
proposed projects and the feasible altematives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid
or substantially lessen such significant effects° (emphasis added). Section 21002 goes on to
state that "in the event [that] specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such
project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of
one or more signifcant effects:'
The mandate and principles announced in Public Resources Code section 21002 are
implemented, in part, through the requirement that agencies must adopt fndings before
approving projects for which EIRs are required (see Pub. Resources Code, § 21 D81, subd. (a);
CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)). For each signifcant environmental effect identifed in an
EIR for a proposed project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or
more of three permissible conclusions. The frst such Ending i5 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, § 15D91, subd.
(a)(1 )). The second permissible fnding is that "[s]uch changes or alterations are within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the fnding.
Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such
other agency" (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(2)). The third potential finding is that
"[s]pecc economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of
employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or
project alternatives identified in the final EIR" (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(3)). Public
Resources Code section 21061.1 defines "feasible" to mean "capable of being accomplished in
a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic,
environmental, social and technological factors' CEQA Guidelines section 15364 adds another
factor: "legal" considerations (see also Cifizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990)
52 Cal.3d 553, 565 [276 Cal.Rptr. 410]).
The concept of "feasibility" also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or
mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project (see City of Del
Mar v. City of San Diego (7982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417 [83 Cal.Rptr. 898]). "[F]easibility'
Resolution No. 2013-028
Page No. 17
under CEQA encompasses 'desirability' to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable
balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors" (Ibid.; see
also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715 [29
Cal.Rptr.2d 182]).
The CEQA Guidelines do not define the difference between "avoiding" a significant
environmental effect and merely "substantially lessening" such an effect. The City must
therefore glean the meaning of these terms from the other conteMS in which the terms are used.
Public Resources Code section 21081, on which CEQA Guidelines section 15091 is based,
uses the term "mitigate" rather than `substantially lessen." The CEQA Guidelines therefore
equate "mitigating" with "substantially lessening " Such an understanding of the statutory term
is consistent with the policies underlying CEQA, which include the policy that "public agencies
should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible altematives or feasible mitigation
measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of
such projects" (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002).
For purposes of these findings, the term "avoid° refers to the effectiveness of one or more
mitigation measures to reduce an otherwise significant effect to a less than significant level. In
contrast, the term "substantially lessen° refers to the effectiveness of such measure or
measures to substantially reduce the severity of a signifcant effect, but not to reduce that effect
to a less than significant level. These interpretations appear to be mandated by the holding in
Laurel Hills Homeowners Association v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 519-527
[147 Cal.Rptr. 842], in which the Court of Appeal held that an agency had satisfied its obligation
to substantially lessen or avoid significant effects by adopting numerous mitigation measures,
not all of which rendered the significant impacts in question less than significant.
Although CEQA Guidelines section 15091 requires only that approving agencies specify that a
particular significant effect is `avoid[ed] or substantially lessen[ed]"these findings, for purposes
of clarity, in each case will specify whether the effect in question has been reduced to a less
than signifcant level or has simply been substantially lessened but remains significant.
Moreover, although section 15091, read literally, does not require findings to address
environmental effects that an EIR identifies as merely "potentially signifcant,'these fndings will
nevertheless fully account for all such effects identifed in the Final SEIR.
In short, CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where
feasible, to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts that would otherwise
occur. Project modifications or altematives are not required, however, where such changes are
infeasible or where the responsibility for modifying the project lies with some other agency
(CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a), (b)).
With respect to a project for which signifcant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened
either through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures or a feasible environmentally
10
Resolution No. 2013-028
Page No. 18
superior alternative, a public agency, after adopting proper findings, may nevertheless approve
the project 'rf the agency first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the
specific reasons why the agency found that the project's "benefits" rendered "acceptable" its
"unavoidable adverse environmental effeds° (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15093, 15043, subd. (b);
see also Pub. Resources Code, § 21081, subd. (b)). The California Supreme Court has stated
that, "[t]he wisdom of approving ...any development project, a delicate task which requires a
balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their
constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply
requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced" Goleta, supra, 52 Cal.3d
553, 576).
VII.
LEGAL EFFECTS OF FINDINGS
To the extent that these findings conclude that proposed mitigation measures outlined in the
Final SEIR are feasible and have not been modifed, superseded, or withdrawn, the City (or
"decision makers") hereby binds itself and any other responsible parties, inGuding the applicant
and its successors in inierest (hereinafter referred to as "Applicant"), to implement those
measures. These findings, in other words, are not merely informational or hortatory, but
constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into effect when the City adopts the
resolution(s) approving the project.
The adopted mitigation measures are express conditions of approval. Other requirements are
referenced in the Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP) adopted concurrently with
these fndings and will be effectuated through the process of implementing the project.
The mitigation measures are referenced in the MMRP adopted concunently with these fndings,
and will be effectuated both through the process of implementing the Oiay Ranch GDP and
through the process of constructing and implementing the project.
VIII.
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
As-required by Public Resources Code section 21081.6, subd. (a)(1), the City, in adopting these
fndings, also concurrently adopts a MMRP as prepared by the environmental consultant under
the direction of the City. The program is designed to ensure that during project implementation,
the applicant and any other responsible parties comply with the feasible mitigation measures
identified below. The program is described in the document entitled AMENDMENTS TO THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN
11
Resolution No. 2013-028
Page No. 19
(GPA-09-O1J AND OTAY RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PCM-09-11)Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting Program. The City will use the MMRP to track compliance with project
mitigation measures. The MMRP will be available for public review during the compliance
period.
The MMRP Is dynamic in that it will undergo changes as additional mitigation measures are
identified and additional conditions of approval are placed on the project throughout the project
approval process. The monitoring program will serve the dual purpose of verifying completion of
the mitigation measures for the project and generating information on the effectiveness of the
mitigation measures to guide future decisions. The program includes monitoring team
qualifications, specifc monitoring activities, a reporting system, and criteria for evaluating the
success of the mitigation measures.
IX.
SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
SUMMARY OF EFFECTS
The Final SEIR identified a number of direct and indirect significant environmental effects (or
"impacts' resulling from the project. Some of these significant effects ran be fully avoided
through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures, Others cannot be fully mitigated or
avoided by the adoption of feasible mitigation measures or feasible environmentally superior
alternatives. However, these effects are outweighed by overriding considerations set forth in
Section XII below. This Section (IX) presems in greater detail the City Council's findings with
respect to the environmental effects of the project.
The project will result in significant environmental changes with regard to the following issues:
land use, landform alteration/visual quality, energy resources, transportation, air quality, noise,
and public utilities (water). These signifcant environmental changes or impacts are discussed in
the Final SEIR in Table 1-1, pages 9 through 21, and Chapter 5, Environmental Impact
Analysis, pages 63 through 364. No significant effects were identifed for public services (fire
protection and emergency services, police services, schools, library services, and parks and
recreation), public utilities {wastewater and integrated waste management), housing and'
population, and global climate change. The project will result in significant unmitigable impacts
to land use, landform alteration/visual quality, energy resources, transportation (cumulative
freeways), air quality, noise, and public utilities (water).
Land Use
At the programmatic level, the project does not include design standards necessary to assure
that community character issues are addressed. Therefore, direct impacts associated with
'~ community character issues would be significant. Due to its overall adherence to the smart-
12
Resolution No. 20~'J-f)-2i~-
Page No. 20
growth principles in the Regional Comprehensive Ptan and City's 2005 GPU, cumulative land
use impacts associated with the project would be less than signifcant.
Landform AlterationlAesthetics
While compliance with the City's General Plan policies assures that future development projects
apply design specifications to promote protection of the visual character of the project area, the
project does not include a mechanism to assure their implementation. Therefore, direct and
cumulative impacts associated with visual character would be signficant.
Energy Resources
While future development within the project area would be required to implement the City's
Energy Strategy and Action Plan, Transit First Plan, and conform to objectives contained in the
General Plan, there is no long-term assurance that energy supplies will be available as needed.
Therefore, direct and cumulative impacts associated with energy consumption are considered
signifcant _ _
Traffic, Circulation, and Access
Absent mitigation, approval of the project will result in significant direct impacts along freeway
mainline segments, and signifcant cumulative impacts along freeway and roadway segments.
Air Quality
Because the proposed land use changes would not be consistent with the adopted General
Plan upon which the Regional Air Quality Standards (RAQS) are based, the project would not
conform to the current RAQS, and direct and cumulative impacts would be significant.
Additionally, while the project seeks to minimize air quality impacts by promoting mixed land use
patterns that will create walkable neighborhoods as encouraged by the General Plan, operation
of the project will result in long-term direU and cumulative emissions from project-related
vehicular trips.
Noise
Notwithstanding the project's conformance to General Plan and General Development Plan
policies, a direct and cumulative signifcant impact will occur to existing receivers adjacent fo
circulation element roadways. where traffic volumes are projected to result in noise level
increases of more than three decibels (dB).
13
Resolution No. 2013-028
Page No. 21
Utilities (Waterl
The project's increased demand for water would require corresponding expansion of treatment
and distribution facilities the location and extent of which remain spewlative at this time.
Sign cant impacts could occur as a result of the construction of these projects; however, at this
level of planning, because the extent of those effects is speculative, direct and cumulative
impacts would be significant. _
DETAILED ISSUES DISCUSSION
Land Use
Thresholds of Sicnificance:
The project would result in a significant impact to land use ff d would:
1. Physically divide or adversely affect the community character of an established
community; - -
2. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation, or an agency with
jurisdiction over the Proposed Project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating
~! an environmental effect; or
3. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or NCCP.
Impact: Adversely affect community character
Implementation of the project would result in a significant direct impact to community character
because at this programmatic level, the project does not include design specifications required
to protect visual impacts. (Final SEIR Section 5.1.3.2, pages 82 through 86).
Emlanation:
Implementation of the project would result in a change fo the community character of the Land
Use Change Area compared to that analyzed in the 2005 PEIR for the Preferzed Alternative,
Specifically, the project would indease allowable residential uses by B80 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 commundy character issues are addressed. Compliance with Both
existing and proposed policies would reduce land use/community character impacts, but not to a
level that is considered less than significant. -
14
Resolution No. 20] 3-028
Page No. 22
Mitigation Measures
There is no mitigation contained in the 2005 PEIR or currently available at this programmatic
level of analysis to address signifcant impacts associated with community character. Future
projects shall be required to include design standards necessary to assure that these
community character issues are addressed.
Findino:
There is no teasible mitigation measure to reduce this impact to below significance. Pursuant to
section 15091 (a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social,
technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project
alternatives identified in the Final EIR. Only implementation of the No Project-No Build
alternative would reduce this impact to below a level of significance. Pursuant to section
15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
considerations make this alternative infeasible. Adoption of the No Project-No Build alternative
would not achieve any of the objectives of the project as identified in Section 3.3 of the Final
SEIR. Additional findings related to the project alternatives are discussed in Section XI, below.
Until future SPA Plans containing zoning and specific design measures are implemented, there
are no applicable or feasible mitigation measures within the control of the City at this time to
reduce visual impacts to below a Ieve1 of signifrance to visual character would remain
significant and unmitigated. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Consideration will be
required should the decision makers choose to approve the project.
Landform AlterationlAesthetics
Thresholds of Significance:
Threshold 1 ~ Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista or substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not limited to, trees and rock outcroppings;
Threshold 2: Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the City.
Impact: BubstanEally degrade the existing visual character
Implementation of the project would result in a direct significant impact to the existing visual
character because at this programmatic level, the project does not include design specifications
required to protect visual impacts. (Final SEIR Section 5.2.3.2, pages 105 through 106).-
Cumulative impacts associated with this issue are discussed in Section X, below.
Explanation:
Implementation of the project would allow future construction within currently undeveloped open
space resulting in the permanent alteration of the existing rolling hills. Additionally, future
15
Resolution No. 2013-028
Page No. 23
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 Alfemative, The General Plan and the Otay Ranch General Development
Plan contain polities intended to assure the protection of aesthetic resources and require
design considerations to be applied to construction within each village. Likewise, the Otay
Ranch General Development Plan requires future projects to perform SPA-level visual analysis
and implement landform-grading guidelines. Compliance with these policies would reduce visual
impacts, but not to a level that is considered less than significant.
Mitigation Measures:
5.2.5-1 Prior to approval of grading plans, the applicant shall prepare grading and
building plans that conform to the landform grading guidelines contained in the
grading ordinance, Otay Ranch General Development Plan, and General Plan.
The plans shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the Director of Development
Services and the City Engineer. These plans and guidelines shall provide the
following that serve to reduce the aesthetic impacts:
• A landscape design that addresses streetscapes provides landscape intensity
zones, greenbelt edge treatments, and slope treatment for erosion control;
• Grading concepts that ensure manufactured slopes that are contoured, blend,
and mimic adjacent natural slopes;
• Landscaping concepts that provide for a transition from the manicured
appearance of developed areas to the natural landscape in open space
areas; and
• Landscaping concepts that include plantings selected to frame and maintain
views.
Finding:
While Mitigation Measure 5.2,5-1 is feasible and shall be required as a condition of approval ,
and made binding on the applicant, it would not substantially lessen the significant
environmental effect as identifed in the Fnal SEIR. The impact would only 6e reduced to less
than significant when specifc design standards and zoning specifcations are developed and
applied to subsequent SPA plans. Only implementation of the No Project-No Build alternative
would reduce this impact to below a level of significance. Pursuant to section 15o91(a)(3) of the
CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, sodal, technological, or other considerations make
infeasible this project alternative. Additional fndings related to the project alternatives are
discussed in Section XI, below.
16
Resolution No. 2013-028
Page No. 24
Because there are no applicable or feasible mitigation measures within the control ofthe City at
this time to reduce visual impacts to below a level of signi5cance, impacts to visual character
would remain signiflgnt and unmitigated. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Consideration
will be required should the decision makers choose to approve the project.
Energy Resources
Thresholds of Sionifcance:
The Proposed Project would result in a significant impact to energy if it would
1.' Reduce the available supply of energy resources below a level considered sufficient to
meet the City's needs or cause a need for new and expanded facilities.
impact: Increased energy demands
While future development would be required to implement the City's Energy Strategy and Action
Plan, Transit First Plan, and conform to objectives contained in the City's General Plan, there
are no long-term assurances that energy supplies will be available as needed. Therefore, direct
impacts associated with energy consumption are considered signifcant (Final SEIR
Section 5.3.3.2, pages 121 through 125). Cumulative impacts associated with this issue are
discussed in Section X, below.
Exolanation:
Implementation of the project would allow an increase in development potential within the Land
Use Change Area beyond that analyzed in the 2005 PEIR for the Preferred Alternative.
Tables 5.3-2a and 5.3-2b of the Final SEIR provide a breakdown of the additional intensity of
land uses and calculates the projected increase in energy demands for the Land Use Change
Area (adjusted for energy efficiency measures). Future SPA Plans would be required to meet
the mandatory energy standards of the City including: City of Chula Vista Energy Code
(Municipal Code sections 15.26, et seq.); CCR Title 24 Part 6 California Energy Code; Part 11
California Green Building Standards; and the City's Green Building Standards. Additionally,
General Plan policies seek to reduce mobile-source energy consumption by optimizing traffic
flow, directing higher-density housing within walking distance of transit facilities, promoting use
of alternatives to vehicular travel, and generally reducing vehicle trip length through improved
community design. The Otay Ranch General Development Plan likewise requires future SPA
Plans to include a renewable energy conservation plan addressing preservation of energy
resources. Although these programs and policies would result in more efficient use of energy,
they do not ensure that increased resources will be available when needed. Therefore, because
there are no assurances of a long-term supply of energy in the future, the increase in energy
consumption associated with the project would be significant.
17
Resolution No. 2013-028
Page No. 25
Mitigafion Measures:
Compatibility with City regulations and policies alone will not reduce impacts to a less than
significant level. implementation of the following mitigation measure, as identified in the
2005 PEIR, is required to be incorporated into future SPA plans.
5.3.5-1 Continued focus on the Energy Strategy and Action Plan, which addresses demand
side management, energy efficient and renewable energy outreach programs for
businesses and residents, energy acquisition, power generation, and distributed
energy resources and legislative actions, and continuing implementation of the COz
Reduction Plan will lessen the impacts from energy.
Findin
While mitigation measure 5.3.5-1 is feasible and shall be required as a condition of approval
and made binding on the applicant, it would not substantially lessen the significant
environmental effect as identif ed in fhe Final SEIR. The impact will only be reduced fo less than
significant when a determination is matle assuring energy resources would be available to
adequately serve the projected inuease in population and land uses resulting from
implementation of the project. Only implemenfation'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, specifc economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make
this altemative infeasible. Adoption of the No Project-No Build alternative would not achieve
any of the objectives of the project as identified in Section 3.3 of the Final SEIR. Adddional
f ndings related to the project alternatives are discussed in Section XI, below.
Because there are no applicable or feasible mitigation measures within the control of the City at
this time to reduce impacts to energy resources to below a level of significance to energy
resources would remain significant and unmitigated. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding
Consideration will be required should the decision makers choose to approve the project.
Traffic, Circulation, and Access
Thresholds of Sionifcance:
The Proposed Project would result in a significant traffic impact if it would:
1. Result in traffic which exceeds the signifcance criteria of the respective jurisdiction.
The Traffic Impact Analysis- analyzed the study area location utilizing the appropriate
jurisdictions' significance criteria. Therefore, City, City of San Diego, and County of San Diego
roadways were analyzed using each jurisdiction's own significance criteria.
IS
Resolution-No. 2013-028
Page No. 26
City of Chula Visfa
Streef links/Seoments
a. Project-specifc (direct) impact if all the following criteria are met:
i. Level of service is LOS D, LOS E, or LOS F.
ii. Project trips comprise 5 percent or more of total segment volume.
iii. Project adds greater than 800 average daily trips (ADT) to the segment.
b. Cumulative impact, if only (i) is met.
However, rf the intersections along a LOS D or LOS E segment all operate at LOS D or better,
the segment impact is considered not significant, since intersection analysis is more indicative
of actual roadway system operations than street segment analysis. If the segment LOS is
LOS F, the impact is signifcant regardless of intersection LOS. -
Intersections
a. Project-specifc (direct) impact, if all the following criteria are met:
i. Level of service is LOS E or LOS F.
ii. Project trips comprise 5 percent or more of entering volume.
b. Cumulative impact if only (i) is met.
City of San Diego
According to the City of San Diego's Significance Determination Thresholds (2007), a project is
considered to have a significant impact if the project traffic has decreased the operations of
sunounding roadways by aCity-defined threshold. For projects deemed complete on or after
January 1, 2007, the City defined threshold by roadway type or intersection is shown in
Table 5.4-5 of the Final SEIR.
If a project exceeds the thresholds in Table 5.4-5 of the Final SEIR, then the City of San Diego
may consider a project to have a significant impact. A significant impact can also occur if a
project causes the LOS to degrade from D to E, even if the allowable increases in Table 5.4-5 of
the Final SEIR are not exceeded. A feasible mitigation measure is identifed to return the impact
within the City of San Diego thresholds, or the impact is considered signifcant and unmitigated
by the City of San Diego.
19
Resolution No. 2013-028
Page No. 27
County of San Diego
The following criteria was utilized to evaluate potential signif cant impacts based on the County
of San Diego Guidelines for Determining Sig nfficance-Transportation and Traffc (2009).
Road Segments
Pursuant to the County's General Plan Public .Facilities Element, new development must
provide improvements or other measures to mitigate traffic impacts to avoid:
• Reduction in LOS below C for on-site Circulation Element roads; -
• Reduction in LOS below D for off-site and on-site abutting Circulation Element roads;
and
• "Significantly impacting congestion" on roads that operate at LOS E or F. If impacts
cannot be mitigated, the project cannot be approved unless a statement of overriding
findings is made pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines. The Public Facilities Element,
however, does not include specific guidelines for determining the amount of additional
traffic that would "significantly impact congestion" on such roads.
The County has created guidelines, summarized in Table 5.4-6 of the Final SEIR, to evaluate
likely traffic impacts of a proposed project for road segments and intersections serving that
project site, for purposes of determining whether the development would significantly impact
congestion on the referenced LOS E and F roads.
The County considers traffic volume increases from public or private projects that result in one
or mare of the following criteria to have a signif cant traffic volume or level of service impact on a
road segment:
• The additional or redistributed ADT generated by the proposed project will signifcantly
- 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 $tate Highway to
operate at a LOS E or LOS F as a result of the proposed project as identified in
Table 5.4-6, or
• The additional or redistributed ADT generated by the proposed project will cause a
residential street to exceed its design capacity.
20
Resolution No. 2013-028
Page No. 28
Traffc Models:
Slnce the project is a General Plan Amendment and General Development Plan Amendment,
no projecf-specific development was analyzed in the traffic study. Rather, project buildout was
analyzed over a 20-year horizon time frame (i.e., Year 2D30), since development will occur over
a long period. Impacts are discussed under the following scenarios: Direct Impacts
(Traffic Model 3) and Cumulative Impacts (Traffic Model 7).
Traffc Model 3 measures the impacts resulting from implementation of the project compared to
buildout under the Traffc 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.
Impacts: - -
As shown on Tables 5.4-12 of the Final SEIR, four freeway mainline segments are projected to
result in significant direct impacts at buildout of the project (Traffic Model 3). (SEIR Section
5.4.3.3, pages 162 through 174)
Explanation:
Based on the peak hour intersection, segment and freeway analyses, the following direct
impacts were identified under Year 2030 conditions:
I-BO5 between
• Olympic Parkway/Orange Avenue to Main Street/Auto Park Drive
• Main Street/Auto Park Drive to Palm Avenue
SR-905 between
• I-805 to Ocean Vew Hifls Parkway
• Britannia Boulevard to La Media Road
Mitigation Measures:
5.4.5. -1 The City of Chula Vsta shall collect the appropriate Regional Transportation
Congestion Improvement Plan funds from the project (Freeway Mainline Segments).
21
Resolution No. 2013-028
Page No. 29
Finding:
Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in,
or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the signifcant effect as
identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Specifically, Mitigation Measure 5.4.5.1-1 is
feasible and shall be required as a condition of approval and made binding on the applicant.
Implementation of this mtigation measure will reduce significant direct impacts to freeway
mainline segments to a less than signifcant level..
Existing+Project
An Existing +projed analysis was conducted that measures the Proposed Project's 6uildout
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
Proposed Project was added.
Impact
Seven roadway segment impacts were calculated in the Existing +projed condition. Under the
Existing + project condition, the following street segments are calculated to operate of a LOS D
or worse conditions in the City:
• Olympic Parkway between I-805 and Brandywine Avenue -LOS F
• Olympic Parkway between Brandywine Avenue and Heritage RoadlPaseo Ranchero-
LOS F
• Olympic Parkway between Heritage RoadlPaseo Ranchero and La Media Road -LOS
F
• Olympic Parkway between La Media Road and SR-125 -LOS D
• Birch Road between La Media Road and SR-125 -LOS E
. La Media Road between Olympic Parkway and Birch Road -LOSE
• Eastlake Parkway between Birch Road and Hunte Parkway -LOS E
Explanation
The proposed Ptoject is anticipated to be built in phases over a period of up io twenty years.
This phasing would not require the construction of all of the circulation improvements at once. In
addition, under this scenario, application of the City's GMP would apply. If the LOS D threshold
is exceeded for more than two hours, then all development may be suspended until acceptable
operating conditions can be achieved. As a part of the City's GMP, the City analyzed 'rf GMO
22
Resolution No. 2013-028
Page No. 30
thresholds are projected to be reached or exceeded, and whether mitigation measures are
necessary to remain compliant with the requirements of the GMP along Olympic Parkway. The
study concluded that the segment of westbound Olympic Parkway between Heritage Road and
Oleander Avenue during peak hours would be the first to fall below GMO traffic threshold
standards as traffic volumes increase over time with the Proposed Project and other projects
east of 1-805. The analysis demonstrated that GMO thresholds would not be reached along
Olympic Parkway until building permits for 2,463 dwelling units have been issued for projects
east of 1-805. The projected 2,463 dwelling unit threshold is used by the City to determine when
cumulative impacts may occur along the corridor.
Mitigation Measures:
1. In the event the GMO threshold is reached at any time prior to the issuance of the building
permit for the 2,463rd dwelling unit for development east of 1-805 commencing from April 4,
2011 the applicant may;
a. Prepare a traff c study that demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, that
the circulation system has additional capacity without exceeding the GMO traffic - -
thresholdstandards, or
b. Demonstrate that other improvements are constructed which provide the additional
necessary capacity to wmply with the GMO traffc threshold to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer, or
c. Agree to the City Engineer's selection of an alternative method of maintaining GMO
traffic threshold compliance, or
d. Enter into agreement, approved by the City, with other Otay Ranch developers that
alleviates congestion and achieves GMO traffic threshold compliance for Olympic
Parkway. The Agreement will identify the deficiencies in transportation infrastructure that
will need to be constructed, the parties that will construct said needed infrastructure, a
timeline for such construction, and provides assurances for construction, in accordance
with the City's customary requirements, for said infrastructure.
If GMO compliance cannot be achieved through 1a, b, c or d above, then the City may, in its
sole discretion, stop issuing new building permits within the Project Area after building permits
for 2,463 dwelling units have been issued for any development east of t-805 after April 4, 2011,
until such time that GMO traffic threshold standard compliance can be assured to the
satisfaction of the City Manager._
These measures shall constitute full compliance with growth management objectives and
policies in accordance with the requirements of the General Plan, Chapter 10 with regard to
traffic thresholds set forth in the GMO.
23
Resolution No. 2013-028
Page No. 31
Finding:
Pursuant to section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQR Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in,
or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the significant effect as
identifed in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Specifically, the above described Mitigation
Measure is feasible and shall be required as a condition of approval and made binding on the
applicant. Implementation of this measures will reduce existing + project impacts to less than
sign cant levels. _
Air Quality _
Thresholds of Significance:
The Proposed Project would result in a significant impact to air quality if it would:
1. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
2. Violate any air qualty standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation.
3. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors). The City uses the SCAQMD thresholds shown in Table 5.5-4 of the Final
SEIR to assess the significance of air quality impacts.
4. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
5. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
Impact: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan
The project is not consistent with the growth projections of the local regional air quality plan,
which represents a direct and significant impact (Section 5.5.3.2, pages 214 through 215).
Cumulative impacts associated with this issue are discussed in Section X, below.
Erolanation:
Because the proposed land use changes would not be consistent with the adopted General
Plan upon which the RAQS was based, the project would not conform to the current RAQS, and
. direct impacts would be signifiranL
Mitigation Measures:
24
Resolution-No. 2013-028
Page No. 32
Mitigation of this planning impact would require the updating of the RAQS to reflect the General
Plan with the project land use changes.
Fiorito
Revision of the RAQS would reduce this impact to less than significant. This is the responsibility
of the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAL) and outside the jurisdiction of the
City. Therefore, pursuant to section 15091(a)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines, such changes or
alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the
agency making the finding. Such changes can and should be adopted by such other agency;
however, at this time, the impact would remain significant and unmitigabe.
because there are no applicable or feasible mitigation measures within the control of the City at
this time io reduce emissions to below a level of significance, impacts to air quality would
remain signifcant and unmitigated. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Consideration will be
requiretl should the decision makers choose to approve the project.
Impact: Result in an increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
attainmenf.
Implementation of the project would increase operational air emissions beyond that analyzed in
the 2005 General PIanEIR for the Preferred Alternative. In addition, construction activities
required for the development of the project will result in signifcant air quality impacts from dust
generated, fumes, and equipment exhaust adding to an increase in PM~o emissions (Final SEIR
Section 5.5.3.2, pages 215 through 221).
Explanation:
The region is not in compliance with the PM,o standards, and the project would increase PMio
emissions. The project would result in a short-term significant fugitive dust impact as a result of
construction emissions. At this programmatic level of analysis, the exact number and timing of
future development projects that could occur are unknown. Upon application for individual
development projects, the City would use the SCAQMD wnslruction thresholds to assess
potential impacts. Additionally, future projects would be required to implement standard dust
and emission control measures during grading operations to reduce potential impacts.
Notwithstanding the regulatory requirements for reduced construction emissions, impacts could
remain significant.
Operational source emissions would originate from traffic generated within or as a result of the
project. Area source emissions would result from activities such as use of natural gas,
fireplaces, and consumer products. in addition, landscaping maintenance activities associated
with the proposed land uses would produce pollutant emissions.
25
Resolution No. 2013-028
Page No. 33
Mitioation Measures:
5.5.5-1 Mitigation of PMro 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.
1
~ 7. To the maximum extent feasible:
I
• 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 loreduce emissions of nitrogen
oxide, to the extent available and feasible.
9. Electrical construction equipment shall be used to the extent feasible.
10. The simultaneous operations of multiple construction equipment units shall be
minimized (i.e., phase construction to minimize impacts).
26
Resolution No. 2013-028
Page No. 34
Findin
While mitigation measure 5.5.5-~ is feasible and shall be required as a condition of approval
and made binding on the applicant, it would not substantially lessen fhe signifcant
environmental effect as ident'rfled 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 PM~o 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, specifc economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make
these altemative infeasible. Adoption of the No Project-No Build alternative would not achieve
any_of the objectives of the project as identified in Section 3.3 of the Final SEIR. Additional
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
thls time to reduce emissions to below a level of significance, impacts to air quality would
remain significant and unmitiga}ed. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Consideration will be
required should the decision makers choose to approve the project.
Noise
Thresholds of Sionifcance:
The Proposed Project would result in signifcant noise impacts if it would:
1. Result in exposure of people to excessive noise.
2. Result in the generation of excessive noises.
3. Expose people residing or working within an established Airport Influence Area to
excessive noise levels.
Impact: Exposure of people to excessive noise
Implementation of the project would result in a direct increase greater than three d6 in traffic
noise beyond that contemplated in the 2005 General Plan EIR for the Preferred Project along
two road segments. Additionally, as shown in Figure 5.6-5 of the Final EIR, the project could
result in interior noise levels for multi-family residential uses located within the 60 CNEL contour
for roadways that have the potential to exceed 45 CNEL. These impacts would be considered
sign cant (Final SEIR Section 5.6.3.2, pages 237 through 250). Cumulative impacts associated
with this issue are discussed in Section X, below.
27
Resolution No. 2013-028
Page No. 35
Exolanation:
Due to proposed changes in land uses, implementation of the project would result in a direct
increase greater than three dB in traffic noise beyond that contemplated in the 2005 General
Plan EIR for the Preferred Alternative along the following two road segments:
• Otay Valley Road from La Media Road to SR-125
Otay Valley Road from SR-125 tc Otay Villa Road.
Table 5.6-1 of the Final SEIR wnlains the exterior landuse-noise compatibility guidelines as
contained in the General Plan. These guidelines reflect the levels of noise exposure that are
generally considered to be compatible with various types of land use. Pursuant to the General
Plan, residential, school, or park receptors are required to be within contours of 65 d6 or less.
Based on contours created for the project, implementation of the proposed land use plan would
result in noise impacts due to land uses proposed within noise contours exceeding allowable
limits. Specifcally, as shown in Figure 5.6-3 of the Final SEIR, there are residential and mixed-
use areas exceeding 65 CNEL. This represents a potentially significant impact. - -
Mitication Measures:
There is no mitigation contained in the 2005 PEIR or currently available at this programmatic
level of analysis to address significant impacts associated with noise. Future projects would be
required to include project-level exterior analysis to assess the feasibility of reducing noise
levels to outdoor use areas.
Finding:
There is no feasible mitigation measure to reduce this impact to below significance.
Implementation of the No Project-No Build, No Project-No Change in Existing Plans, and the
Reduced Density alternatives would reduce this impact due to the removal of residential uses
from noise generating sources. Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines,
specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make these alternatives
infeasible. Each alternative would not achieve the objectives of the project as identified in
Section 3.3 of the Final SEIR. Additional fndings related to the project alternatives are
discussed in Section XI, below.
Because there are no applicable or feasible mitigation measures within the control of the City at
this time to reduce noise impacts to below a level of signifcance, impacts to would remain
sign cant and unmitigated. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Consideration will be
required should the decision makers choose to approve the project.
Utilities (Water)
2s
Resolution No. 2013-028
Page No. 36
Thresholds of Significance:
The Proposed Project would result in a significant impact to wafer supplies if it would:
1. Require or result in the construction oT new water facilitles or expansion of existing
facilifies, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.
2. Require new or expanded supplies or facilities to meet projected needs.
3. Result in the Proposed Project being inconsistent with the Urban Water Management
Plan (UWMP) prepared by the CWA.
Impact: Construction or expansion of new water facilities
Implementation of the project would result in an increase in water consumption beyond that
analyzed in the 2005 General Plan EIR for the Preferted Alternative placing greater demands on
treatment and distribution facilities. (SEIR Section 5.6.1.4, pages 301 through 302). Cumulative
impacts associated with this issue are discussed in Section X, below. -
Explanation:
The Otay Water District (OWD) Water Resources Master Plan (WRMP; Revised November
2010) defines and describes the new water facilities that are required fo accommodate
forecasted growth within the entire OWb area, inducting the land uses that are part of the
project. Construction associated with the forecasted growth could result in signifcant impacts.
OWD typically requires developers, at a planning level, to prepare aSub-Area Master Plan for a
specifc development project to assure consistency with the WRMP. This document defnes 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 identified. The OWD, through collection of water meter capacity fees, water rates, and
other sources of revenue, funds those facilities identifed as CIP projects. Notwithstanding this
planning effort, impacts associated with the construction of new or expanded facilities would be
considered signifcant at this programmatic level of analysis because the extent of those
impacts at this time is too speculative to address. Therefore, direct impacts would be considered
significant.
Mitioation Measures
There is no mitigation contained in the 2005 PEIR or currently available at this programmatic
level of analysis to address significant impacts associated with the construction or expansion of
water facilities. There is no mitigation available at this programmatic level of review because the
extent of improvements andlor the siting of water facility projects are too speculative at this time.
Finding;
29
Resolution No. 2013-028
Page No. 37
There is no feasible mitigation measure to reduce this impact to below significance.
Implementation of the No Project-No Build would reduce this impact to below a level of
significance. Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal,
social, technological, or other considerations make these alternatives infeasible. This alternative
would not achieve the objectives of the project as identified in Section 3.3 of the Final SEIR.
Additional findings related to the project alternatives are discussed in Section XI, below.
Because there are no applicable or feasible mitigation measures within the control of the City at
this time to reduce noise impacts to below a level of significance, impacts to would remain
significant and unmitigated. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Consideration will be
required should the decision makers choose to approve the project.
impact New or expanded supplies
Implementation of the project would place greater demands on the existing water supply than
analyzed in the 2005 General Plan EIR far the Preferred Alternative, resulting in the potential
need for addifional water supplies. (Final SEIR Section 5.8.1.4, pages 303 through 305)
Explanation
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 Pretemed 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 wafer demands within the Land Use Change Area would be
approximately 1.4 million gpd.
The 2010 OWD UWMP, OWD WRMP, and the 2010 San Diego County Water Authority 2010
UWMP all include the demands of project, as well as other anticipated projects within the Otay
Ranch General Development Plan area. While OWD will be required to certify the sufficiency of
a reliable water supply primarily through the water assessment and verification process (SB-610
certification process), this generally occurs during the SPA level of planning. At this time, long-
term water supply is not assured and contracts do not currently exist to serve the City through
buildout of the project. Therefore, at this level of analysis, impacts associated with water supply
would be significant.
Mitigation: ,-
5.8.1.6-1 For any residential subdivision with 500 or more units or any commercial. project of,
over 500,000 square feet, any CEQA compliance review shall include demonstration
of compliance with the requirements of SB 610.
30
Resolurion No. 2013-028 '
Page No. 38
5.8.1.6-2 For any residential subdivision with 500 or more units, any CEQA compliance review
shall include demonstration of compliance with the requirements of SB 221.
Findin°
While Mitigation Measures 5.S.L6-1 and 5.8.L6-2 are feasible and shall be required as a
condition of approval and made binding on the applicant, they would not substantially lessen the
signifcant environmental effect as identified in the Final SEIR. The water supply impact remains
significant because there is no assurance that water supply will be available to adequately serve
the projected increase in. population resulting from the project. Only implementation of the No
Project-No Build alternative would reduce this impact to below a level of signifcance. Pursuant
to section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological,
or other considerations make this alternative infeasible. Adoption of the No Project-No Build
alternative would not achieve any of the objectives of the project as identified in Section 3.3 of
the Final SEIR. Additional findings related to the project alternatives are discussed in Section XI,
below.
Because there are no applicable or feasible mitigation measures within the control of the City at
this time to reduce emissions to below a level of significance, impacts to water supply would
remain signifcant and, unmitigated. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Consideration will be
required should the decision makers choose to approve the project.
X.
CUMULATIVE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS & MITIGATION MEASURES
Cumulative impacts are those which "are considered when viewed in connection with the effects
of past projects, the effect of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects"
(Pub. Resources Code Section 21082.2 subd. (6)). These "current or probable future"
development proposals can affect many of the same natural resources and public infrastructure
as development of the project. Potentially signifcant cumulative impacts are associated with
development of the project in conjunction with those projects speGfcally within the project area
as shown on Flgure 2-1 of the SEIR. A detailed discussion of cumulative impacts is included in
Section 6.0 of the SEIR.
In formulating mitigation measures for the project, regional issues and cumulative impacts have
been taken into consideration. Due to the programmatic nature of the analysis contained in the
SEIR, most of the mitigation measures adopted for the cumulative impacts are the same as the
"project" level mitigation measures. The project, along with other related projects, will result in
the following irreversible cumulative environmental changes.
31
Resolution No. 2013-028
Page No. 39
Impact: Landform AlterationNisual Quality
Section 6.0 of the SEIR included an analysis of cumulative impacts to landfonn alteration/visual
resources. Implementation of the project would contribute to a cumulatively significant impad to
the existing visual character of the project area.
Explanation:
The visual character of the projed area would be affeded by the projed's contribution to the
permanent alteration of the existing rolling hills that charadedze this portion of the City.
Mitigation Measures:
Cumulative visual impads 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 Sedion 5.2.5 of the
Final SEIR. This mitigation measure requires the preparation and submittal of grading and
building plans that assure conformance to the landfonn grading guidelines contained in the
City's grading ordinance. Nofwithstanding implementation of this mitigation measure, cumulative
impacts related to a change in the visual character of the projed area cannot be fully mitigated.
Findin
Notwithstanding implementation of this mitigation measure, cumulative impads related to a
change in the visual character of the projed area cannot be fully mitigated. The only mitigation
available for this impad is the No Project-No Build Altemative. However, this altematfve would
not meet the goals and objectives of the project as discussed in Sedion 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 projed 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 impads to below a level of significance, these impacts
would remain significant and unmitigated. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerafion
will be required should the decision makers choose to approve the project.
Impact: Traffic, Circulation and Access: Freeway Mainline and City of Chula Vista
Sedions 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 projed.
Additionally, as shown in Table 5.4-15 of the Final SEIR, buildout of the project would result in
significant cumulative impacts to t6 freeway mainline segments.
32
Resolution No. 20 Y 3=028'
Page No. 40
F~colanation:
Based on the peak hour intersection, segment and freeway analyses, the following cumulative
impacts were identified under Year 2030 conditions: _
City of Chula Vista Roadway
• Otay Valley Road between SR-125 and Street "A"
Freeway Mainline Segments
I-805
Olympic Parkway/ Orange Avenue to Main StreeVAUto Park Dr
• Olympic Parkway/ Orange Avenue to Main Street/Auto Park Dr
• Main Street/Auto Park Drive to Palm Avenue
• Palm Avenue to SR-905
SR-125
Okay Valley Road to Lonestar Road
• Otay Valley Road to Lonestar Road
• Lonestar Road to Otay Mesa Road
SR=905
• I-805 to Ocean View Hills Parkway
• I-805 to Ocean View Hills Parkway
• Ocean Vew Hills Parkway to Heritage Road
• Ocean View Hills Parkway to Heritage Road
• Heritage Road to Britannia Boulevard
• Heritage Road to Britannia Boulevard
• Britannia Boulevard to La Media Road
• Britannia Boulevard to La Media Road
• La Media Road to SR-125
Mitioation Measures:
5.4.5.1-1 The City shall collect the appropriate RTCIP funds from the project (Freeway Mainline
Segments).
'j 5.4.5. 2-1To mitigate for the signifcant wmulative impact along Otay Valley Road between
'SR-125 and Street "A," the applicant shall invease the capacity of this segment to a
5-Cane 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
- - hula Vista~Roadway Segment).
33
Resolution No. 2013-028
Page No. 41
Findin
Pursuant to section 15091 (a)(1) of the CEOA Guidelines, changes or alterations are required in,
or incorporated into, the project that will substantially lessen or avoid the signifcant effect as
identified in the EIR to a level of insignificance. Specifcally, Mitigation Measures 5.3.5.1-1 and
5.4.5.2-1 are feasible and shall be required as a condition of approval and made binding on the
applicant. Implementation of these measures will reduce signifcant cumulative impacts to
freeway mainline segments and roadway segments within the City to less than signifcant levels.
Impact: Traffic, Circulation and Access: City of San Diego
Buildout of the project is anticipated to result in sign cant cumulative traffic impacts at three
roadways segments within the City of San Diego.
Explanation:
Based on the peak hour intersection, segment and freeway analyses, the following cum_ ulative
impacts were identified under Year 2030 conditions:
City of San Diego Roadways
• Heritage Road between the City Boundary and Avenida de las Ustas
• Heritage Road between Avenida de las Vistas and Datsun StreeUOtay Valley Road
• Heritage Road between Datsun StreeUOtay Valley Road and Otay Mesa Road
Mitigation Measures:
5.4.5.2-2TO mitigate forthe significant cumulative impact along Heritage Road between the City
Boundary and Otay Mesa Road, the .applicant shall increase the capacity of this
segment located in the City of San Diego to 6-Lane Expressway standards. This would
result in acceptable LOS D or better operations.
Finding
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.4.5.2-2 would reduce signifcant 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.
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
34
Resolution No. 2013-028
Page No. 42
significant and unmitigated. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Consideration will be
required should the decision makers choose to approve the project.
Impact: Air Quality
Section 6.0 of the SEIR included an analysis of cumulative impacts to air quality. The project is
not consistent with the growth projections of the local regional air quality plan. Therefore,
increased air emissions associated with the project's buildout would be cumulatively
considerable when considered along with emissions associated with the other cumulative
projects.
Exolanation:
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 signifcant cumulative impact.
Mitioation Measures: ,.
Mitigation of this planning impact would require the updating of the RAQS.
Findin
Revision of the RAQS would reduce this impact to less than signifcant. This is the responsibility
of SANDAG and outside the jurisdiction of the City. Therefore, pursuant to section 15091(a)(2)
of the State CEQA Guidelines, such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the fnding. Such changes can
and should be adopted by such other agency; however, at this dine, the impact would remain
signifcant and unmitigable.
Because there are no applicable or feasible mitigation measures within the control of the City at
this time to reduce emissions to below a level of signifcance, impacts to air quality would
remain significant and unmitigated. Adoption of a Statement of Overziding Consideration will be
required should the decision makers choose to approve the project.
Impact: Air Qualify
Buildout of the project would result in air quality impacts associated with long-term operation.
Once the project is built out, the major source of air pollution will be from project-related traffc.
As discussed in Section 6.0 of the SEIR, cumulative impacts related to long-term mobile
emissions would be significant.
35
Resolution No. 2013-028
Page No. 43
Explanation:
While the project seeks fo minimize air quality impacts by promoting mixed land use patterns,
creating walkable neighborhoods as encouraged by the General Plan and General development
Plan, implementation of the project would result in a cumulatively significant air quality impact.
Mitigation Measures:
No mitigation is available to reduce this cumulatively significant impact to less than signifwnt
levels,
Findino:
There is no feasible mitigation measure to reduce this impact to below significance. Pursuant to
section 15091 (a)(3) of the State CEOA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social,
technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project
alternatives identifed in the Final EIR. While implementation of the No Project-No Build, No
Project-No Change in Existing Plans, or 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 non-compliance with the criteria pollutant. Pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make
infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identifed in the Final EIR. Adoption of
the No Project-No Build alternative would not achieve any of the objectives of the project as
identified in Section 3.3 of the Final SEIR. Additional findings related to the project alternatives
are discussed in Section XI, below.
Because there are no applicable or feasible mitigation measures v~ithin 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 Siatement of Overriding Consideration will be
required should the decision makers choose to approve the project.
Impact: Utilities (Water)
The project plus cumulative development would incrementally increase regional water
consumption, resulting in a significant cumulative impact to water supply.
Explanation: -
Although General Plan policies require adequate water supply, and larger projects would require
conformance to SB 610 and SB 221, it is not possible to state conclusively at this programmatic
level of analysis that sufficient water supplies would be available.
36
- Resolution No. 2013-028
Page No. 44
Mitigation Measure:
There is no mitigation available at this programmatic level of review because the eMent of
improvements and/or the siting of water facility projects are too speculative at this time.
Findin
There is no feasible mitigation measure to reduce this impact to.below significance. Pursuant to
section 15091(a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social,
Technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project
alternatives identified in the SEIR. Implementation of the No Project-No Build would reduce this
impact do below a level of signifcance. Pursuant [o section 15091 (a)(3) of the CEQA
Guidelines, specifc economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make these
alternatives infeasible. This alternative would not achieve the objectives of the project as
identifed in Section 3.3 of the Final SEIR. Addftional findings related to the project altematives
are discussed in Section XI, below.
Because there are no applicable or feasible mitigation measures within the control of the_City at
this time to reduce noise impacts to below a level of significance, impacts to would remain
significant and unmitigated. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Consideration will be
required should the decision makers choose to approve the project.
XI.
FEASIBILITY OF POTENTIAL PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Because the project will cause signifcant environmental effects, as outlined above, the City
must consider the feasibility of any environmentally superior alternative to the project as fnally
approved. The City must evaluate whether one or more of these alternatives could avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effects. Where no significant environmental
effects remain after application of all feasible mitigation measures identified in the EIR, the
decision makers must still evaluate the project altematives identified in the EIR. Under these
circumstances, CEQA requires f ndings on the feasibility of project altematives.
In general, in preparing and adopting findings, a lead agency need not necessarily address
feasibility when contemplating the approval of a project with signifcant impacts. Where the
signifcant 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 altematives, even if their impacts would be less severe
than those of the projects as mitigated (Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regentsof
the University of Cali/omia (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376 [253 CaLRptr. 426]; Laurel Hills Homeowners
Association v. City Council (1978) 83 CaLApp.3d 515 [147 CaLRptr. 842]; Kings County Farm
Bureau v. Cfty of Hanford (1990) 22t CaLApp~3d 692 [270 CaLRptr. 650]). Accordingly, for this
37
Resolution No. 2013-028
Page No. 45
project, in adopting the findings concerning project altematives, the City Council considers only
those environmental impacts that, for the finally approved project, are signifcant and cannot be
avoided or substantially lessened through mitigation.
If project alternatives are feasible, the decision makers must adopt a Statement of Overriding
Considerations with regard to the project. If there is a feasible alternative to the project, the
decision makers must decide whether it is environmentally superior to the project. Proposed
project altematives considered must be ones that "could feasibly attain the basic objectives of
the project." However, the CEQA Guidelines also require an EIR to examine altematives
"capable of eliminating" environmental effects, even if these altematives "would impede to some
degree the attainment of the project objectives" (CEQA Guidelines, section 15126).
The City has properly considered and reasonably rejected project alternatives as °infeasible"
pursuant to CEQA. CEQA provides the following definition of the tens "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" (Puh. Resources Code, section 21061.1). The CECL4 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
altemative or mitigation measure may be as great a limitation as any economic, environmental,
social, or technological factor' (see also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors
(1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 565 [276 Cal.Rptr,410]).
Accordingly, "feasibility" is a term of art under CEQA and thus may not be afforded a different
meaning as may be provided by Webster's dictionary or any other sources. Moreover, Public
Resources Code section 21061 governs the `findings° requirement under CEQA with regard to
the feasibility of altematives. Spec'rfically, no public agency shall approve or cant' out a project
for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more signhcant effects on the
environment that would occur if the project is approved or carried out unless the public agency
makes one or more of the following 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)).
°Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public
agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such
other agency or can and should_ be adopted by such other agency" (CEQA Guidelines, section
15091, subd. (a)(2)). ~ -
"Specifc economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provisions of
employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or
project alternatives identified in the final EIR' (CEQA Guidelines, section 15091, subd. (a)(3)).
38
Resolution No. 2013-028
Page No. 46
The concept of Yeasibility" also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or
mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project (City of De! Marv.
City of San Diego (1982) 133 CaLApp.3d 410, 417 [183 Cal. Rptr. 898]). "'[F]easibility under
CEQA encompasses 'desirability' to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable
balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors" (Ibid.; see
also Sequoyah Hilts Homeowners Assn. v Crty of Oakland (1993) 23 CaLApp.4'^ 704, 715 (29
CaLRptr.2d 182]j.
These fndings contrast and compare the altematives where appropriate in order to demonstrate
that the selection of the f pally approved project, while still resulting in significant environmental
impacts, has substantial environmental, planning, fiscal, and other benefits. in rejecting certain
altematives, the decision makers have examined the fnally approved project objectives and
weighed the ability of the various altematives to meet objectives. The decision makers believe
that the project best meets the finally approved project objectives with the least environmental
impact
The detailed discussion in Section IX and Section X demonstrates that all but seven significant
environmental effects of the project have been either substantially lessened or avoided through
the imposRion of existing policies or regulations or by the adoption of additional, fonnal
mitigation measures recommended in the EIR. The remaining unmitigated impacts are the
following:
Land Use (direct- inability to develop design standards at the programmatic level);
• Landform Alterations/Aesthetics (direct and cumulative - change in visual character);
• Energy (cumulative -absence of Tong term assurance of energy supplies)
Transportation (cumulative - three roadway segments within the City of San Diego)
• Air Quality (direct and cumulative -inconsistency with existing RAQS; operation-related
emissions)
Noise (direct and cumulative-exposure to excessive noise)
• Utilities. Water Supply (direct and cumulative -absence of sufficient water supply to
serve the project)
With respect to the East Planning Area of the Preferred Alternative, the 2005 PEIR 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 each of the unmitigated impacts, the SEIR concluded that implementation of the project
would not increase the severity of impacts and would not change the conclusions reached by
39
Resolution No. 2013-028
Page No. 47
the analysis contained in the 2005 PEIR. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was
previously adopted by City Council for the 2005 PEIR, from which the project's SEIR tiers. Thus,
the City can fully satisfy its CEQA obligations by determining whether any altematives identifed
in the SEIR are both feasible and environmentally superior with respect to the impacts listed
above (Laurel Hi/Is, supra, 83 CaLApp.3d at 519-527 [147 Cal. Rptr842]; Flings 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. 426j). Table 10-2 in the SEIR (page 425) provides a summary
table comparing each of the altematives. As the following discussion will show, no identified
alternative qualifies as both feasible and environmentally superior with respect to the
unmitigated Impacts.
To fully account for these unavoidable significant effects and the extent to which particular
alternatives might or might not be environmentally superior with respect to them, these findings
will not focus solely on the impacts listed above, but may also address the environmental merits
of the alternatives with respect to all broad categories of impacts -even though such atar-
ranging discussion is not required by CEQA. The fndings will also assess whether each
alternative is feasible in light of the City's objectives for the project. -
The City's review of project alternatives is guided primarily by the need to reduce potential
impacts associated with the project, while still achieving the basic objectives of the project.
Here, the City's primary objective is to comprehensively plan, coordinate, and implement
development over a large area. More specific objectives include those previously listed in
Section III. The City evaluated four alternatives to the project, which are discussed below (No
Project-No Build Altemative, No Project-No Change in Existing Plan Altemative, Reduced
Density Altemative, La Media Road Alternative).
No Project•No Build Alternative
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3)(B) states that the No Project-No Build Altemative
"means'no build' wherein the existing environmental setting is maintained `The No Project-No
Build Alternative presents the scenario where the Land Use Change Area would remain in its
present vacant condition.
Under the No Project-No Build Alternative, the project site would remain as it is today, and no
development would occur. The project site would remain in its present vacant condition.
The No Project-No Build Alternative would not allow for the development of the project area as
identified in the City's Generaf Plan or Otay Ranch GDP. With respect to the unmitigated
impacts discussed in Section 5.0 of the SEIR, the No Project-No Build Alternative would not
result in direct or cumulative impacts to land use, landform alteration/visual quality, energy,
transportation, air quality, noise, or utilities (water). However, impacts to population and housing
land use occur because the No Project-No Build Alternative would not contribute to the
40
Resolution No. 2013-028
Page No. 48
provision of necessary housing within a smart-growth area as identified in the Regional
Comprehensive Plan (RCP).
Although the No Project-No Build Alternative is considered environmentally preferable to the
project because it would eliminate all unmitigated direct and cumulative impacts, ii would not
accomplish any of the goals and objectives of the project, and is therefore not feasible.
Findings:
The No. Project-No Build Alternative would not meet any of the basic project objectives as listed
in Section 3.3 of the SEIR, and in Section III of these Findings of Fact.
The No Project-No Build Alternative would not provide housing, conflicting with the housing
goals of the General Plan, which recommends that housing be provided for all income groups. It
also conflicts with the RCP, which identified this portion of the City for smart-growth planning.
Retention of the project site in its existing state would be inconsistent with the approved GPU
and .existing Otay Ranch GDP land use designations for the site. In addition, under this
alternative, key amendments to the City's Circulation Plan-East would not be implemented.-
Retention of the site in its current vacant condition would not implement the goals of the General
Plan and would require re-evaluation of the existing Otay Ranch GDP. In addition to changes in
land use designations for the Land Use Change Area, the project proposes amendments to
General Plan. and GDP policies focused on promoting comprehensive uses within the GDP area
including the provision of roads, parks, schools, water and sewer facilities, and. other
infrastructure. The reduction in dwelling units within the Otay Ranch GDP area resulting from
implementation of the NoProject-No Build Alternative would result Ina loss of anticipated
contributions into the City's development impact fee programs from the dwelling units structures
that would otherwise have made payments upon issuance of building permits. The loss of units
under the No Project-No Build Altemative would result in a shortfall of contributions into these
impact fee programs and potentially lead to insufficient funding for the remaining public facilities
currently identified under these programs. -
The City would receive lower long-term revenues in the form of property and sales tax resulting
from the non-development of the proposed residential areas. .
Implementation of the No Project-NO Build Alternative would not achieve any of the objectives
established for the project. Although this alternative would at least temporarily preserve land
which is currently not developed, it would amount to a failure to plan the site for eventual
development, despite the planned community designation contemplated by the General Plan
GDP.
The No Project-No Build Altemative is inconsistent with the City's objectives: to plan the project
area in a comprehensive manner in a way that deals with the logical. extension of public services
41
Resolution No. 2013-028
Page No. 49
and utilities; to plan for parks and open space to serve residents; to complete the Cites
circulation; to create densities sufficient to pay for all required services and infrastructure and to
encourage employment opportunities within the City. The altemative also fails to meet
objectives favoring an accommodation of future projected population in an area reasonable
close to future job-growth areas within the City,-as well as the construction of affordable housing
consistent with the City's goals. It also fails to implement to previously approved Otay Ranch
GDP.
For these reasons, the City Council concludes that No Project-No Build Alternative is not
feasible (see City of Del Mar supra, 133 Cal.App3d at 417; Sequoyah Hills, supra,
23 CaLApp.4'" at 715).
No Project-No Change in Existing Plans Alternative
CEQA Guidelines 15126.6(e)(3)(A) states that when a project is the revision of an existing land
use or regulatory plan, policy, or ongoing operation, the "no project" alternative will be the
continuation of the existing plan, policy, or operation into the future.
The No Project-No Change in Existing Plans Altemative considers the situation where there are
no changes to the City's land use plans and subsequent development projects within the Land
Use Change Area portion of the project site. Because the land uses proposed in the 2005 GPU
were deferred, this altemative is comprised of the land use plan that existed prior to the 2005
GPU. This land use plan is depicted in Figure 10-1 of the SEIR.
Impact
The No Project-No Change in Existing Plans Altemative would reduce the available housing
within the Land Use Change Area by 4,752 dwelling units compared to the project. This
reduction in available housing within the project area would reduce the ability of the City to meet
the RCP smart-growth projections. The inconsistency with regional planning would result in
potentially significant impacts to land use and population and housing to a greater degree than
the project.
The development under this alternative would result in visual quality impacts similar to the
project. While reduced in degree, construction of this alternative would still result in the loss of
open space and rolling hills, representing a significant and unmitigated impact.
Air quality impacts associated with the No Project-No Change in Existing Plans Alternative
would be reduced because of decreased density and intensity of uses compared to the project.
Additionally, short-term air quality impacts associated with construction would be slightly
reduced. Overall, however, air quality impacts would remain significant and unmitigated due to
the allemative's conflict with the existing RAQS.
42
- - - - -- Resolution No. 2013-028
Page No. 50
Although it would require less water to serve its projected population, impacts associated with
water supply would. remain significant and unmitigated.
The traffic analysis conducted for the project indicated that No Project-No Change in Existing
Plans Altemative would result in approximately 58,173 ADT fewer than the project. While
creating less traffic on the local roadways, this Altemative would still result in potentially
significant cumulative impacts to City roadway and freeway segments.
Because this No Project-NO Change in Existing Plans Altemative would result in less intense
and less dense land uses than the project, 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 10-1, residential land uses under would still be located in proximity to noise generating
surrounding sources, such as the SR-125. Therefore, while less than the project, noise impacts
would be potentially significant. -
Findings:
The No Project-No Change in Existing Plans Altemative would reduce impacts to
landformlvisual quality, transportation, air quality, noise, and utilities (water). However, while
slightly reduced, landform/visual quality and air quality impacts would remain signifcant and
unmitigated. Impacts td land use and housing and population would be greater than the project.
While the alternative would implement some of the project's objectives, the following objectives
would not be met with this alternative:
• Foster the goal of the 2005 GPU to expand the local economy by providing a broad range of
businesses, facilitate provision of services for a university, provide employment and housing
opportunities that support an excellent standard of living, and improve the ability for
residents to live and work locally.
• Create Town Center within newly deFlned boundaries for Village 8 West and Village 9, as
encouraged by the GPU's emphasis on providing a mix of diverse land uses that meets
', community needs.
• Develop a circulation plan that de-emphasizes the automobile, and places greater reliance
on transit and pedestrian circulation.
• Target higher-density and higher-intensity development into specific focus areas in order to
protect stable residential neighborhoods and to create mixed-use urban environments that
are oriented to transit and pedestrian activity. This targeted development will be well-
designed, compatible with adjacent areas, and contribute to the continued vitality of the
City's economy.
• Allow for higher-density residential development in order to encourage the development of
off-campus student housing within the University Town Center adjacent to the university.
43
Resolution No. 2013-028
Page No. 51
• Provide opportunities for higher density development that accommodates off-site student
and faculty housing for the university.
• Provide opportunities for goods and services and other ancillary uses necessary to support
j the university and RTP to be provided within Planning Area 10.
The No Project-No Change in Existing Plans Alternative results in slower-density and much
less intense development than is the project. The project includes a total of 6,050 residential
unRs, while this attemative includes only 1,298 units. This altemative was designed primarily
with Residential Low Medium and Mized Use residential designations, rather than the more
intense development of the project. It also does not place as much residential use in the Town
Centers as envisioned in the project's General Plan and GDP amendments. It does not achieve
the primary objective of these plan amendments to foster the development of a University
Ullage which will support the future university anticipated to be located adjacent to the Project
on property that will be owned by the City within the University Site/Planning Area 10. In
addition, it limits the objective of de emphasizing the automobile, and placing greater reliance on
transit and pedestrian circulation. Therefore, pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the- CEQA
Guidelines, specifc economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make this
altemative infeasible.
Reduced Density Altemative
The intention of the Reduced Density Altemative is reduce traffic impacts, as well as potential
noise and air quality impacts associated with SR-125. It order to create- such a plan, dwelling
units closest to SR-125 would be eliminated. For this alternative, 417 multi-family residential
units located pdmarily along the western boundary of Village 9, closest to SR-125, are rem_ oved
from the land use plan.
The details of this alternative are discussed in Section 10.3 of the SEIR
Impact
Development under the Reduced Density Altemative would reduce the amount of housing
available within the SPA Plan area by 417 units relative to the project. This would reduce the
ability of the City to meet projected housing needs as shown in SAN DAG 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
community, any degree of development would result in a change to the existing aesthetic make
up and visual quality of the project site. While the degree of impact would be less as a result of
44
Resolution No. 2013-028
Page No. 52
the lessened development potential under thls alternative, the loss of the open space and rolling
hills would still remain signifcant unmitigated.
While emissions of criteria pollutants under this altemative would be reduced compared to the
project, the Reduced Density Alternative would not conform to the existing RAQS. Impacts
associated with air quality plan implementation would be significant and unmitigable.
Although it would require less energy and water .to serve its projected population, impacts
associated with energy and water supply would remain significant and unmitigated due to the
uncertainty of available supply.
The Reduced Density Altemative would result in a reduction of 3,125 ADT on roadways
resulting in a reduction of direct and cumulative impacts as compared to the. project. Although
this altemative would not eliminate signifcant freeway impacts, impacts to traffc resulting from
the Reduced Density Alternative would be less than the project. Likewise, because this
alternative would remove homes from the noise contour along the SR-125, the number of units
affected by traffc noise would be also reduced.
Findings:
The Reduced Density Alternative would reduce the degree of impacts to landform/visual quality,
air quality, noise, energy, and water supply; impacts would remain significant and unmitigated.
Impacts to land use and housing and population that would be greater than the project. Impacts
resulting from traffc generation and traffic noise would be reduced.
While the alternative would implement some of the projects objectives, the following objectives
would not be met with this altemative:
• Develop a circulation plan that de-emphasizes the automobile, and places greater
reliance on mass transit and pedestrian circulation.
~ Target higher-density and higher-intensity development into specific focus areas in order
to protect stable residential neighborhoods and to create mined-use urban environments
that are oriented to transit and pedestrian activity. This targeted development will be well
designed, compatible with adjacent areas, and contribute to the continued vitality of the.
~~~ City's economy;
• Allow for higher density residential development in order to encourage the development
of off-campus student housing within the University Town Center (Village 9) and the
Eastern Urban Center adjacent to the university;
• Provide opportunities for higher density development that accommodate off-site student
and faculty housing for the university;
45
Resolution No. 2013-028
Page No. 53
The Reduced Density Alternative results in a less dense development compared to the project.
The project includes a total of 6,050 residential units, while this alternative would provide
5,633 units. This altemative was designed to reduce density along the SR-125 contour. While
this would reduce potentially significant traffic generation and noise impacts, it does not place as
much residential use in the Town Center areas. It therefore limits the objective of reducing
reliance on the automobile and promotion of a walkable community. In addition, by reducing
density, the Reduced Density Altemative does not fulfil the objectives associated with building a
high density community providing interactive opportunities including economics, pedestrian
mobility, and university support. Therefore, pursuant to section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA
Guidelines, speck economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make this
alternative infeasible.
La Media Road Alternative
The La Media Road Altemative 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. - -
Imoact
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 aesthetidvisual quality impacts due to the required
disruption of additional land uses, especially through preserve land.
The long-term energy and water supply needs of the La Media Road Alternative would be the
same as the project, resulting in significant and unmitigated impacts due to the uncertainty of
energy and water supplies. Construction of the road extension under this alternative would also
resuh in an additional short-term increase in energy demand compared to the project.
The altemative would not confonn to existing RAOs resulting in a significant and unmitigable
impact associated with its failure to conform to the existing plan. Construction of the road
eMension would result in increased emissions of criteria pollutants during construction
compared to the project.
As planned, La Media Road would serve as a parallel route to I-805 and Heritage Road to the
west, and SR-125 to the east. With the project's deletion of this roadway, 65,000 trips expected
in the cumulative condition would be rerouted to altemative roads, resulting in those potential
impacts discussed in Section 5.4 of the SEIR. The construction o£ the extension, as proposed in
this alternative, would result in greater direct impacts fo La Media Road than the project
because the extension would allow more vehicles to utilize this roadway as an alternate route to
46
Resolution No. 2013-028
Page No. 54
Heritage Road or SR-'125. Additionally, it would operate at a LOS F in the cumulative condition
due to the expected increase in traffic along this roadway. Therefore, this altemative would
result in cumulative traffic impacts to La Media Road, an impact that would not occur under the
project.
The La Media Road Altemative would. result in greater short-term noise impacts than the project
due to construction activity required to build the road extension. Additionally, the increase in
ADTs along La Media Road segment could increase noise levels for future residents. Therefore,
noise impacts associated with the road extension would be greater than the project's.
Findings:
The La Media Road Altemafive would not result in the lessening of any potentially significant
impacts. On the contrary, greater impacts would occur to most issue areas. While all project
objectives would be met under this alternative, it fails to yield reduced impacts. Therefore,
pursuant to section 15091 (a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, specific economic, legal, social,
technological, or other considerations make this alternative infeasible.
Environmentally Superior Altemative
CEOA requires that an EIR ident'fy the environmentally superior altemative among all of the
altematives considered, .including the project. If any No Project altemative is selected as
environmentally superior, then the EIR is required to identify an environmentally superior
altemative among the other altematives.
The environmental analysis of project alternatives presented in the SEIR indicates, through a
comparison of potential impacts from each of the proposed alternative and the project, that the
No Project-No Build Altemative would result in the greatest reduction in environmental impacts
compared to the project. However, the No Project-No Build Altemative would not implement the
Cdy's General Plan, the Otay Ranch GDP, or any project objectives.
The Reduced Density Altemative would be considered the environmentally superior alternative
due to its potential for reducing impacts while meeting most of the objectives of the Project.
47
Resolution No. 2013-028
Page No. 55
xn.
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The project would have significant, unavoidable impacts on the following areas, described in
detail in Section IX of These Findings of Fact:
• Land Use
• Landform Alterations/Aesthetics
• Energy Resources
Transportation
• Air Quality
Noise
Water Supply
The City has adopted all feasible mitigation measures with respect to these impacts. Although in
some instances these mitigation measures may substantially lessen these significant impacts,
adopfion of the measures will, for manyimpacts, not fully avoid the impacts.
Moreover, the City has examined a reasonable range of alternatives to the project. Based on
this examination, the City has determined that none of the alternatives: (1) meets project
objectives, and (2) is environmentally preferable to the project.
As a result, to approve the project, the City must adopt a 'statement of overriding
considerations" pursuant to CEC]A Guidelines sections 15043 and 15093. This provision allows
a lead agency to cite a project's general economic, social, orother benefits as a justification for
choosing to allow the occurrence of specifed sign rant environmental effects that have not
been avoided. The provision explains why, in the agency's judgment, the project's benefts
outweigh the unavoidable significant effects. Where another substantive law (e.g., the California
Clean Air Act, the Federal Clean Air Act, or the California and Federal Endangered Species
Acts) prohibits the lead agency from tatting certain actions with environmental impacts, a
statement of overriding considerations does not relieve the lead agency from such prohibitions.
Rather, the decision-maker has recommended mitigation measures based on the analysis
contained in the Final SEIR, recognizing thaf other resource agencies have the ability to impose
more stringent standards or measures.
48
Reso]ution No. 2013-028
Page No. 56
CEQA does not require lead agencies to analyze °beneficial impacts° in an EI R. Rather, EIRs
are to focus on potential "signifcant 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 benencial impacts must also
be addressed (See, lN+ldlife Alive v. Chickening (1976) 18 Cal.3d 190, 206 [132 CaLRptr 377]).
Nevertheless, decision-makers benefit from information about project benefits. These benefits
can be cited, if necessary, in a statement of overriding considerations (CEQA Guidelines
Section 15093).
The City finds that the project would have the following substantial benefits. Any one of the
reasons for approval cited below is suffcient 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 defned in Section IV.
Community Planning and Development
The Otay Ranch area contributes to air pollution in the San Diego air basin. Most of this
pollution is attributable to motor vehicles. The proposed amendments to the General Plan and
GDP policies, along with the proposed changes to existing land use designations contained
within the project, are designed to minimize reliance on automobile travel and reduce commuter
trip length, thereby reducing pollutant wntdbutions to regional air quality.
The project site has been designated as asmart-growth area in the RCP and in SANDAGs
regional growth maps. The GDP provides the opportunity to comprehensively plan development
that meets the community needs for ahigh-density, high-intensity, mined-use development
within the proposed villages. As part of the GDP, the project enforces visions for amulti-modal
transportation network that minimizes the number and length of single-passenger vehicle trips,
promoting interrelationships between villages and neighboring planning areas. The project is
designed to support policies encouraging walking, biking, use of transit, and reduced reliance on
automobiles. Jobs, homes, schools, parks, and commercial centers are close by and linked by
pedestrian and bicycle routes.
Comprehensive Regional Planning
The project site has been designated as asmart-growth area in the RCP and in SANDAGs
regional growth maps identifying the region's needs for housing, jobs, and infrastructure. These
benefits area made possible by Otay Ranch's size and scope. The Otay Ranch GDP includes a
provision for regional purpose facilities and public services that area typically not undertaken for
smaller development projects allowing the project to support these regionally planned programs.
49
Resolution No. 2013-028
Page No. 57
The project would develop a mix of uses that will result in Town Centers focused on regionally
serving transit and ancillary support for a regionally serving university site.
Housing Needs
The project would help meet projected long-term regional needs for housing by providing a wide
variety of housing types and prices. In recent years, the cost of housing compared to other uses
(e.g., commercial, industrial) has risen disproportionately to the cost of other uses in the Otay
Ranch area, reflecting a shortfall in residentially zoned land. The project would help reduce the
cost of housing by designating an adequate supply of suitable land for residential development.
The project increases the housing stock in the City by approximately 6,050 dwelling units,
880 units above the 2005 GPU Preferred Alternative. The project represents a future housing
supply for the region. Phasing will occur in response to market conditions, which will help fulfill
the demand for housing.
Both the RCP and SANDAG have forecasted a need for increased dwelling units within the
project area. The project will enact SANDAG policies by providing a pedestrian and trail system,
preserving open space, offering new homes, increasing the tax base for the City, and providing
right-of-way for the regional transit system.
50
Resolution No. 2013-028
Exhibit B P~t~
AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN
{GPA-09-01) AND OTAY RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
(PCM-09-11)
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM.
'. Introduction
This mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) was prepared for the Amendments
to the City of Chula Vista (City) General Plan (General Plan Amendment [GPAj-09-O1) and Otay
i
~~ Ranch General Development Plan (PCM-09-11) to comply with Public Resources Co e
section 21081.6, which requires public agencies to adopt such programs to ensure effective
implementation of mitigation measures. This monitoring program is dynamic in that it will
undergo changes as additional mitigation measures are identified and additional conditions of
approval are placed on the project throughout the project approval process. Pursuant to Public
Resources Code section 21081.6(a)(2), the City of Chula Vista designates the Environment
Review Coordinator and the City Clerk as the custodians of the documents or their material
which constitute the record of proceedings upon which its decision is based.
i
This monitoring program will serve a dual purpose of verifying completion of the mitigation
identified in the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ($EIR) and generating information
on the effectiveness of the mitigation measures to guide future decisions. The program includes
~, the following:
• Monitor qualifications
• Specific monitoring attivities
Reporting system
• Criteria for evaluating the success of the mitigation measures
The project includes a GPA and Otay Ranch General Development Plan Amendment resulting in
policy, circulation, and land use changes affecting the lands within the Project Area. The Project
Area is an approximately 1,281-acre area within the Otay Ranch Subarea of the City's Eastern
Planning Area that spans multiple existing villages and planning areas, including portions of
Villages 4 and 7; the entirety of Village 8 and Village 9; University/Planning Area 10, which
includes a proposed 85-acre Regional Technology Park (RTP); and a portion of the southern edge
of the Eastern Urban Center (EUC).
1
Resolution No. 2013-028
Page No. 59
The Proposed Project will redefine the boundaries within the General Development Plan area to
create proposed Villages 8 West and 9 and add 85 acres of RTP within the existing University
Site. The 728 acres of land that comprise the proposed villages and RTP are referred to as the-
"Land Use Change Area." Proposed land use designation changes would affect only the Land Use
Change Area. The project would re-designate land uses only within the Land Use Change Area.
I The Proposed Project is described in the SEIR text. The SEIR, incorporated herein as referenced,
focused on issues determined to be potentially significant by the City. The issues addressed in
the SEIR include land use, landform alteration/visual quality, energy resources, transportation;
air quality, noise, public services, public utilities, housing and population, and global climate
change. The environmental analysis concluded that for all of the environmental issues
discussed, some of the significant and potentially significant impacts could be avoided or
reduced through implementation of recommended mitigation measures. Potentially significant
impacts requiring mitigation were identified for land use, landform alteration/visual quality,
energy resources, transportation, air quality, noise, and public utilities (water). Land use
impacts, while concluded to be significant, are not included in the MMRP because there are no
feasible mitigation measures available at the level of programmatic review that would serve to
reduce or avoid impacts.
Public Resources Code section 21081.6 requires monitoring of only those impacts identified as
significant or potentially significant. The monitoring program for the Proposed Project therefore
addresses the impacts associated with only the issue areas identified above.
Mitigation Monitoring Team
The monitoring activities would be accomplished by individuals identified in the attached MMRP
table. While specific qualifications should be determined by the City, the monitoring team
should possess the following capabilities:
• Interpersonal, decision-making, and management skills with demonstrated experience in
working under trying field circumstances; -
• Knowledge of and appreciation for the general environmental attributes and special
features found in the project area;
• Knowledge of the types of environmental impacts associated with construction of cost-
effective mitigation options; and
• Excellent communication skills.
2
Resolution No.2013-028
Page No. 60
Proeram Procedural Guidelines
Prior to any construction activities, meetings should take place between all the parties involved
to initiate the monitoring program and establish the responsibility and authority of the
participants. Mitigation measures that need to be defined in greater detail will be addressed
prior to any project plan approvals infollow-up meetings designed to discuss specific monitoring
effects.
In addition to the list of mitigation measures, the monitors will have mitigation monitoring
report (MMR) forms, with each mitigation measure written out on the top of the form. Below
the stated mitigation measure, the form will have a series of questions addressing the
effectiveness of the mitigation measure. The monitors shall complete the MMR and file it with
- the Mitigation Monitor following the monitoring activity. The Mitigation Monitor will then
include the conclusions of the MMR into an interim and final comprehensive construction report
to be suhmitted to the City. This report will describe the major accomplishments of the
monitoring program, summarize problems encountered in achieving the goals of the program,
evaluate solutions developed to overcome problems, and provide a list of recommendations for
~ future monitoring programs. In addition, and if appropriate, each Environmental Monitor or
Environmental Specialist will be required to fill out and submit a daily log report to the
Mitigation Monitor. The daily log report will be used to record and account for the monitoring
j activities of the monitor. Weekly and/or monthly status reports, as determined appropriate,
will be generated from the daily logs and compliance reports and will include supplemental
material (i.e., memoranda, telephone logs, and letters). This type of feedback is essential for
the City to confirm the implementation and effectiveness of the mitigation measures imposed
j on the project.
Actions in Case of Noncompliance -
There are generally three separate categories of noncompliance associated with the adopted
conditions of approval:
• Noncompliance requiring an immediate halt to a specific task or piece of equipment;
• Infraction that warrants an immediate corrective action, but does not result in work or task
delay; and
• Infraction that does not warrant immediate corrective action and results in no work or task
delay.
3
Resolution No. 2013-028
Page No. 61
There are a number of options the City may use to enforce this program should noncompliance
continue. Some methods commonly used by other lead agencies include "stop work" orders,
fines and penalties (civil), restitution, permit revocations, citations; and injunctions. It is
essential that all parties involved in the program understand the authority and responsibility of
the on-site monitors. Decisions regarding actions in case of noncompliance are the
responsibility of the City.
SUMMARY OF PROTECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The following. table summarizes the potentially significant project impacts and lists the
associated mitigation measures and the monitoring efforts necessary to ensure that the
measures are properly implemented. All the mitigation measures identified in the EIR are
recommended as conditions of project approval and are stated herein in language appropriate
for such conditions. In addition, once the City General Plan Update has been approved, and
during various stages of implementation the City will further refine the mitigation measures.
4
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Potential Si nificani Impact
Mitigation Measures Ttme Frame of Mitigation Monitoring Repotting
Agency
~ ~
LANDFORM ALTERA$'IONN`J,SiL}L 4UA_LPPK' ~ ~ ~ '' .- t '~ - ~,'.: .. !; ~ ~ q "a r i ~ ~
-
p gran ~
At this level of ro unanc review, the ~ wing mitigation measure, as identified in the GPU ';
The folio Prior,to the approval of Sectional City of Chula Vista
Proposed Project does not include a EIR, and would apply to future development within the Planning Area (SPA) Plans. (CCV)
mechanism to assw'e the implementation project area:
of design guidelines requved to promote 5.2.5-1 Within the East Planning Area, prior to approval of
protection of the visual character of the i grading plans, the applicant shall prepare grading
project area. Therefore, direct and - 'and building plans that conform to the ]andform
cumulative hnpacts associated with visual ~ grading guidelines contained in the grading
resources would be significant. ordinance, Otay Ranch GDP, and General Plan. The
plans shall be prepared to [lte 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
i
~ impacts:
A landscape design that addresses streetscapes,
provides landscape intensity zones, greenbelt
edge ffeatments, and slope treahnent for erosion
control.
• Grading concepts that ensure mumfactured
slopes that are contoured and blend and mimic I,
with adjacent natural slopes.
Landscaping concepts that provide for a
transition from the manicured appearance of
developed areas to the natural landscape in open
space areas.
O
o'
'TJ O
w
~ N
~ O
zW
o,
. o
~, N
N o0
5
b
~~
~o
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
o c
• O•
~ ~
w ~
0
N
O
w
O
N
Potential Significant hnpact
Mitigation Measures Time Frame of Mitigation Agency
andscaping concepts that include plantings
selected to Same and maintain views.
Notwithstanding implementation of Mitigation Measure
5.2.5-1, until future SPA Plans are approved, d'u'ect and
cumulative impacts would remain umnitigated.
~
i:ENERGYRESOURGES~ ~ '' ~ ~ ~ ~' ; ~?., ' ~ y i .j ~ p' ~ ~ ~ i "= t ~ ,
i~ ' i ':
, `
~
' .,~~ f .
,
, ~t I ~ i'I
(I'd ' AV ri t
At this level of programmatic review, ~ The following mitigation nteasme, as identified in the GPU Prim' to approval of SPA Plans CCV
ffie Proposed Project does not include EIR, would apply to future development within the project
the long-term assurance that energy area:
supplies will be available as needed. 5.8.5-1 Continued focus on the Energy Strategy and Action ~
Therefore, direct and cumulative plan, which addresses demand side management,
impacts associated with energy energy efficient and renewable energy outreach
conswnption are considered significant. programs for businesses and Tesidenu, energy
acquisition, power generation, and distributed energy
resources and legislative actions, and continuing ;
hnplementationrofche CO, Reduction Plan will i
lessen the impacts 6nm energy. ;
Notwitbstuiding implementation of Mitigation Measure i
.5.8.5-I, until future SPA Plans identify reliable energy
resources are available to adequately serve individual
projects, direct and cumulative impacts could remain
umnitigated.
6
MITIGATION MON1TORiNG AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(cmttinued)
-. i Monitoring Reporting
PoCential Significant LnpacC Mitigation Measures Tune Prame of Mm anon ~ Agency
TRANSPORTATIOLY , ~ i ~ ~~ '~ I "% '.'`. , ., a .~
Direct Impacts Direct Impacts Pnor to the issuance of building CCV
permits. -
Under Year 2030 conditions, direct Freeway Segnsents
ttaffic impacts would occur along Che The following is recommended to mitigaCe the potentially
following segments: significant impacts to freeway segments:
Freeway Seg~neni Operations 5,4.5.1-I The City of Chula Vista shall collect the ~i
I-805 between appropriate Regional Transportation Congestion
Improvement Progratn funds from~[he Proposed
• Olympic ParkwaylOrange Project.
Avenue to Main StreeUAuto Park
Drive
. Main StreeUAuto Park Drive to
Palm Avenue
SR-905 between
• I-805 to Ocean View Hills
Parkway
• Britannia Boulevard to La Media
Road
'T
m
0
G'
O
'C O
w
OQ lJ
N O
z~
oW
. o
O~ N
A o0
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
Mitgation Measures
Time Frame of Mitigation Monitoring Reporting
~ Agency
ETRANSPORTATION (cont~, =~
' ~- i ~ '~ t i '" ~
a' ,d €rs , ~~ ~~ ,
" ~
Cumulative Impacts Cumulative Impacts Prior to the issuance of building CCV
Under Year 2010 conditions, Roadway Segments permits.
significant cumulative traffic impacts
would occur as follows:
The following is recommended to mitigate the significant I
i
cumulative impacts in the City:
Segment Operations (City ojChula I
5.4.5.2-I To mitigate for the significant cumulative hnpact
Vista) along Otay Valley Road between SR•125 and
• Otay Valley Road between SR- Street "A," the applicant shall increase the capacity
125 and Street "A° of this segment to a 5-Lane Major with dvee lanes
Segment Operatrons (City ojSan traveling in the westbound direction, with the
Diego) number three lane serving as an auxiliary lane onto
the SR-125 NB Ramp ou-ramp and two lanes
• Heritage Road between the City traveling in the eastbound dvection, resulting in
Boundary and Avenida de las i _ LOS D operations. ~
Vistas Implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.4.5.2-I identified
• Heritage Road between Avenida
de las Vi5ta5 and DatSUn I above would reduce significant cumulative impacts to CCV
roadway segments to below a level of significance.
Street/Otay Valley Road
• Heritage Road between Datsun
Street/Otay Valley Road and
Otay Mesa Road
ro
v~'a ~
rn o
o
• o~
a, ~
~z
a
N
0
w
0
N
00
8
__ _
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Hnpact
Mitigation Measures i
fMrtt ano
g n
Tune Frame o
~
~ Monitoring Reporting
Agency
~
TRq.NSPORTATION(cont)
~~~ .I
~~.~ ~ ~:r ~ ii~~
'~
- '
~~
~ i
~~
~
~
Freeway Mainline Operations rgnificant cmnul~ ive impact
ate for the s
°'4'5'2-2
H NA of San Diego
City
s between the Cit Boundary
eritage Road
alon
I-805 and Otay Mesa Road, the applicant shall increase
• Olympic Parkway/Orange the capacity of this segment located in the City of I
Avenue to Main StreetlAuto Park ~ San Diego to 6-Lane Expressway standards. This
Drive would result in acceptable LOS D or better
operations.
• Olympic Parkway/Orange
Avenue to Main Street/Auto Park
The improvements required to mitigate the impacts along
Drove Heritage Road fall within Yhejurisdiction of the City of San
Diego which has a plan for funding and implementation of the
• Main Street/Auto Park Drive to facility. Because the improvements cannot be assured at the
Palm Avenue 1 time of need, the mitigation measure is considered infeasible.
• Palm Avenue to SR-905 i Freeway Segmerus
SR-l25 j Lnplementation of Mitigatimt Measure 5.4.5.1-1, above,
• Otay Valley Road to Lonestar Would also apply to cumulative freeway impacts.
Road
• Otay Valley Road to Lonestar
Road
• Lonestar Road to Otay Mesa
Road
7a
ro
0
C
o~
z
bo
>v
Crq N
~ O
O w
C
O~ lJ
~ ~
9
Potential Significant Impact
~TRANSPQRTATION (conf) ~„ ,
SA-905
• I-805 to Ocean View Hills
Parkway
• I-805 to Ocean View Hills
Parkway
• Ocean View Hills Parkway to
Heritage Road
• Ocean View Hills Parkway to
Heritage Road
• Heritage Road to Britannia
Boulevard
Heritage Road to Britannia
Boulevard
• Britannia Boulevard to La Media
Road
• Britannia Boulevard to La Media
Road
• La Media Road to SR-125
b
v
a
~o
MITIGATION MONITORING AND R1:PORTI NG PROGRAM •
p
o
(continued) a` ~
~z
0
Monitoring Re
orting N
p O
Mitigation Measures Time Frame of Mitigation Agency
w
00
10
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Monitoring Reporting
Potential Significant hnpact Mitigation Meazrves ~ Tune Frame of Mrhgation Agency
i
Existing+projectImpacts Application of the City's Growth Management Program
would apply. In the event the GMO threshold is reached, the
The following seven roadway segment followhrg mitigation measure.has been identified:
impacts were calculated in the Existin
+ project condition:
• Olympic Parkway between I-805 and 5.4.5.3-1 Pt'ior to the issuance of the building permit for the
1
Brandywine Avenue 2,463rd dwelling unit for development east of 1-
305 (commencing from Apri14, 2011), the
• OI n is Parkwa between
Y< P Y applicant may:
Brandywine Avenue and Heritage
Road/Paseo Ranchero a. Prepare a traffic study that demonstrates, to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer, that the
• Olympic Parkway between Heritage circulation system has additional capacity
Road/Paseo Ranchero and La Media without exceeding the GMO traffic threshold
Road - standat'ds; or
• Olympic Parkway between La Media b. Demonstrate that other improvements are
Road and SR-125 constructed which provide the additional
• Birch Road between La Media Road necessary. capacity to comply with the GMO
and SR-125 ~ traffic tlveshold to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer, or
• La Media Road between Olympic
Parkway and Birch Road
c. Agree to [he City Engineer's selectiou of an
alternative method of maintaining GMO
• Eaztlake Parkway between Birch traffic threshold cmnpliance; m-
Road and Hunte Parkway -
'~
0
C.
o'
^-d o
w
(iQ N
~ O
O w
O
O~ N
C;O CQ
11
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
•- (continued)
Potential Significant Impact
Mitigation Measures ~ Time Frame of Mitigation Monitoring Reporting
Agency
~ TRANSPORTATION (cont.] ~ , ,{ '` r ',' it r ~ ~ '' :_ . , ~ a i_, ~ _ '~~ ..
d. Enter into agreement, approved by the City,
with other Otay Ranch developers that
alleviates congestion and achieves GMO
vaffic threshold compliance for Olympic
Parkway. The Agreement will identity the
deficiencies in transportation infrastructure
that will need to be constructed, the parties
that will construct said needed infrastructure, a
timeline for such construction, and provides
assurances for consmuction, in accordance
with the City's customary requvements, for ;
said infrastructw~e. i
i
If GMO compliance cannot be achieved tlvough I a, b, c or d
above, then the City may, in its sole discretion, stop issuing ~
new building permits within the Project Area after building
permits for 2,463 dwelling units have been issued for any i
development east of I-805 after Apri14, 2011, until such time i
i that GMO traffic thueshold standard compliance can be ~
assured to the satisfaction of the City Manager. ~
These measures shall constitute full compliance with growth
management objectives and policies in accordance with the
requirements of the General Plan, Chapter 10 with regard to
trafc tlvesholds set forth in the GMO.
12
ro
~ of D,
ro 0
o
• o~
rn ~
`° z
0
N
O
w
0
N
Do
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Miti ation Measures Tune Frame of Mtngatron
Potential Significant Impact g
While the Proposed Project seeks to The following mitigation measure, as identified in fire GPU Prior to issuance of Grading
i
minimize air quality impacts by ts.
EIR, would apply to future development within the project Perm
promoting mixed land use patterns area:
creating walkable neighborhoods as 5.6.5-1 Mitigation of PM~o impacts requires active dust
encouraged by the General Plan, control during construction. As a matter of standard
implementation of [he Proposed Project practice, the City shall require the following standard
would result in a significant direct and constmction measures during consmtction to the
cwnulative air quality impact due to the extent applicable:
Proposed Project's inconsistency with
existing Regional Air Quality i
1. All unpaved construction azeas shall be
Standards. sprinkled with water or other acceptable San i
_ Diego APCD dust control agents during dust- i
generating activities to reduce dust emissions. ~
Additional watering or acceptable APCD dust
control agents shall be applied during dry
weather or windy days until dust emissions m~e
- not visible. ~
2. Trucks hauling dirt and debris shall be properly
covered to reduce windblown dust and spills. j
3. A 20-mile-per-hour speed litnit on unpaved j
surfaces shall be enforced. j
Monitoring Repor[mg
Agency
CCV
77
rn
0
G
'.
O
7
z
ro o
w•
00 N
~ O
z ~;,
o
. o
J N
O 00
13
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact
Mitigation Measures
Tune Frame of Mitigation Monitoring Reporting
Agency
,AIR QII~ILITY (conf) ~ '~~ r '' ~ ,~`', f`, v~~ , ~ ~ i~a ic' %~ ,I
4. Ondry days, dirt and debris spilled onto paved
surfaces shall be swept up immediately to
reduce resuspension of puticulate [natter caused
by vehicle movement. Approach routes to ~
construction sites shall be cleaned daily of j
constriction-related dirt in dry weather.
5. On-site stockpiles of excavated material sha1L be
covered or watered.
6. Disturbed areas shall be hydroseeded,
landscaped, or developed es quickly as possible
and as directed by the City and/or APCD to
reduce dust generation. ~
7. To the maxitnutn extent feasible: Heary-duty
~ construction equipment with modified
combustion/fuel injection systems for emissions
control shall be utilized during gradit~ and
constric[imi activities; Catalytic reduction for
gaso]ine-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.
ro
owo vCD,
ro 0
o
O~
~ ~
~z
0
N
O
w
0
N
00
14
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Monitoring Repotting
Miti anon Measures Tune I'ratne of Mrttgahon Aoency
Potential Significant Impact ~ __ g
9. Electrical construction equipment shall be used
to the extent feasible.
]0. The simultaneous operations of multiple
consruction equipment units shall be minhnized
(i.e., phase construction to minimize impacts).
Notwithstanding implementation of the mitigation measm-e
above, until future SPA Plans identify a reliable water supply
to adequately serve individual projects, direct and cumulative
impacts would remain unmitigated.
O
...
O
'C O
W '
(/0 N
~ O
O w
O
J N
N 00
15
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(continued)
Potential Significant Impact ~ Mitigation Measures
At this level of programmatic review, it T'he following mitigation measures, as identi5ed in the GPU
' is not possible to state conclusively that E1R, would apply to future development within the project
sufficient water supplies would be u~ea:
available to serve the ina'eased
population facilitated by adoption of the .
Proposed Project. Therefore, direct and 5.14.1.6-1 For any residential subdivision with 500 or snore
cumulative impacts would be units or any commercial project of over 500,000
significant. square feet, azry CEQA compliance review shall
. include demonstration of compliance with the
requirements of SB 610.
5.14.1.6-2 For any residential subdivision with 500 or more
units, any CEQA compliance teview shall include
demonstration of compliance with the
requirements of SB 221.
Notwithstanding implementation of the mitigation measures
above, duect and cumulative impacts would remain
unmitigated.
Time Frame of Mitigation
Prior to approval of future SPA
Plans.
b
~~
~o
o~
• o~
J ~
Wz
0
Monitoring Reporting N
Agency o
it
Y s c~
w
~
CCV
16